Major Chemical Recycling Facility Appears Shut Down After Environmental Violations in North Carolina, Underscoring Chemical Recycling’s Persistent Failures
Braven Environmental’s Pyrolysis Facility Marks the Second U.S. ‘Chemical Recycling’ Facility to Shutter in Past Month
For Immediate Release: July 1, 2026
Contacts:
Melissa Valliant, Beyond Plastics — melissavalliant@bennington.edu, (410) 829-0726
Rita O’Connell, Beyond Plastics — ritaoconnell@bennington.edu, (575) 224-1869
Judith Enck, Beyond Plastics — judithenck@bennington.edu, (518) 605-1770
Beyond Plastics has learned that Braven Environmental’s plastics pyrolysis facility in Zebulon, North Carolina, has been shut down. A Beyond Plastics staff member traveled to the facility on June 25, 2026, and observed that the site was non‑operational and that equipment and materials were being removed from the building. During that visit, an individual on-site stated that he had been hired to empty the building and that the facility had been ordered to close by environmental regulators. The site appeared largely vacant and was not being maintained as an active industrial operation. The parking lot was mostly empty.
Staff at the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) confirmed to Beyond Plastics that the Braven facility is not currently operating and referred to public records showing that Braven Environmental retains multiple unresolved violations with the agency. Staff at the Town of Zebulon stated they did not know anything about the closure.
According to U.S. EPA records, from 2021 to 2025, Braven generated over 400 tons of hazardous waste that it shipped to at least four different states for disposal. Extensive reporting by Carolina Public Press and the Intercept in 2023 documented serious operational problems and hazardous waste management issues at the Zebulon facility, including the accumulation of hundreds of containers of hazardous waste, violations of hazardous waste storage rules, and questions about Braven’s ability to safely manage its toxic byproducts. That record of violations and contamination challenges directly undercuts industry claims that Braven and similar “chemical recycling” projects offer a safe, scalable solution to plastic waste.
A new NRDC issue brief — published yesterday and based on public records requests — examines the hazardous chemicals used and stored at “chemical recycling” facilities nationwide, including specific details related to the Braven facility, and underscores the risks these operations pose to workers and surrounding communities.
“Facilities like this were never about actually solving the plastic waste problem. They’re about giving the petrochemical industry license to keep making as much new plastic as they want. How many more communities around the country have to get caught in this toxic trap before legislators and regulators step in?” asked Rita O’Connell, national plastics organizer for Beyond Plastics. “Braven promoted this facility as part of a high‑tech ‘chemical recycling’ future. Now it appears it has left the community without clear information about how the shutdown is being managed or what hazardous materials remain on-site.”
“Plastic pyrolysis is an expensive, hazardous, and highly polluting technology that is a form of incineration. It will not help solve our plastics crisis and would only create more harm. The closure of this facility is good news for protecting public health and the environment,” said Renée Sharp, NRDC’s director of plastics and petrochemical advocacy.
“While industry lobbyists are still telling Congress, the EPA, and state legislators that so-called ‘chemical recycling’ will fix plastic waste, the facilities themselves are rapidly shutting down, stalling, or never getting built,” said Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics and former EPA regional administrator. “Every one of these failures is another reminder that the real solution is not risky industry false solutions like chemical recycling — it’s making less plastic.”
Plastics pyrolysis facilities handle large quantities of mixed plastic waste and attempt to generate products, such as oils, gases, and solid residues that may contain toxic contaminants, including carcinogens and persistent organic pollutants. The lack of transparency surrounding what appears to be a regulatory shutdown leaves unanswered questions about remaining wastes, monitoring, and cleanup obligations.
Braven Environmental’s Zebulon facility is defined as a large quantity hazardous waste generator by the U.S. EPA, which raises the following critical questions for community and environmental safety:
What process controls, if any, are in place to safely contain remaining waste plastics, pyrolysis oils, char, and other byproducts at the site?
