Technical corrections only. The two versions of S. 351 are substantively identical, with v3 reflecting the bill as Engrossed in Senate after passing, compared to v2 which was Reported in Senate. No policy changes were made between these versions.
STEWARD Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 20, 2025
Bottom line
The STEWARD Act of 2025 aims to boost recycling and composting rates and infrastructure nationwide through federal grants and enhanced data collection, particularly targeting underserved communities.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the STEWARD Act of 2025, establishes a competitive pilot grant program within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to improve recycling accessibility, particularly in underserved communities, through investments in infrastructure like transfer stations and expanded curbside collection. It also mandates the EPA to collect and disseminate comprehensive data on recycling and composting programs, infrastructure capabilities, and material diversion rates across the United States. Additionally, it requires the Comptroller General to report biennially on federal agency recycling and composting activities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill directly addresses critical gaps in recycling infrastructure and data, especially in rural and low-income areas, leading to increased recycling rates, reduced waste, and a more robust circular economy. They emphasize the environmental benefits, potential for job creation, and economic efficiencies that will result from better waste management and informed policy decisions.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that the bill represents federal overreach into local waste management, that the authorized funding is insufficient to make a significant national impact, or that the extensive reporting requirements could impose an undue administrative burden on states, local governments, and Indian Tribes, despite the unfunded mandate protections. Some might also question the effectiveness of a grant program versus market-based solutions.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(b)
Establishes the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Program
This provision directs the EPA Administrator to create a competitive pilot grant program, to be known as the "Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Program," within 18 months of the bill's enactment. The program's goal is to award grants to eligible entities, including states, local governments, Indian Tribes, and public-private partnerships, to significantly improve accessibility to recycling systems through investments in infrastructure in underserved communities, utilizing a hub-and-spoke model for development.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this program directly addresses the lack of recycling infrastructure in areas where it's most needed, fostering environmental equity and reducing waste by making recycling more accessible and cost-effective for residents.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that a pilot program with limited funding may not be sufficient to address systemic infrastructure issues across the nation, or that it could create a patchwork of services rather than a cohesive national strategy.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for targeted federal investment in underserved areas with the broader national need for recycling infrastructure improvements, while also navigating the role of public versus private sector involvement.
Section 2(g), (h), (i), (j), (k)
Specifies Grant Uses, Prohibitions, Amounts, Set-Aside, and Federal Share
This section details how grant funds from the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Program can be used, specifically for increasing transfer stations, expanding curbside recycling, and leveraging public-private partnerships to reduce collection and transport costs in underserved communities. It explicitly prohibits using funds for recycling education programs. Grants must be between $500,000 and $15,000,000. A significant portion, not less than 70%, of the program's annual funding is set aside for projects in single or multiple underserved communities. The federal share of project costs is capped at 95%.
Section 3(b) (adding Section 4011 to Solid Waste Disposal Act)
Mandates EPA Reports on Composting and Recycling Infrastructure Capabilities
This provision requires the EPA Administrator to collaborate with states, local governments, and Indian Tribes to prepare a report within two years on compostable materials and efforts to reduce contamination rates for recycling. This report will evaluate existing laws, describe composting infrastructure, estimate costs for expansion, and review manufacturer practices. Additionally, the EPA must prepare an inventory or estimate of Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in the U.S. every four years, detailing their number, location, and specific material processing capabilities (e.g., plastic resin types, food packaging, paper, metals, glass).
Section 3(b) (adding Section 4011(d) and (e) to Solid Waste Disposal Act)
Requires EPA to Collect Data on Recycling/Composting Programs and Develop Reporting Rates
The EPA is mandated to estimate, in collaboration with states, local governments, and Indian Tribes, the number and types of recycling and composting programs, the materials they accept, the number of individuals with access to these services (and their usage rates), and barriers to access. It also requires the EPA to assess inbound contamination and capture rates, and the average costs and benefits of these programs. Furthermore, the EPA may biannually collect voluntary data from states to develop standardized estimated rates of successfully diverted recyclable materials and a national recycling rate, offering technical assistance based on this data to help entities reduce waste and increase recycling/composting rates.
