* Managing Editor, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2002–03.
1 Upton Sinclair, The Jungle 34 (Heritage Press 1965) (1905).
2 Mary Schlarb, Eco-Industrial Development: A Strategy for Building Sustainable Communities 2 (2001) (report prepared under an award from the U.S. Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce), at http://www.sustainable.doc.gov/ business/sbarttoc.htm (last visited Oct. 15, 2001); see discussion infra Part I.A.
3 Deanna J. Richards, Braden R. Allenby, & Richard R. Frosch, The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems: Overview and Perspective, in The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems 1, 3 (Braden R. Allenby & Deanna J. Richards eds., 1994).
4 Pierre Desrochers, Eco-Industrial Parks: The Case for Private Planning 1 (1999) (graduate fellowship at Political Economy Research Center), at http://www.perc.org/ rs1_xsum.htm (last visited Jan. 19, 2002). Bones were made into handles for knives, spoons, brushes, and buttons. Scraps were converted into everything from gelatin to soap, fertilizer, and lubricating oil. Id.
5 Richards, Allenby & Frosch, supra note 3, at 4.
6 See Zygmunt J.B. Plater et al., Environmental Law and Policy: Nature, Law, and Society 17 (2d ed. 1998) (citing Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 SCI. 1243, 1243–48 (1968)).
7 Richards, Allenby & Frosch, supra note 3, at 2.
8 See Plater et al., supra note 6, at 21.
9 David M. Driesen, The Societal Cost of Environmental Regulation: Beyond Administrative Cost-Benefit Analysis, 24 Ecology L.Q. 545, 553 (1997); see also Thomas R. Mounteer, The Inherent Worthiness of the Struggle: The Emergence of Mandatory Pollution Prevention as an Environmental Regulatory Ethic, 19 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 251, 261–62 (1994).
10 Kurt A. Strasser, Preventing Pollution, 8 Fordham Envtl. L.J. 1, 13 (1996); see Richards, Allenby & Frosch, supra note 3, at 11.
11 Dennis A. Rondinelli, A New Generation of Environmental Policy: Government Business Collaboration in Environmental Management, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,891, 10,892 (2001). The terms “pollution prevention,” “pollution reduction,” “toxic use reduction,” and “waste minimization” refer to environmental management options that control or eliminate pollutants by varying degrees. Mounteer, supra note 9, at 268. This discussion adopts Congress’s and the Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of “pollution prevention” as “a hierarchy of management options in descending order of preference: prevention, environmentally sound recycling, environmentally sound treatment, and environmentally sound disposal.” Guidance to Hazardous Waste Generators on the Elements of a Waste Minimization Program, 58 Fed. Reg. 31,114, 31,115 (May 28, 1993) (Interim Final Guidance).
12 Forest Reinhardt, Market Failure and the Environmental Policies of Firms: Economic Rationales for “Beyond Compliance” Behavior, 3 Mass. Inst. Tech. J. Indus. Ecology 9, 10–11 (1999). But see Michele Ochsner, Pollution Prevention: An Overview of Regulatory Incentives and Barriers, 6 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 586, 600 (1998) (calling for examination of the “public health implications” of an entirely “voluntary pollution prevention” system); id. at 601–02 (questioning the actual results of voluntary pollution control by industry).
13 See Reinhardt, supra note 12, at 11.
14 Driesen, supra note 9, at 553 (“[P]roducers who figure out how to clean-up more cheaply will have an advantage over polluters who do not.”); see Ochsner, supra note 12, at 610, 616–17.
15 Reinhardt, supra note 12, at 12.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 15; Claudia H. Deutsch, Together at Last: Cutting Pollution and Making Money, N.Y. Times, Sept. 9, 2001, at 3-1.
18 Deutsch, supra note 17, at  3–1. But see Reinhardt, supra note 12, at 16 (suggesting that “free lunches,” the ability to reduce costs by improving environmental performance, may simply be the rational response to the “external cost shock” of environmental regulation).
19 Deutsch, supra note 17, at  3–1.
20 Id.
21 See Schlarb, supra note 2, at 2–3.
22 See generally id.
23 Ochsner, supra note 12, at 587–88; see, e.g., Strasser, supra note 10, at 8–15 (asserting that pollution prevention should supplement pollution control, because environmental cleanup under the existing control system has “reached a plateau” and is “simply shifting pollution from a more carefully regulated medium to a less carefully regulated one”).
24 See, e.g., Mounteer, supra note 9, at 266; Ochsner, supra note 12, at 601.
25 See Ochsner, supra note 12, at 611, 614. Professor Ochsner argues that “regulation and pollution prevention are not either/or propositions,” and that regulation “remains a pivotal incentive” for focusing industrial efforts on the reduction of the more hazardous substances which may lack market-based financial incentives. Id. at 611, 616–17.
26 See, e.g., Strasser, supra note 10, at 8–15 (insisting business usually reacts to regulation by installing familiar, rather than innovative, end-of-pipe technology).
27 E.g., Reinhardt, supra note 12, at 11–12. DuPont’s research for CFC substitutes slowed when global support for CFC regulation waned, then increased during the late 1980s when the regulatory wind changed, suggesting a correlation between the profitability of the research and the threat of a CFC ban. Strasser, supra note 10, at 12–14 (acknowledging that a product ban threat is technology forcing, but asserting that most regulation merely requires the application of known technology to pollution control).
