This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-37 
entitled 'Recycling: Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal 
Recycling' which was released on January 29, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

December 2006: 

Recycling: 

Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling: 

Municipal Recycling: 

GAO-07-37: 

GAO Highlights: 

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

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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

What GAO Found: 

Recycling coordinators with whom we spoke in selected cities across the 
country identified several key practices they are using to increase 
recycling in their cities. The three practices they cited most 
frequently were (1) making recycling convenient and easy for their 
residents, (2) offering financial incentives for recycling, such as 
allowing residents who produce less waste through recycling to use 
smaller garbage cans and pay lower fees, and (3) conducting public 
education and outreach. In addition, both recycling coordinators and 
the recycling literature identified other ways to increase recycling, 
such as targeting a wide range of materials for recycling and extending 
recycling programs to the commercial sector. 

As a part of its Resource Conservation Challenge strategy, EPA operates 
several national and regional programs that are designed to increase 
recycling and help EPA achieve its national municipal solid waste 
recycling goal of 35 percent by 2008. One of EPA’s principal national 
recycling programs, WasteWise, creates voluntary partnerships with 
groups, such as universities, states, and businesses, to help them 
increase their recycling. EPA also provides competitive grants to 
support projects designed to increase recycling. The impact of EPA’s 
programs is unknown, however, because the programs lack performance 
measures and comprehensive data on program performance. Although 
Commerce is required under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
to stimulate the development of markets for recycled materials, the 
agency is not currently taking any actions to do so in the United 
States. For example, Commerce is not identifying the location of 
markets for recycled materials, identifying economic and technical 
barriers to recycling, or encouraging the development of new uses for 
recycled materials in the United States. However, agency officials told 
GAO that Commerce supports increased international trade in recycled 
and recyclable materials as part of its general trade promotion 
responsibilities. 

The recycling stakeholders we interviewed identified various federal 
policy options that they believe could help municipalities increase 
their recycling rates. The three federal policy options cited most 
frequently were to (1) establish a nationwide campaign to educate the 
public about recycling, (2) enact a national “bottle bill” in which 
beverage containers may be returned for money, and (3) require 
manufacturers to establish systems that consumers can use to recycle 
their products. Other identified policy options included facilitating 
the sharing of recycling best practices among municipalities, expanding 
EPA research on the economic and environmental benefits of recycling, 
and providing additional grant money for recycling projects. 

What GAO Recommends: 

To better evaluate the impact of EPA’s recycling programs, GAO 
recommends that EPA establish performance measures and gather 
performance data on those measures. GAO also recommends that Commerce 
develop and implement a strategy to help stimulate the development of 
markets for recycled materials in the United States. In commenting on 
the draft report, EPA agreed with the recommendation and Commerce did 
not directly address the recommendation. 

[HYperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-37]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact John B. Stephenson, (202) 
512-3841, stephensonj@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Municipalities Use a Variety of Practices to Increase Recycling: 

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

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

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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

Appendix III: Federal Policy Options Reviewed by Recycling 
Stakeholders: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Summary of Recycling Program in Atlanta, Georgia: 

Table 2: Summary of Recycling Program in Austin, Texas: 

Table 3: Summary of Recycling Program in Chicago, Illinois: 

Table 4: Summary of Recycling Program in Denver, Colorado: 

Table 5: Summary of Recycling Program in Jacksonville, Florida: 

Table 6: Summary of Recycling Program in Minneapolis, Minnesota: 

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

Table 8: Summary of Recycling Program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 

Table 9: Summary of Recycling Program in Portland, Oregon: 

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

Table 11: Summary of Recycling Program in Seattle, Washington: 

Table 12: Federal Policy Options: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: Curbside Recycling in San Jose, California: 

Abbreviations: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

IRS: Internal Revenue Service: 

RCC: Resource Conservation Challenge: 

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

December 29, 2006: 

The Honorable James M. Jeffords: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Environment and Public Works: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper: 
The Honorable Barack Obama: 
The Honorable Olympia Snowe: 
The Honorable Ron Wyden: 
United States Senate: 

In 2005, the United States generated about 246 million tons of 
municipal solid waste, or over 1,600 pounds per person, according to 
the most current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
estimates.[Footnote 1] EPA reported that 79 million tons of this waste 
were recycled, while the remaining 166.7 million tons were combusted, 
went to landfills, or were otherwise disposed of.[Footnote 2] Recycling 
can lower the amount of waste that is incinerated or sent to landfills, 
reduce cities' waste disposal costs, and has potentially significant 
environmental benefits, such as decreasing water and air pollution and 
greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, manufacturing products from 
recycled material can provide economic benefits to the extent that it 
requires less electricity, fuel, and water, which can result in lower 
production costs. 

In 1976, the Congress sought to reduce solid waste and encourage 
recycling as part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 
Through RCRA, the Congress directed EPA to foster a cooperative effort 
among federal, state, local, and private entities in order to, among 
other things, promote recycling through public education. Under RCRA, 
EPA established solid waste management guidelines for municipalities 
that encouraged recycling, including composting food and yard waste. 
While the national recycling rate for municipal solid waste increased 
from approximately 16 percent in 1990 to about 29 percent in 2000, it 
has increased only slightly to 32 percent since then, according to EPA 
estimates.[Footnote 3] Under its Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), 
EPA operates several national and regional programs to support public 
and private sector efforts to increase recycling and to help EPA reach 
its goal of recycling 35 percent of national municipal solid waste by 
2008.[Footnote 4] Subtitle E of RCRA assigns responsibilities to the 
Department of Commerce (Commerce) to take actions that stimulate the 
development of markets for recycled materials.[Footnote 5] 

Local and state governments have the key responsibility for recycling 
programs. In particular, local governments often have primary 
responsibility for designing and implementing programs to recycle 
municipal solid waste. Municipalities typically decide what recyclable 
materials to collect, how to collect them, who collects them, who 
processes them, and how to conduct education and outreach programs. 
Depending on the municipality, funding for a recycling program can come 
from local taxes, garbage collection fees, sales of recyclable 
materials, or a combination of these sources. State governments also 
play a role in recycling efforts. For example, some states require 
municipalities to offer recycling programs; 11 states have laws 
requiring deposits on beverage cans and bottles known as "bottle 
bills"; and several states have passed electronic waste legislation, 
such as "extended producer responsibility laws" that require 
manufacturers to offer "take back" programs under which consumers may 
return computers and other electronic equipment for recycling. 

