What Lies Ahead for Advanced Plastics Recycling Industry After EPA Withdrawal of Proposed TSCA SNURs?

The proposed rules would have triggered EPA risk reviews and restrictions on the industry.

On July 9, 2025, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew significant new use rules (SNURs) proposed under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 18 chemicals derived from waste plastic feedstocks.¹ The 18 chemicals are part of a growing industry referred to as “advanced plastics recycling.”

This blog post highlights the concerns of industry, environmental groups, and certain US states and looks at the horizon for regulation of advanced plastics recycling.

Background

The 18 chemicals are produced via processes often referred to as advanced plastics recycling, whereby heat intensive pyrolysis processes rely on plastic waste as the starting material (i.e., feedstock) and break down that plastic waste to produce petroleum-based chemicals that have commercial uses, including as fuels, in the production of fuels, and/or in the production of other chemicals that are then processed to produce new plastic. Each of the 18 chemicals originally went through the new chemical review process under TSCA Section 5 in which the company that seeks to manufacture a new chemical for commercial purposes submits a premanufacture notification (PMN) and EPA performs a risk review.

For each of the 18 chemicals, EPA determined that it could not make an outright finding of no “unreasonable risk,” but agreed to allow commercialization by the PMN submitter, subject to certain conditions, which were memorialized in a TSCA Section 5(e) consent order between EPA and the PMN submitter. Such 5(e) orders covering each of the 18 chemicals were entered into between 2015 and 2022. The 5(e) orders did not impose any requirement for testing the waste plastic feedstock for contaminants, but focused on worker and transportation health and safety.

EPA proposed the SNURs on June 20, 2023, in order to extend the requirements imposed under the 5(e) orders to others besides the PMN submitters who may decide to start producing one or more of the 18 chemicals.² However, the proposed SNURs went beyond the 5(e) orders’ worker and transportation health and safety requirements to declare the following as a “significant new use”:

Manufacture of the PMN substances using [waste plastic] feedstocks containing any amount of heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium VI, lead, mercury), dioxins, phthalates, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), alkylphenols, perchlorates, benzophenone, bisphenol A (BPA), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), ethyl glycol, methyl glycol, or N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP).³

Given the near impossibility that waste plastic feedstocks would not contain “any amount” of at least one or more of these substances, the upshot of the proposed SNURs would have been to require all companies that intend to manufacture or import any of the 18 chemicals to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN); the SNUN, in turn, would have triggered an EPA risk review similar to the new chemical PMN review. That risk review could have led to outcomes ranging from denial of the request to manufacture to approval of such request subject to conditions.

In justifying this “significant new use” provision of the proposed SNURs, EPA stated that the 18 chemicals are made from waste plastic feedstocks and that the proposed SNURs would ensure that such feedstocks are free from unsafe contaminants, and thereby prevent these contaminants from ending up as impurities in the 18 chemicals.⁴ Notably, these 18 chemicals have various commercial uses, including use as fuel, in fuel production, or in production of other chemicals that are then processed to produce new plastic.

EPA indicated that when it reviewed the PMNs for these 18 chemicals between 2015 and 2022, “the companies provided some data on impurities and these data showed there were no impurities of concern, and in one case EPA required some additional testing to prove no dioxins were being formed as a result of the pyrolysis process.”⁵ However, EPA noted that it “knew less about impurities that may be included in plastic-based feedstocks [back then] … than it does today.”⁶

EPA also stated that the proposed SNURs would implement its “commitment in the draft National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution to ensure that feedstocks made from plastic waste do not contain impurities and are part of EPA’s overall efforts to reduce plastic pollution.”⁷

Industry Concerns Regarding Proposed SNURs

The proposed SNURs were controversial not only due to their potential to restrict the advanced plastics recycling industry as to these 18 chemicals, but also given the precedent the proposal would have set as companies in the industry continue to develop new chemicals that must undergo PMN review. Concerns highlighted by the industry include that the proposed SNURs:⁸

• Have already “disrupted” the plastics recycling market in the US by creating uncertainty about its future
• Lack “transparency and definition,” and as a result, are already driving plastics recycling to overseas markets where regulations “are not impeding progress”
• Provide for no de minimis provision or other floor, which would make the proposed SNURs difficult to implement, as companies would be required to prove that there were zero impurities

Concerns of Environmental Groups and Certain States

On the other hand, environmental groups and certain states claim that advanced plastics recycling processes that convert waste plastics to fuels do not address the problem of hard-to-recycle mixed plastics, and ultimately will not lead to a circular economy. These groups argue that these processes produce a number of hazardous pollutants and are extremely energy-intensive, despite claims that they are environmentally friendly.⁹

Some of these concerns about advanced plastics recycling coalesced in a lawsuit that challenged one of the 5(e) orders encompassed by the now-withdrawn proposed SNURs. That 5(e) order covered five of the 18 chemicals and was entered into on August 25, 2022, between EPA and a large fuel production company (the Order).

