US Plastics Pact position paper addresses physical, chemical recycling

The U.S. Plastics Pact (USPP) recently released a position paper outlining the role of physical and chemical recycling in a circular economy, offering what it says is science-based, consensus-driven guidance to policymakers and industry leaders.

The paper, which the USPP says has been developed with input from the full plastics value chain, aims to provide clarity on how these technologies can help address hard-to-recycle plastics while ensuring they do not displace reduction, reuse or mechanical recycling efforts.

“Too often, these technologies are talked about in extremes—either as a silver bullet or as something to be dismissed outright,” says Jonathan Quinn, president and CEO of the Walpole, New Hampshire-based USPP. “This position paper is exactly what the USPP is designed to do—bring activators together in a precompetitive space to wrestle with hard problems and consider data-driven real-world solutions.”

The USPP says its position paper affirms that physical and chemical recycling are options for materials that cannot be addressed through reduction, reuse and mechanical recycling. The paper notes that the scale-up of these technologies should expand—not duplicate—recycling system capabilities, while enabling high-quality postconsumer recycled (PCR) content, including for applications requiring stringent health and safety standards.

The paper lists potential benefits of physical and chemical recycling for the overall circularity of plastics, including the ability to capture more materials that may be “difficult or impossible” to process mechanically, including challenging packaging and nonpackaging plastics such as textiles; a reduction in reliance on virgin plastic; and the ability to “unlock” additional applications that can use PCR, such as food-contact or medical-grade packaging.

In the paper, the USPP recommends adherence to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Waste Management Hierarchy, which prioritizes solutions such as reduction and reuse, followed by mechanical recycling, then physical or chemical recycling for material formats that cannot be addressed otherwise. Examples of material that could be addressed by physical or chemical recycling include films and flexible packaging, certain food packaging applications, medical packaging and products and durable goods, such as toys, vehicle parts, electronics and more.

“We appreciate the thoughtful approach to understanding how each recycling pathway can help keep plastics in the value chain,” says Cherish Changala, vice president of sustainability and public affairs at Little Rock, Arkansas-based Revolution Sustainable Solutions. “Balancing innovation, environmental responsibility, sound policy and continued advancement in mechanical recycling will move us closer to true circularity.”

The paper also addresses environmental impact, stating physical and chemical recycling processes should have a lower environmental impact than virgin plastic manufacturing, confirmed through transparent, science-based assessments. Additionally, it says facilities should employ best practices and “good manufacturing processes” to ensure safe utilization of feedstock, intermediates and outputs while managing emissions and handling material streams safely.

Human health also is discussed. The USPP writes that environmental justice considerations should be included in all siting decisions for physical and chemical recycling facilities, and communities should be engaged in decision making when it comes to those facilities.

Addressing the topic of transparency and consistency, the USPP writes that recycled content should be certified using chain of custody certification standards, for example. The paper also advocates for transparency from the industry in regard to yield losses, as well as the need for a measurement standard for calculating recycling tonnages, using Canada’s system as an example.

USPP says its position reflects months of research, discussion and review. The organization says it examined scientific literature, existing policy approaches and environmental assessments and incorporated feedback from its activators across the plastics value chain.

“This position paper recognizes that physical and chemical recycling technologies can play a meaningful role in addressing plastics that are difficult to recycle through conventional means,” says Tamsin Ettefagh, chief sustainability officer and executive vice president of government and industry relations at Orlando, Florida-based PureCycle Technologies Inc. “As a physical recycler, we believe it is essential to define responsible parameters and to position these technologies as complimentary within the broader system. The U.S. Plastics Pact is helping create the clarity companies need to innovate with confidence. With the right guardrails, we can scale solutions that prioritize material-to-material recycling, expand circularity, protect communities and keep more plastic in the value chain—not in the environment.”

Crystal Bayliss, director of strategy and engagement at the USPP, says the goal of the position paper is to help policymakers, companies and communities make informed decisions grounded in science, transparency and shared responsibility.

“When implemented with the right standards and accountability, physical and chemical recycling can help unlock new circularity pathways for materials that today have no viable end-of-life solution,” Bayliss says. “This position provides the practical guidance needed to ensure these technologies strengthen our collective progress toward a circular economy.”