    Recycling: Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling
    (29-DEC-06, GAO-07-37).

    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.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-37
        ACCNO:   A64508
      TITLE:     Recycling: Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal
    Recycling
         DATE:   12/29/2006
      SUBJECT:   Conservation practices
    	     Data collection
    	     Federal legislation
    	     Federal/state relations
    	     Municipal governments
    	     Performance measures
    	     Policy evaluation
    	     Recycling
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Waste collection
    	     Waste disposal
    	     Waste management
    	     Policies and procedures
    	     Stakeholder consultations
    	     EPA Resource Conservation Challenge
    	     EPA Waste Wise Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-07-37

         * [1]Results in Brief
         * [2]Background
         * [3]Municipalities Use a Variety of Practices to Increase Recycl

              * [4]Recycling Coordinators Identified Three Key Practices to Inc
              * [5]Other Practices That Could Increase Recycling

         * [6]EPA Has Several Recycling Programs, but They Lack Performanc

              * [7]Several EPA Programs Are Designed to Increase Recycling, but
              * [8]Commerce Is Taking No Actions to Stimulate the Development o

         * [9]Stakeholders Identified a Number of Federal Policy Options T

              * [10]Recycling Stakeholders Cited Three Policy Options as Top Pri
              * [11]Several Other Federal Policy Options Could Help Municipaliti

         * [12]Conclusions
         * [13]Recommendations for Executive Action
         * [14]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
         * [15]GAO Contact
         * [16]Staff Acknowledgments
         * [17]GAO's Mission
         * [18]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

              * [19]Order by Mail or Phone

         * [20]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
         * [21]Congressional Relations
         * [22]Public Affairs

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

    December 2006

    RECYCLING

    Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling

    GAO-07-37

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 3
    Background 6
    Municipalities Use a Variety of Practices to Increase Recycling 7
    EPA Has Several Recycling Programs, but They Lack Performance Measures;
    Commerce Is Not Fully Meeting Its RCRA Recycling Requirement 13
    Stakeholders Identified a Number of Federal Policy Options That Could Help
    Municipalities Increase Recycling 16
    Conclusions 25
    Recommendations for Executive Action 25
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25
    Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 27
    Appendix II Recycling Program Characteristics of Selected U.S. Cities 30
    Appendix III Federal Policy Options Reviewed by Recycling Stakeholders 41
    Appendix IV Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 42
    Appendix V Comments from the Department of Commerce 44
    Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 46

    Tables

    Table 1: Summary of Recycling Program in Atlanta, Georgia 30
    Table 2: Summary of Recycling Program in Austin, Texas 31
    Table 3: Summary of Recycling Program in Chicago, Illinois 32
    Table 4: Summary of Recycling Program in Denver, Colorado 33
    Table 5: Summary of Recycling Program in Jacksonville, Florida 34
    Table 6: Summary of Recycling Program in Minneapolis, Minnesota 35
    Table 7: Summary of Recycling Program in New York, New York 36
    Table 8: Summary of Recycling Program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 37
    Table 9: Summary of Recycling Program in Portland, Oregon 38
    Table 10: Summary of Recycling Program in San Francisco, California 39
    Table 11: Summary of Recycling Program in Seattle, Washington 40
    Table 12: Federal Policy Options 41

    Figure

    Figure 1: Curbside Recycling in San Jose, California 9

    Abbreviations

    DOE Department of Energy
    EPA Environmental Protection Agency
    IRS Internal Revenue Service
    RCC Resource Conservation Challenge
    RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

    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. However, 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.

    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.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.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.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 2008.4 Subtitle
    E of RCRA assigns responsibilities to the Department of Commerce
    (Commerce) to take actions that stimulate the development of markets for
    recycled materials.5

    1According 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.

    2EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2005 Facts and Figures,
    EPA-530-R-06-011 (Washington, D.C., Oct. 2006).

    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.

    3EPA-530-R-06-011.

    4EPA, 2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan: Direction for the Future,
    EPA-190-R-03-003, (Washington, D.C., Sept. 2003).

    5Pub. L. No. 94-580.

    To conduct this work, we interviewed recycling coordinators in 11 cities
    across the United States.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.

