S-3879-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Jon Husted (R-OH)
What it does
This bill would create an exemption from federal hazardous waste regulations — specifically those under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) — for spent petroleum catalysts when they are being recycled to recover critical minerals and metals. Spent petroleum catalysts are byproducts of oil refining that contain valuable metals such as nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, and vanadium. By removing the hazardous waste classification during the recycling process, the bill would reduce the regulatory burden on facilities that process these materials.
Who benefits
Petroleum refineries that generate spent catalysts and currently must manage them as hazardous waste. Metal recycling and recovery companies that process spent catalysts, which would face lower compliance costs. Domestic critical minerals supply chains, which would gain access to more recovered metals. Manufacturers that use nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, and vanadium — including battery, aerospace, and steel producers. The U.S. government's strategic minerals goals, as domestic recovery of critical minerals would be encouraged. Indirectly, consumers and industries dependent on stable critical mineral supplies.
Who is hurt
Communities near recycling facilities that process spent catalysts, who may face increased environmental or health risks if hazardous waste safeguards are reduced. Environmental and public health advocacy organizations that argue RCRA protections are necessary for materials containing heavy metals. Workers at recycling facilities who may have reduced regulatory protections during processing. State environmental agencies that rely on federal hazardous waste classifications to trigger their own oversight programs. Competing foreign recyclers and processors who currently operate under different regulatory frameworks.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current RCRA hazardous waste classification creates a regulatory barrier that discourages domestic recycling of spent catalysts, pushing valuable critical minerals into landfills or overseas processing. They contend that spent catalysts being actively recycled are a resource, not a waste, and that the exemption would strengthen domestic supply chains for cobalt, nickel, and other minerals identified by the federal government as critical to national security and clean energy manufacturing — reducing dependence on foreign sources, particularly China.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that spent petroleum catalysts contain heavy metals — including nickel, vanadium, and arsenic compounds — that pose genuine risks to soil, groundwater, and air quality if mishandled, and that RCRA's hazardous waste framework exists precisely to manage these risks. They contend that removing the hazardous waste classification during recycling creates an enforcement gap: facilities could claim the exemption while engaging in practices that release toxic materials, and communities near these operations — often lower-income or minority communities — would bear the health consequences with reduced legal recourse.
Constitutional context
Federal hazardous waste regulation under RCRA is grounded in the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3). This bill would narrow EPA's regulatory jurisdiction over a specific waste stream. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any EPA rules interpreting the scope of this exemption would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference, meaning courts would assess for themselves whether the agency's implementation aligns with the statute's text.
Checks and balances
Congress would narrow EPA's authority over this waste stream; EPA retains rulemaking power to define the exemption's boundaries; courts would independently review any EPA interpretation of the exemption's scope under the post-Loper Bright standard; states may retain independent authority to regulate these materials under their own environmental laws.
Historical precedent
EPA has previously created similar "recycle exemptions" for certain hazardous secondary materials under RCRA, including the 2008 and 2015 Definition of Solid Waste rules, which were challenged in court over whether recycled materials could be excluded from hazardous waste classification.