On April 7, 2023, Cherokee Concerned Citizens, a community group in Pascagoula, Miss., filed suit in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit alleging that the Order would allow use of the five chemicals as fuels and that such use would pose a significantly increased cancer risk as compared with current fuels.¹⁰ The lawsuit was placed on hold toward the end of the Biden administration, when EPA moved for a voluntary remand, stating that it intended to withdraw the Order.

After remand was granted, EPA withdrew the Order on December 18, 2024. In doing so, EPA stated that the large fuel production company that signed the Order had not yet commenced manufacture of the five chemicals. The case remains in abeyance, and what actions EPA now decides to take after its withdrawal of the proposed SNURs and the Order will dictate the future of the case.

What’s Next?

Now that EPA has withdrawn the proposed SNURs, questions remain regarding what is next for the advanced plastics recycling industry. Some potential forks in the road include:

Action on TSCA 5(e) orders, SNURs, and SNUNs

EPA has not yet replaced the withdrawn August 25, 2022, 5(e) order covering 5 of the 18 chemicals with a new order, which leaves the Cherokee Concerned Citizens case in abeyance. Nor has EPA acted upon a significant number of pending PMNs for additional chemicals produced with waste plastic feedstocks or several pending SNUNs for other such chemicals.

For these pending PMNs and SNUNs, environmental groups submitted comments citing the same concerns that were raised in the Cherokee Concerned Citizens case. They alleged that “many pyrolysis feedstocks, such as plastic waste, contain harmful chemicals that can contaminate pyrolysis oil” and that “EPA has previously acknowledged pyrolysis oils derived from the burning of plastic waste may ‘contain impurities like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), heavy metals, dioxins, bisphenols, and flame retardants … [that] are known to cause cancer and harm the reproductive system, among other health effects.’”¹¹

It remains to be seen how EPA will use its TSCA authorities to consider the objectives of the advanced plastics recycling industry with concerns from environmental groups.

Inconsistent Patchwork of State Regulation

States have taken conflicting positions on how to regulate advanced plastics recycling:

• At least three states — New Jersey,¹² New Mexico,¹³ and Maine¹⁴ — have enacted laws that deem pyrolysis of waste plastic feedstock to constitute a form of waste disposal that is subject to solid waste disposal requirements.
• Over 20 states have adopted the opposite position, declaring that pyrolysis of waste plastic feedstock qualifies as manufacturing that is exempt from solid waste disposal requirements.¹⁵
• About 20 states have not yet taken a position.¹⁶

This inconsistent patchwork of state regulation creates the potential for increased compliance burdens and complexities on various actors in the value chain. EPA could wade into this area by using its authorities under other laws besides TSCA, but to date has not done so.¹⁷

Lawsuits

Certain high-profile lawsuits have been filed that involve advanced plastics recycling. Depending on how EPA decides to wield its TSCA and/or other authorities to address concerns, additional lawsuits may be on the horizon.

California Attorney General lawsuit and countersuit

In September 2024, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against a large oil and gas company that produces polymers (the building blocks for single-use plastics) alleging that recycling via pyrolysis of waste plastic feedstock is not able to process more than a tiny fraction of plastic waste and that claims that such recycling could solve the “plastic waste crisis” are misleading. Attorney General Bonta seeks to secure an abatement fund, disgorgement, and civil penalties for the alleged harm inflicted by plastics pollution on California’s communities and the environment. The lawsuit also alleges violations of state nuisance, natural resources, water pollution, false advertisement, and unfair competition laws.

In response, the oil and gas company filed a countersuit for defamation against Attorney General Bonta and several environmental groups which had also filed a similar lawsuit against it, including the Sierra Club, San Francisco Baykeeper, Heal the Bay, and the Surfrider Foundation. The company alleges that the defendants conspired to defame it with statements regarding the efficacy of its plastic recycling technology. The City of Beaumont, Texas, has intervened in the lawsuit, stating that recycling via pyrolysis of waste plastic feedstock provides a solution to help municipalities reduce plastic waste that cannot be mechanically recycled and would otherwise build up in their landfills or be incinerated.

Private party lawsuit

In December 2024, four residents of Missouri, Kansas, California, and Florida filed a lawsuit in a Missouri federal court on behalf of a proposed class of millions of purchasers of plastic products nationwide. The complaint alleges that certain oil and chemical companies violated antitrust law through a coordinated campaign to misrepresent how much and which types of plastic could be recycled. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the alleged conspiracy artificially increased demand for plastic products, driving up the companies’ profit.

We will continue to monitor developments impacting the regulation of the advanced plastics recycling industry and will provide additional updates.