    6We 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.

    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.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.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.

    7EPA 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.

    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.

    8EPA-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).

    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.9 In addition, academic studies we reviewed identified curbside
    collection as a key to increasing the amount of material recycled because
    of its convenience.10

    9EPA, Waste Prevention, Recycling and Composting Options: Lessons from 30
    Communities, EPA-530-R-92-015 (Feb. 1994).

    10David 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).

    Figure 1: Curbside Recycling in San Jose, California

    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.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.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.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.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.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.

    11David 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."

    12EPA, Cutting the Waste Stream in Half: Community Record-Setters Show
    How, EPA-530-R-99-013 (June 1999).

    13David H. Folz and Joseph M. Hazlett, "Public Participation and Recycling
    Performance: Explaining Program Success," Public Administration Review,
    vol. 51, no. 6 (Nov.-Dec. 1991).

    14EPA-530-R-06-011.

    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 1997.16 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.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.

    15EPA-530-R-99-013.

    16EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 1998
    Update, (July 1999).

    17EPA-530-R-92-015.

    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.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.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.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.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.22

    18Barlaz and Loughlin, "Strengthening Markets for Recyclables: A Worldwide
    Perspective, Part 1. Policies for Strengthening Recycling in the U.S."

    19EPA-530-R-99-013.

    20EPA-530-R-92-015.

    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.

    21Lisa 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).

    22EPA-530-R-92-015.

    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.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.

    23The 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.

    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.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.

    24See appendix III for a full list of proposals identified by recycling
    coordinators and evaluated by recycling stakeholders.

    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,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.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.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.

    25Businesses and Environmentalists Allied for Recycling, "Understanding
    Beverage Container Recycling: A Value Chain Assessment prepared for the
    Multi-Stakeholder Recovery Project," Jan. 2002.

    26Since 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.

    27Morris, Jeffrey, "Economic & Environmental Benefits of a Deposit System
    for Beverage Containers in the State of Washington," Olympia, Washington,
    Apr. 2005.

    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.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.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.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.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.

    28EPA-530-R-06-011.

    29GAO, Solid Waste: Trade-offs Involved in Beverage Container Deposit
    Legislation, [23]GAO/RCED-91-25 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 1990).

    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.32 In addition, as of July 2006,
    California requires that retailers of cell phones collect used products
    for reuse, recycling, or proper disposal.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.

    30Producer 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.

    31GAO, Electronic Waste: Strengthening the Role of the Federal Government
    in Encouraging Recycling and Reuse, [24]GAO-06-47 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
    10, 2005).

    322004 Me. Laws 661 (codified at Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38, S 1610).

    EPA is promoting voluntary extended product responsibility programs,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.

    33Cell Phone Recycling Act of 2004, 2004 Cal. Stat. 891 (codified at Cal.
    Pub. Resources Code SS 42490-42499).

    34According 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.

    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.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.

    35GrassRoots Recycling Network, "Wasting and Recycling in the United
    States 2000," Apr. 1999.

    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.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.

    36Pub. L. No. 109-58, S 1353 (2005).

    Conclusions

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

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, establish performance measures
    and gather comprehensive performance data to evaluate the impact of EPA's
    recycling programs to ensure that the agency's available resources are
    utilized in the most effective and efficient manner.

    We also recommend that the Secretary of Commerce develop and implement a
    strategy to stimulate the development of markets for recycled materials in
    the United States to fully meet its responsibilities under RCRA subtitle
    E.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    We provided draft copies of this report to EPA and Commerce for their
    review and comment. Overall, EPA stated that the report was very well
    written, carefully researched, and clearly argued. EPA agreed with our
    recommendation to establish performance measures and gather comprehensive
    performance data to evaluate the impact of its recycling programs.
    Moreover, EPA stated that during fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the agency
    intends to develop performance measures for key aspects of its municipal
    waste reduction program. EPA provided technical and editorial comments,
    which we incorporated as appropriate into the report. EPA's comments are
    presented in appendix IV.

