Recycling: Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling
Released: 2007-01-29T00:00:00

Letter

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.