APPENDIX: Withdrawal of the Proposed SNURs Timeline

• On August 25, 2022, EPA and a large fuel production company entered into a TSCA Section 5(e) Order regarding five specific PMN substances derived from waste plastic feedstocks. That order did not include any requirement for testing of the waste plastic feedstocks.
• On April 7, 2023, Cherokee Concerned Citizens, a community group in Pascagoula, Miss., filed suit in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of the August 25, 2022 5(e) Order. Cherokee Concerned Citizens v. EPA (No. 23-1096). The groups filing this lawsuit alleged that the 5 chemicals covered by the August 25, 2022 5(e) order would be used as fuels which would pose a significantly increased cancer risk as compared with current fuels.
• On June 20, 2023, EPA proposed SNURs under TSCA for 18 chemicals derived from waste plastic feedstocks, including the 5 chemicals covered by the August 25, 2022 5(e) order.
• In September 2024, EPA filed a motion for voluntary remand, stating that it wished to withdraw the August 25, 2022 Order.
• The D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s motion on December 4, 2024, and EPA withdrew the August 25, 2022 5(e) Order on December 18, 2024. EPA stated that at the time it withdrew this 5(e) Order, the large fuel production company who had signed the Order had not yet commenced manufacture of the 5 chemicals.
• On July 9, 2025, EPA withdrew the proposed SNURs. EPA states that it was doing so, in part, because it withdrew the August 25, 2022 5(e) Order on December 18, 2024.

1. Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (23-2.5e); Withdrawal, 88 Fed. Reg. 39804 (July 9, 2025), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/09/2025-12704/significant-new-use-rules-on-certain-chemical-substances-23-25e-withdrawal. 
2. Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (23-2.5e),88 Fed. Reg. 39804 (June 20, 2023), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/06/20/2023-13012/significant-new-use-rules-on-certain-chemical-substances-23-25e. 
3. Id. at 39808. 
4. EPA Proposes New Protections for Communities from Fuels Made Using Plastic Waste Based Feedstocks, (June 15, 2023), available at: https://www.epa.gov/chemicals-under-tsca/epa-proposes-new-protections-communities-fuels-made-using-plastic-waste-based. ↩︎
5. Id. 
6. Id. 
7. Id. 
8. See US EPA Meeting with American Chemical Council on Proposed SNURs (December 20, 2023), available at: https://docs.publicnow.com/viewDoc?filename=139931%5CEXT%5C71042A98CE77B9BE0AF4E63ACC3DA779527EA05F_7CAE47AE6AC13E969029B8AB7D0614A0A88F8D87.PDF. 
9. See, e.g., Center for Climate Integrity, “The Fraud of Advanced Recycling, How Big Oil and the Plastics Industry are Promoting a False Solution to the Plastic Waste Crisis” (May 2025), available at https://climateintegrity.org/projects/advanced-recycling-fraud. 
10. Cherokee Concerned Citizens v. EPA (No. 23-1096). 
11. See Community In-Power and Development Association and Earth Justice, Comment on Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for January 2025, Docket No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2025–0067 (March 26, 2025), available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2025-0067-0002, citing EPA, Rules for Chemicals Made from Plastic Waste-Based Feedstocks under the Toxic Substances Control Act, https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/rules-chemicals-made-plastic-waste (last updated July 14, 2025); EPA, Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (23-2.5e), 88 Fed. Reg. 39,804, 39,806 (proposed June 20, 2023). 
12. N.J.A.C. 7:26-1.1. 
13. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 74-9-3. 
14. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38, § 1303-C. 
15. States that have taken the position that advanced plastics recycling qualifies as manufacturing exempt from solid waste disposal requirements include, but are not limited to, Arizona (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49-701), Michigan (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 324.11502), Pennsylvania (35 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6018.103), and Virginia (Va. Code Ann. § 10.1-1400). 
16. States that have not taken a position yet include, but are not limited to, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington. ↩︎
17. Notably, a long-standing question has been whether the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act — which regulate emissions from solid waste incineration units — apply to pyrolysis processes using waste plastic feedstock. On June 30, 2025, EPA issued the final rule on “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Other Solid Waste Incineration [(OSWI)] Units Review,” and the Preamble states that “EPA will not be taking additional action related to pyrolysis/combustion units” in this final rule. 90 Fed. Reg. 27910, 27913, available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-06/standards-of-performance-for-new-stationary-sources-and-emission-guidelines-for-existing-sources_other-solid-waste-incineration-units-review_0.pdf. This statement, combined with proposed actions during the first Trump administration to exempt such pyrolysis/combustion units from the OSWI definition that were never finalized, appears effectively to leave in place a 2005 EPA interpretation that “pyrolysis combustion units” do qualify as OSWI subject to NSPS. See Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Other Solid Waste Incineration Units, 70 Fed. Reg. 74870, 74876-77 (Dec. 16, 2005) (“EPA notes that the commenter did not provide any details regarding these other technologies or the materials that are processed by these technologies. Some of these types of units may well be covered under the CAA section 129 final OSWI rules. For example, pyrolysis/combustion units (two chamber incinerators with a starved air primary chamber followed by an afterburner to complete combustion) within the VSMWC and IWI subcategories are considered OSWI units. In addition, thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and flameless thermal oxidizers, if used to combust solid waste, could be subject to the final OSWI rules or other section 129 rules if they meet the appropriate applicability requirements. It is important to note, however, that these types of units often are used to combust uncontained gases (generally from industrial processes) and are not used to dispose of solid waste. Such units would not be subject to the final OSWI rules.”).