## Facts

- EPA issued regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governing secondary materials from petroleum refining and petrochemical operations, including determinations that certain materials were “solid waste” and listings of some as “hazardous waste” under Subtitle C.
- The rule treated certain oil-bearing wastewaters as “discarded” (and thus “solid waste”) at a point before primary processing/oil recovery and before movement through wastewater systems associated with Clean Water Act compliance.
- Industry petitioners (including petroleum refiners and petrochemical manufacturers) sought review, arguing EPA improperly classified some secondary materials as “solid waste” and improperly listed certain refinery wastes as “hazardous.”
- Environmental organization petitioners sought review, asserting EPA should have listed additional wastes as hazardous and that EPA’s notice-and-comment process violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- Multiple petitions were consolidated in the D.C. Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether EPA reasonably determined that certain refinery secondary materials—especially oil-bearing wastewaters prior to primary processing—were “discarded” and therefore “solid waste” under RCRA.
2. Whether EPA’s listing decisions for certain refinery-generated materials as “hazardous wastes” were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to RCRA.
3. Whether environmental organization petitioners had Article III standing to challenge EPA’s failure to list additional wastes and to assert APA notice-and-comment defects.

## Decision

- The court largely denied the industry petitioners’ challenges and upheld most of EPA’s solid-waste determinations and hazardous-waste listings.
- The court vacated and remanded the portion of the rule treating certain oil-bearing wastewaters as “solid waste” before primary processing, finding EPA’s explanation of when “discard” occurred inadequately reasoned and therefore arbitrary and capricious.
- The court dismissed the environmental petitioners’ claims for lack of jurisdiction because they failed to establish Article III standing.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard, EPA must provide reasoned decisionmaking and a rational explanation for when secondary materials in industrial operations become “discarded” and thus “solid waste” under RCRA.
- Agency technical judgments and policy choices in implementing RCRA may receive deference when supported by a reasoned explanation and record support.
- Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury, traceability to the challenged agency action, and redressability; without standing, a court lacks jurisdiction and cannot reach the merits.
- Challenges to RCRA hazardous-waste listings generally fail where EPA supports listings with permissible statutory factors (e.g., hazard characteristics and risk-based considerations) and responds adequately to relevant objections.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld most of EPA’s RCRA regulations for refinery and petrochemical secondary materials but vacated and remanded EPA’s determination that certain oil-bearing wastewaters were “discarded” before primary processing because EPA did not adequately explain that line; environmental groups’ challenges were dismissed because they did not show Article III standing.


Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 216 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2000)