In my previous Web editorial, which
pointed out the change in focus of the EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery (ORCR—what was until this year the Office of Solid Waste), I ended with
the suggestion that we should not get hung up debating such irreconcilable
issues as pitting recycling against energy production, but rather we should find
materials management strategies that reduce the necessity for landfilling. It
seems to me that by its very name-change, ORCR allows for more effective debate
by admitting societal concerns to the table previously dominated by groups whose
positions were set in concrete. So how do we take advantage of the new
situation?
A Lesson from
LMOP
I’ve made no secret of my belief that
LMOP is the among the most enlightened programs operated by the EPA (or any of
our federal agencies, for that matter) for the simple reason that rather than
arrogating to itself the mantle of omniscience, it holds to the novel concept of
service to its constituents. Operating well within the noise of the EPA’s
budget, LMOP’s miniscule staff has achieved well beyond the modest aims the
program began with more than a dozen years ago.
So it seems to me that the EPA has an
opportunity to establish the same sort of program in the materials management
field designed as a clearinghouse for information on programs, practices,
strategies, technologies, and matters affecting the efficient and effective use
of resources…on the front as well as the back side of the equation. It’s not as
if such a program would start from nowhere. Besides the LMOP model for guidance,
the ORCR’s staff has at its disposal RTP/RTI’s Waste Management Decision Support
Tool…a wonderful resource for assessing the fate of resources.