28 Driesen, supra note 9, at 575–76 n.137 (citing Michael E. Porter & Claas Van der Linde, Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship, 9 J. Econ. Persp. 97 (1997)); Michael E. Porter, America’s Green Strategy, Sci. Am., Apr. 1991, at 168; see also Reinhardt, supra note 12, at 15–16. Where a slow rate of return on investment through material or process cost savings may not justify a pollution prevention project, savings over the cost of an “end-of-pipe alternative” can spur innovation. Ochsner, supra note 12, at 595, 607–09.
29 Ochsner, supra note 12, at 607–08.
30 Pollution Prevention Policy Statement, 54 Fed. Reg. 3845, 3845 (Jan. 26, 1989) (proposed policy statement).
31 Id. at 3845 (recognizing, nonetheless, that “safe treatment, storage and disposal” must continue to be “important components of an environmental protection strategy”).
32 Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.  13,101–13,109 (2000).
33 Id.  13,103(a)–(b).
34 Stephen M. Johnson, From Reaction to Proaction: The 1990 Pollution Prevention Act, 17 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 153, 170 (1992). Congress determined that “mandatory pollution prevention is neither required nor desirable.” Id.
35 Bradford C. Mank, The Environmental Protection Agency’s Project XL and Other Regulatory Reform Initiatives: The Need for Legislative Authorization, 25 Ecology L.Q. 1, 13 (1998).
36 Exec. Order No. 12,852, 58 Fed. Reg. 35,841 (June 29, 1993). Sustainable development was defined as “economic growth that will benefit present and future generations without detrimentally affecting the resources or biological systems of the planet.” Id.
37 President William J. Clinton, Remarks on the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, (June 14, 1993), at http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov (last visited Jan. 20, 2002).
38 Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production, 58 Fed. Reg. 66,078, 66,146–48 (proposed Dec. 17, 1993) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 63, 400) [hereinafter Proposed Multimedia Rules]; Mank, supra note 35, at 14.
39 Common Sense Initiative Council Federal Advisory Committee; Establishment, 59 Fed. Reg. 55,117 (Nov. 3, 1994)[hereinafter CSI].
40 Regulatory Reinvention (XL) Pilot Projects, 60 Fed. Reg. 27,282 (May 23, 1995) (solicitation of proposals and request for comment).
41 See Mank, supra note 35, at 14.
42 Proposed Multimedia Rules, supra note 38, 58 Fed. Reg. at 66,078, 66,148; Mank supra note 35, at 14.
43 Proposed Multimedia Rules, supra note 38, 58 Fed. Reg. at 66,078, 66,148; Mank supra note 35, at 14.
44 See CSI, supra note 39, 60 Fed. Reg. at 55,117; Mank supra note 35, at 14–15.
45 See CSI, supra note 39, 60 Fed. Reg. at 55,117; Mank supra note 35, at 14–15.
46 Regulatory Reinvention (XL) Pilot Projects, 60 Fed. Reg. 27,282, 27286 (May 23, 1995). The XL criteria includes a requirement that the project achieve superior environmental results than under existing and anticipated regulations, hoping to realize program goals by reducing compliance costs and increasing environmental benefits. Id.
47 U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Pub. No. 100-R-00-023B, 2000 Comprehensive Report: Project XL: Directory of Project Experiments and Results, vol. 2, at i (2000), at www.epa.gov/projectxl/vol2toc.htm (last visited Apr. 9, 2002) [hereinafter Project XL Directory].
48 Mank, supra note 35, at 20. Bubble permitting allows the EPA to consider a facility as one “source” as though it were within a bubble, thus requiring a single permit for the entire facility, rather than individual permits for each emitting source. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 866 (1984).
49 Rondinelli, supra note 11, at 10,897 (citing U.S. Gov’t Accounting Office, Pub. No. RCED-97-164, Regulatory Reinvention: EPA’s Common Sense Initiative Needs an Improved Operating Framework and Progress Measures 12 (1997)).
50 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.  6901–6992k (2000).
51 E.g., Desrochers, supra note 4, at 18; see discussion infra Part I.B.2.
52 See Schlarb, supra note 2, at 2.
53 Id.
54 Richards, Allenby & Frosch, supra note 3, at 6; Schlarb, supra note 2, at 1.
55 Schlarb, supra note 2, at 3 (citing Robert A. Frosch & Nicholas E. Gallopoulos, Strategies for Manufacturing, Sci. Am., Sept. 1989, at 144–52).
56 Richards, Allenby & Frosch, supra note 3, at 3.
57 Id. at 2; see Robert A. Frosch, Industrial Ecology: Adapting Technology for a Sustainable World, Env’t, Dec. 1995, at 16–24, 34–37.
58 Schlarb, supra note 2, at 3.
59 Frosch, supra note 57, at 16.
60 Id. at 22.
61 Id. This idea has been put into action at the Monterey Resource Recovery Park in Marina, California. Developed out of an existing landfill, the park allows area residents to purchase reusable items including paints, insecticides, building materials, clothing and furniture. In addition, landscaping supplies, compost products and repaving materials are processed on site. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Jobs Through Recycling: Special Topics: Eco-Industrial Parks: EIP Examples, at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/ jtr/topics/eipex.htm (last updated Apr. 23, 2001) [hereinafter EIP Examples Website].
