By Juanpablo Ramirez-Franco, Keerti Gopal, and Clayton Aldern

This story is a partnership between Grist, Inside Climate News and WBEZ.


No city dealing with a lot of lead pipes spends as much as Chicago does to replace them.

With more than 400,000 lead water service lines, Chicago has the largest known inventory of lead pipes of any city in the country. Officials say replacing each one costs about $31,000 on average — more than six times the Environmental Protection Agency’s national estimate of $4,700 a line.

WBEZ, Grist and Inside Climate News surveyed other cities with the most lead service lines in the country, including Detroit, Milwaukee and New York, about the cost of fully replacing a lead service line. The 18 that responded provided averages between $6,000 and $25,000, with most spending less than half what Chicago does. Engineering firm CDM Smith, which works with cities across the country, pegs the national average at $12,500 per line.

Now, with a federal mandate to remove every lead pipe within roughly 20 years, Chicago is facing a daunting timeline and an astronomical price tag. Replacing the city’s inventory at the current rate will cost more than $12 billion.

“It is absurd,” said Cyndi Roper, a senior policy advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s safe water initiative. “You can’t play victim to your own policies. … You actually can make changes to bring the cost down.”

A review over seven months of hundreds of pages of program documents and contracts, plus dozens of interviews with city officials, policy experts, contractors and homeowners, found several key contributors. The most significant include inefficient early contracts, cumbersome permitting requirements, and the city’s reliance on one-off replacements rather than undertaking whole blocks at once.

A glaring lack of clarity from the Department of Water Management, which oversees the city’s replacement program, has also made it difficult to pinpoint the exact reasons for the high cost. Its officials were unable to provide WBEZ, Grist and Inside Climate News with consistent figures for replacement costs and the number of lines replaced or to make clear whether the water department is tracking these costs systematically.

“It seems like the story here is how hard you have to work to get information that’s needed in order to figure out why the costs are so high,” Roper added.

A spokesperson for Mayor Brandon Johnson said in an emailed statement that he is committed to accelerating replacements and minimizing the burden to residents but did not respond to specific questions about the city’s unusually high costs.

“The Johnson administration is working across departments in coordination with local, state, and federal partners to accelerate replacements, streamline processes, and maximize every available dollar so more residents can access safe, reliable drinking water,” the statement said.

Officials with the water department said they see some room to bring expenses down as work ramps up. But they’ve also disagreed with outside experts who say Chicago’s high costs are unreasonable, and they don’t appear to be treating the drastic cost differential with other cities as a high priority to address.

“There’s a lot of people that claim they know lead service line replacement,” said a senior official with the water department who spoke with WBEZ, Grist and Inside Climate News on the condition of not being named. “They don’t know what they’re talking about.”

Illinois U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who has been working to secure federal funding for lead service line replacements across the state, said she wasn’t aware of the cost discrepancy but hoped the city would be transparent with the public about why costs are so high.

“Cities just need to get their act together and get this done, and we’ve been slow to do this in Chicago,” Duckworth said. “Other cities have moved much faster than us.”

Replacing pipes on an entire block

Chicago replaces lead service lines through several programs, including emergency repairs, capital improvement projects and equity initiatives targeting low-income neighborhoods and daycares.

The city also replaces entire blocks of lead pipes at once. But that program accounted for just 3 percent of the approximately 15,000 lines swapped out between 2021 and the end of 2025, according to an analysis of city replacement data by WBEZ, Grist and Inside Climate News. Instead, nearly all of those lines were fixed piecemeal, mostly when crews were sent out to fix leaks and breaks.

Both city officials and experts agree that replacing lead pipes a full block at a time is cheaper. In Milwaukee, per-line costs dropped by nearly $2,000 since implementing a block level program. Chicago officials say they want to ramp up blockwide replacements, but there have been legal and logistical barriers to expanding that program.

In Illinois, property owners control half the service line, and the municipality is responsible for the other. State law forbids partial line replacement because the process can flush more lead into drinking water, and municipalities willing to replace private lines must first get the property owners’ permission. That’s harder and more time-consuming than it may seem, a key reason for the city’s low number of block replacements, according to officials.

Earlier this year, state lawmakers introduced a new bill at the water department’s request to fix that, granting city plumbers access to private lines without the owner’s permission. It passed in May and now awaits Gov. JB Pritzker’s signature.

“We need to accelerate, as much as humanly possible, this process,” said state Sen. Ram Villivalam of Chicago, a co-sponsor of the bill.

Still, it’s not clear how much block-level replacements will actually decrease Chicago’s costs. Water department officials pegged the average per-line cost for block-level work, which they have said is their cheapest program, at approximately $34,000, and the average for one-off replacements at $39,000. Both figures are well above the $31,000 overall average that department officials have cited.

Asked to explain how that could be, the water department did not respond. In her last email to the news organizations in May, water department spokesperson Megan Vidis said she would not answer any more questions on the topic.

Workers replace lead service lines in Chicago’s West Ridge neighborhood. (Photo credit: Anthony Vazquez/Sun-Times)

The toll on homeowners

Any lead pipe a property owner replaces on their own is one the city doesn’t have to pay forBut some homeowners are finding that far harder than they imagined, in part because of the city’s prohibitively expensive and complex permitting process.

Craig Hines and his wife, homeowners in Chicago’s Avondale neighborhood, discovered they had a lead service line last summer when they received a letter from the city. They were immediately alarmed: They cook regularly for young nieces and nephews, and Hines knows there’s no safe level of lead exposure.

