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
[email protected] . 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 [email protected]
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:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (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,
[email protected].
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:[email protected]
27. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#mailto:[email protected]
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:[email protected]
32. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#mailto:[email protected]
33. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d0737.htm#mailto:[email protected]
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. ***