Recycling
Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling Gao ID: GAO-07-37 December 29, 2006Although 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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-37, Recycling: Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-37
entitled 'Recycling: Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal
Recycling' which was released on January 29, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2006:
Recycling:
Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling:
Municipal Recycling:
GAO-07-37:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-37, a report to congressional requesters
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.
What GAO Recommends:
To better evaluate the impact of EPA‘s recycling programs, GAO
recommends that EPA establish performance measures and gather
performance data on those measures. GAO also recommends that Commerce
develop and implement a strategy to help stimulate the development of
markets for recycled materials in the United States. In commenting on
the draft report, EPA agreed with the recommendation and Commerce did
not directly address the recommendation.
[HYperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-37].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact John B. Stephenson, (202)
512-3841, stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Municipalities Use a Variety of Practices to Increase Recycling:
EPA Has Several Recycling Programs, but They Lack Performance Measures;
Commerce Is Not Fully Meeting Its RCRA Recycling Requirement:
Stakeholders Identified a Number of Federal Policy Options That Could
Help Municipalities Increase Recycling:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Recycling Program Characteristics of Selected U.S. Cities:
Appendix III: Federal Policy Options Reviewed by Recycling
Stakeholders:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Summary of Recycling Program in Atlanta, Georgia:
Table 2: Summary of Recycling Program in Austin, Texas:
Table 3: Summary of Recycling Program in Chicago, Illinois:
Table 4: Summary of Recycling Program in Denver, Colorado:
Table 5: Summary of Recycling Program in Jacksonville, Florida:
Table 6: Summary of Recycling Program in Minneapolis, Minnesota:
Table 7: Summary of Recycling Program in New York, New York:
Table 8: Summary of Recycling Program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
Table 9: Summary of Recycling Program in Portland, Oregon:
Table 10: Summary of Recycling Program in San Francisco, California:
Table 11: Summary of Recycling Program in Seattle, Washington:
Table 12: Federal Policy Options:
Figure:
Figure 1: Curbside Recycling in San Jose, California:
Abbreviations:
DOE: Department of Energy:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
IRS: Internal Revenue Service:
RCC: Resource Conservation Challenge:
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 29, 2006:
The Honorable James M. Jeffords:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Thomas R. Carper:
The Honorable Barack Obama:
The Honorable Olympia Snowe:
The Honorable Ron Wyden:
United States Senate:
In 2005, the United States generated about 246 million tons of
municipal solid waste, or over 1,600 pounds per person, according to
the most current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
estimates.[Footnote 1] EPA reported that 79 million tons of this waste
were recycled, while the remaining 166.7 million tons were combusted,
went to landfills, or were otherwise disposed of.[Footnote 2] Recycling
can lower the amount of waste that is incinerated or sent to landfills,
reduce cities' waste disposal costs, and has potentially significant
environmental benefits, such as decreasing water and air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, manufacturing products from
recycled material can provide economic benefits to the extent that it
requires less electricity, fuel, and water, which can result in lower
production costs.
In 1976, the Congress sought to reduce solid waste and encourage
recycling as part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Through RCRA, the Congress directed EPA to foster a cooperative effort
among federal, state, local, and private entities in order to, among
other things, promote recycling through public education. Under RCRA,
EPA established solid waste management guidelines for municipalities
that encouraged recycling, including composting food and yard waste.
While the national recycling rate for municipal solid waste increased
from approximately 16 percent in 1990 to about 29 percent in 2000, it
has increased only slightly to 32 percent since then, according to EPA
estimates.[Footnote 3] Under its Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC),
EPA operates several national and regional programs to support public
and private sector efforts to increase recycling and to help EPA reach
its goal of recycling 35 percent of national municipal solid waste by
2008.[Footnote 4] Subtitle E of RCRA assigns responsibilities to the
Department of Commerce (Commerce) to take actions that stimulate the
development of markets for recycled materials.[Footnote 5]
Local and state governments have the key responsibility for recycling
programs. In particular, local governments often have primary
responsibility for designing and implementing programs to recycle
municipal solid waste. Municipalities typically decide what recyclable
materials to collect, how to collect them, who collects them, who
processes them, and how to conduct education and outreach programs.
Depending on the municipality, funding for a recycling program can come
from local taxes, garbage collection fees, sales of recyclable
materials, or a combination of these sources. State governments also
play a role in recycling efforts. For example, some states require
municipalities to offer recycling programs; 11 states have laws
requiring deposits on beverage cans and bottles known as "bottle
bills"; and several states have passed electronic waste legislation,
such as "extended producer responsibility laws" that require
manufacturers to offer "take back" programs under which consumers may
return computers and other electronic equipment for recycling.
