! 1-623
RESOURC E
R ECOVERY
H-NOLOGY
JPDK
FROM THE USEJ?k
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
OF 1976: HOW WILL IT IMPACT ON RESOURCE
RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION?
By
Nicholas Humber and Stephen Lingle
On October 21, 1976, the Resource Recovery and
Conservation Act of 1976 was signed into law as Pub-
lic Law 94-580. The authorities provided by the Act
are far broader than suggested by the title. The new
regulatory authorities on hazardous wastes manage-
ment, the closing of open dumps and the creation of
environmentally sound sanitary landfills for other
wastes are the major new thrusts of this legislation.
The 1978 funding authorizations are:
FY 78 Authorizations
(million dollars)
General Authorization 40
Hazardous Waste
Management Programs
(Subtitle C) 25
State Planning Programs
(Subtitle D) 30
Implementation Grants
(Subtitle D) 15
Rural Assistance Grants
(Subtitle D) 25
Special Grants (Subtitle D) 2.5
Research, Development,
and Demonstration
(Subtitle H) 35
Nicholas Humber
is Director of the
Resource Recov-
ery Division, Office
of Solid Waste.
Stephen Lingle
is Chief of the
Technology and
Markets Branch,
Resource Recov-
ery Division and
HUMBER
LINGLE
edits the Technology Update series.
Special Studies (Subtitle H) 8
Resource Conservation
Committee (Subtitle H) 2
True to its title, the Act contains several significant
provisions, which, if carried out as proposed, would
stimulate implementation of resource recovery and
resource conservation. These provisions include
technical assistance, elimination of open dumping; re-
search, development, and demonstration; a Cabinet-
level Resource Conservation Committee; and federal
procurement.
Technical Assistance
Section 2003 of the Act calls for establishment of
Resource Recovery and Conservation Panels. This
section requires that EPA provide teams of personnel
to provide States and local governments, upon re-
quest, with technical assistance on solid waste man-
agement, resource recovery, and resource conserva-
tion. The teams are to include technical, marketing,
financial, and institutional specialists. Their services
would be provided without charge to States or local
governments. The Act mandates that not less than 20
percent of the general appropriation for the Act must
be used for the panels.
The concept of technical assistance is not new to
the federal solid waste program, but the specific re-
quirement that multidisciplinary assistance be pro-
vided and that a significant portion (20 percent) of the
budget be allocated to this activity clearly indicates
Congress' intent to expand and emphasize this activ-
ity.
Technical assistance has been viewed by EPA as
an activity which will alleviate the constraints EPA
sees as inhibiting the progress of resource recovery
implementation. The marketing, financial, contractual,
and legal realities of resource recovery are unique
-------
and, thus, unfamiliar to many municipalities. The
technologies and techniques which must be employed
are, in many cases, not fully developed and in most
cases, not well understood by municipal governments.
Source separation and waste reduction are often over-
looked as alternatives. Technical assistance can be a
valuable asset to municipalities in addressing these
issues.
EPA has carried out technical assistance in the
past, with generally impressive results for a modest
effort. The expanded authority provided in the Act
provides the potential for far more impressive impacts
through greater resources. Furthermore, this mandate
can be implemented and expected to show results
more quickly than many of the other resource recov-
ery provisions. It is precisely the kind of activity which
EPA, as well as others who testified before Congress
on this legislation, felt was needed at this time.
The exact manner in which EPA will carry out this
mandate is still being developed. However, it seems
clear that EPA regional offices and private consultants
under contract to EPA will play major roles.
Sfafe Plans /Elimination of Open Dumping
Guidance and financial assistance for development
of state solid waste plans is authorized in Subtitle D of
the Act. Although generally not thought of as a re-
source recovery provision, Subtitle D could be one of
the most significant in terms of impact on resource
recovery.
The stated objective of Subtitle D is to "assist in
developing and encouraging methods for the disposal
of solid waste that are environmentally sound and that
maximize the utilization of valuable resources and en-
courage resource conservation." Authorities that re-
late directly to resource recovery include guidelines
for development of plans, technical assistance, and
implementation grants.
The guidelines for plan development are advisory
rather than mandatory. However, they offer a signifi-
cant new opportunity for EPA to provide assistance to
States in determining how resource recovery and
conservation can fit into their overall solid waste man-
agement plans. This is particularly true when the pro-
visions of Subtitle D for technical assistance and im-
plementation grants are included.
The states and their designated solid waste re-
gional agencies stand as major potential recipients of
the technical assistance panel program required in
Section 2003. Together, the guidelines and technical
assistance can be of significant benefit to the states in
their development and implementation of plans.
The provision for implementation grants carries this
one step further. Implementation grants can be pro-
vided to carry out specific solid waste management
and resource recovery programs. This assistance can
include "planning and feasibility studies; consultation;
surveys and analysis of market needs; marketing of
recovered resources; technology assessments; legal
expenses; construction feasibility studies; source
separation projects; and fiscal or economic investiga-
tions or studies." No construction expenses are al-
lowable, however.
The greatest benefit to resource recovery is likely to
be the provisions of Subtitle D which relate to land
disposal. By October 21, 1977, EPA is required to
develop criteria defining open dumps and sanitary
landfills. Within one year of promulgation of these
criteria, States are required to publish an inventory of
open dumps. One of the requirements for EPA ap-
proval of State plans (and subsequent approval of fi-
nancial assistance) is that the plans provide a
schedule for closing or upgrading of all open dumps.
Although states can have as long as five years from
the date of publication of the inventory to upgrade or
close open dumps, the Act suggests that this time
frame is allowable only when other alternatives to
these dumps cannot be employed more quickly. This
provision may be an inducement for citizens to bring
suit to close open dumps.