They called 14 plumbers looking for a quote. Some refused to take them on or seemed to be trying to dissuade them from doing the work altogether, saying the job would be too expensive. One preliminary quote totaled $25,000. The couple were told permits alone could cost between $5,000 and $7,000.

“These fees seem so exorbitant when it’s like, this was a city screw-up,” Hines said, referring to Chicago’s history of installing lead lines long after the health consequences came to light. “I just cannot believe that the permitting fees are so high to help fix a problem that the city created.”

Replacing a single line can require permits from the water and transportation departments, as well as inspection-related charges, according to the city’s Department of Buildings. The fees vary based on the type of street and size of pipe.

The water department said it waives all its permit fees when the city pays for replacements. But it’s not so simple when property owners want to shoulder the cost. Some qualify for a city program waiving up to $5,000 in fees; others don’t. Water department officials could not provide an average cost for permits, saying it varies by project site.

After more than six months of research — including contacting their alderman, district commissioner and multiple city departments to track down answers about costs — Hines and his wife finally settled on a plumber who knew how to navigate the city’s permit waivers. He quoted them $22,000 for the job, which he said will include permits. They hope their replacement will take place in July.

Ryan Wilson (left) and Alaina Harkness stand next to their new water meter that was installed when they replaced lead water pipes in their home. (Photo credit: Anthony Vazquez/Sun-Times)

Several miles south, Ryan Wilson and his wife, Alaina Harkness, said they didn’t qualify for the fee waiver. They paid nearly $25,000 to replace the lead line at their Hyde Park home last year, but because they also upsized their service line while replacing it, they weren’t eligible for the waiver.

Wilson has worked in urban planning for decades, and even so, he said he found navigating the city’s permitting requirements extremely confusing. They never were able to figure out how much of their final bill was allotted to permits. If Chicago wants to improve citywide replacement efforts, Wilson said, improving the permitting process should be high on the list.

“There’s not a single person to talk to about this,” he said.

Inefficient contracts and funding woes

Water department officials pointed to two key reasons for the high costs. First, they said that the city lacked a firm grasp of costs when launching its replacement program in 2021 and also that its first round of contracts was inefficient. The early contracts also bundled jobs poorly, tasking contractors with work outside their specialization, like having plumbers work on restoration or outreach.

“Early on, the issue was … a lot of unknowns in our contracts,” the water department’s deputy commissioner, Michael Grillo, said in a webinar last fall. “We are trying to be smarter with our contracts that go out, be more specific, eliminate those unknowns.”

Plumbing companies overbid to cover worst-case scenarios in those early contracts, Grillo said. The water department’s Vidis confirmed via email that the city has implemented four new contracts this year focused on improving equitable access for small businesses to replace lead service lines but said the goal of those contracts was not to reduce per-line prices.

Grillo also blamed labor costs for part of the city’s high price tag, but that explanation doesn’t appear to pan out.

The base prevailing wage for a union plumber in the Chicago area is $99.52 per hour. By contrast, it’s about $97 in Minneapolis and roughly $121 in New York City, both of which replace their lead pipes for less than half of Chicago’s costs.

“I have a hard time believing that the prevailing wage would be the cost factor,” said Betony Jones, a senior researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, and former director of energy jobs under the Biden administration.

The city says a lack of robust, flexible funding is compounding the problem. Chicago has to cobble together funding from a patchwork of local and federal sources in the form of grants and low-interest loans, which brings red tape and restrictions.

The Biden-era Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act delivered a historic $15 billion for lead pipe removal, with Illinois getting about $1.2 billion, according to Duckworth’s office. This month, Duckworth’s office announced a separate $22 million federal grant earmarked for Chicago’s majority-Black Austin neighborhood — where 92 percent of service lines require replacement, according to last year’s lead service line inventory. At Chicago’s price point, the state estimates that $22 million will only replace about 650 lines out of the nearly 17,000 reported in city data for Austin last year.

“Chicago needs to explain where the money is going and justify the cost,” wrote Elin Betanzo, a national drinking water expert who helped uncover the water crisis caused by lead pipes in Flint, Michigan, in an email.

Betanzo, who has done extensive research on cost-saving tactics, said she has not seen a realistic cost breakdown that demonstrates why Chicago is paying as much as it is.

“They need to figure out how to complete the most cost-efficient lead service line replacements in the country, not the most expensive,” she added.

With funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act set to run out this year, public health experts have been calling for more local, federal and state dollars to fund replacements, especially in overburdened cities like Chicago.

“It’s a critical part of the infrastructure,” Betanzo said. “It’s that final piece of public health protection.”

Amy Qin and Cam Rodriguez contributed data analysis for this story.


The post Why Is It So Expensive to Replace Lead Pipes in Chicago? appeared first on Great Lakes Now.

Original Article

Great Lakes Now

Great Lakes Now

https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2026/06/30/why-is-it-so-expensive-to-replace-lead-pipes-in-chicago/

WBEZ, Inside Climate News and Grist

By Keerti Gopal, Inside Climate News

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.


After years of fighting to curb toxic pollution in communities of color, Illinois activists are celebrating a step forward. 

A bill expanding the state’s regulatory obligations over industrial air polluters in environmental justice communities passed the state legislature last week and is expected to go into effect at the start of next year.

The bill amends the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and will require the state’s Environmental Protection Agency to consider cumulative pollution and other burdens when evaluating certain air emission permits for construction. It also allows the agency to consider an applicant’s past environmental violations when approving permits, and to enact stricter requirements for air monitoring and pollution prevention.