You asked us to (1) identify the key practices that selected U.S.
cities are using to increase recycling, (2) describe what EPA and
Commerce are doing to encourage recycling nationwide, and (3) identify
federal policy options that stakeholders with recycling expertise
believe could help increase recycling.
To conduct this work, we interviewed recycling coordinators in 11
cities across the United States.[Footnote 6] These cities were selected
because they are geographically dispersed and are among the 50 most
populous cities in the country. All of the cities have functioning
curbside recycling programs, and some of their programs are among the
leading ones in the country. In addition, we reviewed laws and
regulations, examined EPA-sponsored programs that encourage or
facilitate recycling, and interviewed officials from both EPA and
Commerce. We also interviewed 13 stakeholders who have professional
expertise in recycling issues to help us prioritize federal policy
options that could help increase recycling. Finally, we reviewed
studies and reports from government agencies, nonprofit organizations,
industry associations, and academia, and interviewed officials from
federal, state, and local government; industry; and nonprofits, as well
as academics and consultants. We conducted our work from January 2006
to December 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Recycling coordinators in selected U.S. cities identified several key
practices they use to increase recycling. The three practices they most
frequently cited were making recycling convenient and easy for their
residents, offering financial incentives for recycling, and conducting
public education and outreach. According to most of the coordinators, a
convenient, easy-to-use recycling program, which may feature both
curbside collection and drop-off locations, weekly service, and free
curbside recycling bins, can lead to increased resident participation
and higher recycling rates. In addition, several 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. For example, in Austin, Texas, 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. Several recycling coordinators
also commented that their public education and outreach programs were
important in their efforts to increase recycling. New York City, for
example, educates its residents about its recycling program through its
Web site, mailings, television commercials, and advertisements on
public transportation. In addition to these key practices, the
recycling coordinators and the recycling literature suggested other
practices that could help increase recycling, including (1) targeting a
wide range of materials for recycling, such as food scraps and yard
trimmings, and (2) extending recycling programs to the commercial
sector, such as food establishments and office buildings. According to
EPA, food scraps and yard trimmings make up almost a quarter of the
municipal solid waste generated in the United States. In addition, a
significant portion of the nation's waste is produced by the commercial
sector. Although EPA has no recent national data on the proportion of
waste generated by the commercial sector as compared with the
residential sector, the agency has estimated that 35 to 45 percent of
the nation's municipal solid waste was generated by the commercial
sector in 1997.
At the national level, EPA administers several programs that develop
partnerships or provide grants to help increase recycling, but the
agency has not established performance measures or collected
comprehensive performance data to help determine what impact these
programs are having. Under one of EPA's principal programs--WasteWise-
-the agency partners with groups such as businesses, nonprofit
organizations, and government agencies to help them increase their
recycling. For example, EPA promoted a recycling competition on college
and university campuses in 2005. However, fiscal year 2007 funding for
the WasteWise program will be reduced by about 81 percent based on
EPA's fiscal year 2006 budget figures. EPA's Resource Conservation
Challenge also operates a grants program that budgeted $500,000 in
fiscal year 2006 to support, in part, the efforts of public and
nonprofit organizations to increase recycling. In addition to these
national efforts, EPA's regional offices conduct various activities,
such as hosting forums on recycling best practices, that are designed
to augment headquarters' programs. 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. We are recommending
that EPA establish performance measures and gather comprehensive
performance data on those measures to evaluate the impact of its
recycling programs.
For its part, Commerce is conducting limited recycling efforts.
According to Commerce officials, the agency currently supports
increased international trade in recycled and recyclable materials as
part of its general trade promotion responsibilities. However, Commerce
is falling short of meeting its requirements under RCRA to stimulate
the development of markets for recycled materials in the United States.
For example, Commerce is not identifying the geographical location of
existing or potential markets for recycled materials, identifying the
economic and technical barriers to the use of recycled materials, or
implementing specific measures to encourage the development of new uses
for recycled materials in the United States. To fully meet its
requirement under RCRA, we are recommending that Commerce develop and
implement a strategy to stimulate the development of markets for
recycled materials in the United States.
Finally, recycling stakeholders we interviewed identified a variety of
federal policy options they believe could help municipalities increase
their recycling rates. The federal action most frequently identified as
a priority by stakeholders was to establish a nationwide campaign to
educate the public about recycling. Some stakeholders commented that
such a campaign would help to reinvigorate the recycling movement, and
others noted that it might include media advertising as well as in-
school education. According to EPA officials, in 2006 the agency
selected the National Recycling Coalition to undertake such an effort.
