Background

Several states have laws to encourage recycling. For example, 11 states  currently encourage the recycling of beverage containers through deposit  laws, or bottle bills—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa,  Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. Most of  these states impose 5-cent deposits on all beverage containers covered by  their program; other states impose varying amounts depending on the type  of container. Bottle bill states differ in the way that they treat unredeemed  deposits. In four states, unredeemed deposits are retained by the state, and  in some cases these funds are used to bolster recycling efforts. In six other  states, unredeemed deposits are kept by beverage distributors and  bottlers, while in Michigan, 75 percent of unredeemed deposits are  allocated to the state, with the remaining 25 percent provided to beverage  retailers to defray the costs of administering the program. Redemption  systems for used beverage containers vary from state to state, but in  general, most states allow consumers to return used beverage containers  to either retailers or participating redemption centers. In addition to  beverage container deposit laws, several states have laws related to the  disposal of electronic waste, such as extended producer responsibility  laws that require manufacturers to accept used electronic equipment for  recycling.
Currently, there are two main sources of information on recycling rates  and trends in the United States—EPA and BioCycle magazine—both of  which publish periodic reports on the subject. In 2004, the most recent  year for which EPA and BioCycle both produced national recycling  estimates, EPA estimated that 31 percent of municipal solid waste was  recycled in the United States, while BioCycle’s estimate was 29 percent.  EPA and BioCycle report different rates because of differences in  estimation methodologies. EPA’s contractor, Franklin Associates, collects  data from industry associations, the U.S. Census Bureau, the Department  of Commerce, and the glass industry to derive recycling rates for different  types of materials. EPA estimates that in 2005, the most recent year  estimates are available, 50 percent of paper and paperboard, 22 percent of  aluminum, 22 percent of glass, and 6 percent of plastic were recycled in  the United States. BioCycle estimates state and national recycling rates by  surveying each state on the amount of municipal solid waste it generates,  recycles, combusts, and sends to landfills; it does not provide estimates of  recycling rates of individual materials. Although the EPA and BioCycle  reports are considered the best available estimates of recycling rates, both  have limitations. According to Franklin Associates officials, the industry  association data they use may vary in quality and completeness. In  addition, BioCycle’s study relies on the accuracy of the states’ municipal  solid waste data, and a BioCycle representative noted that the states that  choose to submit data have their own methods for collecting this  information and that data quality varies.

	Municipalities Use a Variety of Practices to Increase Recycling

Recycling coordinators with whom we spoke identified several key  practices being used to increase recycling in their cities. The three  practices they cited most frequently were making recycling convenient  and easy for their residents, offering financial incentives for recycling, and  conducting public education and outreach. In addition to these three key  practices, recycling coordinators and the recycling literature identified  other ways to increase recycling, such as targeting a wide range of  materials for recycling, extending recycling programs to the commercial  sector, mandating that residents recycle, and targeting multiunit dwellings  for recycling.

		Recycling Coordinators Identified Three Key Practices to Increase Recycling

Most of the local recycling coordinators with whom we spoke said that a  convenient, easy-to-use recycling program was the most important  recycling practice they use in their efforts to increase recycling. Several of  the city recycling programs we examined provide both curbside collection  (see fig. 1) and drop-off locations, weekly service on the same day as trash  collection, and free curbside recycling bins. An EPA study found that  offering curbside and drop-off collection contributed to high recycling  rates because the ease of recycling made residents more likely to recycle.  In addition, academic studies we reviewed identified curbside collection  as a key to increasing the amount of material recycled because of its  convenience.
Further, several of the recycling coordinators with whom we spoke  believe that providing a financial incentive to recycle is one of the most  important features of their recycling programs. In cities such as Austin,  Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle, residential garbage collection fees  are based on the size of the garbage can used. Through recycling, residents  can produce less waste, use smaller garbage cans, and thus lower their  garbage collection bills. Cities such as Minneapolis and Philadelphia offer  different types of financial incentives to recycle. Minneapolis residents  who actively participate in the city’s recycling program through  processing, sorting, separating, and bagging their recyclables receive a $7  credit in their monthly garbage bill. In Philadelphia, households selected  to participate in a pilot program called “Recycle Bank” can receive up to  $25 per month in coupons—based on the weight of their recyclable  materials—that can be redeemed at major retailers. Academic studies we  reviewed found that charging residents a waste disposal fee based on the  size of their trash container could positively affect the amount of material  being recycled.
Recycling coordinators also commented that public education and  outreach programs were important in their efforts to increase recycling.  All of the recycling coordinators that we interviewed commented that they  use mass media to educate the public about recycling. For example,  according to its recycling coordinator, New York City provides  information about its recycling program through its Web site, mailings,  television commercials, and advertisements on public transportation. In  addition to outreach activities through mass media, recycling coordinators  in Atlanta, Austin, Jacksonville, and Philadelphia said that they offer  recycling education programs in their school systems. San Francisco  reaches out to its diverse population by distributing instructional recycling  brochures written in three languages with pictures of recyclable materials.  Academic and EPA studies we reviewed said that public education is  correlated with higher recycling rates. For example, an EPA study found  that communities with strong recycling programs all used education,  publicity, and outreach to promote recycling. In addition, an academic  study found that cities that held meetings with neighborhood or  community groups on how, when, and where to recycle had higher levels  of recycling participation than cities that did not.