For Jen Walling, chief executive officer of the Illinois Environmental Council, this legislation has been a long time coming.

“It’s more relief than joy to have it passed,” Walling said. “We’re taking a step in the right direction.”

The bill was born out of years of high-profile community activism in Chicago against a proposal to move General Iron, a metal scrapping facility, from the predominantly white and affluent neighborhood of Lincoln Park to the Southeast Side, a majority Black and Latino area nationally recognized as overburdened by industrial pollution. 

In 2020, the Illinois EPA approved a permit for the move, but residents fought back by staging protests, investigating local pollution, filing a federal civil rights complaint and completing a month-long hunger strike. The movement successfully stopped General Iron’s relocation and led to settlements with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a resolution agreement requiring the Illinois EPA to reform its permit review process.

“I didn’t really know how broken the state permitting process was until the General Iron fight,” said Gina Ramirez, director of Midwest environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council. A resident of the Southeast Side, she’s hopeful about the newly passed bill. 

“I’m excited about this because it’s going to put more mechanisms in place so other families who live in environmental justice communities in Illinois don’t have to go through what we went through,” she said.

State Sen. Celina Villanueva, a co-sponsor of the bill, represents a district that includes Little Village, a majority Latino neighborhood that has long been disproportionately harmed by environmental hazards. 

“This bill will save lives in my district,” Villanueva, a Democrat, said in a statement. “While there is so much more work to do to protect public health in our neighborhoods, we’ll all breathe a little easier knowing that we finally took this important first step.”

The bill identifies “areas of environmental justice concern,” by combining environmental metrics like average air pollution, vehicle traffic, drinking water violations and hazardous facilities with social vulnerabilities like poverty, race, employment and English proficiency. The bill also creates an office of environmental justice within the state EPA.

The final bill doesn’t include everything communities were pushing for, Walling said. For example, she wanted to see a more inclusive definition of environmental justice areas and said some communities downstate could end up overlooked. But overall, she sees it as a positive first step. 

In Chicago, some environmental groups hope the measure will help push forward the Hazel M. Johnson Cumulative Impacts Ordinance, a city-level initiative to curb industrial pollution in environmental justice neighborhoods that has been continuously delayed

“Hopefully this lights a fire under City Council to do the right thing,” Ramirez said.

Illinois activists also say the landscape of rollbacks by the Trump administration, from environmental justice staffing cuts to weaker enforcement, makes state progress even more important. 

Ramirez said the bill is an affirmation that the disproportionate burdens faced by communities like hers are real. 

“The federal government is shying away from these words and these communities,” she said. “Illinois is doubling down.”


The post In a Years-Long Fight, the Illinois Environmental Justice Movement Gets a Win appeared first on Great Lakes Now.

Original Article

Great Lakes Now

Great Lakes Now

https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2026/06/25/in-a-years-long-fight-the-illinois-environmental-justice-movement-gets-a-win/

Inside Climate News

By Jon Hurdle Inside Climate News

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.


Advocates for lower electricity prices in Pennsylvania said Wednesday their goals can be achieved by requiring large-load users like data centers to supply their own power rather than taking it from the grid, by reducing utility profits and by speeding up the interconnection of new clean-energy projects. 

The group, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Pennsylvania Utility Law Project, the Evergreen Collaborative and state Rep. Elizabeth Fiedler, touted a report showing that consumers in the state could save an average of more than $840 a year on electricity costs by 2030 vs. the status quo if lawmakers enact policies that address the causes of soaring retail power prices.

The report, from Synapse Energy Economics, an environmental consulting firm based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said the proposed policy reforms could reduce household electricity costs by an average of $197 in 2027 alone and deliver an estimated $2.4 billion in cost savings statewide by 2030.

Some consumers are now having to choose between paying for their electricity and their medication, and that’s not a choice they should have to make, said Fiedler, a Democrat who chairs the House Energy Committee and represents part of South Philadelphia. Residential electricity rates in Pennsylvania rose almost 14 percent in the past year alone, according to federal data. Costs for consumers were up more than 50 percent compared to 2020.

Fiedler urged lawmakers to enact reforms that lower electricity prices to levels that everyone can afford. The legislature faces a June 30 deadline for finalizing the fiscal 2027 state budget.

“Often in this building, especially during budget season, we are facing numbers that lead us to a place where we believe we must cut policies and programs that people count on,” Fiedler said at a press conference on the steps of the state Capitol in Harrisburg on Wednesday. “This report shows us the tremendous amounts of money that people can keep in their pockets.”

Fiedler and the advocates said the energy-hungry data center industry—which plans to build more than 50 of the giant computer complexes in Pennsylvania—has driven up retail power prices by increasing demand to the point that it exceeds new supply.

Fiedler urged support for HB2224, the Return on Equity bill she co-sponsored, that would ease consumer costs by lowering the profit margins of state-regulated utilities.

Patrick Cicero, an attorney with the Pennsylvania Utility Law Project, said investors would still be attracted to utilities even if the return was reduced.

“A significant share of a utility bill isn’t paying for power or pipes, it’s paying for a utility’s shareholder profit,” said Cicero, whose group works to ensure that low-income residents receive safe and affordable utility service.

The latest projected power demand from data centers would be the equivalent of adding two-and-a-half times the electricity currently used by New York City to the service territory for the eastern and central Pennsylvania utility PPL within the next decade, according to Jackson Morris, an analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, who spoke at the press conference. 