The second most cited option was for the Congress to enact a federal
bottle bill in which beverage containers could be returned for money.
One stakeholder pointed out, for example, that the 11 states that
currently have bottle bills report higher recycling rates for beverage
containers than states without them. The third most frequently
identified policy option was for the federal government to require
manufacturers to establish a system that consumers can use to recycle
their products, also known as producer "take back" programs. One
stakeholder noted that producer take back programs would make it easier
for consumers to recycle certain products, and others said that such
programs would also help to shift some of the waste disposal burden
from local governments to producers and consumers. In addition to these
three proposals, interviews with recycling stakeholders and a review of
relevant recycling literature revealed other potentially useful policy
options. For example, the federal government could facilitate the
sharing of recycling best practices among municipalities. Specifically,
one stakeholder said that EPA could create and maintain a searchable
database or clearinghouse with information on the recycling programs of
various communities across the United States. Another option identified
by stakeholders would be for the federal government to provide
additional grant money for recycling projects. One stakeholder noted
that insufficient funding is one of the major obstacles cities face in
initiating recycling programs or upgrading existing programs.
We provided draft copies of this report to EPA and Commerce for their
review and comment. EPA agreed with our recommendation regarding
performance measures and provided technical and editorial comments,
which we incorporated as appropriate into the report. Commerce did not
directly address our recommendation regarding developing a strategy to
stimulate markets for recycled materials in the United States. Rather,
Commerce provided 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. EPA's comments appear in appendix IV, and
Commerce's comments appear in appendix V.
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.[Footnote 7] 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.[Footnote 8] 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.[Footnote 9] In addition, academic
studies we reviewed identified curbside collection as a key to
increasing the amount of material recycled because of its
convenience.[Footnote 10]
Figure 1: Curbside Recycling in San Jose, California:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Photo by Larry Strong, courtesy of Norcal Waste Systems, Inc.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 11]
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.[Footnote 12] 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.[Footnote 13]
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.[Footnote 14] 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.[Footnote 15] 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.[Footnote 16] 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.[Footnote 17]
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.[Footnote
18] In addition, an EPA report found that encouraging or requiring
recycling participation was a key strategy for communities to achieve
high residential recycling rates.[Footnote 19]
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.[Footnote 20] 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.[Footnote 21] 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.[Footnote 22]
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.[Footnote 23]
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.[Footnote 24] 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,[Footnote 25] 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.[Footnote 26] 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.[Footnote
27] 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.[Footnote 28]
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.[Footnote 29]
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.[Footnote 30] 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.[Footnote
31] 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.[Footnote 32] In
addition, as of July 2006, California requires that retailers of cell
phones collect used products for reuse, recycling, or proper
disposal.[Footnote 33] 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,[Footnote 34] 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.[Footnote 35] 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.[Footnote 36] 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 [Hyperlink, 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.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
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.
[End of section]
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.
Table 1: Summary of Recycling Program in Atlanta, Georgia:
Residential recycling.
Category: Collection point;
Characteristic: Curbside and drop-off points.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, tin cans, and yard
trimmings.
Category: Single-unit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Multiunit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes, for up to three units.
Category: Curbside collection frequency;
Characteristic: Weekly.
Category: Single-stream curbside collection ;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: $30 annual recycling fee per resident, with exceptions.
Commercial recycling.
Category: City recycling program;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Construction and demolition;
Characteristic: No city program.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Other recycling program features.
Category: City financial incentives to recycle;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Public outreach efforts;
Characteristic: Television, radio, newspaper, billboard, and public
transit ads; school programs; and public meetings.
Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.);
Characteristic: None.
Category: Recycling goal;
Characteristic: 26 percent waste reduction from landfills by 2015.
Source: Recycling coordinator in Atlanta, Georgia.
[End of table]
Table 2: Summary of Recycling Program in Austin, Texas:
Residential recycling.
Category: Collection point;
Characteristic: Curbside.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, corrugated cardboard, glass, paper, plastic,
tin cans, and yard trimmings.
Category: Single-unit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Multiunit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes, for up to four units.
Category: Curbside collection frequency;
Characteristic: Weekly.
Category: Single-stream curbside collection;
Characteristic: No.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Commercial recycling.
Category: City recycling program;
Characteristic: Voluntary program for small businesses.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Same as residential materials.
Category: Construction and demolition;
Characteristic: No city program.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Other recycling program features.
Category: City financial incentives to recycle;
Characteristic: Garbage fee is based on size of the garbage can.