You asked us to (1) identify the key practices that selected U.S. 
cities are using to increase recycling, (2) describe what EPA and 
Commerce are doing to encourage recycling nationwide, and (3) identify 
federal policy options that stakeholders with recycling expertise 
believe could help increase recycling. 

To conduct this work, we interviewed recycling coordinators in 11 
cities across the United States.[Footnote 6] These cities were selected 
because they are geographically dispersed and are among the 50 most 
populous cities in the country. All of the cities have functioning 
curbside recycling programs, and some of their programs are among the 
leading ones in the country. In addition, we reviewed laws and 
regulations, examined EPA-sponsored programs that encourage or 
facilitate recycling, and interviewed officials from both EPA and 
Commerce. We also interviewed 13 stakeholders who have professional 
expertise in recycling issues to help us prioritize federal policy 
options that could help increase recycling. Finally, we reviewed 
studies and reports from government agencies, nonprofit organizations, 
industry associations, and academia, and interviewed officials from 
federal, state, and local government; industry; and nonprofits, as well 
as academics and consultants. We conducted our work from January 2006 
to December 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Recycling coordinators in selected U.S. cities identified several key 
practices they use to increase recycling. The three practices they most 
frequently cited were making recycling convenient and easy for their 
residents, offering financial incentives for recycling, and conducting 
public education and outreach. According to most of the coordinators, a 
convenient, easy-to-use recycling program, which may feature both 
curbside collection and drop-off locations, weekly service, and free 
curbside recycling bins, can lead to increased resident participation 
and higher recycling rates. In addition, several recycling coordinators 
with whom we spoke believe that providing a financial incentive to 
recycle is one of the most important features of their recycling 
programs. For example, in Austin, Texas, residential garbage collection 
fees are based on the size of the garbage can used. Through recycling, 
residents can produce less waste, use smaller garbage cans, and thus 
lower their garbage collection bills. Several recycling coordinators 
also commented that their public education and outreach programs were 
important in their efforts to increase recycling. New York City, for 
example, educates its residents about its recycling program through its 
Web site, mailings, television commercials, and advertisements on 
public transportation. In addition to these key practices, the 
recycling coordinators and the recycling literature suggested other 
practices that could help increase recycling, including (1) targeting a 
wide range of materials for recycling, such as food scraps and yard 
trimmings, and (2) extending recycling programs to the commercial 
sector, such as food establishments and office buildings. According to 
EPA, food scraps and yard trimmings make up almost a quarter of the 
municipal solid waste generated in the United States. In addition, a 
significant portion of the nation's waste is produced by the commercial 
sector. Although EPA has no recent national data on the proportion of 
waste generated by the commercial sector as compared with the 
residential sector, the agency has estimated that 35 to 45 percent of 
the nation's municipal solid waste was generated by the commercial 
sector in 1997. 

At the national level, EPA administers several programs that develop 
partnerships or provide grants to help increase recycling, but the 
agency has not established performance measures or collected 
comprehensive performance data to help determine what impact these 
programs are having. Under one of EPA's principal programs--WasteWise-
-the agency partners with groups such as businesses, nonprofit 
organizations, and government agencies to help them increase their 
recycling. For example, EPA promoted a recycling competition on college 
and university campuses in 2005. However, fiscal year 2007 funding for 
the WasteWise program will be reduced by about 81 percent based on 
EPA's fiscal year 2006 budget figures. EPA's Resource Conservation 
Challenge also operates a grants program that budgeted $500,000 in 
fiscal year 2006 to support, in part, the efforts of public and 
nonprofit organizations to increase recycling. In addition to these 
national efforts, EPA's regional offices conduct various activities, 
such as hosting forums on recycling best practices, that are designed 
to augment headquarters' programs. While EPA receives information about 
the accomplishments of some of its recycling programs, the agency has 
not established performance measures to help determine the extent to 
which its programs are contributing to meeting the national recycling 
goal of 35 percent by 2008. Consequently, it is difficult to know what 
impact severe budget cuts in fiscal year 2007 to the WasteWise program 
will have on meeting the national recycling goal. We are recommending 
that EPA establish performance measures and gather comprehensive 
performance data on those measures to evaluate the impact of its 
recycling programs. 

For its part, Commerce is conducting limited recycling efforts. 
According to Commerce officials, the agency currently supports 
increased international trade in recycled and recyclable materials as 
part of its general trade promotion responsibilities. However, Commerce 
is falling short of meeting its requirements under RCRA to stimulate 
the development of markets for recycled materials in the United States. 
For example, Commerce is not identifying the geographical location of 
existing or potential markets for recycled materials, identifying the 
economic and technical barriers to the use of recycled materials, or 
implementing specific measures to encourage the development of new uses 
for recycled materials in the United States. To fully meet its 
requirement under RCRA, we are recommending that Commerce develop and 
implement a strategy to stimulate the development of markets for 
recycled materials in the United States. 