62 See Frosch, supra note 57, at 16–24.
63 Nicholas Gertler, Industrial Ecosystems: Developing Sustainable Industrial Structures, ch. 1 (1995) (unpublished M.S. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), at http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/business/gertler2.shtml (last visited Nov. 5, 2001); Schlarb, supra note 2, at 19.
64 Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 1; Schlarb, supra note 2, at 19.
65 Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 2; Schlarb, supra note 2, at 19.
66 Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 2; Schlarb, supra note 2, at 19.
67 Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 2.
68 Id. (annual oil consumption reduced by nineteen thousand tons, coal consumption by two percent, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by three percent, and sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions by fifty-eight percent, although some of the SO2 reduction may be attributable to required pollution-control technology).
69 Id.
70 Desrochers, supra note 4, at 1.
71 Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 2; see Schlarb, supra note 2, at 19.
72 Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 2 (“While participating companies herald the environmental benefits of the symbiosis, it is economics which drives or thwarts its development.”).
73 Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 2. Gertler lists “four types of tangible benefits” from industrial symbiosis: (1) reduced raw materials use; (2) reduced pollution discharge; (3) increased energy efficiency; and (4) waste disposal cost reductions. Id.
74 Schlarb, supra note 2, at 5–6.
75 See id.
76 Id.
77 Id. at 4.
78 Id.
79 See, e.g., U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Pub. No. 530-N-00-002, Waste Wise Update: Moving Toward Sustainability 10 (2000), available at www.epa.gov/wastewise/wrr/ updates.htm [hereinafter Waste Wise]. The Mississippi Red Hills Ecoplex, “one of about 20 [EIPs] currently in the works” includes a power plant, cement, brick, and wallboard manufacturers, a fish farm, and a greenhouse. The lignite-based power plant sells its clay by-product to the brick manufacturer. Plans are in the works to sell its fly ash “waste” for cement or wallboard. The heated water discharge is used by the greenhouse, which also exchanges with the fish farm. Id.
80 Exec. Order No. 12,852, 58 Fed. Reg. 35,841 (June 29, 1993); Schlarb, supra note 2, at 20.
81 Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 4.
82 Id.
83 Id.
84 Schlarb, supra note 2, at 6.
85 See Desrochers, supra note 4, at 17.
86 An example is the Brownsville Project in Brownsville, Texas, which “takes a regional approach to exchanging materials and byproducts.” EIP Examples Website, supra note 61.
87 Strasser, supra note 10, at 54–55.
88 Id.
89 See Desrochers, supra note 4, at 1.
90 Id. at 4.
91 Id. at 3–4; see Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 2; Schlarb, supra note 2, at 19.
92 See Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 2; Schlarb, supra note 2, at 19.
93 See discussion infra Part III.B.
94 See discussion infra Part III.B.
95 See discussion supra Part I.A
96 Schlarb, supra note 2, at 5–6.
97 Id. at 10.
98 Id.
99 Id.
100 Id.
101 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C.  9607 (2000). CERCLA imputes liability to owners and operators of any facility where hazardous waste has been disposed of, and on persons who contract, accept, or arrange for “disposal or treatment” of hazardous substances. Id.  9607(a)(1)–(4). A facility is defined broadly to include “any building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe or pipeline . . . [and] any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed, or otherwise come to be located.” Id.  9601(9)(A)–(B).
102 See generally id.  9607 (imputing liability for the clean-up of hazardous waste). But see Ian Erickson, Comment, Reconciling the CERCLA Useful Product Recycling Defenses, 80 N.C. L. Rev. 605, 609–12 (2002). Erickson reviews various sources of law distinguishing disposed wastes from “useful products” and recycled materials as defenses to the charge of arranging for the “disposal or treatment” of hazardous substances. Id. To define hazardous substances, CERCLA incorporates pollutants identified and defined by various statutes, including RCRA. 42 U.S.C.  9601(14).
103 See Strasser, supra note 10, at 54–55.
104 Id.
105 Schlarb, supra note 2, at 26.
106 See id.
107 Id. at 26–27. Some examples include the New York Industrial Waste Recycling and Prevention Program’s web-based searchable database called Wa$teMatch and Florida’s SWIX Clearinghouse on http://www.ElectronicXchange.org, which lists recycling and exchange items. Id.
108 Id. at 27 (called the DIET/FAST program for identifying potential combinations for EIPs based upon area, type, economics, and potential environmental benefits).
109 Id.
110 Richards, Allenby & Frosch, supra note 3, at 5; Desrochers, supra note 4, at 18–22; Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 5; Schlarb, supra note 2, at 29–31.
111 Richards, Allenby & Frosch, supra note 3, at 5. Information pooling and cooperative action among competitors may back up against anti-trust laws if it results in the elimination of competition. Frederick R. Anderson, From Voluntary to Regulatory Pollution Prevention, in The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems 98, 103 (Braden R. Allenby & Deanna J. Richards eds., 1994).
112 Richards, Allenby & Frosch, supra note 3, at 5; Desrochers, supra note 4, at 18–22; Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 5; Schlarb, supra note 2, at 29–31.
113 Desrochers, supra note 4, at 18.
114 Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 5 (“Solid waste is a discarded material, a discarded material is anything inherently waste-like . . . [and] recycled materials are defined as discarded . . . [even though] to ‘discard’ has the common meaning ‘to throw away.’”); see discussion infra Part II.B.