Category: Public outreach efforts;
Characteristic: Television, radio, and billboard ads;
school programs;
and press events.
Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.);
Characteristic: None.
Category: Recycling goal;
Characteristic: None.
Source: Recycling coordinator in Austin, Texas.
[End of table]
Table 3: Summary of Recycling Program in Chicago, Illinois:
Residential recycling.
Category: Collection point;
Characteristic: Alley and some curbside.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, tin and steel cans,
and yard trimmings.
Category: Single-unit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Multiunit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes, for up to four units.
Category: Curbside collection frequency;
Characteristic: Weekly.
Category: Single-stream curbside collection;
Characteristic: No.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: 25 percent recycling goal and mandated local recycling
coordinator position.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: A working recycling program and an annual report on the
status of recycling program.
Commercial recycling.
Category: City recycling program;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Construction and demolition;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Property managers and building owners must have a
recycling program that recycles at least three approved items.
Other recycling program features.
Category: City financial incentives to recycle;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Public outreach efforts;
Characteristic: Television, radio, and billboard ads;
school programs;
and press events.
Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.);
Characteristic: None, except at special events.
Category: Recycling goal;
Characteristic: 25 percent.
Source: Recycling coordinator in Chicago, Illinois.
[End of table]
Table 4: Summary of Recycling Program in Denver, Colorado:
Residential recycling.
Category: Collection point;
Characteristic: Curbside.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, steel, Fall leaves,
and Christmas trees.
Category: Single-unit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Multiunit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes, for up to seven units.
Category: Curbside collection frequency;
Characteristic: Every 2 weeks.
Category: Single-stream curbside collection;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Commercial recycling.
Category: City recycling program;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Construction and demolition;
Characteristic: No city program.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Other recycling program features.
Category: City financial incentives to recycle;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Public outreach efforts;
Characteristic: Television and radio ads, ads on trash trucks, flyers,
brochures, Web site, and public meetings.
Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.);
Characteristic: None.
Category: Recycling goal;
Characteristic: 30 percent waste diversion by 2011.
Source: Recycling coordinator in Denver, Colorado.
[End of table]
Table 5: Summary of Recycling Program in Jacksonville, Florida:
Residential recycling.
Category: Collection point;
Characteristic: Curbside.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, paper, and plastic.
Category: Single-unit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Multiunit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes, for up to 10 units.
Category: Curbside collection frequency;
Characteristic: Weekly.
Category: Single-stream curbside collection;
Characteristic: No.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Cities must offer a recycling program.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Residents required to recycle.
Commercial recycling.
Category: City recycling program;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Construction and demolition;
Characteristic: No city program.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Other recycling program features.
Category: City financial incentives to recycle;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Public outreach efforts;
Characteristic: Television and radio ads and school programs.
Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.);
Characteristic: None.
Category: Recycling goal;
Characteristic: None.
Source: Recycling coordinator in Jacksonville, Florida.
[End of table]
Table 6: Summary of Recycling Program in Minneapolis, Minnesota:
Residential recycling.
Category: Collection point;
Characteristic: Curbside.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, and household
batteries.
Category: Single-unit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Multiunit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Curbside collection frequency;
Characteristic: Every 2 weeks.
Category: Single-stream curbside collection;
Characteristic: No.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: City must offer a recycling program. All yard waste and
recyclable materials should be placed in appropriate containers as
required and approved by the city engineer. Multiunit building owners
must provide recycling for their building.
Commercial recycling.
Category: City recycling program;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Same as residential materials.
Category: Construction and demolition;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Other recycling program features.
Category: City financial incentives to recycle;
Characteristic: $7 credit on monthly garbage bill for households that
recycle.
Category: Public outreach efforts;
Characteristic: Inserts in utility bills, annual recycling calendars,
community events, Web site, and parades.
Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.);
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Recycling goal;
Characteristic: Improve on last year's recycling rate.
Source: Recycling coordinator in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
[End of table]
Table 7: Summary of Recycling Program in New York, New York:
Residential recycling.
Category: Collection point;
Characteristic: Curbside.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, tin cans, all scrap
metal, and leaves.
Category: Single-unit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Multiunit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Curbside collection frequency;
Characteristic: Weekly.
Category: Single-stream curbside collection;
Characteristic: No.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Cities must have at least a 10-year solid waste plan
and run a recycling program.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: City must create citizen advisory groups and a
recycling program, designate which materials must be recycled, mandate
amount of waste that must be recycled, and run a leaf collection
program. Residents required to recycle or be subject to fines.
Commercial recycling.
Category: City recycling program;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Varies by businesses. Paper collected from office
buildings and beverage containers from food establishments.