“The rapid rise in data centers and expected future growth are unique, unprecedented and uncertain, and will require a different approach than simply asserting that basic market forces of supply and demand will take care of it,” he said.

But Dan Diorio, vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, a trade group, denied that the industry causes retail electric prices to rise.

“Studies…have consistently found that data centers do not raise energy prices, and that data centers pay for all the power they use, just like any other customer,” Dorio said in a statement. “In fact, research shows that large-load users like data centers can actually keep costs down for residential customers by absorbing more of the grid’s fixed costs.” A recent study that reached this conclusion was funded by the Data Center Coalition. 

Advocates for action to curb rising electricity prices also accused the grid operator PJM Interconnection of “mismanagement” by being slow to approve new energy sources, especially from clean energy like wind and solar, that might address the supply shortfall.

Jeff Shields, a spokesman for PJM, said many delays were beyond its control. “We need to build generation at a faster pace to keep up with rising demand driven by data centers, and PJM is doing everything in its power to make that happen,” Shields said in an email.

The grid operator, whose Northeast and mid-Atlantic territory covers around 65 million people, has 50 gigawatts of generation that have cleared its interconnection process but continue to face delays from forces outside of PJM’s control, including those in state permitting.

This week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved PJM’s proposal for an expedited interconnection track for large state-sponsored generation projects of any fuel type or technology that can come online quickly, and address the imbalance between supply and demand, Shields said.

“PJM continues to work closely with state and federal governments on multiple paths to bring new generation online quickly including a plan for new data centers to bring their own generation,” he said. The plan also includes an agreement by data centers to be curtailed if and when the system needs power for residential customers, he added.

In Pennsylvania, developers who want access to the state’s “Fast Track” permitting program must bring their own power, a condition demanded by Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat. Shapiro, who has faced frustration from some of the residents fighting data-center development, said in a statement that a price cap he negotiated with PJM saved consumers across the region billions of dollars and his new data-center standards are designed to protect communities and ensure that developers deliver real benefits “if they want the Commonwealth’s support.”


The post Pennsylvania Activists Urge Lawmakers to Help Curb Soaring Electric Bills appeared first on Great Lakes Now.

Original Article

Great Lakes Now

Great Lakes Now

https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2026/06/18/pennsylvania-activists-urge-lawmakers-to-help-curb-soaring-electric-bills/

Inside Climate News

By Lauren Dalban, Inside Climate News

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.


Legislation that would reduce plastic waste in New York is advancing in the state Legislature amid a contentious debate over chemical recycling.

If it passes, New York would have one of the strongest controls on plastic packaging in the country and could reduce the amount of non-recyclable packaging in the state by 30 percent over the next 12 years. It would also require that packaging producers contribute funds to recycling and disposal efforts. 

The bill, the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act, stalled during the previous two legislative sessions. Among the sticking points for plastics producers is chemical recycling, an umbrella term for a variety of processes that use heat, pressure and chemicals to break down plastics after they’ve been used.

Under the law, chemical recycling would not be classified as recycling, despite its name—much to the dismay of organizations such as the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents producers of plastic packaging.

“It’s sort of just a big polluting behemoth everywhere it goes,” said state Sen. Pete Harckham, a co-sponsor of the bill, referring to chemical recycling. “That has been one of the major stumbling blocks.” 

In a 2025 memo, the American Chemistry Council, along with business representatives and plastics producers such as ExxonMobil, said that the mandatory packaging reductions are “unreasonable” and that the bill “inappropriately” excludes chemical recycling. The council declined to respond to questions from Inside Climate News.

Chemical recycling, also called advanced recycling, differs from mechanical recycling, which shreds used plastic into small pellets and reuses them in new packaging. Most chemical recycling in the United States breaks down plastic using pyrolysis, an energy-intensive, high-heat process that produces oil and chemical components for new plastics. 

It can also produce tons of what the Environmental Protection Agency terms “hazardous waste,” meaning it can harm human health or the environment. Judith Enck, a former EPA regional administrator and now the president of the nonprofit organization Beyond Plastics, which targets plastics production and pollution, said the process doesn’t produce much new plastic. 

While the bill faces an uphill battle in the final three-and-a-half weeks of this session, lobbyists will keep advocating for chemical recycling in the legislation—even though it’s a “red line” for environmentalists, Harckham said. 

Is It Recycling?

Around 15 percent of municipal solid waste in New York is plastic. In 2022, research showed that less than 10 percent of plastic waste was made from recycled material. Plastic also degrades when it is reused, which means that it can’t be recycled infinitely like glass or metal. 

Recycling plastic is complicated, said Helene Wiesinger, a chemist and science communication officer with the Food Packaging Forum, a nonprofit that researches food packaging. She studies plastic recycling in Switzerland. 

Though the industry touts chemical recycling as a solution because it can break plastics down and reuse the building blocks, Wiesinger said, it’s not always possible. Some of these chemicals in plastic “don’t get broken down,” and much of it ends up burned as fuel.

The few chemical recycling plants in the United States typically use pyrolysis. Veena Singla, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council who studies chemical recycling, said pyrolysis is often inefficient. It is energy intensive, requires extreme heat and produces relatively few usable components for new plastics, she said. Pyrolysis also produces an oil from plastic, which can then be used as a fuel—though it must often be diluted with fossil fuels to be used effectively, Singla said.