115 Desrochers, supra note 4, at 19.
116 See, e.g., Gertler, supra note 63, at ch. 5 (“Managed improperly, industrial byproducts pose a threat to human health, and the environment as experience shows. However, careful and well-thought-out re-routing of byproducts as feedstocks can achieve the same if not greater levels of environmental safety as regulated disposal . . . .”).
117 R. Michael Sweeney, Reengineering RCRA: The Command Control Requirements of the Waste Disposal Paradigm of Subtitle C and the Act’s Objective of Fostering Recycling—Rethinking the Definition of Solid Waste, Again, 6 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 1, 10 (1996).
118 Phillip L. Comella, Understanding a Sham: When Is Recycling Treatment?, 20 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 415, 416–420 (1993).
119 Meghrig v. Ky. Fried Chicken W., Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 483 (1996) (quoting Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.  6902(b) (2000)).
120 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.  6901–6922k.
121 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C.  9601–9675 (2000).
122 42 U.S.C.  9607(a)(1)–(3); see discussion supra note 102.
123 Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Vulcan Materials Co., 685 F. Supp. 651, 654 n.2 (N.D. Ill. 1988). CERCLA’s hazardous substances include, but are not limited to hazardous wastes. Further, solid wastes exempted from RCRA’s hazardous waste definition are not necessarily excluded from liability under CERCLA. B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha, 958 F.2d 1192, 1201–02 (2d Cir. 1992) (“Congress and the EPA have carefully distinguished between wastes, to which [RCRA] applies, and substances, to which CERCLA applies.”) (citations omitted).
124 See Murtha, 958 F.2d at 1201–02; Edward Hines Lumber, 685 F. Supp. at 654 n.2. For a discussion on useful product and recycling defenses to CERCLA liability, which may be particularly applicable to EID, see Erickson, supra note 102, at 609–12.
125 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C.  6917, 6936–6939b, 6949a, 6979b, 6991 (2000).
126 David R. Case, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, in Environmental Law Handbook 44, 46 (Thomas F.P. Sullivan ed., 13th ed. 1995).
127 42 U.S.C.  6901(b)(7).
128 Case, supra note 126, at 46.
129 42 U.S.C.  6924(g)(4); Am. Petroleum Inst. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 906 F.2d 729, 732 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
130 42 U.S.C.  6901(c)(2).
131 Id.  6901(d)(1).
132 Case, supra note 126, at 47.
133 Id. at 73.
134 Id.
135 B.F. Goodrich Co., v. Murtha, 958 F.2d 1192, 1202 (2d Cir. 1992); Case, supra note 126, at 48–51.
136 42 U.S.C.  6921; Am. Petroleum Inst. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 906 F.2d 729, 732–33, (D.C. Cir. 1990); Case, supra note 126, at 44.
137 42 U.S.C.  6922. A generator is “any person, by site, whose act or process produces hazardous waste identified or listed in part 261 [of the RCRA regulations] or whose act first causes a hazardous waste to become subject to regulation.” 40 C.F.R.  260.10 (2001). Wastes must be packaged into approved containers, and marked with an identification number that allows tracking to its final destination. 42 U.S.C.  6922(a)(1)–(5); Comella, supra note 118, at 422–23.
138 42 U.S.C.  6923; Case, supra note 126, at 58.
139 42 U.S.C.  6924–25; Case, supra note 126, at 59. Disposal facilities must be able to manage the waste, provide security, have emergency plans in place to handle releases or problems, and have a closure plan (as well as a post-closure plan for land disposal). Any such facility must prove financial stability to fulfill these obligations. Comella, supra note 118, at 425–26.
140 40 C.F.R.  262.11; Comella, supra note 118, at 421–22; Sweeney, supra note 117, at 11–13.
141 42 U.S.C.  6903(5) (“‘[H]azardous waste’ means a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes . . . .”); Conn. Coastal Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Remington Arms Co., 989 F.2d 1305, 1313 (2d Cir. 1993); Am. Mining Cong. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 907 F.2d 1179, 1185 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (quoting Am. Mining Cong. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 824 F.2d 1177, 1179 (D.C. Cir. 1987) [AMC I]) (EPA’s authority “extends only to the regulation of ‘hazardous waste’ . . . defined as a subset of ‘solid waste . . . .’”).
142 See Desrochers, supra note 4, at 19.
143 Conn. Coastal Fishermen’s Ass’n, 989 F.2d at 1308 (noting that RCRA has an “Alice in Wonderland” quality to it because the term “solid waste” means different things in different parts of the statute); Sweeney, supra note 117, at 13.
144 Conn. Coastal Fishermen’s Ass’n, 989 F.2d at 1314–16.
145 42 U.S.C.  6903(27) (emphasis added).
146 Id.  6903(27) (citation omitted).
147 Sweeney, supra note 117, at 13–15 (statutory definition has been applied by the courts for “imminent hazard” actions brought by citizens or the government, and for inspection, monitoring, and testing requirements).
148 See, e.g., Conn. Coastal Fishermen’s Ass’n, 989 F.2d at 1314–16; Am. Petroleum Inst. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 906 F.2d 729, 740–42 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
149 42 U.S.C.  6903(3); Conn. Coastal Fishermen’s Ass’n, 989 F.2d at 1314.
150 EPA Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, 40 C.F.R.  261.2(a)(1) (2001) (emphasis added). Section 261.4, originally a fairly short list of exclusions, has been amended thirty-three times since 1990 alone. See id.  261.4.
