## Facts

- EPA issued the 1998 Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Phase IV rule under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), addressing (1) whether certain mineral processing residuals are “solid waste,” (2) certain LDR treatment standards (including for contaminated soil), and (3) revisions to the toxicity characteristic test used to classify some wastes as hazardous.
- Industry petitioners sought judicial review, arguing that parts of the rule exceeded RCRA authority and were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- For some residuals generated and reclaimed within the primary mineral processing industry, EPA treated “solid waste” status as turning largely on storage-related factors (e.g., unit type or duration).
- For contaminated soils, EPA adopted alternative LDR standards allowing treatment achieving a 90% reduction in hazardous constituents before land disposal in a disposal unit, but required full “best demonstrated available technology” (BDAT) treatment for soils recycled into land-applied products (e.g., asphalt, brick, cement).
- EPA also revised the toxicity characteristic test; petitioners challenged the scientific and administrative support for the revision across covered waste categories.

## Issues

1. Whether EPA lawfully defined “solid waste” for certain mineral processing residuals by using storage-based criteria, consistent with RCRA’s statutory focus on “discarded material.”
2. Whether EPA’s Phase IV LDR treatment standards, including alternative standards for contaminated soils and BDAT requirements for soils recycled into land-applied products, were lawful and not arbitrary and capricious.
3. Whether EPA’s revised toxicity characteristic test was adequately supported and lawful for the waste categories to which EPA applied it.

## Decision

- The court held that EPA did not properly define “solid waste” in the challenged portion of the rule and set aside that portion (vacatur/remand).
- The court upheld EPA’s LDR treatment standards, including the 90% reduction alternative for contaminated soils disposed in land disposal units and the decision to retain BDAT for soils recycled into land-applied products.
- The court upheld the revised toxicity characteristic test for some waste categories but held it invalid as applied to others, resulting in partial vacatur/remand.
- On the toxicity-test issue, one judge dissented from the partial invalidation.

## Legal Principles

- EPA’s regulatory definition of “solid waste” under RCRA must be tied to the statutory concept of “discarded material” and may not be expanded through criteria (such as storage configuration or duration) that are not a valid proxy for discard.
- Under arbitrary-and-capricious review, EPA must provide a reasoned explanation connecting distinctions in regulatory treatment to the statute’s health-and-environment objectives and to the agency’s technical record.
- EPA may adopt different LDR treatment requirements for different waste-management scenarios when supported by risk-based rationale, including greater stringency for wastes incorporated into products placed broadly on land versus wastes disposed in controlled disposal units.
- Courts may sustain technically complex environmental rules in part and set them aside in part where the record supports some applications but fails to justify key assumptions or responses to material criticisms for others.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit set aside EPA’s storage-based definition of “solid waste” for certain mineral processing residuals as inconsistent with RCRA’s discard-based limits, upheld EPA’s Phase IV LDR treatment standards (including alternative soil standards and BDAT requirements for land-applied recycled products), and partially vacated EPA’s revised toxicity characteristic test where EPA lacked adequate support for particular applications.


Ass'n of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2000)