Finally, recycling stakeholders we interviewed identified a variety of 
federal policy options they believe could help municipalities increase 
their recycling rates. The federal action most frequently identified as 
a priority by stakeholders was to establish a nationwide campaign to 
educate the public about recycling. Some stakeholders commented that 
such a campaign would help to reinvigorate the recycling movement, and 
others noted that it might include media advertising as well as in- 
school education. According to EPA officials, in 2006 the agency 
selected the National Recycling Coalition to undertake such an effort. 
The second most cited option was for the Congress to enact a federal 
bottle bill in which beverage containers could be returned for money. 
One stakeholder pointed out, for example, that the 11 states that 
currently have bottle bills report higher recycling rates for beverage 
containers than states without them. The third most frequently 
identified policy option was for the federal government to require 
manufacturers to establish a system that consumers can use to recycle 
their products, also known as producer "take back" programs. One 
stakeholder noted that producer take back programs would make it easier 
for consumers to recycle certain products, and others said that such 
programs would also help to shift some of the waste disposal burden 
from local governments to producers and consumers. In addition to these 
three proposals, interviews with recycling stakeholders and a review of 
relevant recycling literature revealed other potentially useful policy 
options. For example, the federal government could facilitate the 
sharing of recycling best practices among municipalities. Specifically, 
one stakeholder said that EPA could create and maintain a searchable 
database or clearinghouse with information on the recycling programs of 
various communities across the United States. Another option identified 
by stakeholders would be for the federal government to provide 
additional grant money for recycling projects. One stakeholder noted 
that insufficient funding is one of the major obstacles cities face in 
initiating recycling programs or upgrading existing programs. 

We provided draft copies of this report to EPA and Commerce for their 
review and comment. EPA agreed with our recommendation regarding 
performance measures and provided technical and editorial comments, 
which we incorporated as appropriate into the report. Commerce did not 
directly address our recommendation regarding developing a strategy to 
stimulate markets for recycled materials in the United States. Rather, 
Commerce provided a list of ongoing activities that support the 
agency's mission to promote international trade in goods and services 
produced in the United States, including trade in recycled and 
recyclable materials. EPA's comments appear in appendix IV, and 
Commerce's comments appear in appendix V. 

Background: 

Several states have laws to encourage recycling. For example, 11 states 
currently encourage the recycling of beverage containers through 
deposit laws, or bottle bills--California, Connecticut, Delaware, 
Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and 
Vermont. Most of these states impose 5-cent deposits on all beverage 
containers covered by their program; other states impose varying 
amounts depending on the type of container. Bottle bill states differ 
in the way that they treat unredeemed deposits. In four states, 
unredeemed deposits are retained by the state, and in some cases these 
funds are used to bolster recycling efforts. In six other states, 
unredeemed deposits are kept by beverage distributors and bottlers, 
while in Michigan, 75 percent of unredeemed deposits are allocated to 
the state, with the remaining 25 percent provided to beverage retailers 
to defray the costs of administering the program. Redemption systems 
for used beverage containers vary from state to state, but in general, 
most states allow consumers to return used beverage containers to 
either retailers or participating redemption centers. In addition to 
beverage container deposit laws, several states have laws related to 
the disposal of electronic waste, such as extended producer 
responsibility laws that require manufacturers to accept used 
electronic equipment for recycling. 

Currently, there are two main sources of information on recycling rates 
and trends in the United States--EPA and BioCycle magazine--both of 
which publish periodic reports on the subject.[Footnote 7] In 2004, the 
most recent year for which EPA and BioCycle both produced national 
recycling estimates, EPA estimated that 31 percent of municipal solid 
waste was recycled in the United States, while BioCycle's estimate was 
29 percent.[Footnote 8] EPA and BioCycle report different rates because 
of differences in estimation methodologies. EPA's contractor, Franklin 
Associates, collects data from industry associations, the U.S. Census 
Bureau, the Department of Commerce, and the glass industry to derive 
recycling rates for different types of materials. EPA estimates that in 
2005, the most recent year estimates are available, 50 percent of paper 
and paperboard, 22 percent of aluminum, 22 percent of glass, and 6 
percent of plastic were recycled in the United States. BioCycle 
estimates state and national recycling rates by surveying each state on 
the amount of municipal solid waste it generates, recycles, combusts, 
and sends to landfills; it does not provide estimates of recycling 
rates of individual materials. Although the EPA and BioCycle reports 
are considered the best available estimates of recycling rates, both 
have limitations. According to Franklin Associates officials, the 
industry association data they use may vary in quality and 
completeness. In addition, BioCycle's study relies on the accuracy of 
the states' municipal solid waste data, and a BioCycle representative 
noted that the states that choose to submit data have their own methods 
for collecting this information and that data quality varies. 

Municipalities Use a Variety of Practices to Increase Recycling: 

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

Recycling Coordinators Identified Three Key Practices to Increase 
Recycling: 

Most of the local recycling coordinators with whom we spoke said that a 
convenient, easy-to-use recycling program was the most important 
recycling practice they use in their efforts to increase recycling. 
Several of the city recycling programs we examined provide both 
curbside collection (see fig. 1) and drop-off locations, weekly service 
on the same day as trash collection, and free curbside recycling bins. 
An EPA study found that offering curbside and drop-off collection 
contributed to high recycling rates because the ease of recycling made 
residents more likely to recycle.[Footnote 9] In addition, academic 
studies we reviewed identified curbside collection as a key to 
increasing the amount of material recycled because of its 
convenience.[Footnote 10] 

Figure 1: Curbside Recycling in San Jose, California: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Photo by Larry Strong, courtesy of Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. 

