Can EPA regulate materials that are recycled and reused in manufacturing processes as "solid waste" under RCRA?

The American Mining Congress (AMC) and American Petroleum Institute (API) filed a legal challenge against Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that expanded the definition of 'solid waste' to include certain recycled materials used in ongoing manufacturing processes. The EPA's final rule classified materials as 'solid waste' if they were abandoned, disposed of, burned, incinerated, or accumulated, stored, or treated before or instead of those activities. Additionally, the rule incorporated some recycled materials under the 'solid waste' definition.

The petitioners, representing the petroleum refining and mining industries, contended that the EPA's authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was restricted to regulating materials that are discarded or intended for discard. They argued that this authority did not extend to materials reused in ongoing production processes, which are common practices in their industries where materials are often reprocessed and recycled within the production cycle.

AMC and API (petitioners) challenged EPA's final rule defining 'solid waste' under RCRA. The petitioners filed a petition for review of this rule with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, contesting the scope of EPA's regulatory authority as established in the rule.

(Starr, J.)

No. Materials recycled and reused within an ongoing manufacturing process cannot be regulated as "solid waste" under RCRA. The statutory authority granted to EPA under RCRA is explicitly limited to materials that are "discarded" through disposal, abandonment, or being thrown away. The plain meaning of "discarded," the structure and objectives of RCRA, and legislative history all clearly indicate Congress's intent to restrict EPA's jurisdiction to materials that have become part of the waste disposal problem. Materials that are continuously recycled and reused within a manufacturing process have not yet entered the waste stream and therefore fall outside the scope of RCRA's regulatory framework. This interpretation aligns with RCRA's primary goal of addressing waste disposal issues, not regulating ongoing industrial processes. The distinction between discarded materials and those still in use is crucial for determining the boundaries of EPA's regulatory authority. Extending EPA's reach to in-process secondary materials would exceed the statutory limits set by Congress and potentially interfere with legitimate manufacturing operations that RCRA was not designed to regulate. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the clear statutory language and congressional intent when interpreting the scope of regulatory authority under environmental laws.

Dissent (Mikva, J.) EPA's interpretation of "solid waste" under RCRA is reasonable and should be upheld under Chevron deference. The statute and legislative history are sufficiently ambiguous to support EPA's broader definition. This interpretation aligns with RCRA's environmental protection goals. The majority's narrow reading of "discarded" unduly constrains EPA's regulatory authority and undermines the statute's objectives. Congress intended to grant EPA flexibility in addressing evolving waste management challenges. Limiting EPA's authority to only materials "truly discarded" ignores the complex realities of industrial processes and waste streams. This restrictive interpretation could create significant regulatory gaps, potentially allowing harmful materials to escape proper environmental controls. The Court should defer to EPA's expertise in this technical and policy-laden area, rather than substituting its own judgment on the meaning of "discarded" in this context.