Who is currently responsible for monitoring the facility and preventing leaks, fires, or other releases of hazardous substances?
Fires at facilities that store plastics are increasing. Plastic waste burns hot and burns fast. What fire prevention protocols are in place and have local first responders been briefed by the company?
Braven Environmental’s Zebulon plant has been one of only a handful of so-called “chemical recycling” facilities operating commercially in the United States. Its apparent shutdown, following Braven’s recent cancellation of a planned $145 million pyrolysis plant in Texarkana, Texas, earlier this year, is further evidence that pyrolysis is a dangerous and unreliable distraction, not a viable solution for dealing with plastic waste. The Texarkana project — Braven’s second recent failed expansion attempt, after a Virginia project was also cancelled — collapsed despite tax abatements and public promotion by state officials.
Braven Environmental has touted agreements with petrochemical companies, including BASF and Chevron Phillips Chemical. These deals highlight the fundamental contradiction at the heart of “chemical recycling”: Rather than reducing reliance on fossil fuels, pyrolysis serves as an upstream supplier to the petrochemical industry. Its business model both props up and depends upon continued plastic production.
Beyond Plastics is calling for an immediate response from Braven Environmental, including:
A clear public statement confirming the status of the Zebulon facility, including whether operations have permanently ceased and on what date;
A detailed inventory of any waste plastics, pyrolysis oils, char, and other byproducts remaining on-site, along with their quantities and hazard classifications; and
Commitments to ongoing communication with nearby residents and local first responders until the site is fully and verifiably cleaned up.
Braven’s apparent shutdown in Zebulon joins a growing list of cancelled, suspended, or scaled‑back “chemical recycling” projects across the country, including recent retreats in Texas, Kentucky, and Ohio. Pyrolysis and other “chemical recycling” technologies are leaving communities with environmental burdens, economic instability, and the looming risk of abandoned waste sites.
The plastics and petrochemical industries’ lobbying arm, the American Chemistry Council, opposed the New York state Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act, which would have reduced single-use plastic packaging 30% over 12 years, citing that the bill excludes chemical recycling from being considered as real recycling. The lobbyists in New York touted Braven as a model and brought several New York state legislators to tour the North Carolina facility. The legitimacy of “chemical recycling” was a factor in the bill’s failure to pass in Albany — even as “chemical recycling” facilities like Braven's Zebulon plant continue to fail.
On the federal level, U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is pushing to weaken federal oversight of pyrolysis and other “chemical recycling” facilities. Under Zeldin’s leadership, the EPA is reconsidering whether pyrolysis units should remain subject to Section 129 of the Clean Air Act — a change that would strip away key emissions protections and allow these facilities to be treated as manufacturing rather than waste disposal. This deregulatory push is happening even as real‑world projects like Braven’s Zebulon plant shut down, leaving communities with unanswered questions about pollution, safety, and cleanup. Zeldin recently penned an opinion piece in The Hill promoting chemical recycling.
In 2023, Beyond Plastics and the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) completed a report examining the realities of chemical recycling. The report includes a profile of Braven Environmental on page 88, highlighting the challenges it was already facing to that point. With Braven’s closure, Beyond Plastics is now aware of only five operational plastics pyrolysis facilities nationwide, and not all of those are operating at full capacity.
Beyond Plastics urges policymakers at all levels to stop treating pyrolysis and “chemical recycling” as credible solutions and instead focus on reducing plastic production, reducing toxic chemicals used to make plastic, funding waste reduction and reuse programs, and committing to protecting public health and the environment.
About Beyond Plastics
Launched in 2019, Beyond Plastics pairs the wisdom and experience of environmental policy experts with the energy and creativity of grassroots advocates to build a vibrant and effective movement to end plastic pollution. Using deep policy and advocacy expertise, Beyond Plastics is building a well-informed, effective movement seeking to achieve the institutional, economic, and societal changes needed to save our planet and ourselves, from the negative health, climate, and environmental impacts for the production, usage, and disposal of plastics.
###