[End of figure] 

Further, several of the recycling coordinators with whom we spoke 
believe that providing a financial incentive to recycle is one of the 
most important features of their recycling programs. In cities such as 
Austin, Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle, residential garbage 
collection fees are based on the size of the garbage can used. Through 
recycling, residents can produce less waste, use smaller garbage cans, 
and thus lower their garbage collection bills. Cities such as 
Minneapolis and Philadelphia offer different types of financial 
incentives to recycle. Minneapolis residents who actively participate 
in the city's recycling program through processing, sorting, 
separating, and bagging their recyclables receive a $7 credit in their 
monthly garbage bill. In Philadelphia, households selected to 
participate in a pilot program called "Recycle Bank" can receive up to 
$25 per month in coupons--based on the weight of their recyclable 
materials--that can be redeemed at major retailers. Academic studies we 
reviewed found that charging residents a waste disposal fee based on 
the size of their trash container could positively affect the amount of 
material being recycled.[Footnote 11] 

Recycling coordinators also commented that public education and 
outreach programs were important in their efforts to increase 
recycling. All of the recycling coordinators that we interviewed 
commented that they use mass media to educate the public about 
recycling. For example, according to its recycling coordinator, New 
York City provides information about its recycling program through its 
Web site, mailings, television commercials, and advertisements on 
public transportation. In addition to outreach activities through mass 
media, recycling coordinators in Atlanta, Austin, Jacksonville, and 
Philadelphia said that they offer recycling education programs in their 
school systems. San Francisco reaches out to its diverse population by 
distributing instructional recycling brochures written in three 
languages with pictures of recyclable materials. Academic and EPA 
studies we reviewed said that public education is correlated with 
higher recycling rates. For example, an EPA study found that 
communities with strong recycling programs all used education, 
publicity, and outreach to promote recycling.[Footnote 12] In addition, 
an academic study found that cities that held meetings with 
neighborhood or community groups on how, when, and where to recycle had 
higher levels of recycling participation than cities that did 
not.[Footnote 13] 

Other Practices That Could Increase Recycling: 

In addition to the three key practices, recycling coordinators and the 
recycling literature identified other practices that could increase 
recycling. One such practice is targeting a wide range of materials for 
recycling. Food scraps and yard trimmings made up almost a quarter of 
the municipal solid waste generated in the United States in 2005, 
according to an EPA study.[Footnote 14] Another EPA study found that 
collecting and composting yard trimmings were key to reaching 50 
percent and higher waste reduction levels and doing so cost- 
effectively.[Footnote 15] While all of the recycling coordinators with 
whom we spoke said that their cities collected aluminum, glass, and 
paper for recycling, and all but one collected plastic, some said that 
they did not regularly collect biodegradable materials. However, San 
Francisco's and Seattle's recycling coordinators commented that their 
cities' programs collect and compost biodegradable materials, such as 
food discards, yard waste, soiled paper, and wood. The compost made 
from San Francisco's biodegradable materials is sold to California 
farms and vineyards. San Francisco's recycling coordinator estimates 
that the composting program increased the city's recycling rate by 14 
percent in 2004. Seattle estimates that composting contributed to 
increasing its recycling rate by 13 percent in 2003. In addition, 
recycling coordinators in Atlanta, Austin, and Portland commented that 
their cities collect residential yard wastes for composting. The 
advantages of composting include reducing the amount of waste sent to 
landfills and reducing pollution because less methane gas is produced, 
according to EPA. EPA has also found that compost can be used to enrich 
soil, suppress plant diseases and pests, reduce or eliminate the need 
for chemical fertilizers, and promote higher yields of agricultural 
crops. 

Although EPA has no recent national data on the proportion of waste 
generated by the commercial sector compared with the residential 
sector, an EPA report estimated that 35 to 45 percent of the nation's 
municipal solid waste was generated by the commercial sector in 
1997.[Footnote 16] In addition, the California Integrated Waste 
Management Board estimated that in 2003 over 60 percent of California's 
waste disposal came from the commercial sector. An EPA study found that 
since commercial waste can often constitute a significant portion of 
municipal solid waste, recycling commercial waste plays an important 
role in helping communities meet their recycling goals.[Footnote 17] 
Some of the recycling coordinators with whom we spoke commented that 
their cities have made efforts to increase their overall recycling 
rates by increasing their commercial recycling rates. For example, 
Portland, Oregon, distributes recycling containers to businesses and, 
since 1996, requires all businesses to recycle at least 50 percent of 
their total wastes. A Portland recycling official told us that he 
believes that this mandatory commercial recycling has helped increase 
Portland's commercial recycling rate by 4 to 5 percent. New York City 
requires all businesses to separate recyclable materials from trash and 
has different recycling requirements for different types of businesses. 
For example, people in office buildings are required to recycle office 
paper, newspapers, magazines, and corrugated cardboard, and people in 
food or beverage establishments are required to recycle metal cans, 
glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles and jugs, aluminum foil 
products, and corrugated cardboard. 