		Other Practices That Could Increase Recycling

In addition to the three key practices, recycling coordinators and the  recycling literature identified other practices that could increase recycling.  One such practice is targeting a wide range of materials for recycling.  Food scraps and yard trimmings made up almost a quarter of the  municipal solid waste generated in the United States in 2005, according to  an EPA study. Another EPA study found that collecting and composting  yard trimmings were key to reaching 50 percent and higher waste  reduction levels and doing so cost-effectively. While all of the recycling  coordinators with whom we spoke said that their cities collected  aluminum, glass, and paper for recycling, and all but one collected plastic,  some said that they did not regularly collect biodegradable materials.  However, San Francisco’s and Seattle’s recycling coordinators commented  that their cities’ programs collect and compost biodegradable materials,  such as food discards, yard waste, soiled paper, and wood. The compost  made from San Francisco’s biodegradable materials is sold to California  farms and vineyards. San Francisco’s recycling coordinator estimates that  the composting program increased the city’s recycling rate by 14 percent  in 2004. Seattle estimates that composting contributed to increasing its  recycling rate by 13 percent in 2003. In addition, recycling coordinators in  Atlanta, Austin, and Portland commented that their cities collect  residential yard wastes for composting. The advantages of composting  include reducing the amount of waste sent to landfills and reducing  pollution because less methane gas is produced, according to EPA. EPA  has also found that compost can be used to enrich soil, suppress plant  diseases and pests, reduce or eliminate the need for chemical fertilizers,  and promote higher yields of agricultural crops.
Although EPA has no recent national data on the proportion of waste  generated by the commercial sector compared with the residential sector,  an EPA report estimated that 35 to 45 percent of the nation’s municipal  solid waste was generated by the commercial sector in 1997. In addition,  the California Integrated Waste Management Board estimated that in 2003  over 60 percent of California’s waste disposal came from the commercial  sector. An EPA study found that since commercial waste can often  constitute a significant portion of municipal solid waste, recycling  commercial waste plays an important role in helping communities meet  their recycling goals. Some of the recycling coordinators with whom we  spoke commented that their cities have made efforts to increase their  overall recycling rates by increasing their commercial recycling rates. For  example, Portland, Oregon, distributes recycling containers to businesses  and, since 1996, requires all businesses to recycle at least 50 percent of  their total wastes. A Portland recycling official told us that he believes that  this mandatory commercial recycling has helped increase Portland’s  commercial recycling rate by 4 to 5 percent. New York City requires all  businesses to separate recyclable materials from trash and has different  recycling requirements for different types of businesses. For example,  people in office buildings are required to recycle office paper, newspapers,  magazines, and corrugated cardboard, and people in food or beverage  establishments are required to recycle metal cans, glass bottles and jars,  plastic bottles and jugs, aluminum foil products, and corrugated  cardboard.
Mandating residential and commercial recycling is another practice that  some cities use in an effort to increase their recycling rates. For example,  Seattle and New York City have laws that require residents to recycle.  Seattle’s haulers are instructed not to collect trash cans that contain 10  percent or more recyclable materials. According to Seattle officials, their  city’s ordinance mandating recycling has had a positive effect. Six months  after Seattle began enforcing this ordinance, city officials announced that  approximately 95 percent of the apartments and businesses inspected  were recycling correctly and less than 1 percent of household garbage  cans were not collected because they contained more than 10 percent of  recyclable materials. In addition, New York City officials can fine residents  and businesses that mix recyclable materials with their trash. Some of the  academic and EPA literature we reviewed also supports the use of  mandatory recycling. For example, one academic study found that  municipalities with mandatory recycling programs had substantially higher  rates of recycling participation than those with voluntary programs. In  addition, an EPA report found that encouraging or requiring recycling  participation was a key strategy for communities to achieve high  residential recycling rates.
Finally, targeting multiunit residential buildings for recycling has potential  for increasing recycling. Several of the recycling coordinators said that  their cities do not provide curbside recycling services to large, multiunit  residential buildings. According to an EPA study, collecting recyclables in  multiunit residential buildings poses many challenges. For example,  instead of picking up recyclables from bins on the curbside, the  recyclables are often located in the building, which makes it difficult for  the haulers to access the recyclable materials. These buildings also may  house residents who are more transient than single-unit household  residents and thus may be less familiar with the community’s recycling  program. Despite these difficulties, recycling coordinators in some cities,  including Minneapolis, New York City, San Francisco, and Seattle,  commented that recycling services are offered to all residential buildings.  One study, by a research and consulting firm, found several strategies that  could increase recycling in multiunit residential buildings. These  strategies include providing economic incentives, requiring recycling  plans, and making recycling as convenient as garbage disposal through  techniques such as retrofitting building garbage chutes to be recycling  compatible. According to an EPA study, cities with a large proportion of  residents living in multiunit buildings will have difficulty attaining high  recycling rates without targeting these buildings in their recycling  programs.

