Recycling and Composting Accountability Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill establishes a framework for comprehensive data collection and reporting on U.S. recycling and composting systems to inform future policy and enhance waste diversion efforts.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator to conduct various studies and reports aimed at improving recycling and composting programs in the United States. Key requirements include evaluating existing composting infrastructure, inventorying materials recovery facilities, estimating recycling and composting program access and rates, and studying the diversion of recyclable materials from a circular market. It also requires the Comptroller General to report on federal agencies' recycling and composting activities and procurement of recycled content products.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is a crucial step towards improving waste management in the United States by providing much-needed data and insights into current recycling and composting infrastructure and practices. They contend that better data will enable more effective strategies to reduce waste, increase material recovery, and promote a circular economy, ultimately leading to significant environmental benefits and resource conservation.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while data collection is valuable, the bill primarily focuses on reporting requirements without directly implementing new programs or providing substantial funding for infrastructure development. They might contend that it creates additional bureaucratic burdens for federal agencies, states, and local governments without a clear, immediate impact on recycling rates, and that the authorized appropriations are insufficient for the scope of work mandated.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3, adding Section 4011(b) to the Solid Waste Disposal Act
EPA Reports on Composting and Recycling Infrastructure
This provision requires the EPA Administrator to collaborate with states, local governments, and Indian Tribes to produce a report within two years. This report must evaluate existing laws that hinder composting, describe current composting infrastructure and programs, estimate costs and land needed for expansion, and review practices of manufacturers using compostable packaging to facilitate end-of-life composting.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this report is essential for understanding the current state of composting and recycling infrastructure, identifying barriers, and informing future policy decisions to expand these programs effectively. It provides a foundational knowledge base.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that such reports can be resource-intensive and may not lead to immediate, tangible improvements, potentially delaying action while more data is collected. They might also question the scope or detail required, suggesting it could be overly burdensome for local entities to provide.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the need for comprehensive data to make informed decisions and the potential for data collection to become an end in itself, consuming resources without direct programmatic implementation.
Section 3, adding Section 4011(c) to the Solid Waste Disposal Act
EPA Inventory of Materials Recovery Facilities
This provision mandates the EPA Administrator to prepare an inventory or estimate of materials recovery facilities (MRFs) in the U.S. within three years, and every four years thereafter. This inventory must detail the number of MRFs per state and describe the types of materials each facility can process, including specific categories like plastics (by resin and format), food packaging, paper, aluminum, steel, and glass.
Section 4
Comptroller General Reports on Federal Recycling and Composting
This section requires the Comptroller General of the United States to publicly report biannually until 2033 on federal agencies' recycling and composting activities. The reports must detail total annual recycling and composting rates, the percentage of products purchased containing recycled or compostable materials (including those listed in comprehensive procurement guidelines), and identify activities federal agencies are undertaking or could undertake to promote recycling and composting.
Section 5
EPA Study on Recyclable Material Diversion from Circular Market
This section directs the EPA Administrator to first develop a metric within one year for determining the proportion of recyclable materials in commercial and municipal waste streams that are diverted from a circular market. Following this, the Administrator must conduct a study and report to Congress within another year, detailing this proportion for the preceding ten calendar years for specific materials like aluminum, plastics, paper, textiles, and glass, and evaluating how improved recycling programs could reduce this diversion and affect consumer prices.
Defines 'processing' for recyclable materials as any method transforming material into a specification-grade commodity, potentially across multiple steps and locations.
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms upfront for clarity and scope.
Case for: Supporters would argue this broad definition ensures a comprehensive understanding of the recycling supply chain, acknowledging the multi-stage nature of material transformation.
Case against: No strong case against, as it clarifies the scope of activities considered under the Act.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the scope of recycling activities considered under the Act, potentially expanding data collection to cover more stages of material processing.
Excludes facilities that process mixed municipal solid waste to remove recyclables from the definition of 'materials recovery facility.'
Section 3, new Section 4011(a)(4)(B) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to precisely define terms and scope for specific mandates.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures the inventory focuses specifically on dedicated MRFs that handle source-separated or primarily residential recyclables, rather than mixed waste facilities, providing a clearer picture of true recycling infrastructure.
Case against: Critics might argue this exclusion could lead to an underestimation of total recycling capacity if mixed waste facilities contribute significantly to material recovery, potentially overlooking a segment of the waste management industry.
Estimated impact: Narrows the scope of the EPA's MRF inventory, focusing on facilities primarily handling pre-sorted recyclables.
Specifies that data collected from States for developing estimated recycling rates will be supplied on a voluntary basis.
Section 3, new Section 4011(e)(1)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Why it matters:Could be a compromise to avoid an unfunded mandate, or to ensure cooperation by not forcing states, aligning with Section 7(a) of the bill.
Case for: Supporters would argue that making data provision voluntary encourages cooperation and ensures states are not burdened by unfunded mandates. It allows for flexibility and builds trust.
Case against: Critics might contend that voluntary data collection could lead to incomplete or inconsistent national data, making it harder to develop accurate and comprehensive national recycling rates or identify systemic issues.
Estimated impact: The comprehensiveness and accuracy of national recycling rate estimates will depend on the willingness of states to voluntarily provide data.