151 40 C.F.R.  261.2(a)(1), 261.4.
152 40 C.F.R.  261.2(a)(2)(i).
153 Id.  261.2(a)(2)(ii).
154 Id.  261.2(a)(2)(iii).
155 Id.  261.2(a)(2)(iv). Thus, EPA addresses recycled materials, not as a commodity to be sold or traded, but within the context of solid wastes. Sweeney, supra note 117, at 1, 4; see discussion infra Part II.B.
156 Am. Petroleum Inst. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 216 F.3d 50, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2000). EPA’s authority over “petrochemical removed oil” used to produce petrochemical products was upheld because EPA correctly excludes, under section 261.4(a)(18)(i), any recovered material that “provides a benefit to the industrial process” and is not merely being discarded “under the guise of recycling.” Id.; see discussion infra Part II.B.
157 40 C.F.R.  261.2(b)(1)–(3).
158 Id.  261.2(c)(1)(i).
159 See Comella, supra note 118, at 439; discussion infra notes 235–240, 320–323.
160 EPA considers this to be “sham recycling.” Comella, supra note 118, at 416–20.
161 40 C.F.R.  261.2(c)(2).
162 Id.  261.2(c)(3).
163 Id.  261.2(c)(4).
164 See Sweeney, supra note 117, at 5 n.24 (citing Letter from Sylvia Lowrance, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, to Hazardous Waste Management Directors: Regions I-X, (Apr. 26, 1989) (listing sham recycling criteria)). Sweeney argues that by regulating recycling under solid waste, EPA has it backward; it should adopt the “philosophy that bona fide recycling is the rule, whereas, sham or rogue recycling is the exception.” Id. at 75. Without empirical evidence, the question turns on which way EPA should risk being wrong. Unless a material is a solid waste, EPA has no authority to regulate it, even if it is hazardous. See Conn. Coastal Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Remington Arms Co., 989 F.2d 1305, 1313 (2d Cir. 1993); Am. Mining Cong. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 907 F.2d 1179, 1185 (D.C. Cir. 1990) [AMC II].
165 40 C.F.R.  261.2(d)(1)–(3).
166 Id.  261.2(d)(1)–(2) (“unless used as an ingredient for a product at the site of generation”).
167 Id.  261.2(d)(3)(i)–(ii).
168 Id.
169 42 U.S.C.  6903(5) (2000); Conn. Coastal Fishermen’s Ass’n, 989 F.2d at 1313; AMC II, 907 F.2d at 1185 (quoting AMC I, 824 F.2d 1177, 1179 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).
170 Discussion infra Part II.B.
171 42 U.S.C.  6903(5); Conn. Coastal Fishermen’s Ass’n, 989 F.2d at 1313; AMC II, 907 F.2d at 1185 (quoting AMC I, 824 F.2d at 1179).
172 42 U.S.C.  6921(b); Am. Petroleum Inst. v. United States Envtl Prot. Agency, 906 F.2d 729, 733 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
173 40 C.F.R.  261 subpart D; Am. Petroleum Inst., 906 F.2d at 733.
174 40 C.F.R.  261.31(a).
175 Id.  261.32.
176 Id.  261.33.
177 Id.  261.33(e)–(f); Case, supra note 126, at 50.
178 Am. Petroleum Inst. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 906 F.2d 729, 733 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
179 40 C.F.R.  261.23.
180 Id.  261.21.
181 Id.  261.22.
182 Id.  261.24; see Case, supra note 126, at 51.
183 40 C.F.R.  261.6(a)(1)–(2) (“Hazardous wastes that are recycled will be known as ‘recyclable materials’” and are regulated in subparts C through O of  266).
184 42 U.S.C.  6903(5) (2000); Conn. Coastal Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Remington Arms Co., 989 F.2d 1305, 1313 (2d Cir. 1993); AMC II, 907 F.2d at 1185 (quoting AMC I, 824 F.2d 1177, 1179 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).
185 U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Pub. No. 530-R-99-046, RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline Training Module: Introduction to: Definition of Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Recycling 5 (2000) (Updated Oct. 1999) [hereinafter RCRA Training Module].
186 40 C.F.R.  261.2(c) tbl. 1; RCRA Training Module, supra note 185, at 5.
187 40 C.F.R.  261.1(c)(1); RCRA Training Module, supra note 185, at 5.
188 40 C.F.R.  261.2 tbl. 1.
189 RCRA Training Module, supra note 185, at 5.
190 Id.
191 40 C.F.R.  261.31.
192 Id.  261.33.
193 Id.  261.2(c)(3).
194 Id.  261.4 (listing exclusions to solid waste categories). “Secondary materials [such as] sludges, by-products, and spent materials” generated by the “primary mineral processing industry” are not solid wastes, provided a list of processing and storage conditions are met. Id.  261.4(a)(17)(i)–(iv). But see Ass’n of Battery Recyclers v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 208 F.3d 1047, 1056 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (holding that EPA cannot regulate secondary materials stored for reuse within the generating industry itself).
195 40 C.F.R.  261.1(c)(3).
196 Id.  261.2(c)(3) tbl. 1.
197 Id.
198 Id.  261.1(c)(3).
199 RCRA Training Module, supra note 185, at 6.
200 Id.
201 40 C.F.R.  261.2(c) tbl 1.