    According to Commerce, the report properly recognizes the agency's efforts
    in support of increased international trade in recycled and recyclable
    materials. However, Commerce did not directly address our recommendation
    that it develop and implement a strategy to help stimulate the development
    of markets for recycled materials in the United States. Rather, Commerce
    submitted a list of ongoing activities that support the agency's mission
    to promote international trade in goods and services produced in the
    United States, including trade in recycled and recyclable materials.
    According to Commerce, promoting international trade in these materials is
    stimulating the demand for domestic recycling markets to supply foreign
    buyers. While Commerce is taking some actions to stimulate international
    markets for recycled materials, the agency is not taking any actions to
    stimulate domestic markets and, therefore, is not fully meeting its
    responsibilities under RCRA subtitle E. Commerce's comments are presented
    in appendix V.

    As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
    this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
    the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Administrator of
    the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Commerce,
    appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. We
    will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
    report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
    http://www.gao.gov . If you or your staffs have any questions about
    this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or
    stephensonj@gao.gov . Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
    Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
    GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in
    appendix VI.

    John B. Stephenson
    Director, Natural Resources and Environment

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    The objectives of this report were to (1) identify the key practices that
    selected U.S. cities are using to increase recycling, (2) describe what
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Commerce
    (Commerce) are doing to encourage recycling nationwide, and (3) identify
    federal policy options that stakeholders with recycling expertise believe
    could help increase recycling. For all three objectives, we reviewed
    recycling studies and reports; visited materials recovery facilities in
    California, Oregon, and Washington where recycled materials are sorted and
    processed; and interviewed various recycling stakeholders.

    To identify the key practices selected U.S. cities are using to increase
    recycling, we reviewed studies and reports from government agencies,
    nonprofit organizations, industry associations, and academia. We
    identified studies on municipal recycling practices by searching
    electronic journal databases, including ProQuest and JSTOR, for studies
    published within the past 20 years using the key term of "recycling." We
    also obtained references from experts and EPA. In addition, we interviewed
    officials from federal, state, and local government; industry; and
    nonprofits, as well as academics and consultants. We conducted structured
    interviews with recycling coordinators in 11 cities across the United
    States: Atlanta, Georgia; Austin, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; Denver,
    Colorado; Jacksonville, Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; New York, New
    York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco,
    California; and Seattle, Washington. To ensure that our list of cities
    included (1) sufficient geographic representation, (2) only cities with
    functioning curbside recycling programs, and (3) a sample of leading
    recycling programs, we gathered information on the various U.S. recycling
    programs during preliminary interviews with various recycling stakeholders
    and reviewed the recycling literature and EPA reports. In addition to
    meeting the criteria above, the 11 cities we selected were among the 50
    most populous cities in the United States. To help ensure the validity of
    information obtained from our interviews with city recycling coordinators,
    we conducted pretests of the interview questions and modified some
    questions in response to those results. During the structured interviews
    with the recycling coordinators from the 11 cities, we asked for detailed
    information about the characteristics of their cities' residential and
    commercial recycling programs, including the planning processes used to
    design their recycling program, legal requirements for their recycling
    programs, and economic and financial incentives their residents and
    businesses have to recycle. In addition, we asked the coordinators about
    the types of public outreach used to promote their recycling program,
    types of recyclable materials collected, and information on who processes
    their recyclable materials. Finally, we asked the coordinators what they
    considered to be the most important program characteristics for increasing
    recycling and what specific actions the federal government could take to
    help their cities increase their recycling rates.

    To describe what EPA and Commerce are doing to encourage recycling, we
    reviewed the laws and regulations that establish their responsibilities
    related to recycling. We also examined EPA-sponsored programs that
    encourage or facilitate recycling, reviewed agency documentation of their
    efforts, and interviewed officials from both agencies.