A still-pending 2024 lawsuit by California’s attorney general against a pyrolysis-based chemical recycling operation alleges that just 8 percent of the plastic waste accepted there gets converted to feedstocks for new plastic.

EPA documents show that the roughly one dozen chemical recycling plants across the country are classified as “large quantity hazardous waste generators.” This hazardous waste often contains benzene, a chemical that can cause certain types of cancer and negatively affect the bone marrow, which produces red blood cells.

Alterra Energy, a chemical recycling facility in Akron, Ohio, released 130 pounds of benzene to the air through piping or smokestacks in 2024, the company reported to the EPA. The prior year, it reported shipping 60 tons of benzene—the cumulative weight of around 27 cars—to be incinerated off site.

Alterra Energy did not respond to requests for comment.

The facilities, regulated by multiple EPA programs, are classified as incineration facilities under the Clean Air Act. But the Trump administration has proposed a rule to change that. 

In a recent opinion piece in The Hill, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote that the EPA will move to classify pyrolysis as manufacturing, limiting the pollution regulations that facilities would be subject to. 

Enck, the advocate for the New York plastics bill, has said she expects “significant concessions” will be made to pass the bill, but argued that chemical recycling should not be one of them.

Last year the bill passed the state Senate but never made it to the Assembly floor. If it passes both chambers this year, it must clear a final hurdle: Gov. Kathy Hochul could veto it or amend it through an informal agreement with bill sponsors. 

Hochul uses that “chapter amendment” process in one out of every seven bills on average, New York Focus reports. Enck worries that the plastics bill may get diluted that way. 

When asked about this possibility, Harckham said: “You can compromise on details, but you can’t compromise on values.” 

The bill also bans certain toxic chemicals from plastic packaging, like PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.” Harckham’s staff said that recent legislative amendments to the bill removed some toxic chemicals from the banned list and extended timelines for compliance with the new program and recycling requireEnvironmental advocates join state legislators and health care professionals to urge the passage of the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act on Monday in Albany, N.Y. Credit: Will Waldron/Albany Times Union via Getty Imagesments. 

The bill is “central to New York’s waste management strategy and our climate strategy,” Harckham said.


The post New York Plastics Law Advances Amid Debate Over ‘Chemical Recycling’ appeared first on Great Lakes Now.

Original Article

Great Lakes Now

Great Lakes Now

https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2026/05/21/new-york-plastics-law-advances-amid-debate-over-chemical-recycling/

Inside Climate News

By James Bruggers, Inside Climate News

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.


Belching smoke from a new plastic waste processing plant in central Ohio has stirred opposition to an even larger “chemical recycling” factory planned for Arizona by the same company.

The Freepoint Eco-Systems plant near Hebron, Ohio, fired up its processing kilns for the first time in 2024. Since then, it’s faced multiple citizen complaints about sooty emissions, from black clouds of smoke to flames. Dozens of times, plant operators have bypassed normal pollution controls to vent gases through a flare after upsets in their manufacturing processes, including emergency shutdowns, according to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

The state regulator has issued four notices of violation to the company, according to an agency database, and launched an enforcement case after the latest one in December.  

The Ohio plant’s troubled track record should be a red flag to officials who oversee permitting for the company’s plans for Eloy, Arizona, about 60 miles south of Phoenix on Interstate 10, said Kevin Greene, a pollution-prevention expert who lives in nearby Tucson and retired from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

Another warning should be the industry’s “troubling” underperformance when attempting to use chemical processes to turn mixed plastic waste into fuels or new plastic feedstocks, said Greene. 

“How about a six-month pause on this project while they investigate what’s going on in Hebron and take another look at the industry in general?” Greene suggested in an interview with Inside Climate News.

At least one Eloy city councilmember, Josephine “JoAnne” Galindo, said she’s concerned enough to want to be part of a potential Eloy delegation to visit Ohio, tour the Freepoint plant there and meet with local government and company officials.

“I would want to know more,” Galindo said. “I’m always concerned about the safety of my community.”

Freepoint officials declined a request for an interview on either their Ohio plant’s environmental performance or their proposed Arizona facility. 

In a written statement, the company said it has “invited officials from Arizona to tour our Ohio facility to see the sophistication of our operations and the scale of the plastic waste we are working to process. We’re currently scheduling this visit.”

In Ohio, the company is working with environmental and occupational safety and health officials and the local fire department “to ensure compliance with health, safety and environmental requirements,” the statement said. Freepoint officials, the statement added, “have implemented a number of operational improvements.”

In February, at public meetings in Arizona, a Freepoint representative put a positive spin on the situation.

“You get the benefit of being the second mover,” Geof Storey, the company’s chief development officer, told the Pinal County Board of Supervisors. “We are only going to build this one if the first one works. You are going to get all [the] learnings and all the benefits of that [Ohio] project.”

To the Eloy City Council the same week, he added, “We are still working out some of the kinks.”

The Ohio plant, located about 30 miles east of Columbus near Interstate 70, is designed to process up to 175 million pounds of plastic waste annually. The waste is sourced from plastic packaging companies and community recycling programs throughout the region, including as far away as Louisville, Kentucky. 

Freepoint Eco-Systems, a subsidiary of global trading and finance firm Freepoint Commodities, envisions at least a half-dozen facilities in the United States, Storey told Arizona officials. The Eloy facility would collect waste plastic from as far away as California and Colorado, as well as from Phoenix and Tucson, he added. A company PowerPoint presentation said its capacity would be more than twice the Ohio plant’s.