202 Id.; 40 C.F.R.  261.2(c)(1)(ii).
203 40 C.F.R.  261.2(c)(2)(i)–(ii).
204 40 C.F.R.  261.1(c)(6). Excluded scrap metal includes “processed scrap metal, unprocessed home scrap metal, and unprocessed prompt scrap metal.” Id.  261.1(c)(9). This exception encompasses scrap metal that has been physically separated to improve handling or increase value, or which is generated either by “steel mills, foundries, and refineries,” or by “metal working/fabrication industries.” Id.  261.1(c)(10)–(12).
205 40 C.F.R.  261.2(c) tbl. 1.
206 Sweeney, supra note 117, at 6–7 (citation omitted).
207 40 C.F.R.  261.2(c)–(d). Table 1 identifies the four controlled recycling methods as: (1) “Use constituting disposal,” (2) “Energy recovery/fuel,” (3) “Reclamation,” and (4) “Speculative accumulation.” Id.  261.2(c). “Inherently waste-like materials” are solid wastes regardless of how they are recycled. Id.  261.2(d).
208 See discussion infra Part II.C.1.
209 J. Thomas Wolfe of Capital Environmental explains how EPA’s listing of vanadium as a hazardous waste created an economic disincentive to vanadium reclamation, claiming that that land disposal of vanadium “became more cost effective” at $200 per ton compared with a cost of “$500 to $800 per ton” to reclaim the catalyst material. J. Thomas Wolfe, Waste Not, Envtl. F., Jan.–Feb. 2002, at 19. He admits, however, that EPA’s listing of vanadium resulted from its concern that “about a fifth” of the total vanadium produced went to landfills, potentially releasing “arsenic and benzene into the soil or groundwater.” Id.
210 Hazardous Waste Management System; Definition of Solid Waste, 50 Fed. Reg. 614, 634 (Jan. 4, 1985) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 260, 261, 264–66)[hereinafter Definition of Solid Waste].
211 40 C.F.R.  261.1(c)(8); Definition of Solid Waste, supra note 210, 50 Fed. Reg. at 634.
212 RCRA Training Module, supra note 185, at 7. EPA believed Congress intended “accumulated hazardous secondary materials” to be regulated as solid hazardous waste because they are “rarely, if ever, recycled or amenable to recycling” in a way that protects the environment. Definition of Solid Waste, 50 Fed. Reg. at 634. The EPA retains the flexibility, however, to grant variances for speculatively accumulated materials that it deems legitimately recycled. See infra text accompanying notes 299–308.
213 40 C.F.R.  261.4(c).
214 Id.  261.2(c)(3).
215 40 C.F.R.  211.1(c)(4).
216 Definition of Solid Waste, supra note 210, 50 Fed. Reg. at 633.
217 See Comella, supra note 118, at 433–36. Comella points out that, after excluding certain materials as solid waste, EPA “changes its mind and states that most of them are . . . solid wastes” because it excludes certain methods, wastes, or processes. Id. at 435.
218 40 C.F.R.  261.1(c)(5)(i), 261.2(e)(1)(i).
219 40 C.F.R.  261.1(c)(5)(ii).
220 Id.  261.2(e)(1)(iii).
221 Id.  261.2(e)(2).
222 Where “materials are generated and reclaimed within the primary mineral processing industry, the conditions . . . found at  261.4(a)(17) apply . . . .” Id.  261.2(e)(1)(iii).
223 Id.
224 Id.  261.1(c)(5)(i); Comella, supra note 118, at 434.
225 40 C.F.R.  261.1(c)(5)(ii).
226 Id.  261.2(e)(1)(iii), (2)(i) (“without first being reclaimed or land disposed”).
227 Id.  261.2(e)(2)(iv) (“listed in paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(2)”).
228 Id.  261.2(e)(2)(i).
229 Id.  261.2(e)(2)(ii).
230 Id.  261.2(e)(2)(iii).
231 United States v. Marine Shale Processors, 81 F.3d 1361, 1365 nn.3–4 (5th Cir. 1996) (distinguishing “sham recycling” from “legitimate recycling” by focusing on the “purpose or function the hazardous waste allegedly serves in the production process”).
232 For example, in Marine Shale Processors, the issue was whether the hazardous material legitimately contributed to the production of aggregate or merely a convenient method of disposal. 81 F.3d at 1365.
233 Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Beyond RCRA: Prospects for Waste & Materials Management in the Year 2020, at 12 (2001), at http:// www.epa.gov/osw/vision.htm (last visited Mar. 17, 2002)[hereinafter Beyond RCRA]. (“Meeting [the goal of waste reduction will] require fundamental changes in the waste vs. non-waste regulatory construct . . . [such approaches include identifying] materials as ‘wastes’ only when they are clearly destined for disposal . . . .”).
234 See discussion infra Part II.C.
235 40 C.F.R.  261.6(a)(1).
236 Id.  261.6(a)(1)–(3).
237 Id.  261.1(b) (subject to requirements of parts 262 and 263 plus notification requirements).
238 Id.  261.1(c)(1) (“[R]egulated under all applicable provisions of subparts A through L, AA, BB, and CC of parts 264 and 265, and under parts 124, 266, 268, and 270 of this chapter and the notification requirements . . . .”).