Section 3(b) (adding Section 4011(f) to Solid Waste Disposal Act)
Mandates EPA Report on End-Market Sales of Recyclable and Compostable Materials
The EPA, in collaboration with relevant federal agencies, states, local governments, and Indian Tribes, is required to update a previous report (submitted under the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act) within three years. This update must include an addendum on the domestic and international end-market sales, specified in dollars per ton, of all recyclable materials from materials recovery facilities. Additionally, the EPA must prepare a new report on the end-market sale of compost from compostable materials, also detailing domestic sales in dollars per ton.
Section 3(c)
Requires Biennial Comptroller General Reports on Federal Agency Recycling and Composting
The Comptroller General of the United States is mandated to make publicly available a report every two years, until 2033, detailing federal agencies' annual recycling and composting rates. These reports must also estimate the total annual percentage of products containing recyclable, compostable, or recovered materials purchased by all federal agencies, including specific quantities of products listed in comprehensive procurement guidelines. Furthermore, the reports must identify activities federal agencies are undertaking to promote recycling and composting, and suggest additional actions they could take to further these efforts.
Section 3(d)
Mandates EPA Study on Recyclable Material Diversion from Circular Market
The EPA Administrator is required to develop a metric within one year of enactment to determine the proportion of recyclable materials in commercial and municipal waste streams that are being diverted from a circular market. One year after developing this metric, the Administrator must conduct a study and submit a report to Congress. This report will detail the proportion of recyclable materials diverted from a circular market over the preceding 10 calendar years, providing specific data for materials like aluminum, plastics, paper, textiles, and glass. It must also evaluate whether establishing or improving recycling programs would enhance recycling rates, reduce unutilized recyclable materials, and affect consumer prices for products using recycled materials.
Clarifies the definition of 'processing' for recyclable materials, stating it means any mechanical, manual, or other method that transforms a recyclable material into a specification-grade commodity, and may occur in multiple steps with different phases at various locations.
Section 3(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms upfront for clarity and consistency throughout the bill, but its operational significance for the recycling industry might be missed due to its placement.
Case for: Supporters would argue that a clear and broad definition of 'processing' is essential to encompass the full range of activities involved in modern recycling, ensuring that all stages of material transformation are recognized and potentially supported by the bill's provisions.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against definitional clarity, though some might argue that the breadth of the definition could lead to varying interpretations depending on specific technologies or industry practices.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the scope of recycling activities covered by the bill, impacting how programs and facilities are categorized, measured, and potentially funded under the new mandates.
Prohibits the Administrator of the EPA or the Secretary of Commerce from exercising any authority under this section or any amendments made by it if doing so would require a State, a unit of local government, or an Indian Tribe to carry out a mandate for which funding is not available.
Section 3(f)(1)
Why it matters:While often included in general provisions or administrative sections, its placement here is crucial for ensuring cooperation from state and local governments by explicitly addressing concerns about unfunded federal mandates.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is a critical safeguard to protect state and local governments from unfunded federal requirements, ensuring that federal initiatives are adequately resourced or remain voluntary, thereby fostering better intergovernmental relations.
Case against: No direct opposition, but some might argue that it could limit the EPA's ability to gather comprehensive data if states choose not to participate due to lack of funding for data collection, potentially hindering the bill's overall data objectives.
Estimated impact: Prevents the imposition of new financial burdens on state, local, and tribal governments related to the data collection and reporting requirements of the bill, ensuring their participation is voluntary or federally funded.
Prohibits the public disclosure of any privileged or confidential information collected under the bill's data collection mandates, specifically referencing the protections outlined in section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States Code (FOIA exemption for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information).
Section 3(b) (adding Section 4011(g) to Solid Waste Disposal Act) and Section 3(f)(2)
Why it matters:This is a standard protection for proprietary business data, often included to encourage cooperation from private industry in providing sensitive information. Its placement ensures that industry stakeholders are aware of these safeguards.
Case for: Supporters would emphasize that this protection is essential to encourage voluntary participation from private entities in providing market data, as they would be reluctant to share proprietary information without such explicit statutory safeguards, thus ensuring more accurate and comprehensive reports.
Case against: Some transparency advocates might argue that broad confidentiality clauses could limit public access to data that, while commercially sensitive, could be useful for public oversight or broader market analysis, potentially hindering full transparency.
Estimated impact: Facilitates data collection from private industry by ensuring confidentiality, which is critical for the accuracy and completeness of the market-focused reports mandated by the bill.