Category: Construction and demolition;
Characteristic: No city program.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: City must offer businesses a recycling program.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Businesses are required to recycle.
Other recycling program features.
Category: City financial incentives to recycle;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Public outreach efforts;
Characteristic: Media, direct mail, Web site, and public transit ads.
Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.);
Characteristic: To be piloted in 2007.
Category: Recycling goal;
Characteristic: 25 percent by 2007.
Source: Recycling coordinator in New York, New York.
[End of table]
Table 8: Summary of Recycling Program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
Residential recycling.
Category: Collection point;
Characteristic: Curbside and drop-off.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, and paper.
Category: Single-unit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Multiunit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes, for up to six units.
Category: Curbside collection frequency;
Characteristic: Every 2 weeks for most residences.
Category: Single-stream curbside collection;
Characteristic: Implementation began on July 2006.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: 25 percent recycling goal, curbside collection program.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: City must offer residential and commercial recycling
program. Residents are required to recycle.
Commercial recycling.
Category: City recycling program;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Same as residential materials.
Category: Construction and demolition;
Characteristic: No city program.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Cities must have commercial recycling program.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Businesses must have recycling plan.
Other recycling program features.
Category: City financial incentives to recycle;
Characteristic: A pilot program (Recycle Bank) gives each household up
to $25 per month in retail coupons based on the weight of each
household's recyclables.
Category: Public outreach efforts;
Characteristic: Television, radio, and newspaper ads;
public meetings, and school programs.
Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.);
Characteristic: Recreation centers.
Category: Recycling goal;
Characteristic: 35 percent.
Source: Recycling coordinator in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
[End of table]
Table 9: Summary of Recycling Program in Portland, Oregon:
Residential recycling.
Category: Collection point;
Characteristic: Curbside and drop-off.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, metals, motor oil, paper, plastic, and
yard trimmings.
Category: Single-unit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Multiunit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes, for up to five units.
Category: Curbside collection frequency;
Characteristic: Weekly.
Category: Single-stream curbside collection;
Characteristic: No.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Local governments must provide weekly curbside
recycling to populations greater than or equal to 4,000. It also
specifies which materials must be recycled.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Requires curbside recycling and extends the list of
items that must be recycled, including yard trimmings.
Commercial recycling.
Category: City recycling program;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Same as residential materials.
Category: Construction and demolition;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Businesses must recycle 50 percent of their wastes.
Other recycling program features.
Category: City financial incentives to recycle;
Characteristic: Garbage fee is based on size of the garbage can;
cash deposit for beverage containers.
Category: Public outreach efforts;
Characteristic: Newsletters, radio spots, and bus billboards.
Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.);
Characteristic: None.
Category: Recycling goal;
Characteristic: 75 percent by 2015.
Source: Recycling coordinator in Portland, Oregon.
[End of table]
Table 10: Summary of Recycling Program in San Francisco, California:
Residential recycling.
Category: Collection point;
Characteristic: Curbside and drop-off.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, food scraps, glass, metals, motor oil, paper,
plastic, wood, and yard trimmings.
Category: Single-unit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Multiunit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Curbside collection frequency;
Characteristic: Weekly.
Category: Single-stream curbside collection;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Local governments must develop a solid waste management
plan, 50 percent diversion rate beginning in 2000 (total for
residential and commercial).
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Commercial recycling.
Category: City recycling program;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, food scraps, glass, metals, paper, plastic,
wood, and yard trimmings.
Category: Construction and demolition;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Same requirement as under residential category.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Other recycling program features.
Category: City financial incentives to recycle;
Characteristic: Residential disposal fee based on size of the garbage
can. Commercial disposal fee based on collection frequency and size of
garbage can, recycling container, and composting container, with up to
a 75 percent discount based on the amount recycled and composted.
Category: Public outreach efforts;
Characteristic: Broad media, bus shelter ads, monthly letter from
service provider, and brochures.
Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.);
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Recycling goal;
Characteristic: 75 percent diversion by 2010;
100 percent diversion by 2020.
Source: Recycling coordinator in San Francisco, California.
[End of table]
Table 11: Summary of Recycling Program in Seattle, Washington:
Residential recycling.
Category: Collection point;
Characteristic: Curbside and drop-off.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, food scraps, compostable paper, glass,
metals, paper, cardboard, plastic, wood, and yard trimmings.
Category: Single-unit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Multiunit dwellings;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Curbside collection frequency;
Characteristic: Every 2 weeks.