	EPA Has Several Recycling Programs, but They Lack Performance Measures; Commerce Is Not Fully Meeting Its RCRA Recycling Requirement

Several EPA programs are designed to increase recycling and help the  agency achieve its 2008 national municipal solid waste recycling goal;  however, the programs lack performance measures and comprehensive  performance data to help determine their impact. Although Commerce is  required under RCRA to stimulate the development of markets for  recycled materials, it is not taking any actions to do so in the United  States. However, the agency supports increased international trade in  recycled and recyclable materials as part of its general trade promotion  responsibilities.

		Several EPA Programs Are Designed to Increase Recycling, but They Lack Performance Measures and Comprehensive Performance Data That Would Help Determine Their Impact

To meet RCRA requirements, EPA has established several programs to  encourage recycling of municipal solid waste. In 1994, EPA launched  WasteWise, one of the agency’s primary recycling programs. Under the  program, EPA forms voluntary partnerships with businesses, nonprofit  organizations, and government agencies to develop plans to prevent waste,  increase recycling, and buy or manufacture more recycled-content  products. Through WasteWise, EPA has formed partnerships with over  1,600 organizations to reduce and recycle municipal solid waste and  certain industrial waste. These partners recycled one million tons of paper  in 2004, according to EPA. In 2005, EPA promoted a recycling competition  through its WasteWise College and University Campaign. As a result, 47  colleges and universities recycled more than 5,200 tons of materials during  a 10-week period. However, fiscal year 2007 funding for WasteWise will be  reduced by about 81 percent based on EPA’s fiscal year 2006 budget  figures.
In 2002, EPA developed an institutional strategy called the Resource  Conservation Challenge (RCC) through which it implements WasteWise  and its other recycling programs. One of the goals of the RCC is to  promote recycling by focusing on three municipal solid waste streams:  paper, organic materials, and packaging and containers. The RCC’s  competitive grants program, launched in fiscal year 2006, budgeted  $500,000, in part, for innovative projects that support EPA’s efforts to  achieve the 35 percent national recycling goal by 2008. For example, in  June 2006, the competitive grants program selected the National Recycling  Coalition, a nonprofit recycling organization, to help create a national  marketing campaign to encourage consumers to recycle.
In addition to EPA headquarters’ programs, EPA’s regions support the  national effort to achieve the municipal solid waste recycling goal. For  example, in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, Region 1 provided funds to initiate  a food waste collection program in partnership with 54 supermarkets.  According to a Region 1 official, 9,000 tons of organic material and 27,000  tons of cardboard are recycled from these supermarkets annually. In fiscal  year 2006, Region 3 provided grant funding to the Mid-Atlantic Consortium  of Recycling and Economic Development Officials, a nonprofit  organization composed of recycling and economic development officials,  and to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit research and  educational organization, to promote recycling of two key municipal solid  waste streams. Specifically, these organizations developed a workshop on  food waste recycling and organized and led stakeholder meetings with  paper industry representatives, property owners and managers, and  consortium officials to develop a strategy to increase paper recycling. In  fiscal years 2003 and 2005, Region 5 hosted urban recycling forums—to  share recycling best practices—for recycling coordinators from large  urban areas in Regions 5 and 7.
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 established a  framework for monitoring and reporting on the performance of federal  agencies, including the use of program performance goals and measures.  Establishing performance measures and gathering objective information  on performance allows organizations to track the progress they are  making toward their goals and gives managers crucial information upon  which to base decisions, thereby improving program effectiveness. While  EPA receives information about the accomplishments of some of its  recycling programs, the agency has not established performance measures  to help determine the extent to which its programs are contributing to  meeting the national recycling goal of 35 percent by 2008. Consequently, it  is difficult to know what impact severe budget cuts in fiscal year 2007 to  the WasteWise program will have on meeting the national recycling goal.  Similarly, EPA’s regional offices have implemented recycling programs  that support the agency’s efforts to increase the national recycling rate.  Although officials from headquarters and the regions periodically discuss  key accomplishments, EPA does not consistently collect and analyze  comprehensive information about the regional programs, such as the types  of programs, their funding levels, and their results.
EPA officials told us they use the municipal solid waste characterization  report by Franklin Associates—EPA’s contractor—to help assess the  impact WasteWise and other recycling programs have on the national  recycling rate. If the national recycling rate increases, EPA assumes that  WasteWise and the agency’s other recycling programs are contributing to  the increases. We do not believe it is appropriate to make this assumption.  Franklin Associates does not have quality control over most of the data it  uses in its recycling rate estimates because it must rely on data collected  by intermediate sources, such as industry associations. Therefore, changes  in the national recycling rate may be attributable to variations in the data  collection process. Furthermore, a multitude of factors, such as the  actions of state and local governments or the influence of economic  forces, may affect national recycling rates. Therefore, under its current  assumptions, EPA cannot reliably determine whether changes in the  national recycling rate are the result of the agency’s programs or the result  of other factors. EPA officials told us that they were aware of the  limitations of the national recycling rate data and acknowledged that they  need to establish performance measures for their recycling programs and  then systematically gather data to assess program performance.