Mandating residential and commercial recycling is another practice that 
some cities use in an effort to increase their recycling rates. For 
example, Seattle and New York City have laws that require residents to 
recycle. Seattle's haulers are instructed not to collect trash cans 
that contain 10 percent or more recyclable materials. According to 
Seattle officials, their city's ordinance mandating recycling has had a 
positive effect. Six months after Seattle began enforcing this 
ordinance, city officials announced that approximately 95 percent of 
the apartments and businesses inspected were recycling correctly and 
less than 1 percent of household garbage cans were not collected 
because they contained more than 10 percent of recyclable materials. In 
addition, New York City officials can fine residents and businesses 
that mix recyclable materials with their trash. Some of the academic 
and EPA literature we reviewed also supports the use of mandatory 
recycling. For example, one academic study found that municipalities 
with mandatory recycling programs had substantially higher rates of 
recycling participation than those with voluntary programs.[Footnote 
18] In addition, an EPA report found that encouraging or requiring 
recycling participation was a key strategy for communities to achieve 
high residential recycling rates.[Footnote 19] 

Finally, targeting multiunit residential buildings for recycling has 
potential for increasing recycling. Several of the recycling 
coordinators said that their cities do not provide curbside recycling 
services to large, multiunit residential buildings. According to an EPA 
study, collecting recyclables in multiunit residential buildings poses 
many challenges.[Footnote 20] For example, instead of picking up 
recyclables from bins on the curbside, the recyclables are often 
located in the building, which makes it difficult for the haulers to 
access the recyclable materials. These buildings also may house 
residents who are more transient than single-unit household residents 
and thus may be less familiar with the community's recycling program. 
Despite these difficulties, recycling coordinators in some cities, 
including Minneapolis, New York City, San Francisco, and Seattle, 
commented that recycling services are offered to all residential 
buildings. One study, by a research and consulting firm, found several 
strategies that could increase recycling in multiunit residential 
buildings.[Footnote 21] These strategies include providing economic 
incentives, requiring recycling plans, and making recycling as 
convenient as garbage disposal through techniques such as retrofitting 
building garbage chutes to be recycling compatible. According to an EPA 
study, cities with a large proportion of residents living in multiunit 
buildings will have difficulty attaining high recycling rates without 
targeting these buildings in their recycling programs.[Footnote 22] 

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

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

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

To meet RCRA requirements, EPA has established several programs to 
encourage recycling of municipal solid waste. In 1994, EPA launched 
WasteWise, one of the agency's primary recycling programs. Under the 
program, EPA forms voluntary partnerships with businesses, nonprofit 
organizations, and government agencies to develop plans to prevent 
waste, increase recycling, and buy or manufacture more recycled-content 
products. Through WasteWise, EPA has formed partnerships with over 
1,600 organizations to reduce and recycle municipal solid waste and 
certain industrial waste. These partners recycled one million tons of 
paper in 2004, according to EPA. In 2005, EPA promoted a recycling 
competition through its WasteWise College and University Campaign. As a 
result, 47 colleges and universities recycled more than 5,200 tons of 
materials during a 10-week period. However, fiscal year 2007 funding 
for WasteWise will be reduced by about 81 percent based on EPA's fiscal 
year 2006 budget figures. 

In 2002, EPA developed an institutional strategy called the Resource 
Conservation Challenge (RCC) through which it implements WasteWise and 
its other recycling programs. One of the goals of the RCC is to promote 
recycling by focusing on three municipal solid waste streams: paper, 
organic materials, and packaging and containers. The RCC's competitive 
grants program, launched in fiscal year 2006, budgeted $500,000, in 
part, for innovative projects that support EPA's efforts to achieve the 
35 percent national recycling goal by 2008. For example, in June 2006, 
the competitive grants program selected the National Recycling 
Coalition, a nonprofit recycling organization, to help create a 
national marketing campaign to encourage consumers to recycle. 

In addition to EPA headquarters' programs, EPA's regions support the 
national effort to achieve the municipal solid waste recycling goal. 
For example, in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, Region 1 provided funds to 
initiate a food waste collection program in partnership with 54 
supermarkets. According to a Region 1 official, 9,000 tons of organic 
material and 27,000 tons of cardboard are recycled from these 
supermarkets annually. In fiscal year 2006, Region 3 provided grant 
funding to the Mid-Atlantic Consortium of Recycling and Economic 
Development Officials, a nonprofit organization composed of recycling 
and economic development officials, and to the Institute for Local Self-
Reliance, a nonprofit research and educational organization, to promote 
recycling of two key municipal solid waste streams. Specifically, these 
organizations developed a workshop on food waste recycling and 
organized and led stakeholder meetings with paper industry 
representatives, property owners and managers, and consortium officials 
to develop a strategy to increase paper recycling. In fiscal years 2003 
and 2005, Region 5 hosted urban recycling forums--to share recycling 
best practices--for recycling coordinators from large urban areas in 
Regions 5 and 7. 

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 established a 
framework for monitoring and reporting on the performance of federal 
agencies, including the use of program performance goals and measures. 
Establishing performance measures and gathering objective information 
on performance allows organizations to track the progress they are 
making toward their goals and gives managers crucial information upon 
which to base decisions, thereby improving program effectiveness. While 
EPA receives information about the accomplishments of some of its 
recycling programs, the agency has not established performance measures 
to help determine the extent to which its programs are contributing to 
meeting the national recycling goal of 35 percent by 2008. 
Consequently, it is difficult to know what impact severe budget cuts in 
fiscal year 2007 to the WasteWise program will have on meeting the 
national recycling goal. Similarly, EPA's regional offices have 
implemented recycling programs that support the agency's efforts to 
increase the national recycling rate. Although officials from 
headquarters and the regions periodically discuss key accomplishments, 
EPA does not consistently collect and analyze comprehensive information 
about the regional programs, such as the types of programs, their 
funding levels, and their results. 

