Overview
Title
To establish a pilot grant program to improve recycling accessibility, to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out certain activities to collect and disseminate data on recycling and composting programs in the United States, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make it easier for everyone to recycle by giving money to improve recycling places and gather information on how recycling works. It's like a plan to make sure everyone can help keep the Earth clean by making recycling simple and understanding how it's done.
Summary AI
S. 351 is a bill aimed at enhancing recycling in the United States. It proposes creating a pilot grant program to fund projects that increase accessibility to recycling services, particularly in underserved communities, by improving infrastructure like recycling stations and curbside collection. Additionally, the bill mandates the Environmental Protection Agency to gather and share data concerning recycling and composting programs, to better understand and improve these systems nationwide.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill titled the "Strategies To Eliminate Waste and Accelerate Recycling Development Act of 2025," introduced in the United States Senate, primarily aims to enhance recycling accessibility and optimize recycling infrastructure across underserved communities. The legislation mandates the establishment of a pilot grant program to support infrastructure development like transfer stations and curbside recycling. Additionally, it directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to collect and disseminate data on composting and recycling activities nationwide. The bill also includes provisions for reporting on recycling and composting capacities, aiming to contribute towards enhanced sustainability practices and systems.
Significant Issues
One of the key issues identified is the broad definition of "eligible entity" under the pilot grant program. While inclusivity is essential, such broad categorization may make it challenging to ensure funds are appropriately allocated. Another major concern is the lack of detailed financial accountability regarding the $4,000,000 annual budget allocated for data collection and reporting, potentially leading to inefficient spending. The absence of detailed criteria and monitoring mechanisms raises questions about the long-term efficacy of the projects funded by these grants.
This legislation prohibits the use of grant funds for education programs related to recycling, which could limit the overall effectiveness of improving recycling accessibility. Education is often crucial for increasing public participation and understanding of recycling initiatives. Furthermore, the vague definition of terms like "recyclable material" could create disputes during implementation. Lastly, the subjective criteria defining "underserved community" might lead to inconsistencies in eligibility, potentially excluding some communities that might benefit from such programs.
Impact on the Public
The public stands to benefit broadly from improved recycling systems resulting from enhanced infrastructure, potentially leading to increased convenience and participation in recycling activities. Better access to recycling services in underserved areas could lead to larger environmental impacts by reducing landfill use and supporting sustainable waste management practices.
However, inefficient allocation or mismanagement of funds due to broad eligibility criteria or lack of specific monitoring and evaluation frameworks may result in public skepticism about government spending and environmental initiatives. If funds are not used efficiently, significant improvements may not materialize, dampening public trust and interest in future governmental environmental efforts.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Local Governments and Tribes: These entities could benefit significantly from the bill as they might receive federal funding to develop their recycling infrastructure. This could ease financial burdens and help smaller or rural communities improve their waste management while fostering economic activities related to recycling.
Environmental Protection Agency: The EPA would need to manage and execute an extended mandate in collecting, analyzing, and reporting data. The agency might face challenges regarding resource allocation and ensuring compliance or voluntary data submissions from diverse entities.
Public-Private Partnerships: Stakeholders engaged in public-private partnerships could find new opportunities to collaborate on recycling projects. Nonetheless, the lack of specific criteria for assessing the financial health of these entities might complicate their involvement in projects, potentially leading to not fully transparent or equitable partnerships.
Underserved Communities: The specific communities that qualify could see significant improvements in their recycling services, which might contribute to overall community development objectives. However, due to the subjective nature of the eligibility criteria, some areas might face challenges in accessing the support they need.
Overall, while the bill aims to promote better recycling infrastructure and data-driven decision-making, its effectiveness will largely depend on how specific terms are interpreted and implemented. Adequate transparency, clear guidelines, and well-monitored execution will be critical in realizing the proposed benefits of this legislation.
Financial Assessment
The bill S. 351 centers around improving recycling accessibility and efficiency in the United States. It introduces financial mechanisms and commitments, which are outlined primarily in two sections that deal with grants and appropriations.
Financial Allocations and Grants
One of the key financial components of the bill is the establishment of a pilot grant program called the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Program. This program is designed to improve recycling accessibility through infrastructure investments, particularly utilizing a hub-and-spoke model to target underserved communities. The grants range from a minimum of $500,000 to a maximum of $15,000,000. This broad range in grant amounts could lead to issues of resource allocation and potential misuse of funds if specific criteria and priorities are not established when deciding grant sizes.
Moreover, the bill authorizes appropriations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amounting to $30,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2025 through 2029 for the purposes of the pilot grant program. These funds are to remain available until they are expended. This significant financial commitment calls into question the monitoring processes in place to ensure the funds are used effectively, as highlighted by the issue of insufficient frameworks for monitoring outcomes or ensuring accountability.
Mandates for Data Collection and Reporting
The bill also discusses financial allocations associated with the collection and dissemination of data surrounding recycling and composting. Section 3 authorizes an appropriation of $4,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2025 through 2029. The purpose of these funds is to facilitate the EPA's efforts in collecting meaningful data, producing reports on infrastructure capabilities, and studying specific usage patterns within the recycling and composting sectors. However, the bill lacks a detailed plan on how this allocated amount will be spent, which could lead to wasteful spending without a clear breakdown or oversight.
Concerns and Potential Risks
Several issues are linked to these financial references. Firstly, the definition of "eligible entity" is broad, potentially leading to wide-ranging interpretations and thus inappropriate allocation of funds. Additionally, prioritizing which communities receive grants might be hindered by the subjective definition of "underserved community," which could lead to inconsistent distribution of funds.
Furthermore, the prohibition of using grant funds for recycling education programs might limit the effectiveness and impact of the infrastructural improvements financed by these grants. Education is often a critical component in ensuring the success of new systems by fostering public understanding and participation.