		Commerce Is Taking No Actions to Stimulate the Development of Markets for Recycled Materials in the United States

While Commerce is taking some actions to stimulate international markets  for recycled materials, the agency is not taking any actions to stimulate  domestic markets and, therefore, is not fully meeting its responsibilities  under RCRA subtitle E. For example, Commerce is not identifying the  geographical location of existing or potential markets for recycled  materials or the economic and technical barriers to the use of recycled  materials in the United States. Moreover, Commerce is not implementing  activities to stimulate the development of new uses for recycled materials  in the United States.
Nonetheless, according to Commerce officials, the agency supports  increased international trade in recycled and recyclable materials as part  of its general trade promotion responsibilities. Moreover, Commerce’s  Director of the Office of Materials and Machinery told us that the agency  supports recycling in other ways as well. For example, in 2004, China  began requiring scrap metal exporters to obtain a license before shipping  their materials to China. Commerce officials intervened with the Chinese  government on behalf of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries to  resolve some of the issues that had surfaced as a result of the licensing  requirement.

	Stakeholders Identified a Number of Federal Policy Options That Could Help Municipalities Increase Recycling

Recycling stakeholders we interviewed identified various federal policy  options that they believe could help municipalities increase their recycling  rates. The three policy options cited most frequently as top priorities were  to establish a nationwide campaign to educate the public about recycling,  enact a federal bottle bill in which beverage containers may be returned  for money, and require producers to establish a system that consumers  can use to recycle their products. Other policy options for helping  municipalities to increase recycling include facilitating the sharing of  recycling best practices, expanding EPA research on the economic and  environmental benefits of recycling, providing additional grant money for  recycling projects, reducing or removing subsidies to industries that  extract virgin materials, and providing subsidies to the recycling industry.

		Recycling Stakeholders Cited Three Policy Options as Top Priorities for Federal Action