    To identify federal policy options that stakeholders believe could help
    increase recycling, we conducted a second set of structured interviews
    with 13 stakeholders that have professional expertise in recycling issues.
    We selected these stakeholders because of their expertise in municipal
    solid waste or recycling issues at the national, state or local level; to
    provide broad representation across academia, government, and the private
    and nonprofit sectors; and to provide broad geographic representation
    throughout the United States. To ensure that our initial list of
    stakeholders included individuals with expertise in recycling and
    represented a range of perspectives on recycling, we first asked two noted
    recycling experts to review our selections. Both experts agreed that our
    list was comprehensive. During the structured interviews, we presented the
    13 stakeholders with a list of 17 policy proposals that had been
    identified by the city recycling coordinators and others we interviewed.
    We asked these stakeholders how effective they thought each of the
    proposals would be in helping cities and counties to increase their
    recycling rates. We then asked them to identify the three proposals that
    they thought the federal government should prioritize in order to be most
    effective in assisting cities and counties to increase their recycling
    rates. A complete ranking of these proposals, based on the frequency that
    each was cited as a top three priority by stakeholders, can be found in
    appendix III. To gain additional context on each policy option, we also
    asked stakeholders to describe what features of the proposal led them to
    consider it to be a top priority for the federal government. Some
    stakeholders cited specific research studies to justify their selections,
    and while we include references to these studies in the report, we did not
    evaluate these studies, and they may not represent the full range of
    research relevant to each policy option. To supplement information
    obtained through these structured interviews, we also reviewed reports
    from government agencies, nonprofit organizations, industry associations,
    and academia.

    We conducted our work from January 2006 to December 2006 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

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

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

    Table 1: Summary of Recycling Program in Atlanta, Georgia

    Category                         Characteristic
    Residential recycling
    Collection point                 Curbside and drop-off points.
    Materials collected              Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, tin
                                        cans, and yard trimmings.
    Single-unit dwellings            Yes
    Multiunit dwellings              Yes, for up to three units.
    Curbside collection frequency    Weekly
    Single-stream curbside           Yes
    collection
    State legal recycling            None
    requirements
    Local legal recycling            $30 annual recycling fee per resident,
    requirements                     with exceptions.
    Commercial recycling
    City recycling program           None
    Materials collected              None
    Construction and demolition      No city program.
    State legal recycling            None
    requirements
    Local legal recycling            None
    requirements
    Other recycling program features
    City financial incentives to     None
    recycle
    Public outreach efforts          Television, radio, newspaper, billboard,
                                        and public transit ads; school programs;
                                        and public meetings.
    Recycling in public places       None
    (e.g., streets, parks, etc.)
    Recycling goal                   26 percent waste reduction from landfills
                                        by 2015.

    Source: Recycling coordinator in Atlanta, Georgia.

    Table 2: Summary of Recycling Program in Austin, Texas

    Category                          Characteristic
    Residential recycling
    Collection point                  Curbside
    Materials collected               Aluminum, corrugated cardboard, glass,
                                         paper, plastic, tin cans, and yard
                                         trimmings.
    Single-unit dwellings             Yes
    Multiunit dwellings               Yes, for up to four units.
    Curbside collection frequency     Weekly
    Single-stream curbside collection No
    State legal recycling             None
    requirements
    Local legal recycling             None
    requirements
    Commercial recycling
    City recycling program            Voluntary program for small businesses.
    Materials collected               Same as residential materials.
    Construction and demolition       No city program.
    State legal recycling             None
    requirements
    Local legal recycling             None
    requirements
    Other recycling program features
    City financial incentives to      Garbage fee is based on size of the
    recycle                           garbage can.
    Public outreach efforts           Television, radio, and billboard ads;
                                         school programs; and press events.
    Recycling in public places (e.g., None
    streets, parks, etc.)
    Recycling goal                    None

    Source: Recycling coordinator in Austin, Texas.

    Table 3: Summary of Recycling Program in Chicago, Illinois

    Category                      Characteristic
    Residential recycling
    Collection point              Alley and some curbside.
    Materials collected           Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, tin and
                                     steel cans, and yard trimmings.
    Single-unit dwellings         Yes
    Multiunit dwellings           Yes, for up to four units.
    Curbside collection frequency Weekly
    Single-stream curbside        No
    collection
    State legal recycling         25 percent recycling goal and mandated local
    requirements                  recycling coordinator position.
    Local legal recycling         A working recycling program and an annual
    requirements                  report on the status of recycling program.
    Commercial recycling
    City recycling program        None
    Materials collected           None
    Construction and demolition   Yes
    State legal recycling         None
    requirements
    Local legal recycling         Property managers and building owners must
    requirements                  have a recycling program that recycles at
                                     least three approved items.
    Other recycling program
    features
    City financial incentives to  None
    recycle
    Public outreach efforts       Television, radio, and billboard ads; school
                                     programs; and press events.
    Recycling in public places    None, except at special events.
    (e.g., streets, parks, etc.)
    Recycling goal                25 percent.