EPA officials told us they use the municipal solid waste 
characterization report by Franklin Associates--EPA's contractor--to 
help assess the impact WasteWise and other recycling programs have on 
the national recycling rate. If the national recycling rate increases, 
EPA assumes that WasteWise and the agency's other recycling programs 
are contributing to the increases. We do not believe it is appropriate 
to make this assumption. Franklin Associates does not have quality 
control over most of the data it uses in its recycling rate estimates 
because it must rely on data collected by intermediate sources, such as 
industry associations. Therefore, changes in the national recycling 
rate may be attributable to variations in the data collection process. 
Furthermore, a multitude of factors, such as the actions of state and 
local governments or the influence of economic forces, may affect 
national recycling rates. Therefore, under its current assumptions, EPA 
cannot reliably determine whether changes in the national recycling 
rate are the result of the agency's programs or the result of other 
factors. EPA officials told us that they were aware of the limitations 
of the national recycling rate data and acknowledged that they need to 
establish performance measures for their recycling programs and then 
systematically gather data to assess program performance. 

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

While Commerce is taking some actions to stimulate international 
markets for recycled materials, the agency is not taking any actions to 
stimulate domestic markets and, therefore, is not fully meeting its 
responsibilities under RCRA subtitle E. For example, Commerce is not 
identifying the geographical location of existing or potential markets 
for recycled materials or the economic and technical barriers to the 
use of recycled materials in the United States. Moreover, Commerce is 
not implementing activities to stimulate the development of new uses 
for recycled materials in the United States. 

Nonetheless, according to Commerce officials, the agency supports 
increased international trade in recycled and recyclable materials as 
part of its general trade promotion responsibilities. Moreover, 
Commerce's Director of the Office of Materials and Machinery told us 
that the agency supports recycling in other ways as well. For example, 
in 2004, China began requiring scrap metal exporters to obtain a 
license before shipping their materials to China. Commerce officials 
intervened with the Chinese government on behalf of the Institute of 
Scrap Recycling Industries to resolve some of the issues that had 
surfaced as a result of the licensing requirement.[Footnote 23] 

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

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

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

The policy option most frequently identified by stakeholders as a top 
priority for helping municipalities increase their recycling rates was 
to establish a nationwide campaign to educate the public about 
recycling.[Footnote 24] Some stakeholders who cited this option as a 
top priority commented that public interest in recycling had waned and 
a national campaign was needed to reinvigorate the public and help 
increase the supply of recyclable materials. Furthermore, one 
stakeholder pointed out that the federal government was best equipped 
to implement such a campaign given the limited resources of individual 
states and localities. Another stakeholder, however, doubted the 
effectiveness of a national recycling campaign. He explained that the 
information communicated through a national campaign would be too 
general and said that local educational campaigns would be more 
effective. 

Stakeholders who cited a national recycling campaign as a top priority 
offered different ideas on how to carry out the campaign. Some 
stakeholders said that a national recycling campaign should include a 
widely-visible media component to promote recycling and raise awareness 
about its benefits. Others noted that an effective campaign might also 
focus on in-school education for children. Regardless of the campaign's 
strategy, several stakeholders pointed out that it should communicate a 
consistent and sustained message to be effective. Most noted that the 
principal challenge to implementing a successful campaign would be 
securing funding for this effort. 

According to EPA officials, in 2006 the agency selected the National 
Recycling Coalition (Coalition) to undertake a national recycling 
education campaign. The goals of the campaign are to substantially 
increase recycling participation in the United States and increase the 
national recycling rate to 35 percent by 2008. To develop the campaign, 
the Coalition intends to match EPA's funding with approximately 
$380,000 from the private sector. Once the campaign is developed, the 
Coalition plans to finance it with $5 million per year in funds raised 
from a diverse group of environmental organizations, commodity trade 
associations, foundations, government agencies, and consumer-product 
companies and their trade associations. 

The policy option cited second most frequently by stakeholders as a top 
priority for federal action was to enact a federal bottle bill in which 
beverage containers may be returned for money. Several stakeholders 
noted that bottle bills have been effective in the states where they 
have been implemented. To illustrate this point, one stakeholder cited 
a 2002 study on beverage container recycling by Businesses and 
Environmentalists Allied for Recycling,[Footnote 25] which found that 
states with deposit laws achieved a beverage container recovery rate of 
about 72 percent, while states without deposit legislation achieved 
recovery rates of approximately 28 percent.[Footnote 26] Another 
stakeholder cited research indicating that the 11 states with container 
deposit laws accounted for 55 percent of the national recovery rate for 
beverage containers with only 29 percent of the population.[Footnote 
27] One stakeholder also observed that bottle bills may complement 
residential recycling programs by providing an incentive to recycle 
beverage containers, which may be discarded outside the home, where 
there are fewer receptacles for recycling. A city recycling coordinator 
we interviewed argued that by providing a national standard, a federal 
bottle bill would also help to address the current problem of 
fraudulent redemption, where containers are transported across state 
lines from a nondeposit state to a deposit state for redemption. 

Stakeholders offered various ideas on how to implement a federal bottle 
bill. Some explained that the federal government would need to set its 
deposit amount sufficiently high to provide a measurable incentive for 
recycling; three individuals specified that 10 cents would be the 
minimum amount necessary to accomplish this goal. Two of the 
stakeholders we interviewed emphasized that all unredeemed deposits 
should be retained by the federal government and be used to fund 
continued recycling efforts. Stakeholders also noted the potential 
implications of implementing a retailer-based redemption system. They 
pointed out that retailers would likely oppose any redemption system 
that imposed significant additional costs on their operations. To 
address these concerns, one stakeholder suggested that the federal 
government consider an alternative redemption system. Another 
recommended some kind of reimbursement system to help defray 
operational costs incurred by retailers. For example, states with 
bottle bills generally allow consumers to return their used beverage 
containers to certified redemption centers in lieu of retailers. In 
addition, one state sets aside 25 percent of its unredeemed deposits 
for beverage retailers to defray the operational costs associated with 
accepting deposits. 