Category: Single-stream curbside collection;
Characteristic: Dual stream. Glass separated from other recyclables.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: Glass bottles and jars, paper, aluminum cans, and yard
waste can not be disposed of in garbage cans.
Commercial recycling.
Category: City recycling program;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Materials collected;
Characteristic: Aluminum, food scraps, paper, and plastic.
Category: Construction and demolition;
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: State legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: None.
Category: Local legal recycling requirements;
Characteristic: No paper, cardboard, or yard waste in trash can.
Other recycling program features.
Category: City financial incentives to recycle;
Characteristic: Garbage fee is based on size of the garbage can.
Category: Public outreach efforts;
Characteristic: Direct mail, television and radio ads, and newsletters.
Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.);
Characteristic: Yes.
Category: Recycling goal;
Characteristic: 60 percent diversion by 2010.
Source: Recycling coordinator in Seattle, Washington.
[End of table]
[End of section]
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.
Table 12: Federal Policy Options:
Policy option: Establishing a nationwide campaign to educate the public
about recycling;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 7.
Policy option: Enacting a federal bottle bill in which beverage
containers may be returned for money;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 6.
Policy option: Requiring manufacturers to establish a system that
consumers can use to recycle their products;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 4.
Policy option: Providing additional grant money for recycling projects;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 3.
Policy option: Facilitating the sharing of recycling best practices
among municipalities;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 2.
Policy option: Reducing or removing federal subsidies to industries
that extract virgin materials;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 2.
Policy option: Expanding EPA research on the economic and environmental
benefits of recycling;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 2.
Policy option: Requiring manufacturers to use a minimum percentage of
recycled materials in their products;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 2.
Policy option: Increasing taxes on operators of solid waste landfills;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 2.
Policy option: Providing federal subsidies to industries that process
recyclable materials;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 1.
Policy option: Adopting mandatory national recycling goals for states
or municipalities;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 1.
Policy option: Providing federal subsidies to businesses that recycle
their waste;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 1.
Policy option: Expanding federal purchasing guidelines to include a
greater number of products or greater percentage of recycled content;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 1.
Policy option: Promoting existing markets and creating new markets for
recycled materials;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 0.
Policy option: Requiring manufacturers to design products that contain
a minimum percentage of recyclable materials;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 0.
Policy option: Providing federal subsidies to businesses that purchase
products made with recycled materials;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 0.
Policy option: Mandating that states establish recycling programs;
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 0.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Office Of Solid Waste And Emergency Response:
Washington, D.C. 20460:
Oct 27 2006:
Mr. John B. Stephenson:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
This letter provides EPA's comments and responses to the draft report
"Recycling - Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling." We
appreciate your report and the work that lies behind it. We have
carefully reviewed the report and find it to be very well written,
carefully researched and clearly argued. We have a number of technical
and editorial suggestions which are provided in the enclosed document;
however, we generally agree with the findings made in this report and
with the recommendation that. EPA should establish performance measures
and gather comprehensive performance data to evaluate the impact of its
recycling programs. As mentioned in the Agency's recently published
strategic plan, during fiscal year 2007 and through fiscal year 2008,
EPA will develop performance measures for key aspects of the municipal
waste reduction program.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft. If you need
additional information, you may contact Lillian Bagus, Director of the
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste,
at (703) 308-8474.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Susan Parker Bodine:
Assistant Administrator:
Enclosures:
EPA Comments on GAO Draft Report to Congress - Recycling: Additional
Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling:
GAO Recommendation: To ensure that the Agency's available resources are
utilized in the most effective and efficient manner, EPA should
establish performance measures and gather comprehensive performance
data to evaluate the impact of its recycling programs.
EPA's response to GAO's recommendation: EPA agrees with GAO's
recommendation. EPA is completing a municipal solid waste (MSW)
strategy for addressing specific areas within the MSW universe. As
mentioned in the Agency's recently published strategic plan, 'during
fiscal year 2007 and through fiscal year 2008, EPA will develop
performance measures for key aspects of the municipal waste reduction
program.
General Comment: The report uses 2003 data on MSW generation and
recycling at various places in the report. The Agency now has data for
2005. The full report will be released on October 31, 2006. For your
reference, we have enclosed a copy of Municipal Solid Waste In The
United States: 2005 Facts and Figures Executive Summary. We recommend
the report be amended to reflect the new data so that it better
reflects the country's current generation/recycling status. The
following are excerpts from the report:
In the United States in 2005, we generated approximately 245.7 million
tons of MS W in 2005-a decrease of 1.6 million tons from 2004.
