Witnesses clash over treating 'black mass' as commodity versus maintaining waste safeguards
June 25, 2026 | House Committee on Energy and Commerce, House Committee, House, Legislative, Federal
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
WASHINGTON — A major point of contention at the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment hearing was how U.S. rules should treat "black mass," the intermediate material produced when lithium-ion batteries are shredded.
Industry witnesses said the current classification as solid waste under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) frameworks raises compliance costs, discourages domestic processing and encourages exports to countries that treat the material as a commodity. "When policy treats a product like a waste, it creates waste-like economics instead of product economics that attract investment," David Klonsky testified.
Legal expert Aaron Goldberg said RCRA-era regulations were written before lithium-ion chemistry became ubiquitous and now produce unintended obstacles — including storage rules and land-disposal restrictions — that can make domestic recovery less competitive.
Environmental scientist Dr. Jessica Dunn urged that any policy change preserve environmental and worker protections. She recommended policies that increase battery collection and set minimum recovery rates; she pointed to Colorado and the European Union as examples where producer responsibility and recovery standards have improved collection and recycling outcomes.
On safety, members and Dr. Dunn repeatedly noted battery fire risks during transportation and storage and emphasized that any rollout of expanded recycling capacity should be paired with binding fire-safety and handling standards. Several members asked whether EPA action on universal waste standards or congressional legislation (for example the BRACE Act discussion draft) should be preferred; witnesses differed on scope, with industry urging regulatory clarity to improve competitiveness and others urging retention of RCRA-based safeguards while improving collection and feedstock availability.
No legislative decisions were made at the hearing; members asked witnesses to submit technical details and suggested further committee work to reconcile competitiveness, worker safety and environmental protection.
Industry witnesses said the current classification as solid waste under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) frameworks raises compliance costs, discourages domestic processing and encourages exports to countries that treat the material as a commodity. "When policy treats a product like a waste, it creates waste-like economics instead of product economics that attract investment," David Klonsky testified.
Legal expert Aaron Goldberg said RCRA-era regulations were written before lithium-ion chemistry became ubiquitous and now produce unintended obstacles — including storage rules and land-disposal restrictions — that can make domestic recovery less competitive.
Environmental scientist Dr. Jessica Dunn urged that any policy change preserve environmental and worker protections. She recommended policies that increase battery collection and set minimum recovery rates; she pointed to Colorado and the European Union as examples where producer responsibility and recovery standards have improved collection and recycling outcomes.
On safety, members and Dr. Dunn repeatedly noted battery fire risks during transportation and storage and emphasized that any rollout of expanded recycling capacity should be paired with binding fire-safety and handling standards. Several members asked whether EPA action on universal waste standards or congressional legislation (for example the BRACE Act discussion draft) should be preferred; witnesses differed on scope, with industry urging regulatory clarity to improve competitiveness and others urging retention of RCRA-based safeguards while improving collection and feedstock availability.
No legislative decisions were made at the hearing; members asked witnesses to submit technical details and suggested further committee work to reconcile competitiveness, worker safety and environmental protection.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