Recycling stakeholders we interviewed and literature we reviewed also 
cited reasons why some oppose bottle bills. One stakeholder said that a 
bottle bill would not be very effective at helping municipalities to 
increase their recycling rates because it would only address a small 
percentage of municipal solid waste--less than 6 percent, according to 
EPA data--and because communities with curbside programs already 
collect the same materials covered by a bottle bill.[Footnote 28] 
Moreover, some opponents of bottle bills argue that they are more 
expensive to administer than comprehensive curbside recycling programs, 
despite often targeting the same materials. The beverage industry and 
retailers oppose bottle bills because they generate additional 
administrative costs that they must either absorb or pass on to 
consumers through higher beverage prices. Higher prices may, in turn, 
reduce demand for beverages. Opponents of bottle bills also believe 
that deposit laws penalize city-run curbside recycling programs by 
siphoning off valuable materials, such as aluminum cans, whose scrap 
value would help to defray the cost of running a curbside program. In 
1990, we reported that while bottle bills impose an additional cost on 
the beverage industry, they also benefit the environment by reducing 
litter, conserving energy and natural resources, and diverting solid 
waste from landfills. We also noted that states with deposit 
legislation generally found that local curbside systems could coexist 
with deposit systems.[Footnote 29] 

The policy option identified third most frequently by recycling 
stakeholders as a top priority was to require manufacturers to 
establish a system that consumers can use to recycle their products, 
also known as producer "take back" programs.[Footnote 30] Stakeholders 
commented that producer take back programs would be most useful for 
certain products, such as electronics, paint, and carpet, that are 
difficult to recycle or may contain a high level of toxicity. Those 
stakeholders that selected producer take back programs as a top 
priority cited several reasons for their choice. One stakeholder said 
that take back programs would make it easier for the public to recycle 
certain products. Others asserted that requiring producers to provide 
take back programs for their products would motivate them to design 
products and packaging that can be more easily recycled. Two 
stakeholders we interviewed noted that requiring producers to provide a 
system for recycling their products would also ease the financial 
burden on municipalities by shifting some of the responsibility for 
waste disposal from local governments to consumers and manufacturers. 
Moreover, solid waste officials from one state we visited highlighted 
the importance of establishing a federal standard. Specifically, they 
pointed out that having a federal standard for electronic waste was 
preferable to leaving it up to the states, which could result in 50 
different standards. We reported a similar conclusion with respect to 
electronic waste in 2005, when we noted that, in the absence of a 
federal standard, an emerging patchwork of state policies may place a 
substantial burden on manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers.[Footnote 
31] Government officials and industry representatives suggested that 
some oppose mandatory producer take back programs because they can be 
logistically complicated and may impose additional costs on producers 
and retailers, which are often passed on to consumers through higher 
prices. 

Several U.S. states have enacted legislation requiring take back 
programs for certain products. For example, in 2004, Maine passed a law 
requiring industry to take back and recycle the discarded computer 
monitors and televisions that municipalities collect.[Footnote 32] In 
addition, as of July 2006, California requires that retailers of cell 
phones collect used products for reuse, recycling, or proper 
disposal.[Footnote 33] Moreover, according to the Battery Council 
International, a lead-acid battery trade organization, 37 states 
currently have laws requiring retailers to take back lead-acid 
batteries that were used in cars and trucks. Specific companies have 
also established take back programs for their products. For example, 
Dell Inc., a manufacturer of personal computers, offers consumers free 
recycling of Dell products. 

EPA is promoting voluntary extended product responsibility 
programs,[Footnote 34] such as take back programs, and has identified a 
number of priority products, including electronics, batteries, and 
carpet, for which some kind of extended product responsibility action 
is warranted. EPA has participated in negotiations among government and 
industry officials to establish extended product responsibility 
agreements for priority product categories. For example, in 2001, EPA 
participated in multistakeholder negotiations with state governments, 
non-governmental organizations, and the carpet industry that resulted 
in a Memorandum of Understanding for Carpet Stewardship. This agreement 
established carpet recycling targets and has produced design 
innovations to make carpets more recyclable. EPA also sponsors the Plug-
In To eCycling campaign, which fosters partnerships with industry and 
state and local governments to make recycling used electronics less 
expensive and more convenient for consumers. In 2004, Plug-In To 
eCycling sponsored four pilot projects, all of which involved holding 
collection events at retailers such as Best Buy, Good Guys, Office 
Depot, Staples, and Target. Through the Plug-In To eCycling campaign, 
over 45 million pounds of used consumer electronics have been collected 
in the United States since 2003. In addition to its national programs, 
EPA regional offices have also helped to negotiate local take back 
programs and collection events for electronics. 

Several Other Federal Policy Options Could Help Municipalities Increase 
Recycling: 

In addition to the top three proposals identified by recycling 
stakeholders, our interviews with other individuals with recycling 
expertise, as well as a review of relevant literature, revealed a 
variety of other federal policy options that could help municipalities 
increase recycling. One such policy option is for the federal 
government to develop a mechanism for facilitating the sharing of 
recycling best practices. One municipal recycling coordinator we 
interviewed said that his city would benefit from learning about best 
practices gleaned from other cities' experiences. He suggested that one 
way of accomplishing this might be through recycling conferences. 
Another recycling stakeholder recommended that the federal government 
create and maintain a searchable database or clearinghouse that 
communities can use to learn about other recycling programs. He noted 
that, in his capacity as an academic studying local recycling programs, 
the most common request he receives from local recycling officials is 
for information on recycling best practices in other communities with 
like characteristics. To address this need, he said the database could 
include information on the size of each community; specific details on 
the features of the community's recycling program; and data associated 
with each recycling program, such as recycling rates. He also suggested 
that the database include contact information for each community so 
that they could follow up with each other and develop extended 
partnerships. EPA officials acknowledged that the agency has not 
conducted a comprehensive survey of cities and municipalities to 
collect information on recycling best practices. However, EPA has 
identified the need for an online tool kit that communities will be 
able to access to gather information on recycling best practices. EPA 
officials said that the tool kit is currently under development and 
will be reviewed by EPA's local government advisory committee. 