Excluding composting, the amount of MSW recycled increased to 58.4
million tons, an increase of 1.2 million tons from 2004. This is a 2
percent increase in the tons recycled. The tons recovered for
composting rose slightly to 20.6 million tons in 2005, up from 20.5
million tons in 2004. The recovery rate for recycling (including
composting) was 79 million tons or 32.1 percent in 2005, up from 31.4
percent in 2004. MSW generation in 2005 declined to 4.54 pounds per
person per day. This is a decrease of 1.5 percent from 2004. The
recycling rate in 2005 was 1.46 pounds per person per day. Discards
after recycling declined to 3.08 pounds per person per day in 2005.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
United States Department Of Commerce:
The Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
Oct 27 2006:
Mr. John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for transmitting the draft report entitled, Recycling:
Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling. The
International Trade Administration appreciates the opportunity to
review and comment on the draft report.
The draft report properly recognizes the Department's efforts in
support of increased international trade in recycled and recyclable
materials. As its name implies, the Department's International Trade
Administration (ITA) has as its central mission the promotion and
liberalization of international trade in goods and services produced in
the United States, including trade in recycled and recyclable
materials.
We would like to bring to your' attention several ongoing activities in
support of ITA's mission:
* The Office of Materials and Machinery (OMM) and the Office of Energy
and Environmental Industries (OEEI) undertake industry analysis to
identify and support policies that help U.S. recyclers, processors, and
users of secondary raw materials compete in free and fair markets, and
coordinate with other units within ITA to encourage exports of
secondary raw materials and recycled goods to foreign markets.
* ITA has played a major role in multilateral trade negotiations that
positively affect trade in recyclable materials and goods, such as the
Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement and Disposal of Hazardous
Wastes. A key outcome of the Department's involvement was ensuring that
recyclable secondary raw materials were not unnecessarily listed by the
Convention among hazardous materials prohibited from international
trade. Further, ITA is active in many multilateral trade initiatives,
WTO negotiations, and bilateral FTAs (e.g. CAFTA, Malaysia FTA, Chile
FTA) aimed at reducing barriers to the international flow of goods and
materials for recycling and recycled products.
* ITA assistance to the U.S. scrap processing industry ensured open
access for secondary materials to the Indian and Chinese markets, the
two fastest growing markets in the world. Secondary materials are the
second largest U.S. export to China, representing a positive trade
balance of over $4 billion in 2005, according to the Institute of Scrap
Recycling Industries.
* ITA is an active participant in President Bush's Asia Pacific
Partnership for Clean Development and Climate (APP), a public-private
partnership that seeks to accelerate the development and deployment of
clean energy technologies in the six member countries (U.S., Australia,
China, India, South Korea, Japan). Current APP work plans include
projects to implement activities that utilize cutting-edge commercial
technologies, for example the thermal recycling of waste plastics,
waste tires, biomass, and other by-products as alternative raw
materials in cement production.
* Since July 2005, the Manufacturing and Services (MAS) unit of ITA has
a new mandate to promote the domestic competitiveness of U.S. industry.
MAS has been working to implement its expanded mandate by offering new
services and programs to its private industry and government
stakeholders.
* OMM leads a multi-disciplinary team of analysts conducting a
regulatory review of the Environmental Protection Agency's Definition
of Solid Waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The
Department's efforts are aimed at facilitating the recovery of more
secondary raw materials from "waste" streams.
* By promoting international trade of secondary raw materials and
recycled goods, Commerce is stimulating the demand for domestic
recycling markets to supply foreign buyers. Whether that demand is
realized into actionable recycling programs has historically been
determined by municipalities through the adoption of collection
programs.
I hope that the GAO will consider this information in the preparation
of its final report. If you have any questions, please contact me or
David Cammarota, Director of the Office of Materials and Machinery, at
202-482-5157.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Michelle O'Neill:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov:
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] According to EPA, municipal solid waste is trash or garbage
consisting of everyday items such as product packaging, grass
clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers,
appliances, and batteries. Not included are construction and demolition
debris, municipal wastewater treatment sludge, hazardous wastes, and
nonhazardous industrial wastes.
[2] EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2005 Facts and
Figures, EPA-530-R-06-011 (Washington, D.C., Oct. 2006).
[3] EPA-530-R-06-011.
[4] EPA, 2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan: Direction for the Future, EPA-
190-R-03-003, (Washington, D.C., Sept. 2003).
[5] Pub. L. No. 94-580.
[6] We interviewed recycling coordinators from 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.
[7] EPA contracts with a private firm, Franklin Associates, Ltd., to
produce its report, "Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: Facts
and Figures." BioCycle publishes "The State of Garbage," a review of
nationwide municipal solid waste management in the United States.
