HR-7523-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Troy Balderson (R-OH)
What it does
This bill would exempt spent petroleum catalysts — materials used in oil refining that become waste after use — from federal hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when they are being recycled to recover critical minerals and metals. It would remove these materials from EPA oversight during the recycling process, treating them as commodities rather than regulated hazardous waste.
Who benefits
Petroleum refiners who generate spent catalysts and currently face costly hazardous waste disposal requirements. Recycling companies that process spent catalysts to recover metals such as nickel, vanadium, molybdenum, and cobalt. Domestic critical minerals supply chain interests, including manufacturers of batteries, electronics, and defense equipment that rely on recovered metals. Companies seeking to reduce compliance costs and paperwork burdens under RCRA. Broadly, industries and government programs that prioritize domestic sourcing of critical minerals as an alternative to foreign imports.
Who is hurt
Communities near recycling facilities that process spent catalysts, who may lose the environmental and health protections that RCRA hazardous waste rules provide. EPA, which would lose regulatory jurisdiction over these materials during recycling. Environmental advocacy organizations that monitor hazardous waste handling. Workers at recycling facilities who may face reduced regulatory protections if RCRA oversight is removed. State environmental agencies that rely on federal hazardous waste standards as a floor for their own programs. Competitors in the critical minerals supply chain who operate under full regulatory compliance and may face a cost disadvantage.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that spent petroleum catalysts contain valuable critical minerals — including nickel, vanadium, and cobalt — that are essential to U.S. manufacturing and national security, and that RCRA's hazardous waste classification creates regulatory barriers that discourage domestic recycling and recovery of these materials. They contend that treating these materials as hazardous waste during recycling imposes compliance costs that make domestic recovery economically uncompetitive compared to foreign processing, undermining U.S. critical mineral supply chains. They argue the exemption would incentivize recycling over landfill disposal, producing both economic and environmental benefits.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that spent petroleum catalysts contain genuinely hazardous substances — including heavy metals and toxic residues — and that removing RCRA oversight during recycling creates gaps in environmental and public health protections that could expose nearby communities to contamination risks. They contend that the "recycling" label can be used to circumvent hazardous waste rules without ensuring materials are actually recovered safely, a concern EPA has historically flagged in similar exemption contexts. They argue that the appropriate response to supply chain concerns is to streamline permitting, not to eliminate the regulatory safeguards that protect workers and communities from toxic exposure.
Constitutional context
Federal hazardous waste regulation under RCRA is grounded in the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3). This bill narrows existing statutory coverage rather than expanding agency authority, so it does not raise major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022). Post-Loper Bright (2024), any EPA rulemaking to define the scope of the exemption would face independent judicial review rather than deference, meaning courts would assess the agency's interpretation of the statutory boundaries on their own judgment.
Checks and balances
Congress would narrow EPA's regulatory authority over spent catalysts during recycling; EPA retains rulemaking power to define the exemption's boundaries, subject to independent judicial review under Loper Bright (2024).
Historical precedent
Congress has previously created RCRA recycling exemptions for specific waste streams, such as the Bevill Amendment (1980), which exempted certain high-volume mining and utility wastes from hazardous waste regulation pending EPA study.