That would make the Eloy plant one of the largest in the world, said Rita O’Connell, a national organizer with the environmental group Beyond Plastics. But O’Connell also noted that the company’s PowerPoint contains a disclaimer that “there can be no assurances that information relied upon in preparing this presentation will prove accurate or any of the projections will be realized.”

The Freepoint Eco-Systems Hebron chemical recycling plant is seen in July 2025. Photo: Courtesy of Shawn Jones via Inside Climate News

Deregulatory Agenda Boosts Chemical Recycling

Industry officials have advocated for chemical recycling of plastics for years—often under the umbrella term of “advanced recycling”—as a solution to the global plastic waste crisis. 

Typically, that’s done with a technology called pyrolysis, the process of decomposing materials at very high temperatures in an oxygen-free environment. Traditional uses range from making tar from timber for wooden ships to transforming coal into coke for steelmaking.

More recently, major oil companies and small startups alike have sought to develop the technology as an alternative for recycling a wide variety of plastic waste. So far, they’ve been met with limited success and serious pushback from environmental groups viewing it as akin to incineration.

But one of the biggest criticisms is the paucity of plastic waste that pyrolysis actually turns into new plastic. 

For example, a 2024 lawsuit by California Attorney General Rob Bonta—against ExxonMobil’s pyrolysis-based chemical recycling operation at its Baytown complex near Houston—claimed decades of recycling deception contributed to a plastics crisis in California and around the world. In the lawsuit, which is still pending, Bonta asserted that no more than 8 percent of the incoming plastic waste to ExxonMobil’s plant is converted to feedstocks for new plastic. 

The lawsuit claimed the remaining waste becomes fuel, which is subsequently burned. 

After the lawsuit was filed, ExxonMobil responded that “advanced recycling works. To date, we’ve processed more than 60 million pounds of plastic waste into usable raw materials, keeping it out of landfills.”

The United Nations estimates that the world produces roughly 882 billion pounds of plastic waste each year.

Freepoint, which also uses pyrolysis, declined to say how much of the waste plastic it takes in becomes new plastic.

Storey told Arizona officials its plants divert waste from landfills and offset in-the-ground oil demand. 

Company officials said 70 percent of incoming plastic waste is converted into something called pyrolysis oil, or pyoil, which is used as a feedstock to create new products. About 25 percent is converted into gas used to heat the kilns. The rest becomes something called char, what Storey described as “black carbon.”

Storey said the pyoil gets sent to petrochemical customers on the Gulf Coast. There, company officials said, it serves as a “substitute for crude oil to create new plastics and other products.”

“What products our customers manufacture and where they distribute them,” the company said, “is up to our customers.”

The chemical industry has already worked to ease regulations on advanced recycling in dozens of states, including Arizona and Ohio. And in March, after groups of chemical and plastics industry lobbyists visited the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters, the EPA took an initial step to exempt pyrolysis from federal Clean Air Act regulations.

Beyond Plastics’ O’Connell, who is based in New Mexico, said the chemical industry seems to have accelerated its push for chemical recycling as the Trump administration rolls back a wide range of environmental rules. At least three recycling and chemical regulation bills pending in Congress aim to boost chemical recycling of plastic waste, she said.

Fewer than 10 chemical recycling plants are operating in the United States, often in a limited capacity, said O’Connell, whose group follows the industry’s performance.

But Oil and Gas Watch, a petrochemical tracker created by the Environmental Integrity Project, identifies about 40 potential new chemical recycling facilities in the works. Some are proposed, some are in the permitting process and some are approved for construction.

“Given the national atmosphere, it’s possible we’re about to see the lights go on on a bunch of these proposals that haven’t moved in a while, because there seems to be a lot of energy in this direction,” O’Connell said. “It all points to a huge industry push to leverage this Congress and EPA to get chemical recycling rolling nationally.”

Children play in Hebron’s Evans Park with black smoke emitting from a nearby chemical recycling plant about a mile and a half away in July 2025. Photo: Courtesy of Shawn Jones via Inside Climate News

Ohio EPA Opens an Enforcement Case

It was a little more than a year ago when Amanda Rowoldt, an Ohio organizer with the environmental group Moms Clean Air Force, was driving by the Freepoint facility near Hebron and saw black smoke billowing out of the stacks. She took a video and filed a complaint with the Ohio EPA.

“Long story short, they were found in violation of exceeding their particulate limits,” Rowoldt.

Numerous pollution incidents followed. A local nonprofit newsroom covering Licking County, The Reporting Project, affiliated with Denison University’s journalism program, took notice.

Denison is a small private liberal arts college located about 10 miles away in Granville. Doug Swift, who teaches at Denison and is an advisor of The Reporting Project, said a plastics recycling theme in an investigative reporting track resulted in a series of articles. 

One of the stories, published Feb. 26, revealed the citizen complaints, the state’s violation notices and a 911 call last May from a resident a quarter-mile away reporting “a factory on fire.”

“It was a great series to push out into the community, and it did alert some of our most engaged and knowledgeable citizens to the plant and to a technology most didn’t know anything about,” Swift said. He described the Hebron area as something of a local news desert, often ignored by commercial news outlets in the region.

Hebron Mayor Valerie Mockus said her municipality has no jurisdiction over the plant because it’s located just outside city limits, in an industrial park in Union Township. Still, she said she’s been concerned about environmental incidents there, though she is working to keep an open mind.

“I am very interested in finding ways to address problems with novel solutions,” Mockus said. “We have a problem with too much plastic. Is this a way to address that? But I was disappointed to hear about the negative side effects.”