[8] EPA-530-R-06-011 and Phil Simmons, Nora Goldstein, Scott M.
Kaufman, Nickolas J. Themelis, and James Thompson, Jr., "The State of
Garbage in America," BioCycle, vol. 47, no. 4 (Apr. 2006).
[9] EPA, Waste Prevention, Recycling and Composting Options: Lessons
from 30 Communities, EPA-530-R-92-015 (Feb. 1994).
[10] David H. Folz, "Municipal Recycling Performance: A Public Sector
Environmental Success Story," Public Administration Review, vol. 59,
no. 4 (July-Aug. 1999) and Morton Barlaz and Daniel Loughlin,
"Strengthening Markets for Recyclables: A Worldwide Perspective, Part
1. Policies for Strengthening Recycling in the U.S.," Environmental
Research and Education Foundation (Raleigh, North Carolina: Nov. 2001).
[11] David H. Folz and Jacqueline Giles, "Municipal Experience with Pay
as You Throw Policies: Findings from a National Survey," State and
Local Government Review, vol. 34, no. 2 (2002) and Barlaz and Loughlin,
"Strengthening Markets for Recyclables: A Worldwide Perspective, Part
1. Policies for Strengthening Recycling in the U.S."
[12] EPA, Cutting the Waste Stream in Half: Community Record-Setters
Show How, EPA-530-R-99-013 (June 1999).
[13] David H. Folz and Joseph M. Hazlett, "Public Participation and
Recycling Performance: Explaining Program Success," Public
Administration Review, vol. 51, no. 6 (Nov.-Dec. 1991).
[14] EPA-530-R-06-011.
[15] EPA-530-R-99-013.
[16] EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States 1998 Update, (July 1999).
[17] EPA-530-R-92-015.
[18] Barlaz and Loughlin, "Strengthening Markets for Recyclables: A
Worldwide Perspective, Part 1. Policies for Strengthening Recycling in
the U.S."
[19] EPA-530-R-99-013.
[20] EPA-530-R-92-015.
[21] Lisa A. Skumatz and John Green, "Movin' on Up - Strategies for
Increasing Multi-family Recycling," Skumatz Economic Research
Associates, Research Paper 9989, (Seattle, Washington: Sept. 1999).
[22] EPA-530-R-92-015.
[23] The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries represents over 1,200
companies that process, broker, and consume scrap commodities,
including metals, paper, plastics, glass, rubber, electronics, and
textiles. It provides education, advocacy, and compliance training, and
promotes public awareness of the value and importance of recycling.
[24] See appendix III for a full list of proposals identified by
recycling coordinators and evaluated by recycling stakeholders.
[25] Businesses and Environmentalists Allied for Recycling,
"Understanding Beverage Container Recycling: A Value Chain Assessment
prepared for the Multi-Stakeholder Recovery Project," Jan. 2002.
[26] Since the Businesses and Environmentalists Allied for Recycling
study was conducted, Hawaii became the 11th U.S. state to pass deposit
legislation. Hawaii's law was enacted on June 25, 2002 and was fully
implemented on January 1, 2005.
[27] Morris, Jeffrey, "Economic & Environmental Benefits of a Deposit
System for Beverage Containers in the State of Washington," Olympia,
Washington, Apr. 2005.
[28] EPA-530-R-06-011.
[29] GAO, Solid Waste: Trade-offs Involved in Beverage Container
Deposit Legislation, GAO/RCED-91-25 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 1990).
[30] Producer take back programs are specific tools for recycling
within the broader framework of extended producer responsibility
efforts. Extended producer responsibility has been described by the
Product Policy Institute as a principle which extends the
responsibilities of the manufacturer of the product to various parts of
the entire life cycle of the product, and especially to the take back,
recycling, and final disposal of the product.
[31] GAO, Electronic Waste: Strengthening the Role of the Federal
Government in Encouraging Recycling and Reuse, GAO-06-47 (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 10, 2005).
[32] 2004 Me. Laws 661 (codified at Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38, §
1610).
[33] Cell Phone Recycling Act of 2004, 2004 Cal. Stat. 891 (codified at
Cal. Pub. Resources Code §§ 42490-42499).
[34] According to EPA, extended product responsibility calls on all
those in the product life cycle--manufacturers, retailers, and
disposers--to share responsibility for the environmental impact of
products. Extended producer responsibility assigns responsibility to
the producer alone.
[35] GrassRoots Recycling Network, "Wasting and Recycling in the United
States 2000," Apr. 1999.
[36] Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 1353 (2005).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