The policy option most frequently identified by stakeholders as a top  priority for helping municipalities increase their recycling rates was to  establish a nationwide campaign to educate the public about recycling.  Some stakeholders who cited this option as a top priority commented that  public interest in recycling had waned and a national campaign was  needed to reinvigorate the public and help increase the supply of  recyclable materials. Furthermore, one stakeholder pointed out that the  federal government was best equipped to implement such a campaign  given the limited resources of individual states and localities. Another  stakeholder, however, doubted the effectiveness of a national recycling  campaign. He explained that the information communicated through a  national campaign would be too general and said that local educational  campaigns would be more effective.
Stakeholders who cited a national recycling campaign as a top priority  offered different ideas on how to carry out the campaign. Some  stakeholders said that a national recycling campaign should include a  widely-visible media component to promote recycling and raise awareness  about its benefits. Others noted that an effective campaign might also  focus on in-school education for children. Regardless of the campaign’s  strategy, several stakeholders pointed out that it should communicate a  consistent and sustained message to be effective. Most noted that the  principal challenge to implementing a successful campaign would be  securing funding for this effort.
According to EPA officials, in 2006 the agency selected the National  Recycling Coalition (Coalition) to undertake a national recycling  education campaign. The goals of the campaign are to substantially  increase recycling participation in the United States and increase the  national recycling rate to 35 percent by 2008. To develop the campaign, the  Coalition intends to match EPA’s funding with approximately $380,000  from the private sector. Once the campaign is developed, the Coalition  plans to finance it with $5 million per year in funds raised from a diverse  group of environmental organizations, commodity trade associations,  foundations, government agencies, and consumer-product companies and  their trade associations.
The policy option cited second most frequently by stakeholders as a top  priority for federal action was to enact a federal bottle bill in which  beverage containers may be returned for money. Several stakeholders  noted that bottle bills have been effective in the states where they have  been implemented. To illustrate this point, one stakeholder cited a 2002  study on beverage container recycling by Businesses and  Environmentalists Allied for Recycling, which found that states with  deposit laws achieved a beverage container recovery rate of about 72  percent, while states without deposit legislation achieved recovery rates of  approximately 28 percent. Another stakeholder cited research indicating  that the 11 states with container deposit laws accounted for 55 percent of  the national recovery rate for beverage containers with only 29 percent of  the population. One stakeholder also observed that bottle bills may  complement residential recycling programs by providing an incentive to  recycle beverage containers, which may be discarded outside the home,  where there are fewer receptacles for recycling. A city recycling  coordinator we interviewed argued that by providing a national standard, a  federal bottle bill would also help to address the current problem of  fraudulent redemption, where containers are transported across state lines  from a nondeposit state to a deposit state for redemption.
Stakeholders offered various ideas on how to implement a federal bottle  bill. Some explained that the federal government would need to set its  deposit amount sufficiently high to provide a measurable incentive for  recycling; three individuals specified that 10 cents would be the minimum  amount necessary to accomplish this goal. Two of the stakeholders we  interviewed emphasized that all unredeemed deposits should be retained  by the federal government and be used to fund continued recycling efforts.  Stakeholders also noted the potential implications of implementing a  retailer-based redemption system. They pointed out that retailers would  likely oppose any redemption system that imposed significant additional  costs on their operations. To address these concerns, one stakeholder  suggested that the federal government consider an alternative redemption  system. Another recommended some kind of reimbursement system to  help defray operational costs incurred by retailers. For example, states  with bottle bills generally allow consumers to return their used beverage  containers to certified redemption centers in lieu of retailers. In addition,  one state sets aside 25 percent of its unredeemed deposits for beverage  retailers to defray the operational costs associated with accepting  deposits.
Recycling stakeholders we interviewed and literature we reviewed also  cited reasons why some oppose bottle bills. One stakeholder said that a  bottle bill would not be very effective at helping municipalities to increase  their recycling rates because it would only address a small percentage of  municipal solid waste—less than 6 percent, according to EPA data—and  because communities with curbside programs already collect the same  materials covered by a bottle bill. Moreover, some opponents of bottle  bills argue that they are more expensive to administer than comprehensive  curbside recycling programs, despite often targeting the same materials.  The beverage industry and retailers oppose bottle bills because they  generate additional administrative costs that they must either absorb or  pass on to consumers through higher beverage prices. Higher prices may,  in turn, reduce demand for beverages. Opponents of bottle bills also  believe that deposit laws penalize city-run curbside recycling programs by  siphoning off valuable materials, such as aluminum cans, whose scrap  value would help to defray the cost of running a curbside program. In  1990, we reported that while bottle bills impose an additional cost on the  beverage industry, they also benefit the environment by reducing litter,  conserving energy and natural resources, and diverting solid waste from  landfills. We also noted that states with deposit legislation generally found  that local curbside systems could coexist with deposit systems.
The policy option identified third most frequently by recycling  stakeholders as a top priority was to require manufacturers to establish a  system that consumers can use to recycle their products, also known as  producer “take back” programs. Stakeholders commented that producer  take back programs would be most useful for certain products, such as  electronics, paint, and carpet, that are difficult to recycle or may contain a  high level of toxicity. Those stakeholders that selected producer take back  programs as a top priority cited several reasons for their choice. One  stakeholder said that take back programs would make it easier for the  public to recycle certain products. Others asserted that requiring  producers to provide take back programs for their products would  motivate them to design products and packaging that can be more easily  recycled. Two stakeholders we interviewed noted that requiring producers  to provide a system for recycling their products would also ease the  financial burden on municipalities by shifting some of the responsibility  for waste disposal from local governments to consumers and  manufacturers. Moreover, solid waste officials from one state we visited  highlighted the importance of establishing a federal standard. Specifically,  they pointed out that having a federal standard for electronic waste was  preferable to leaving it up to the states, which could result in 50 different  standards. We reported a similar conclusion with respect to electronic  waste in 2005, when we noted that, in the absence of a federal standard, an  emerging patchwork of state policies may place a substantial burden on  manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers. Government officials and  industry representatives suggested that some oppose mandatory producer  take back programs because they can be logistically complicated and may  impose additional costs on producers and retailers, which are often passed  on to consumers through higher prices.
Several U.S. states have enacted legislation requiring take back programs  for certain products. For example, in 2004, Maine passed a law requiring  industry to take back and recycle the discarded computer monitors and  televisions that municipalities collect. In addition, as of July 2006,  California requires that retailers of cell phones collect used products for  reuse, recycling, or proper disposal. Moreover, according to the Battery  Council International, a lead-acid battery trade organization, 37 states  currently have laws requiring retailers to take back lead-acid batteries that  were used in cars and trucks. Specific companies have also established  take back programs for their products. For example, Dell Inc., a  manufacturer of personal computers, offers consumers free recycling of  Dell products.
EPA is promoting voluntary extended product responsibility programs,  such as take back programs, and has identified a number of priority  products, including electronics, batteries, and carpet, for which some kind  of extended product responsibility action is warranted. EPA has  participated in negotiations among government and industry officials to  establish extended product responsibility agreements for priority product  categories. For example, in 2001, EPA participated in multistakeholder  negotiations with state governments, non-governmental organizations, and  the carpet industry that resulted in a Memorandum of Understanding for  Carpet Stewardship. This agreement established carpet recycling targets  and has produced design innovations to make carpets more recyclable.  EPA also sponsors the Plug-In To eCycling campaign, which fosters  partnerships with industry and state and local governments to make  recycling used electronics less expensive and more convenient for  consumers. In 2004, Plug-In To eCycling sponsored four pilot projects, all  of which involved holding collection events at retailers such as Best Buy,  Good Guys, Office Depot, Staples, and Target. Through the Plug-In To  eCycling campaign, over 45 million pounds of used consumer electronics  have been collected in the United States since 2003. In addition to its  national programs, EPA regional offices have also helped to negotiate  local take back programs and collection events for electronics.

		Several Other Federal Policy Options Could Help Municipalities Increase Recycling