    Source: Recycling coordinator in Chicago, Illinois.

    Table 4: Summary of Recycling Program in Denver, Colorado

    Category                         Characteristic
    Residential recycling
    Collection point                 Curbside
    Materials collected              Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, steel,
                                        Fall leaves, and Christmas trees.
    Single-unit dwellings            Yes
    Multiunit dwellings              Yes, for up to seven units.
    Curbside collection frequency    Every 2 weeks.
    Single-stream curbside           Yes
    collection
    State legal recycling            None
    requirements
    Local legal recycling            None
    requirements
    Commercial recycling
    City recycling program           None
    Materials collected              None
    Construction and demolition      No city program.
    State legal recycling            None
    requirements
    Local legal recycling            None
    requirements
    Other recycling program features
    City financial incentives to     None
    recycle
    Public outreach efforts          Television and radio ads, ads on trash
                                        trucks, flyers, brochures, Web site, and
                                        public meetings.
    Recycling in public places       None
    (e.g., streets, parks, etc.)
    Recycling goal                   30 percent waste diversion by 2011.

    Source: Recycling coordinator in Denver, Colorado.

    Table 5: Summary of Recycling Program in Jacksonville, Florida

    Category                               Characteristic
    Residential recycling
    Collection point                       Curbside
    Materials collected                    Aluminum, glass, paper, and
                                              plastic.
    Single-unit dwellings                  Yes
    Multiunit dwellings                    Yes, for up to 10 units.
    Curbside collection frequency          Weekly
    Single-stream curbside collection      No
    State legal recycling requirements     Cities must offer a recycling
                                              program.
    Local legal recycling requirements     Residents required to recycle.
    Commercial recycling
    City recycling program                 None
    Materials collected                    None
    Construction and demolition            No city program.
    State legal recycling requirements     None
    Local legal recycling requirements     None
    Other recycling program features
    City financial incentives to recycle   None
    Public outreach efforts                Television and radio ads and school
                                              programs.
    Recycling in public places (e.g.,      None
    streets, parks, etc.)
    Recycling goal                         None

    Source: Recycling coordinator in Jacksonville, Florida.

    Table 6: Summary of Recycling Program in Minneapolis, Minnesota

    Category                     Characteristic
    Residential recycling
    Collection point             Curbside
    Materials collected          Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, and
                                    household batteries.
    Single-unit dwellings        Yes
    Multiunit dwellings          Yes
    Curbside collection          Every 2 weeks.
    frequency
    Single-stream curbside       No
    collection
    State legal recycling        None
    requirements
    Local legal recycling        City must offer a recycling program. All yard
    requirements                 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
    City recycling program       Yes
    Materials collected          Same as residential materials.
    Construction and demolition  Yes
    State legal recycling        None
    requirements
    Local legal recycling        None
    requirements
    Other recycling program
    features
    City financial incentives to $7 credit on monthly garbage bill for
    recycle                      households that recycle.
    Public outreach efforts      Inserts in utility bills, annual recycling
                                    calendars, community events, Web site, and
                                    parades.
    Recycling in public places   Yes
    (e.g., streets, parks, etc.)
    Recycling goal               Improve on last year's recycling rate.

    Source: Recycling coordinator in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

    Table 7: Summary of Recycling Program in New York, New York

    Category                     Characteristic
    Residential recycling
    Collection point             Curbside
    Materials collected          Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, tin cans,
                                    all scrap metal, and leaves.
    Single-unit dwellings        Yes
    Multiunit dwellings          Yes
    Curbside collection          Weekly
    frequency
    Single-stream curbside       No
    collection
    State legal recycling        Cities must have at least a 10-year solid
    requirements                 waste plan and run a recycling program.
    Local legal recycling        City must create citizen advisory groups and
    requirements                 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
    City recycling program       Yes
    Materials collected          Varies by businesses. Paper collected from
                                    office buildings and beverage containers from
                                    food establishments.
    Construction and demolition  No city program.
    State legal recycling        City must offer businesses a recycling
    requirements                 program.
    Local legal recycling        Businesses are required to recycle.
    requirements
    Other recycling program
    features
    City financial incentives to None
    recycle
    Public outreach efforts      Media, direct mail, Web site, and public
                                    transit ads.
    Recycling in public places   To be piloted in 2007.
    (e.g., streets, parks, etc.)
    Recycling goal               25 percent by 2007.

