New Recycling Bill Exempts Chemical Plastic Plants from Incinerator Rules, Setting 50% 'Product' Bar

This part of the Recycling Technology Innovation Act makes a significant change to how certain plastic processing facilities are regulated under the Clean Air Act. Essentially, it creates a new regulatory category for advanced plastic conversion technologies—like pyrolysis and gasification—that chemically break down plastic waste. If a facility uses these processes, it will no longer be labeled a “solid waste incineration unit,” provided it meets a specific performance threshold.

The 50% Rule: What Counts as a 'Product'?

To qualify for this regulatory exclusion, a facility must demonstrate that at least 50 percent of its output by mass is a defined “product.” The bill is very clear on what a product is: a usable substance that can be sold or used to manufacture another product. Crucially, the bill explicitly excludes electricity, heat, steam, soot, char, dust, or ash from counting toward that 50 percent threshold. This is important because it means facilities can’t just burn the plastic for energy and call the resulting steam a “product” to get the exclusion. They have to actually turn the waste back into a usable material.

For the facility operators, this exclusion is a big deal. Being classified as an incinerator means facing much stricter air quality controls and permitting processes under the Clean Air Act. By exempting these advanced recycling units, the bill significantly lowers the regulatory hurdle for getting these facilities up and running. The EPA Administrator is tasked with creating the specific rule on how exactly that “50 percent by mass” calculation will be done—a detail that will make or break the effectiveness of this provision.

The Real-World Trade-Off

This provision is a classic trade-off between innovation and regulation. On one hand, the bill aims to give a boost to chemical recycling, which proponents argue is necessary to handle plastic waste that traditional mechanical recycling can’t touch. If you’re in the manufacturing sector, this could mean access to new, recycled feedstocks, potentially lowering your reliance on virgin materials.

On the other hand, the exclusion from the “incinerator” definition has environmental groups and communities concerned. While these processes aren't traditional burning, they still involve high heat and can release air pollutants. Removing the stringent oversight designed for waste burners means that air quality standards in communities near these new facilities could potentially rely solely on general industrial permitting, which may not be as robust as the incinerator rules. For residents living near a proposed site, this could feel like a reduction in environmental protection, even if the technology is technically “recycling.”

The Petition Path for the Rest

What happens if a facility uses one of these chemical processes but can’t hit the 50% product mark? The bill creates a backup plan: a formal petition process. Owners can ask the EPA to treat them as excluded anyway. The EPA must make the petition public, seek public comment, and then approve or deny the request within 180 days. This provides a clear, time-bound path for case-by-case review, which is good for business predictability. However, it also means that the EPA will be making judgment calls on facilities that, by the bill’s own standards, aren't converting enough plastic back into usable materials.