In addition to the top three proposals identified by recycling stakeholders,  our interviews with other individuals with recycling expertise, as well as a  review of relevant literature, revealed a variety of other federal policy  options that could help municipalities increase recycling. One such policy  option is for the federal government to develop a mechanism for  facilitating the sharing of recycling best practices. One municipal recycling  coordinator we interviewed said that his city would benefit from learning  about best practices gleaned from other cities’ experiences. He suggested  that one way of accomplishing this might be through recycling  conferences. Another recycling stakeholder recommended that the federal  government create and maintain a searchable database or clearinghouse  that communities can use to learn about other recycling programs. He  noted that, in his capacity as an academic studying local recycling  programs, the most common request he receives from local recycling  officials is for information on recycling best practices in other  communities with like characteristics. To address this need, he said the  database could include information on the size of each community;  specific details on the features of the community’s recycling program; and  data associated with each recycling program, such as recycling rates. He  also suggested that the database include contact information for each  community so that they could follow up with each other and develop  extended partnerships. EPA officials acknowledged that the agency has  not conducted a comprehensive survey of cities and municipalities to  collect information on recycling best practices. However, EPA has  identified the need for an online tool kit that communities will be able to  access to gather information on recycling best practices. EPA officials said  that the tool kit is currently under development and will be reviewed by  EPA’s local government advisory committee.
Another policy option to help municipalities increase recycling would be  to expand federal research on the economic and environmental benefits of  recycling. One stakeholder we interviewed said that a study sponsored by  EPA has helped cities make a convincing economic argument for starting  or expanding recycling programs. However, she explained that the biggest  weakness of this research is that it is outdated and needs to be revised to  reflect current conditions. According to the same stakeholder, models  developed by EPA have also served as useful tools for localities that wish  to calculate the environmental benefits accrued by their communities as a  result of recycling. In particular, officials from one city noted that EPA’s  Waste Reduction Model had been helpful to solid waste planners and  organizations seeking to estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from  various solid waste management strategies.
The federal government might also help municipalities increase their  recycling rates by providing additional grant funding for recycling  projects. In recent years, EPA has provided limited grant funding for  recycling pilot projects through selected regional offices. For example, in  2005, EPA’s Region 9 awarded the city of Modesto, California, $50,000 to  help fund a commercial food composting program. In addition, in 2006,  EPA’s Region 3 awarded approximately $10,000 to the Central Virginia  Waste Management Authority to start recycling programs in 18 schools in  the Richmond, Virginia, area. Nonetheless, one stakeholder noted that a  lack of funds for staff, equipment, education, and enforcement can prevent  or limit local recycling programs. Another stakeholder suggested that the  federal government provide states with grant packages that include  incentives for meeting certain recycling rates. He noted that the federal  government should try to target funds to cities that would not have  undertaken recycling programs if not for federal assistance. However, he  noted that the principal challenge in implementing this suggestion would  be establishing criteria for the distribution of funds, ensuring that the  results of the recycling programs are measurable, and making sure that  federal funds are not simply substituted for local funds.
Some of the recycling stakeholders and city recycling coordinators we  interviewed also suggested that the federal government could help  municipalities increase their recycling rates by reducing or removing  federal subsidies to industries that extract virgin materials. One  stakeholder said that these subsidies cause virgin materials to be cheaper  than they would be if the full cost of their extraction was taken into  account, and recycled materials struggle to compete as a result. Another  stakeholder cited a study published in 1999 by the GrassRoots Recycling  Network, a recycling advocacy organization, which found that industries  involved in the extraction of virgin materials receive significant annual  direct subsidies from the federal government. On the other hand, another  stakeholder said that removing subsidies would likely have little  measurable impact on the relative prices of virgin versus recycled  materials. Therefore, he argued that while removing federal subsidies  would provide a greater level of fairness between the recycled materials  and virgin materials markets, it would likely have only a minimal impact  on the overall demand for recycled materials. Another stakeholder opined  that reducing or removing federal subsidies was simply politically  impractical.
Some recycling stakeholders and city recycling coordinators also  identified various forms of federal subsidies or tax incentives as possible  policy options for helping municipalities increase their recycling rates.  One stakeholder said that the federal government should provide subsidies  to industries that process recyclable materials. She explained that  subsidies would provide the necessary financial incentive to drive  recyclable materials out of the waste stream and increase the supply of  these materials available to manufacturers. Another stakeholder said that  the federal government should provide incentives to manufacturers who  use recycled materials in their products and suggested that such incentives  could take the form of a tax credit or accelerated depreciation for  recycling equipment. According to EPA, 25 U.S. states currently use some  kind of tax incentive or credit to promote recycling market development,  with the specific features varying from state to state. However, evidence is  mixed as to how effective these incentives have been in increasing  recycling. One group of solid waste professionals noted that it is extremely  difficult to design these incentives so that they induce new recycling.  Instead, the incentives may serve as a windfall for businesses that were  already recycling or would have recycled even in the absence of an  incentive. As stipulated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Secretary of  the Treasury is required to work with the Secretary of Energy to, among  other things, identify tax incentives that would encourage the recycling of  glass, paper, plastic, steel, aluminum, and electronic devices. The statute  requires that the Department of the Treasury and the Department of  Energy (DOE) report their findings by August 2006, but, according to  Treasury officials, as of November 2006, the agency was just beginning its  work and had yet to coordinate with DOE. Treasury officials could not  give us a projected date for the study’s completion.
One recycling coordinator also noted that the federal government could  provide an incentive for recycling simply by clarifying a section of the U.S.  tax code that permits municipalities to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance  construction of solid waste disposal facilities. Historically, municipalities  have often been unable to apply this provision to the construction of  materials recovery facilities, where recycled materials are sorted and  processed, or other recycling facilities, because recyclable materials  generally did not meet the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) definition of  solid waste. In May 2004, the IRS issued a proposed rule to amend the tax  code regarding the eligibility of recycling facilities for tax-exempt bond  financing. According to an IRS official, the agency hopes to finalize the  proposed rule by June 2007.

