The Clean Air Act unambiguously directs the EPA to develop standards that protect the public from hazardous air pollution generated by the most toxic sources, including solid waste incineration processes like plastic pyrolysis.  

On March 20, the EPA included language within a rulemaking proposal on a different topic, asking whether it would be appropriate to remove pyrolysis units from the definition of “municipal waste combustion unit” and thus exempt these facilities from the Clean Air Act’s rules for solid waste incineration. This may sound mundane, a few sentences on a possible regulatory definition change. However, if adopted, this change would entirely exempt pyrolysis facilities—such as those used for plastic waste incineration—from the only current federal standards that apply to these facilities. The federal standards for waste incineration are crafted to control the specific types of hazardous pollutants that are generated by these facilities.  

If the EPA moves forward with this exemption, it would be flatly unlawful under the plain text of the Clean Air Act, which requires the agency to regulate facilities that combust “any solid waste.” 

Pyrolysis units combust waste—and the industry wants to build lots of them to process plastic waste. It is merely another term for plastic waste incineration. Plastic pyrolysis is part of a burgeoning sector being championed by the chemical industry under misleading terms like “chemical recycling or even “advanced recycling.” To be clear, pyrolysis is not “advanced” and is not “recycling”; it is toxic incineration. While the official text of the EPA’s proposal does not even mention plastics or so-called chemical recycling, the EPA’s fact sheet tips its hand that deregulation of plastic incineration is the primary driver of this move. Only on that document does the EPA state that the change “would clarify” that the “rule does not regulate pyrolysis units used in advanced recycling operations.”  

So what is really going on here? The EPA’s draft language is a mere six sentences, so let’s talk about what is not in this proposal. The agency does not mention the primary outcomes of this action: increased toxic air pollution in our communities and the total deregulation of a heavily polluting and growing industry—plastic waste incineration. 

The EPA’s removal of pyrolysis units from the Clean Air Act’s section 129 standards would amount to a blank check for industry to emit unlimited amounts of highly toxic, dangerous air pollution from these incinerators and will result in increased toxic air pollution in real communities nationwide. The EPA has long regulated these heavily polluting units, and, in fact, these were some of the first facilities regulated after the landmark Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.  

But what does the agency now propose to replace those pollution limits and monitoring with? Nothing.  

The EPA did not seek comment on an alternative basis for regulation, such as a proposal to address pollution from these facilities under a different section of the Clean Air Act, like Section 112, where even air pollution from your local dry cleaner is addressed. Industry groups like the American Chemistry Council have claimed that “other sections” of the Clean Air Act would apply, yet industry never manages to identify those parts. That’s because there is no other part of the Clean Air Act that would apply following the repeal of the federal incinerator standards. Instead, this current action would amount to total federal deregulation of plastics incineration nationwide and unlimited emissions of the most dangerous air pollution from the very facilities that Congress specifically targeted for controls.  

So how would pollution from these sources be treated under the Clean Air Act if the EPA removes these units from 129 regulation?  

• Cancer-causing air pollution like dioxins/furans and cadmium? No protections.
• Neurotoxins like lead and mercury? No protections.
• Smog-forming nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and deadly particle pollution? No protections.  

On top of that, plastics also contain thousands of chemical additives. Many are toxic, and most are not even publicly disclosed. After these toxins have been burned and emitted, many persist in the environment and build up over time, amplifying human exposure and risk. This move is nothing more than a sweetheart deal for the chemical industry coming at the expense of our health. 

Why does the chemical industry care so much about gutting standards in this specific part of the Clean Air Act? They want to build pyrolysis incinerators across the country without having to deal with these pesky pollution controls, which would allow them to do this more cheaply and easily—and not have to be saddled with required air quality monitoring and the stigma that comes with being an incinerator. 

If finalized, the deregulation of pyrolysis incinerators would result in more toxic facilities and more hazardous air emissions, all in the name of these false solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. NRDC is fighting back: Along with our partner organizations, we filed comments strongly pushing back on this reckless and unlawful proposal and will be exploring all options to ensure that this misguided plan does not come to fruition. 

from — Fullmer, R., & Sharp, R. (2026, May 11). Trump EPA Proposes Toxic Loophole for Plastics Incineration. NRDC. Retrieved June 30, 2026