She described her community as working class, its residents familiar with plumes of evaporated vapor coming from industrial stacks. “When it comes out black,” she added, “everybody pauses.”

According to the company’s air-quality permit from the Ohio EPA, the plant is allowed to emit certain levels of toxic fine particles, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, hydrochloric acid, and dioxins—pollutants that collectively can damage lungs, cause cancer and create havoc with other bodily systems.

Ohio EPA’s most recent notice in mid-December alleges air-permit violations including excess emissions of particulates, a toxic mix that can include soot, smoke and a variety of chemicals. Since then, the agency has opened an enforcement case against the company, said Max Moore, a spokesman for the Ohio EPA.

The state agency required the company to conduct emissions testing to get a clearer picture of what’s being released into the air, Moore said. Visible particulate emissions exceeded an opacity limit 18 times from Feb. 1 through March 31, he said. Nitrogen oxides from a test in February also exceeded a permit limit, he added.

On April 3, an Ohio EPA official chastised Freepoint for repeatedly failing to quickly notify the agency of plant malfunctions, according to an email that Inside Climate News obtained through a public-records request.

“This issue has been beaten to death at this point, but we still are not receiving immediate notifications of malfunctions,” the state official wrote, citing an example of a late afternoon March 30 notice to regulators of an early morning March 27 malfunction. 

“If it helps, think of it like calling the fire department when there’s a fire,” the official told the company representatives. “That’s immediate. You wouldn’t wait eight hours or until the next day.”

A company representative said that afterward, “we promptly changed our reporting process to ensure it’s in line with their requirements.”

The Ohio EPA’s Moore said the goal “is to get the facility back into compliance.”

Pollution and Fire Videos

Cat Adams, a Columbus-based organizer with the Buckeye Environmental Network, said several workers have sought her out to describe unsafe working conditions, including dust, chemical spills and fire hazards. She hears from area residents about the plant, too.

“There’s a group of people in the community who are worried about it, and they want something done,” Adams said.

Shawn Jones is one of them. He was an eyewitness to the May 27 fire and took a video of it. In subsequent months, he’s kept a close eye, documenting other incidents of billowing smoke. “I’ve probably seen that 15 times,” Jones said, adding that he’s concerned about the health and safety of both people in the community and workers inside the plant.

He said he’s not sure what, if anything, Ohio EPA officials will do to force the company to comply with environmental regulations.

“I’d like them to shut the whole place down,” Jones said. “It’s such a new process. They clearly don’t have it figured out yet.”

He said it feels like Freepoint is “doing sandbox experiments in the backyards of thousands of people. They can, because of the lack of zoning here.”

In Arizona, Greene, the former Illinois environmental official, said he and an Eloy resident, Ralph Atchue, are asking Pinal County air quality officials to strengthen a permit they issued the company three years ago. The reason they’re citing: the company’s pollution record in Ohio. 

Greene also suggests that the city of Eloy should ask for fenceline air-quality monitoring to give the community real-time data on any leaks and equipment failures.

Noting that the company has essentially described its Ohio plant as a test case, Greene added: “I’d like to know what’s going to be redesigned [for Eloy], or what’s going to be improved. But I also want to make sure there will be the appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that it doesn’t happen in Eloy—and that it doesn’t recur in Hebron.”


The post Ohio Plastic Waste Plant to Expand Nationally appeared first on Great Lakes Now.

Original Article

Great Lakes Now

Great Lakes Now

https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2026/04/24/ohio-plastic-waste-plant-to-expand-nationally/

Inside Climate News

By James Bruggers, Inside Climate News

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.


When former top Environmental Protection Agency official Judith Enck noticed a cavalcade of chemical and plastics industry lobbyists visiting the agency’s Washington headquarters in February, she wondered what could be up.

An answer came weeks later: The agency is moving toward resurrecting a proposal from the first Trump administration to ditch Clean Air Act regulations involving one of the industry’s go-to methods for chemically processing plastic waste into new industrial feedstocks or fuels.

The EPA is curiously approaching this by embedding a request for comments on so-called “advanced recycling” via a method known as pyrolysis in a rulemaking on an entirely different category of waste incineration.

“I thought, could it be a mistake, or are they quietly trying to push this through?” Enck, a former EPA regional administrator during the Obama presidency, wondered in an interview on Tuesday. Just one paragraph related to advanced recycling of plastics was included in a 17-page Federal Register notice for a proposed rule on wood incineration.

Either way, the stakes are significant, according to industry and environmental advocates alike. 

For several years, industry officials have pushed chemical processing of plastic waste as a primary solution to the global plastic waste crisis, while advocating for regulatory relief at the state and federal levels. The industry has also pressed for such processing to be a pillar of a possible global plastics treaty. 

“We support policies that recognize the products of advanced recycling as recycling and policies that recognize advanced recycling as a highly engineered manufacturing process that can produce new virgin equivalent plastics and chemicals,” according to the website of the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s primary lobbying group in the United States.

But environmental advocates view much of what the industry calls either chemical recycling or advanced recycling — and particularly the method known as pyrolysis — as a dirty, polluting sham.

“It’s not recycling,” said James Pew, director of the federal clean air practice at the environmental group Earthjustice. “To the extent these incinerators produce anything significant other than toxic pollution, a very small portion of the plastic waste they burn is turned into an oily waste that can be fed back into the chemical production process or burned [as] dirty fuel. And it encourages unlimited production of single-use plastics.”