239 Id.  261.1(c)(2) (notification, and manifest requirements, and subparts AA and BB of part 264 or 265).
240 Id.  261.6(c)(1). “Owners or operators . . . with hazardous waste management units that recycle hazardous wastes are subject to subparts AA and BB of part 264 or 265 of this chapter.” Id.  261.6(d).
241 40 C.F.R.  261.6(a)(2).
242 Id.  261.6(a)(2)(i) (regulated under subpart C).
243 Includes activities not regulated in section 264 or 265. Id.  261.6(a)(2)(ii) (regulated under subpart H).
244 Id.  261.6(a)(2)(iii) (regulated under subpart F).
245 Id.  261.6(a)(2)(iv) (regulated under subpart G).
246 Id.  261.6 (a)(2)(v). Effective November 23, 2001, this site-specific regulation implements a project under EPA’s Project XL program that tests the “effectiveness of an integrated, flexible, performance-based approach” for resin and other wastes from electroplating operations. In exchange for “regulatory flexibility,” U.S. Filter Recovery Services (USFRS) must meet “additional reporting and handling requirements” under subpart O. Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Filter Recovery Services Roseville, Minnesota and Generators and Transporters of USFRS XL Waste, 66 Fed. Reg. 28,066 (proposed May 22, 2001) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 261 & 266).
247 40 C.F.R.  261.6(a)(3)(i) (with exceptions for exportation).
248 Id.  261.6(a)(3)(ii) (not already excluded under section 261.4(a)(13)).
249 Id.  261.6(a)(3)(iii) (“if such wastes result from normal petroleum refining, production, and transportation practices”).
250 Id.  261.6(a)(3)(iv).
251 Id.  261.6(a)(3).
252 Carol Barry, A Practical Guide to Surviving Multimedia Inspections, 24 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,305, 10,309 (1994).
253 Id. (distinguished by whether facility generates more or less than 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month).
254 Id.
255 Id. A large generator is exempt from having to obtain a storage permit as long as it follows EPA storage guidelines and stores no more than fifty-five gallons of hazardous waste materials, or a quart of acutely hazardous waste, for less than ninety days. 40 C.F.R.  262.34(a); Barry, supra note 252, at 10,309 nn.26–28. In contrast, a small generator following safe storage conditions is exempt from permit requirements for up to 180 days. 40 C.F.R.  262.34(d); Barry, supra note 252, at 10,309.
256 See generally Ass’n of Battery Recyclers v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 208 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2000); AMC II, 907 F.2d 1179 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Am. Petroleum Inst. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 906 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1990); AMC I, 824 F.2d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
257 824 F.2d at 1186.
258 Id.; see Sweeney, supra note 117, at 22–23.
259 Am. Petroleum Inst., 906 F.2d at 740. Such waste is called K061 slag and is a “zinc-bearing listed hazardous waste that emanates from the primary production of steel in electric furnaces.” Id. at 734.
260 Id. at 740–41.
261 See id.
262 See 907 F.2d 1179, 1185 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
263 Id. at 1186 (quoting AMC I, 824 F.2d at 1185).
264 Id. (citing Am. Petroleum Inst., 906 F.2d at 740–41).
265 Ass’n of Battery Recyclers v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 208 F.3d 1047, 1052 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
266 Id. at 1052.
267 Id. at 1053–54 (“Later cases of this court do not limit AMC I as EPA supposes . . . [and AMC II] did not disturb AMC I’s interpretation of ‘discarded.’”).
268 Id. at 1053.
269 Id. at 1051; 40 C.F.R.  261.2(c)(3), 261.4(a)(17) (2001).
270 See Ass’n of Battery Recyclers, 208 F.3d at 1051.
271 Id. at 1056.
272 Id. at 1053 (quoting AMC I, 824 F.2d 1177, 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).
273 Id. at 1056 (quoting AMC I, 824 F.2d at 1193).
274 See id.
275 Am. Petroleum Inst. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 216 F.3d 50, 57–58 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
276 Id. at 57.
277 Id.
278 Id.
279 Id.
280 See id.
281 996 F.2d 1126, 1131 (11th Cir. 1993).
282 Id.
283 Catellus Dev. Corp. v. United States, 34 F.3d 748, 752 (9th Cir. 1994).
284 Id.
285 Id.
286 40 C.F.R.  261.4(a)(1)–(19).
287 Id.  261.4(b)(1)–(18).
288 40 C.F.R.  266.20(b).
289 40 C.F.R.  260.30, 260.31, 260.33.
290 40 C.F.R.  260.20, 260.22.
291 40 C.F.R.  261.4(a)(1)–(4).
292 Id.  261.4(a)(9).
293 Id.  261.4(a)(12), (18), (19).
294 Id.  261.4(a)(5) (“in-situ mining techniques”), (a)(6) (pulping liquors).
295 Id.  261.4(a)(7).
296 Id.  261.4(a)(8). But see Am. Petroleum Inst. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 216 F.3d 50, 57–58 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
297 40 C.F.R.  261.4(a)(8)(i)–(iv).
298 Id.  261.4(a)(14).
299 40 C.F.R.  260.30.
300 Id.  260.31.
301 Id.  260.31(a).
302.Id.  260.30(a) (referencing requirement in  261.1(c)(8)).
303 Id.  260.30(b).
304 Id.  260.30(c).
305 40 C.F.R.  260.31(a)(1)–(5).
