Stakeholders Urge Congress to Improve EPA’s Strict Critical Minerals Regulations

Why It Matters

Regulatory bottlenecks threaten the U.S. domestic critical‑mineral supply chain and could cede recycling capacity to China, while misaligned rules increase costs without improving safety.

Key Takeaways

• EPA's TSCA reviews exceed 90‑day deadline, delaying battery material approvals
• RCRA memo classifies lithium‑ion batteries as hazardous, forcing lengthy permits
• Misaligned TSCA and OSHA rules add costs without extra worker protection
• Fragmented federal regulations deter long‑term capital for critical mineral projects
• Strong environmental standards can boost U.S. workforce health and innovation

Pulse Analysis

The United States is racing to secure a domestic supply chain for critical minerals that power electric vehicles, renewable‑energy storage, and defense systems. Central to that effort are two EPA statutes: the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which governs new chemical substances, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which oversees hazardous waste from cradle to grave. Lawmakers and industry leaders argue that both statutes were written for a different era and now impose lengthy, often inconsistent review processes that slow the introduction of recycled battery materials. Modernizing these rules is seen as essential to keep the U.S. competitive.

Redwood Materials, a leading battery recycler, illustrated the bottleneck in a recent House subcommittee hearing. Under TSCA, a modest modification to recovered cathode material is treated as a brand‑new substance, triggering a review that can exceed a year—far beyond the statutory 90‑day target. Meanwhile, a 2023 EPA memo re‑classifies lithium‑ion batteries as hazardous waste under RCRA, obligating recyclers to obtain costly universal‑waste permits. The combined delays push companies to export critical minerals, handing China, which now controls over 80 % of global lithium‑ion recycling capacity, a strategic advantage.

Stakeholders stress that regulatory reform need not sacrifice environmental protection. Well‑designed standards can attract talent, reduce community litigation, and spur process innovations that lower emissions and costs. Aligning EPA requirements with OSHA safety rules would eliminate redundant compliance expenses while preserving worker health. Investors have repeatedly signaled that clear, consistent pathways unlock long‑duration capital for mining and recycling projects. As Congress weighs amendments to TSCA and RCRA, a balanced approach that modernizes language, funds agency staffing, and preserves rigorous safeguards could safeguard both the climate agenda and U.S. economic security.