Lastly, the broad range of grant amounts, coupled with a lack of specific monitoring and accountability measures, might result in misallocation or inefficient use of funds. Clear guidelines and predetermined criteria are necessary to ensure that financial resources are directed to projects that maximize impact and align with the program's goals.
In conclusion, while the bill attempts to provide essential financial support to enhance recycling infrastructure, the lack of detailed financial oversight and planning in its execution methods presents a risk of ineffective or inefficient use of funds. The legislation could benefit from more precise criteria and accountability measures to ensure its financial resources lead to significant improvements in recycling access and efficiency.
Issues
The term 'eligible entity' in Section 2 is broad, potentially including a wide range of organizations, risking inappropriate fund allocation without stringent eligibility criteria.
In Section 3, there is a lack of detailed breakdown on how the allocated budget of $4,000,000 annually will be spent, posing risks of wasteful spending.
Sections 2 and 3 involve significant financial commitments without explicit frameworks for monitoring outcomes, raising accountability concerns.
The bill in Section 3(a)(2) uses complex legal references, which could confuse readers who are not familiar with legal jargon or prior acts, potentially leading to misunderstandings.
Section 2(h) prohibits the use of grant funds for recycling education programs, which might limit the effectiveness of recycling accessibility improvements.
The definition of 'recyclable material' in Section 2 is vague and could lead to interpretation disputes, impacting implementation and compliance.
In Section 2, the lack of specificity regarding monitoring long-term project outcomes might lead to inadequate accountability and oversight.
The bill does not establish clear priorities or criteria for the significant range in grant amounts ($500,000 to $15,000,000) in Section 2, which could result in wasteful spending or misallocation of funds.
Section 2 defines 'underserved community' with subjective criteria, potentially leading to inconsistencies in the eligibility of communities for grant funds.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act provides its short title, stating that it may be referred to as the “Strategies To Eliminate Waste and Accelerate Recycling Development Act of 2025” or simply the “STEWARD Act of 2025.”
2. Recycling infrastructure and accessibility improvements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a pilot grant program called the "Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Program," aimed at improving recycling accessibility in underserved communities through infrastructure investments like transfer stations and curbside recycling programs. The program prioritizes projects in areas with limited recycling facilities, and sets grant amounts between $500,000 and $15,000,000, covering up to 95% of project costs.
Money References
- (i) Minimum and maximum grant amount.—A grant awarded to an eligible entity under the pilot grant program shall be in an amount— (1) not less than $500,000; and (2) not more than $15,000,000.
- (m) Authorization of appropriations.— (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out the pilot grant program $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029, to remain available until expended.
3. Recycling and composting data collection Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the requirements for gathering and reporting data on recycling and composting activities, including defining key terms related to these processes, and mandates the creation of reports on composting and recycling infrastructure, market sales, and federal agency recycling activities. It also lays out a study to determine how much recyclable material is diverted from a circular market and authorizes funding for these activities while ensuring sensitive information remains confidential.
Money References
- “(f) Report on end markets.—The Administrator, in collaboration or contract with, as necessary and appropriate, relevant Federal agencies, States, units of local government, or Indian Tribes, shall— “(1) provide an update to the report submitted under section 306 of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act (Public Law 116–224; 134 Stat. 1096) to include an addendum on the end-market sale of all recyclable materials from materials recovery facilities that process recyclable materials, including, to the extent practicable— “(A) the total, in dollars per ton, domestic sales of bales of recyclable materials; and “(B) the total, in dollars per ton, international sales of bales of recyclable materials; “(2) prepare a report on the end-market sale of compost from, to the extent practicable, compostable materials, including the total, in dollars per ton, of domestic sales of compostable materials; and “(3) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, submit to Congress the update to the report prepared under paragraph (1) and the report prepared under paragraph (2).
- (e) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this section and the amendments made by this section $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029. (f) Administration.— (1) UNFUNDED MANDATES.—The Administrator or the Secretary of Commerce may not exercise any authority under this section or any amendment made by this section if exercising that authority would require a State, a unit of local government, or an Indian Tribe to carry out a mandate for which funding is not available.
4011. Reports on composting and recycling infrastructure capabilities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the responsibilities of the Administrator regarding composting and recycling infrastructure, including collecting data and reporting on compostable materials, recycling facilities, recycling rates, and the sale of recyclable materials. It also mandates partnership with States, local governments, and Indian Tribes to understand and improve recycling and composting programs while ensuring the confidentiality of sensitive information.
Money References
- (2) USE.—Using amounts made available under section 3(e) of the Strategies To Eliminate Waste and Accelerate Recycling Development Act of 2025, the Administrator may use the information collected and rates developed under paragraph (1) to provide requesting States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes data and technical assistance— (A) to reduce the overall waste produced by the States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes; (B) to assist the States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes in understanding the nuances of the information collected relating to diversion activities; and (C) to increase recycling and composting rates of the States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes. (f) Report on end markets.—The Administrator, in collaboration or contract with, as necessary and appropriate, relevant Federal agencies, States, units of local government, or Indian Tribes, shall— (1) provide an update to the report submitted under section 306 of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act (Public Law 116–224; 134 Stat. 1096) to include an addendum on the end-market sale of all recyclable materials from materials recovery facilities that process recyclable materials, including, to the extent practicable— (A) the total, in dollars per ton, domestic sales of bales of recyclable materials; and (B) the total, in dollars per ton, international sales of bales of recyclable materials; (2) prepare a report on the end-market sale of compost from, to the extent practicable, compostable materials, including the total, in dollars per ton, of domestic sales of compostable materials; and (3) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, submit to Congress the update to the report prepared under paragraph (1) and the report prepared under paragraph (2).