    Source: Recycling coordinator in New York, New York.

    Table 8: Summary of Recycling Program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    Category                      Characteristic
    Residential recycling
    Collection point              Curbside and drop-off.
    Materials collected           Aluminum, glass, and paper.
    Single-unit dwellings         Yes
    Multiunit dwellings           Yes, for up to six units.
    Curbside collection frequency Every 2 weeks for most residences.
    Single-stream curbside        Implementation began on July 2006.
    collection
    State legal recycling         25 percent recycling goal, curbside
    requirements                  collection program.
    Local legal recycling         City must offer residential and commercial
    requirements                  recycling program. Residents are required to
                                     recycle.
    Commercial recycling
    City recycling program        Yes
    Materials collected           Same as residential materials.
    Construction and demolition   No city program.
    State legal recycling         Cities must have commercial recycling
    requirements                  program.
    Local legal recycling         Businesses must have recycling plan.
    requirements
    Other recycling program
    features
    City financial incentives to  A pilot program (Recycle Bank) gives each
    recycle                       household up to $25 per month in retail
                                     coupons based on the weight of each
                                     household's recyclables.
    Public outreach efforts       Television, radio, and newspaper ads; public
                                     meetings, and school programs.
    Recycling in public places    Recreation centers.
    (e.g., streets, parks, etc.)
    Recycling goal                35 percent.

    Source: Recycling coordinator in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

    Table 9: Summary of Recycling Program in Portland, Oregon

    Category                      Characteristic
    Residential recycling
    Collection point              Curbside and drop-off.
    Materials collected           Aluminum, glass, metals, motor oil, paper,
                                     plastic, and yard trimmings.
    Single-unit dwellings         Yes
    Multiunit dwellings           Yes, for up to five units.
    Curbside collection frequency Weekly
    Single-stream curbside        No
    collection
    State legal recycling         Local governments must provide weekly
    requirements                  curbside recycling to populations greater
                                     than or equal to 4,000. It also specifies
                                     which materials must be recycled.
    Local legal recycling         Requires curbside recycling and extends the
    requirements                  list of items that must be recycled,
                                     including yard trimmings.
    Commercial recycling
    City recycling program        Yes
    Materials collected           Same as residential materials.
    Construction and demolition   Yes
    State legal recycling         None
    requirements
    Local legal recycling         Businesses must recycle 50 percent of their
    requirements                  wastes.
    Other recycling program
    features
    City financial incentives to  Garbage fee is based on size of the garbage
    recycle                       can; cash deposit for beverage containers.
    Public outreach efforts       Newsletters, radio spots, and bus
                                     billboards.
    Recycling in public places    None
    (e.g., streets, parks, etc.)
    Recycling goal                75 percent by 2015.

    Source: Recycling coordinator in Portland, Oregon.

    Table 10: Summary of Recycling Program in San Francisco, California

    Category                     Characteristic
    Residential recycling
    Collection point             Curbside and drop-off.
    Materials collected          Aluminum, food scraps, glass, metals, motor
                                    oil, paper, plastic, wood, and yard
                                    trimmings.
    Single-unit dwellings        Yes
    Multiunit dwellings          Yes
    Curbside collection          Weekly
    frequency
    Single-stream curbside       Yes
    collection
    State legal recycling        Local governments must develop a solid waste
    requirements                 management plan, 50 percent diversion rate
                                    beginning in 2000 (total for residential and
                                    commercial).
    Local legal recycling        None
    requirements
    Commercial recycling
    City recycling program       Yes
    Materials collected          Aluminum, food scraps, glass, metals, paper,
                                    plastic, wood, and yard trimmings.
    Construction and demolition  Yes
    State legal recycling        Same requirement as under residential
    requirements                 category.
    Local legal recycling        None
    requirements
    Other recycling program
    features
    City financial incentives to Residential disposal fee based on size of the
    recycle                      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.
    Public outreach efforts      Broad media, bus shelter ads, monthly letter
                                    from service provider, and brochures.
    Recycling in public places   Yes
    (e.g., streets, parks, etc.)
    Recycling goal               75 percent diversion by 2010; 100 percent
                                    diversion by 2020.