306 Id.  260.31(b).
307 Id.  260.30(b)(1)–(8).
308 Id.  260.31(c).
309 40 C.F.R.  261.4(b).
310 Am. Mining Cong. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 907 F.2d 1179, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
311 Envtl. Def. Fund v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 852 F.2d 1316, 1319–31 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (discussing the Bevill Amendment, EPA’s response, and requiring that certain wastes be re-listed).
312 42 U.S.C.  6921(b)(3)(A); 40 C.F.R.  261.4(b)(4) (except facilities that burn hazardous waste, which are regulated separately under  266.112).
313 40 C.F.R.  261.4(b)(1).
314 Id.  261.4(b)(2) (agricultural crops and livestock manure).
315 Id.  261.4(b)(3).
316 Id.  261.4(b)(5).
317 Id.  261.4(b)(6).
318 Id.  261.4(b)(7).
319 40 C.F.R.  261.4(b)(8),(12)–(14).
320 40 C.F.R.  266.20(b).
321 United States v. Marine Shale Processors, 81 F.3d 1361, 1365 (5th Cir. 1996).
322 Id.; see supra notes 160–164, 231–234 and accompanying text.
323 Marine Shale Processors, 81 F.3d at 1365, 1365–66.
324 40 C.F.R.  260.20(a).
325 Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion, 66 Fed. Reg. 57,918, 57,919 (proposed Nov. 19, 2001) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 261) (proposed delisting of up to twenty-four hundred cubic yards per year of F019 (aluminum) waste for Nissan North America, Inc., Smyrna, Tennessee, automobile manufacturing plant) [hereinafter Nissan Proposed Exclusion].
326 Id. Site-specific delisted wastes are located in table 1 of appendix IX of 40 C.F.R.  264.
327 Id. at 57,919, 57,921 The waste in question is called K019 waste and is listed for its hazardous constituents, hexavalent chromium, and cyanide. Id.
328 40 C.F.R.  260.22(a)(1)–(2).
329 See 40 C.F.R.  260.22. Nissan submitted: (1) a description of its manufacturing and wastewater processes; (2) all material data safety sheets; (3) estimates of sludge to be generated; (4) results of analyses for all chemicals generated for toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity determinations; and (5) dye tracer study results. Nissan Proposed Exclusion, supra note 325, 66 Fed. Reg. at 57,922.
330 After the required studies were completed, Nissan submitted its petition in October 2000. EPA’s proposed rule and request for comments were made in November, 2001. Any public hearing (if requested and granted) and final rule with response to comments were still pending as of February, 2002. Nissan Proposed Exclusion, supra note 325, 66 Fed. Reg. at 57,918, 57,921.
331 See Waste Wise, supra note 79, at 10.
332 See discussion supra Part II.A.2.
333 See Comella, supra note 118, at 421–27.
334 See 40 C.F.R.  261.2(a)(1) (2001).
335 Definition of Solid Waste, supra note 210, 50 Fed. Reg. 614, 633.
336 208 F.3d 1047, 1056 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
337 See id.
338 See 40 C.F.R.  261.2(a)(2)(ii)–(iii). Secondary materials are defined as spent materials, sludges, by-products, commercial chemical products, and scrap metal. See discussion supra Part II.B.
339 See discussion supra Part II.B.1.
340 See discussion supra notes 172–182.
341 40 C.F.R.  261.2(d)(1)–(2).
342 See discussion supra notes 208–216.
343 40 C.F.R.  261.2(c) tbl 1.
344 RCRA Training Module, supra note 185, at 5.
345 40 C.F.R.  261.2(c)(3) tbl 1.
346 United States v. Marine Shale Processing, 81 F.3d 1361, 1365 (5th Cir. 1996).
347 See Schlarb, supra note 2, at 27 (provides strategies for marketing EIP’s, including: (1) the emphasis on improving the firm’s environmental image; (2) improved economic performance; and (3) expense reduction through resource sharing).
348 40 C.F.R.  261.1(c)(8), 261.2(c)(4).
349 40 C.F.R.  260.31.
350 See id.
351 40 C.F.R.  261.4.
352 See discussion supra Part II.C.1.
353 See discussion on Nissan delisting supra notes 324–330.
354 Barry, supra note 252, at 10,309.
355 See Project XL Directory, supra note 47, at 1 (“testing sensible, flexible solutions to specific obstacles faced by a facility . . .”).
356 See id. at 19, 36, 40.
357 Id. at 19.
358 Id. at 36.
359 Id. at 40.
360 Id. at 2 (“In fact, Project XL’s greatest opportunity, and its greatest challenge, is taking successful ideas from individual pilot projects and moving [them] to their appropriate system-wide practice and into EPA’s everyday way of doing business.”).
361 Beyond RCRA, supra note 233, at 8 (as materials currently considered waste are “used to produce new materials and products” the regulatory waste/material distinction may “become less meaningful”).
362 Id.
363 Am. Petroleum Inst. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 216 F.3d 50, 57–58 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Ass’n of Battery Recyclers v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 208 F.3d 1047, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting AMC I, 824 F.2d 1177, 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).
364 AMC I, 824 F.2d at 1186.
365 See 42 U.S.C.  6902 (2000).
366 208 F.3d at 1056–57.
367 216 F.3d at 57–58.
368 Id.
369 Id.
370 See discussion supra note 48.
371 Project XL Directory, supra note 47, at 40.
372 See discussion supra Part I.B.2.