The EPA’s movement toward easing clean-air rules to boost chemical processing of plastic waste comes amid growing concerns about a global plastics crisis.

The United Nations Environment Programme has estimated that the world produces 430 million metric tons of plastic each year, over two-thirds of which are short-lived products that soon become waste. A growing amount, or 139 million metric tons in 2021, gets tossed after just a single use. 

Plastic production is set to triple by 2060 under a “business-as-usual” scenario, and less than 9 percent is recycled. Plastic production and the mismanagement of plastic waste contribute to climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, U.N. officials have concluded.

Scientists have also found the smallest of plastic particles inside human bodies, increasing the risk of respiratory, reproductive and gastrointestinal problems and some cancers.

The ExxonMobil Baytown Complex in Baytown, Texas, at dusk in 2023. The company developed what it calls advanced recycling of plastic waste involving pyrolysis in part of this complex. Credit: James Bruggers/Inside Climate News

Plastics’ Chemical Recycling Problem

Because plastics are made of thousands of chemicals, they are not easily recyclable. Most plastic recycling is done through a mechanical process that separates certain types by chemical composition, then cleans, shreds, melts and remolds them. 

Pyrolysis, or the process of decomposing materials at very high temperatures in an oxygen-free environment, has been around for centuries. Traditional uses range from making tar from timber for wooden ships to transforming coal into coke for steelmaking.

More recently, major oil companies and small startups alike have sought to develop the technology as an alternative for recycling a wide variety of plastic waste, with limited success and serious pushback from environmental interests.

A 2023 report from Enck’s Beyond Plastics and the International Pollutants Elimination Network examined 11 chemical recycling plants operating in the United States. Noting low output of recycled plastics and challenges such as fires and spills at production units, the report concluded the technology “has failed for decades, continues to fail, and there is no evidence that it will contribute to resolving the plastics pollution crisis.”

The chemical industry, however, has been steadfast in its backing of chemical recycling, including the pyrolysis method. On the same day the EPA announced it was developing a new rule on advanced recycling, the American Chemistry Council praised the agency. Since no oxygen is involved in pyrolysis, the group said, the process cannot be considered incineration and should not be regulated as such.

“These advanced recycling technologies convert used plastic into valuable feedstocks to make new products, rather than combusting the plastic for energy purposes or landfilling it,” said Ross Eisenberg, president of an arm of the council called America’s Plastic Makers, in a press release. 

Sixteen Industry Lobbyists Visit EPA

The details of what the EPA will propose have not yet been revealed. But the agency’s March 17 announcement and supporting documents point to the kind of regulatory relief it sought to provide during the first Trump term—before running out of time.

Pyrolysis has largely been regulated as incineration for three decades and has therefore had to meet stringent emission requirements for burning solid waste under the federal Clean Air Act. 

In the final months of the first Trump administration, the EPA proposed an industry-friendly rule change stating that pyrolysis does not involve enough oxygen to constitute combustion, and that emissions from the process should therefore not be regulated as incineration.

In 2023, the Biden administration reversed course after much criticism from environmental groups and some members of Congress.

The agency that year noted that it had “received significant adverse comments” on the provision. In taking final action to withdraw the proposal, the agency said the move would “prevent any regulatory gaps and ensure that public health protections are maintained.” 

The EPA’s recent request for comment on pyrolysis was included in a rule-making involving incinerators that burn wood or yard waste, which are sometimes used after natural disasters such as hurricanes. “Revising the definition would clarify that the … rule does not regulate pyrolysis units used in advanced recycling operations,” the agency said.

Beyond Plastics counted 13 representatives from chemical companies or lobbying associations on the EPA headquarters visitor log for Feb. 10, a month before the announcement. Three senior officials from the American Chemistry Council visited on Feb. 12.

“While communities across the country are dealing with the health and environmental costs of plastic pollution, the industry appears to have a direct line to the agency that is supposed to protect us,” Enck said. “These visitor logs are particularly concerning at a time when the Trump administration is rolling back environmental protections and is quietly proposing to remove Clean Air Act requirements from so-called ‘chemical recycling’ facilities. Why did the EPA bury such a major proposed change?”

A written statement from the EPA press office said existing solid waste incineration and pyrolysis regulations were vague, and that the agency is seeking information on an “appropriate remedy.” 

The agency has scheduled an online virtual public hearing for April 6.

Matthew Kastner, senior director of media relations for the American Chemistry Council, pointed to occasions in 2023 and 2024 when Enck appeared on the EPA visitor log. Both his group and hers, he said, “have the right under the First Amendment to petition the government.”

He added that the council’s member companies are regulated by the EPA, “thus engagement on issues ranging from compliance to policy development is both appropriate and expected.”

Earthjustice’s Pew is concerned that the EPA will exempt pyrolysis units from Clean Air Act permitting and any requirement to measure or report their emissions. The result would be, he said, “a perverse incentive” to build more of them.

“As a practical matter, this definition change would mean EPA is completely deregulating a whole class of incinerators, these so-called pyrolysis units,” he added. “And their pollution is really toxic.”


The post After Chemical Industry Lobbying, EPA Considers Dropping Clean Air Protections for Plastic Waste Recycling appeared first on Great Lakes Now.

Original Article

Great Lakes Now

Great Lakes Now

https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2026/04/07/after-chemical-industry-lobbying-epa-considers-dropping-clean-air-protections-for-plastic-waste-recycling/

Inside Climate News