    Source: Recycling coordinator in San Francisco, California.

    Table 11: Summary of Recycling Program in Seattle, Washington

    Category                         Characteristic
    Residential recycling
    Collection point                 Curbside and drop-off.
    Materials collected              Aluminum, food scraps, compostable paper,
                                        glass, metals, paper, cardboard, plastic,
                                        wood, and yard trimmings.
    Single-unit dwellings            Yes
    Multiunit dwellings              Yes
    Curbside collection frequency    Every 2 weeks.
    Single-stream curbside           Dual stream. Glass separated from other
    collection                       recyclables.
    State legal recycling            None
    requirements
    Local legal recycling            Glass bottles and jars, paper, aluminum
    requirements                     cans, and yard waste can not be disposed
                                        of in garbage cans.
    Commercial recycling
    City recycling program           Yes
    Materials collected              Aluminum, food scraps, paper, and
                                        plastic.
    Construction and demolition      Yes
    State legal recycling            None
    requirements
    Local legal recycling            No paper, cardboard, or yard waste in
    requirements                     trash can.
    Other recycling program features
    City financial incentives to     Garbage fee is based on size of the
    recycle                          garbage can.
    Public outreach efforts          Direct mail, television and radio ads,
                                        and newsletters.
    Recycling in public places       Yes
    (e.g., streets, parks, etc.)
    Recycling goal                   60 percent diversion by 2010.

    Source: Recycling coordinator in Seattle, Washington.

    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

                                                         Number of times cited as
    Policy option                                         a top three priority
    Establishing a nationwide campaign to educate the
    public about recycling.                                                  7
    Enacting a federal bottle bill in which beverage
    containers may be returned for money.                                    6
    Requiring manufacturers to establish a system
    that consumers can use to recycle their products.                        4
    Providing additional grant money for recycling
    projects.                                                                3
    Facilitating the sharing of recycling best
    practices among municipalities.                                          2
    Reducing or removing federal subsidies to
    industries that extract virgin materials.                                2
    Expanding EPA research on the economic and
    environmental benefits of recycling.                                     2
    Requiring manufacturers to use a minimum
    percentage of recycled materials in their
    products.                                                                2
    Increasing taxes on operators of solid waste
    landfills.                                                               2
    Providing federal subsidies to industries that
    process recyclable materials.                                            1
    Adopting mandatory national recycling goals for
    states or municipalities.                                                1
    Providing federal subsidies to businesses that
    recycle their waste.                                                     1
    Expanding federal purchasing guidelines to
    include a greater number of products or greater
    percentage of recycled content.                                          1
    Promoting existing markets and creating new
    markets for recycled materials.                                          0
    Requiring manufacturers to design products that
    contain a minimum percentage of recyclable
    materials.                                                               0
    Providing federal subsidies to businesses that
    purchase products made with recycled materials.                          0
    Mandating that states establish recycling
    programs.                                                                0

    Source: GAO.

    Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

    Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce

    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.

    (360663)

    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

    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.

    Highlights of [35]GAO-07-37 , a report to congressional requesters

    December 2006

    RECYCLING

    Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling

    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.

    [36]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.

    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.

    References

    Visible links
      23. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-91-25
      24. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-47
      25. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#http://www.gao.gov/
      26. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#mailto:stephensonj@gao.gov
      27. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#mailto:stephensonj@gao.gov
      28. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#http://www.gao.gov/
      29. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#http://www.gao.gov/
      30. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
      31. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#mailto:fraudnet@gao.gov
      32. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#mailto:JarmonG@gao.gov
      33. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#mailto:AndersonP1@gao.gov
      34. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-37
      35. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-37
    *** End of document. ***