The removal of environmentally unacceptable land
disposal will eliminate an unrealislically low cost alter-
native for waste disposal that has limited the attrac-
tiveness of resource recovery to municipalities. There-
fore, the regulation of land disposal should provide a
major new incentive and opportunity for resource re-
covery.
Research, Development, and Demonstrations
This act is similar in RD&D authorities to its pre-
decessor, the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended by the Resource Recovery Act of 1970.
EPA is authorized to provide financial support for re-
search, development, and demonstration of promising
techniques for recovery of resources from solid waste.
Grants or contracts to public agencies or the private
sector are permitted. In addition, EPA is directed to
enter into contracts to provide monitoring of full-scale
solid waste facilities, whether or not partially funded
by EPA.
The major differences between this and the previ-
ous Act in this regard are the following: 1) Under the
new Act, it is possible to contract directly with the
private sector for construction of full-scale demonstra-
tion facilities, in addition to making grants to
municipalities; 2) The evaluation by EPA of munici-
pally or privately owned facilities is unique to the new
Act; 3) The Act specifically authorizes construction of
pilot plant facilities; 4) The funding authorizations in
this Act are somewhat larger than those in the previ-
ous law; i.e., the new legislation authorizes $35-
million for these and other provisions of Subtitle H.
In addition to these "hardware" provisions of Subti-
tle H, several studies are mandated. One study will
evaluate small-scale and low technology recovery
techniques, including source separation of solid
waste. Similarly, a study of the compatibility of source
separation and high technology resource recovery
systems is mandated.
The impact which these provisions may have on
development of resource recovery technology will de-
-------
pend largely on the appropriations provided for Subti-
tle H. Appropriations can be for the full amount au-
thorized, but frequently are less. Appropriations are
not expected before late spring.
cally efficient incentive package is developed that is
attractive to Congress, a major change in resource
recovery markets could result.
One of the most significant resource recovery pro-
visions of the previous solid waste act, the Resource
Recovery Act of 1970, was the authorization for full-
scale demonstration facilities, Section 208. Approxi-
mately $20-million was ultimately appropriated under
Section 208. One might guess that demonstration ap-
propriations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act would, at best, be of similar magnitude
if significant appropriations are made. Even if the full
authorization of $35-million is appropriated, the fund-
ing will be sufficient to support only two or three dem-
onstrations of limited scale, several source separation
demonstrations, and research and development sup-
port studies. However, even this level of funding is
uncertain.
The new Act did not provide funding for construc-
tion grants, loans, or loan guarantees to subsidize the
construction of resource recovery facilities. A loan
guarantee provision was included in early drafts but
was dropped because of convincing arguments and
evidence that well-conceived resource recovery proj-
ects were already attractive to municipalities and
could be financed without federal involvement.
Federal Procurement Guidelines
The failure of the federal government to provide
leadership in the procurement of products manufac-
tured from recycled resources has long been pointed
out as a failure in federal leadership. Section 6002 of
the Act requires widescale federal leadership in pro-
curement of such products. Agencies are instructed to
eliminate any bias in specifications against products
containing recycled materials and to procure products
containing the highest percentage of recycled materi-
als practicable. Associated with this mandate is a re-
quirement that EPA write guidelines to aid federal
agencies in complying with this mandate. These
guidelines will, in essence, clarify the potential and
opportunities for such procurement.
Federal purchases alone constitute only a small
percentage (less than 2 percent) of the total national
consumption of any given product. However, the po-
tential for such practices being adopted by state and
local governments is significant. If this "ripple effect"
takes place, the result could be an important expan-
sion in the market for recovered resources.
Resource Conservation Committee
Economic inequities of the marketplace that dis-
criminate against recycled resources have long been
recognized as one of the major impediments to re-
source recovery. A number of incentives have been
proposed to Congress, but none have been accept-
able.
The Resource Conservation Committee is a
Cabinet-level committee, chaired by the Administrator
of EPA and comprised of the Secretaries of Com-
merce, Labor, Treasury, and Interior, as well as the
Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality
and a representative of the Office of Management and
Budget.
The Committee is charged with analyzing and re-
porting recommendations to Congress on a wide
range of incentives and disincentives to foster re-
source recovery and conservation. This includes
analysis of the effect of removing existing subsidies
and allowances for virgin materials. It also includes a
specific mandate to evaluate the feasibility of employ-
ing solid waste management charges (product
charges) that reflect the costs of collection, disposal
or recovery of products.
The high-level representation of this committee, as
well as the specificity of its mission, suggest that
Congress is serious about correcting the economic
inequities that have restricted resource recovery in the
past.
Results of this committee are required to be re-
ported to Congress by October 1979. If an economi-
Conclusions
The problems and constraints inhibiting a more
rapid rate of resource recovery implementation are
addressed appropriately in the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act of 1976. Federal funding pro-
grams for plant construction were not included in this
legislation.
However, a need to provide technical assistance
was well satisfied in the Act. Authorities to continue
technology research and development were needed
and were provided. The significant issue of economic
inequities between virgin and recycled resources,
though not resolved by the Act, was addressed in a
way that suggests that in two to four years, a legisla-
tive solution could emerge. Cheap, but environmen-
tally unacceptable land disposal, is clearly on its way
out, thus enhancing the potential for resource recov-
ery. The federal house will at last be put in order as
the result of new requirements relating to procure-
ment, and the implementation of previously issued
guidelines for mandating recovery of both materials
and energy.
Yet, though the authorities are generally correct, the
overal impact is still uncertain. The level of resources
ultimately to be appropriated by Congress is still not
determined. Within the Agency, the realities of having
to issue regulations required in the Act by mandated
deadlines, tend to direct attention and resources to
those activities. •
Reprinted from Waste Age - April 1977
------- |