	Conclusions

Despite the ongoing efforts of communities and EPA to increase the  amount of materials recycled, the national recycling rate has increased  only slightly since 2000. Although EPA has implemented several programs  at the national and regional levels to encourage recycling, their  effectiveness is unknown. Without performance information to guide its  efforts, EPA has no way of knowing the extent to which its resources are  being directed toward activities that are of the greatest benefit in helping  to achieve the national recycling goal. Additionally, without a commitment  by Commerce to actively encourage recycling by stimulating the  development of markets for recycled materials in the United States,  municipalities may have little incentive to recycle certain materials.

	Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, establish performance  measures and gather comprehensive performance data to evaluate the  impact of EPA’s recycling programs to ensure that the agency’s available  resources are utilized in the most effective and efficient manner.
We also recommend that the Secretary of Commerce develop and  implement a strategy to stimulate the development of markets for recycled  materials in the United States to fully meet its responsibilities under RCRA  subtitle E.

	Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided draft copies of this report to EPA and Commerce for their  review and comment. Overall, EPA stated that the report was very well  written, carefully researched, and clearly argued. EPA agreed with our  recommendation to establish performance measures and gather  comprehensive performance data to evaluate the impact of its recycling  programs. Moreover, EPA stated that during fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the  agency intends to develop performance measures for key aspects of its  municipal waste reduction program. EPA provided technical and editorial  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate into the report. EPA’s  comments are presented in appendix IV.
According to Commerce, the report properly recognizes the agency’s  efforts in support of increased international trade in recycled and  recyclable materials. However, Commerce did not directly address our  recommendation that it develop and implement a strategy to help  stimulate the development of markets for recycled materials in the United  States. Rather, Commerce submitted a list of ongoing activities that  support the agency’s mission to promote international trade in goods and  services produced in the United States, including trade in recycled and  recyclable materials. According to Commerce, promoting international  trade in these materials is stimulating the demand for domestic recycling  markets to supply foreign buyers. While Commerce is taking some actions  to stimulate international markets for recycled materials, the agency is not  taking any actions to stimulate domestic markets and, therefore, is not  fully meeting its responsibilities under RCRA subtitle E. Commerce’s  comments are presented in appendix V.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Administrator of the  Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Commerce,  appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. We  will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions about this  report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made  major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report were to (1) identify the key practices that  selected U.S. cities are using to increase recycling, (2) describe what the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of  Commerce (Commerce) are doing to encourage recycling nationwide, and  (3) identify federal policy options that stakeholders with recycling  expertise believe could help increase recycling. For all three objectives,  we reviewed recycling studies and reports; visited materials recovery  facilities in California, Oregon, and Washington where recycled materials  are sorted and processed; and interviewed various recycling stakeholders.
To identify the key practices selected U.S. cities are using to increase  recycling, we reviewed studies and reports from government agencies,  nonprofit organizations, industry associations, and academia. We  identified studies on municipal recycling practices by searching electronic  journal databases, including ProQuest and JSTOR, for studies published  within the past 20 years using the key term of “recycling.” We also  obtained references from experts and EPA. In addition, we interviewed  officials from federal, state, and local government; industry; and  nonprofits, as well as academics and consultants. We conducted  structured interviews with recycling coordinators in 11 cities across the  United States: Atlanta, Georgia; Austin, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; Denver,  Colorado; Jacksonville, Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; New York, New  York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco,  California; and Seattle, Washington. To ensure that our list of cities  included (1) sufficient geographic representation, (2) only cities with  functioning curbside recycling programs, and (3) a sample of leading  recycling programs, we gathered information on the various U.S. recycling  programs during preliminary interviews with various recycling  stakeholders and reviewed the recycling literature and EPA reports. In  addition to meeting the criteria above, the 11 cities we selected were  among the 50 most populous cities in the United States. To help ensure the  validity of information obtained from our interviews with city recycling  coordinators, we conducted pretests of the interview questions and  modified some questions in response to those results. During the  structured interviews with the recycling coordinators from the 11 cities,  we asked for detailed information about the characteristics of their cities’  residential and commercial recycling programs, including the planning  processes used to design their recycling program, legal requirements for  their recycling programs, and economic and financial incentives their  residents and businesses have to recycle. In addition, we asked the  coordinators about the types of public outreach used to promote their  recycling program, types of recyclable materials collected, and  information on who processes their recyclable materials. Finally, we asked  the coordinators what they considered to be the most important program  characteristics for increasing recycling and what specific actions the  federal government could take to help their cities increase their recycling  rates.
To describe what EPA and Commerce are doing to encourage recycling,  we reviewed the laws and regulations that establish their responsibilities  related to recycling. We also examined EPA-sponsored programs that  encourage or facilitate recycling, reviewed agency documentation of their  efforts, and interviewed officials from both agencies.
To identify federal policy options that stakeholders believe could help  increase recycling, we conducted a second set of structured interviews  with 13 stakeholders that have professional expertise in recycling issues.  We selected these stakeholders because of their expertise in municipal  solid waste or recycling issues at the national, state or local level; to  provide broad representation across academia, government, and the  private and nonprofit sectors; and to provide broad geographic  representation throughout the United States. To ensure that our initial list  of stakeholders included individuals with expertise in recycling and  represented a range of perspectives on recycling, we first asked two noted  recycling experts to review our selections. Both experts agreed that our  list was comprehensive. During the structured interviews, we presented  the 13 stakeholders with a list of 17 policy proposals that had been  identified by the city recycling coordinators and others we interviewed.  We asked these stakeholders how effective they thought each of the  proposals would be in helping cities and counties to increase their  recycling rates. We then asked them to identify the three proposals that  they thought the federal government should prioritize in order to be most  effective in assisting cities and counties to increase their recycling rates. A  complete ranking of these proposals, based on the frequency that each  was cited as a top three priority by stakeholders, can be found in appendix  III. To gain additional context on each policy option, we also asked  stakeholders to describe what features of the proposal led them to  consider it to be a top priority for the federal government. Some  stakeholders cited specific research studies to justify their selections, and  while we include references to these studies in the report, we did not  evaluate these studies, and they may not represent the full range of  research relevant to each policy option. To supplement information  obtained through these structured interviews, we also reviewed reports  from government agencies, nonprofit organizations, industry associations,  and academia.
We conducted our work from January 2006 to December 2006 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Recycling Program Characteristics of Selected U.S. Cities

