Lithium-ion battery recyclers could store batteries at the same sites where they recycle them, without splitting operations across separate facilities, under a bill the US House passed Sept. 15.
The House approved HR 9615, the Battery Recycling for America’s Competitive Economy (BRACE) Act, by voice vote under a suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority.
The bill’s stated purpose is “to support the recycling and recovery of lithium-ion batteries.” The Senate received it Sept. 16 and referred it to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) introduced the bill July 9. The House Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee approved it in July, and the full committee reported it Sept. 14. Reps. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) are cosponsors.
“China dominates the global battery supply chain, and outdated federal rules have made it harder for American recyclers to compete,” Miller-Meeks said in a statement.
Storage fix
The bill defines a lithium-ion battery as “a battery that uses the movement of lithium ions between two electrodes to store and release energy.”
Its other key terms, including “destination facility” and “large quantity handler of universal waste,” come from existing federal universal waste regulations.
Under those regulations, battery collectors can store waste batteries without a permit under reduced universal waste requirements. Recycling facilities that store batteries before recycling them need a hazardous waste storage permit.
Aaron Goldberg, a principal at Beveridge & Diamond, testified on a draft of the bill before the House Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee on June 24. He testified in his personal capacity and has worked with House counsel to help formulate the legislation.
In his written testimony, he said obtaining a storage permit is an expensive, multi-year process. As a result, recyclers split operations into a collection-only facility and a nearby recycling-only facility that receives batteries on a “just-in-time” basis to avoid storing them.
“Of course, such an arrangement serves no environmental purpose whatsoever,” Goldberg testified. He said it adds costs, complicates logistics and increases transport and handling risks.
The bill replaces that requirement on an interim basis. A destination facility “that stores lithium-ion batteries prior to recycling such lithium-ion batteries” would instead meet specified universal waste standards that “shall apply as if the destination facility were a large quantity handler of universal waste.”
The standards cover battery containment, accumulation time limits, employee training and response to releases. The facility would also be treated “as if the destination facility did not store the lithium-ion batteries prior to recycling such lithium-ion batteries.”
Goldberg warned that the June draft could leave on-site storage at recyclers “entirely unregulated” apart from a one-year time limit.
He recommended applying the same large-handler requirements that storage-only facilities follow. He proposed five sections of the universal waste rules. The House-passed bill includes four of them. It leaves out Section 273.34, which requires batteries or their containers to be labeled with a phrase such as “Universal Waste—Battery(ies).”
EPA rulemaking
“Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue a rule regarding the management of lithium-ion batteries as universal waste,” the bill states.
In writing the rule, EPA must consider:
- universal waste requirements “specially tailored for lithium-ion batteries”;
- elements of the interim standard, “as appropriate”;
- “any additional regulatory changes to support the recycling of lithium-ion batteries and recovery of critical minerals, while maintaining protections for health and the environment”; and
- “additional safety requirements needed to address gaps in existing protections.”
The bill also states that “nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit any future rulemaking of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding lithium-ion batteries.”
The June draft would have directed EPA to establish lithium-ion-specific standards within one year. Goldberg testified against that mandate. He said existing fire codes and US Department of Transportation shipping rules already address fire risks, and that new standards could discourage collection and recycling. He urged Congress to direct EPA to consider whether new rules are warranted rather than require them.
In a client alert after the House vote, Goldberg said the final bill is “generally viewed as compromise legislation.” He wrote that the rulemaking could provide more relief, but could also bring stricter requirements, such as for fire risk.
He also wrote that EPA did not appear to have sent a proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, and that a proposed rule is unlikely before early 2027.
State preemption
The bill also amends the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996. That law says the collection, storage and transport of used rechargeable batteries are regulated under EPA’s 1995 universal waste rule “notwithstanding any law of a State.” The bill strikes the reference to “the regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency at 60 Fed. Reg. 25492 (May 11, 1995), as effective on May 11, 1995.” In its place, it inserts “part 273 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations).”
Goldberg testified that the date-specific reference suggests Congress locked in the 1995 rule, which raises questions about whether EPA can change it. He also testified that any changes EPA makes outside that framework would not take effect in states with authorized hazardous waste programs until those states adopt them.
The bill does not address state extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs for batteries. California just expanded its battery EPR law to cover medium-format batteries with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature on SB 501.
Critical minerals push
The House passed the BRACE Act alongside two other critical minerals bills:
- HR 9617, the Coordinating and Harnessing America’s Recovery of Minerals (CHARM) Act: Introduced by Reps. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), it would direct EPA to coordinate a National Critical Mineral Recovery Strategy for recovering critical minerals from discarded materials.
- HR 9616, the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technology Assessment Initiative (EMRTAI) Authorization Act: Introduced by Reps. August Pfluger (R-Texas) and Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), it would authorize a 10-year EPA program to identify and recover critical minerals at contaminated sites, capped at $10 million per fiscal year.
The American Critical Minerals Association (ACMA) backed the BRACE Act. ACMA Executive Director Sarah Venuto called it “a meaningful step toward strengthening America’s ability to recycle and recover lithium-ion batteries.”
The bill now awaits action in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The House left Washington Sept. 16 to campaign ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections, and the Senate is scheduled to break in early October.
Both chambers are set to return the week of Nov. 9, and the Senate is scheduled to adjourn for the year Dec. 18. Bills not enacted before the 119th Congress ends in January die and must be reintroduced.
