Argus spoke to Laura Stewart, executive director of the North American PET industry association (NAPCOR), at the Plastics Recycling Conference in San Diego on 24 February, about the threat that recent recycling closures pose to US PET circularity and what can be done to help.
How are recent recycling plant closures affecting PET collection and supply for Napcor's members?
Right now, with five recycling plant closures, we're estimating a 16pc reduction in domestic PET recycling capacity. That reduction comes even after two new facilities came on line in 2025, so on a net basis we are down. This is absolutely worsening the challenges we are facing. When domestic PET recyclers can't process bales or access strong end markets, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a functioning system.
We're also seeing imported volumes of rPET continue to rise by some estimates up to 50pc higher than in recent years and that imported material is displacing domestic supply. If closures continue, we risk losing the foundation necessary for a robust circular economy in the US. We're producing and using PET bottles here, but if those bottles are collected and there's no recycler left to process them, that becomes a serious systemic concern.
On a national level, PET bottle recovery has hovered around 30pc for decades. We do see differences between kerbside programmes and deposit return systems, but not enough to significantly shift the national picture. Various state-level studies show wide disparities across the US, from states such as Alabama with low recovery to those like Oregon with much higher rates, that inconsistently continue to challenge the system's overall efficiency.
Should PET bottlers do more to support recyclers, and what barriers could prevent that?
I believe minimum post-consumer content legislation is one of the clearest ways to support domestic recycling infrastructure. In Europe, for example, their updated EPR [extended producer responsibility] structures only allow post-consumer content to count towards compliance if it's collected within the region and policies like that help ensure domestic supply is protected. Napcor recently released a position supporting limits on imported rPET because we strongly believe a stable US recycling industry is essential.
For years, we had strong tailwinds pushing the industry forward — the Ellen MacArthur commitments, aggressive corporate sustainability goals and the UN plastics discussions all encouraged capacity expansion.
But today, many major brands are extending their timelines. Unilever was one of the first to announce delays, and we've heard the same from Coke and Pepsi. Those shifts have become headwinds for recyclers, equipment makers and producers. Add the tariffs on top of that and it then creates a really difficult environment. I wish it was one simple issue that we could fix, but it's a broader, structural challenge.
How significant are the legal challenges to EPR in your view, and do you anticipate they could hinder its implementation in the US?
From what I am seeing, companies are participating in the EPR programmes, they're paying into them and engaging in the process. States such as California and Oregon already have strong PET bottle recovery due to the deposit systems, so the real test will be in categories like thermoforms. Challenges from groups such as the National Association of Wholesalers-Distributors highlight the need for clarity on implementation.
Colorado's new EPR programme will be an important case study. The state doesn't have strong kerbside recycling today, so if the EPR programme works as intended, we should see improvements driven by investment, infrastructure and education. But consumer participation still matters, behaviour change is hard. What encourages me is the cultural shift we've seen in places such as Canada, where stewardship is ingrained from a young age. We don't have that universally in the US. Changing perceptions from "plastics are bad" to "PET is recyclable, recycled daily, and valuable" is part of building a system that keeps PET out of landfills and the environment.
With Europe tightening rPET import rules, could redirected material create opportunities for US buyers or new challenges for recyclers?
The legislation was only recently enacted, so it's difficult to predict the full impact. There's still a lot of uncertainty, especially with tariffs and how they might influence global flow of rPET. We are seeing increased interest from south Asia to export more rPET into the US market.
But if imports into the US continue to grow and the imported rPET is used in bottles made here, it weakens the circularity flow of material the domestic recycling system depends on. We're not collecting what we produce domestically, and if more of our supply comes from outside the US, we risk having even less material being collected and processed locally. That's a concern for long-term system health.
What impacts are you expecting from the US Supreme Court's recent decision on tariffs?
Right now, I would say ‘stay tuned'. The situation is changing daily, and since I've been travelling for the conference, I haven't been able to follow every update. There is a lot of unpredictability, and everyone across the supply chain is waiting for clarity. By the time this story is published, we may already have a better sense of what it means.
PET producer Eastman, which operates depolymerisation capacity for PET waste, reports strong demand for advanced recycling PET. Do you see a growing need for repolymerised PET alongside mechanical recycling?
From Napcor's perspective, Eastman has consistently positioned advanced recycling or depolymerisation as a complement to mechanical recycling, not a replacement. They are far ahead in scale compared with others, and it's encouraging to see innovation that expands the types of PET that can be recovered.
What remains to be fully understood are the economics. Mechanical recycling has decades of proven performance and cost structure. Advanced recycling is still developing. I'd encourage deeper discussion with Eastman on how they see long-term economics and market integration evolving.
What I do know is that this is a tough industry, and it has been for decades. To move forward, we need the entire supply chain recyclers, brands, producers and associations working together. This industry supports communities and jobs, and we all have a stake in keeping it strong.