We conducted structured interviews with recycling coordinators in 11  cities across the United States. This appendix provides a summary of their  responses to questions about the characteristics of their recycling  programs. Please note that (1) commercial recycling refers to both  businesses and institutions; (2) single stream recycling refers to the  practice of commingling all recyclables, such as paper, plastic, and glass,  in one container for pickup; and (3) while various private recycling  programs may exist in cities, the recycling coordinators were asked  specifically about city-sponsored recycling programs.

Appendix III: Federal Policy Options Reviewed by Recycling Stakeholders

We asked the recycling coordinators of 11 U.S. cities what actions the  federal government could take to help their cities increase recycling rates.  Based on their responses, we compiled a list of 17 policy options. To  gather additional detail on each option, we then asked 13 stakeholders  with recycling expertise to review the list of proposals and identify the  three proposals they believed should be the top priorities for federal  action. This table lists the 17 policy options reviewed by recycling  stakeholders and shows the number of times each option was cited as a  top three priority.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Stephen D. Secrist, Assistant  Director; Leo G. Acosta; Charles W. Bausell, Jr.; Mark A. Braza; Allen T.  Chan; Nancy L. Crothers; Cynthia M. Daffron; Drew Lindsey; Gregory A.  Marchand; Katherine M. Raheb; Gloria M. Sutton; and Lisa M. Walling  made key contributions to this report.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

Although recycling can generate environmental and economic benefits, the national recycling rate has increased only slightly since 2000, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While local governments have the primary role in operating recycling programs, EPA and the Department of Commerce (Commerce) have some legal responsibilities for encouraging recycling. GAO was asked to (1) identify key practices cities are using to increase recycling, (2) describe what EPA and Commerce are doing to encourage recycling, and (3) identify federal policy options that could help increase recycling. GAO interviewed recycling coordinators in 11 large cities about key practices and 13 additional recycling stakeholders about policy options. GAO selected both groups based on geographic representation and recycling expertise, among other factors.

What GAO Found

Recycling coordinators with whom we spoke in selected cities across the country identified several key practices they are using to increase recycling in their cities. The three practices they cited most frequently were (1) making recycling convenient and easy for their residents, (2) offering financial incentives for recycling, such as allowing residents who produce less waste through recycling to use smaller garbage cans and pay lower fees, and (3) conducting public education and outreach. In addition, both recycling coordinators and the recycling literature identified other ways to increase recycling, such as targeting a wide range of materials for recycling and extending recycling programs to the commercial sector. As a part of its Resource Conservation Challenge strategy, EPA operates several national and regional programs that are designed to increase recycling and help EPA achieve its national municipal solid waste recycling goal of 35 percent by 2008. One of EPA's principal national recycling programs, WasteWise, creates voluntary partnerships with groups, such as universities, states, and businesses, to help them increase their recycling. EPA also provides competitive grants to support projects designed to increase recycling. The impact of EPA's programs is unknown, however, because the programs lack performance measures and comprehensive data on program performance. Although Commerce is required under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to stimulate the development of markets for recycled materials, the agency is not currently taking any actions to do so in the United States. For example, Commerce is not identifying the location of markets for recycled materials, identifying economic and technical barriers to recycling, or encouraging the development of new uses for recycled materials in the United States. However, agency officials told GAO that Commerce supports increased international trade in recycled and recyclable materials as part of its general trade promotion responsibilities. The recycling stakeholders we interviewed identified various federal policy options that they believe could help municipalities increase their recycling rates. The three federal policy options cited most frequently were to (1) establish a nationwide campaign to educate the public about recycling, (2) enact a national "bottle bill" in which beverage containers may be returned for money, and (3) require manufacturers to establish systems that consumers can use to recycle their products. Other identified policy options included facilitating the sharing of recycling best practices among municipalities, expanding EPA research on the economic and environmental benefits of recycling, and providing additional grant money for recycling projects.