Another policy option to help municipalities increase recycling would 
be to expand federal research on the economic and environmental 
benefits of recycling. One stakeholder we interviewed said that a study 
sponsored by EPA has helped cities make a convincing economic argument 
for starting or expanding recycling programs. However, she explained 
that the biggest weakness of this research is that it is outdated and 
needs to be revised to reflect current conditions. According to the 
same stakeholder, models developed by EPA have also served as useful 
tools for localities that wish to calculate the environmental benefits 
accrued by their communities as a result of recycling. In particular, 
officials from one city noted that EPA's Waste Reduction Model had been 
helpful to solid waste planners and organizations seeking to estimate 
greenhouse gas emissions resulting from various solid waste management 
strategies. 

The federal government might also help municipalities increase their 
recycling rates by providing additional grant funding for recycling 
projects. In recent years, EPA has provided limited grant funding for 
recycling pilot projects through selected regional offices. For 
example, in 2005, EPA's Region 9 awarded the city of Modesto, 
California, $50,000 to help fund a commercial food composting program. 
In addition, in 2006, EPA's Region 3 awarded approximately $10,000 to 
the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority to start recycling 
programs in 18 schools in the Richmond, Virginia, area. Nonetheless, 
one stakeholder noted that a lack of funds for staff, equipment, 
education, and enforcement can prevent or limit local recycling 
programs. Another stakeholder suggested that the federal government 
provide states with grant packages that include incentives for meeting 
certain recycling rates. He noted that the federal government should 
try to target funds to cities that would not have undertaken recycling 
programs if not for federal assistance. However, he noted that the 
principal challenge in implementing this suggestion would be 
establishing criteria for the distribution of funds, ensuring that the 
results of the recycling programs are measurable, and making sure that 
federal funds are not simply substituted for local funds. 

Some of the recycling stakeholders and city recycling coordinators we 
interviewed also suggested that the federal government could help 
municipalities increase their recycling rates by reducing or removing 
federal subsidies to industries that extract virgin materials. One 
stakeholder said that these subsidies cause virgin materials to be 
cheaper than they would be if the full cost of their extraction was 
taken into account, and recycled materials struggle to compete as a 
result. Another stakeholder cited a study published in 1999 by the 
GrassRoots Recycling Network, a recycling advocacy organization, which 
found that industries involved in the extraction of virgin materials 
receive significant annual direct subsidies from the federal 
government.[Footnote 35] On the other hand, another stakeholder said 
that removing subsidies would likely have little measurable impact on 
the relative prices of virgin versus recycled materials. Therefore, he 
argued that while removing federal subsidies would provide a greater 
level of fairness between the recycled materials and virgin materials 
markets, it would likely have only a minimal impact on the overall 
demand for recycled materials. Another stakeholder opined that reducing 
or removing federal subsidies was simply politically impractical. 

Some recycling stakeholders and city recycling coordinators also 
identified various forms of federal subsidies or tax incentives as 
possible policy options for helping municipalities increase their 
recycling rates. One stakeholder said that the federal government 
should provide subsidies to industries that process recyclable 
materials. She explained that subsidies would provide the necessary 
financial incentive to drive recyclable materials out of the waste 
stream and increase the supply of these materials available to 
manufacturers. Another stakeholder said that the federal government 
should provide incentives to manufacturers who use recycled materials 
in their products and suggested that such incentives could take the 
form of a tax credit or accelerated depreciation for recycling 
equipment. According to EPA, 25 U.S. states currently use some kind of 
tax incentive or credit to promote recycling market development, with 
the specific features varying from state to state. However, evidence is 
mixed as to how effective these incentives have been in increasing 
recycling. One group of solid waste professionals noted that it is 
extremely difficult to design these incentives so that they induce new 
recycling. Instead, the incentives may serve as a windfall for 
businesses that were already recycling or would have recycled even in 
the absence of an incentive. As stipulated in the Energy Policy Act of 
2005, the Secretary of the Treasury is required to work with the 
Secretary of Energy to, among other things, identify tax incentives 
that would encourage the recycling of glass, paper, plastic, steel, 
aluminum, and electronic devices.[Footnote 36] The statute requires 
that the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Energy (DOE) 
report their findings by August 2006, but, according to Treasury 
officials, as of November 2006, the agency was just beginning its work 
and had yet to coordinate with DOE. Treasury officials could not give 
us a projected date for the study's completion. 

One recycling coordinator also noted that the federal government could 
provide an incentive for recycling simply by clarifying a section of 
the U.S. tax code that permits municipalities to issue tax-exempt bonds 
to finance construction of solid waste disposal facilities. 
Historically, municipalities have often been unable to apply this 
provision to the construction of materials recovery facilities, where 
recycled materials are sorted and processed, or other recycling 
facilities, because recyclable materials generally did not meet the 
Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) definition of solid waste. In May 
2004, the IRS issued a proposed rule to amend the tax code regarding 
the eligibility of recycling facilities for tax-exempt bond financing. 
According to an IRS official, the agency hopes to finalize the proposed 
rule by June 2007. 

Conclusions: 

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

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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

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

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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

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

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

Signed by: 

John B. Stephenson: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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

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

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

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

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

[End of section] 

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

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

Table 1: Summary of Recycling Program in Atlanta, Georgia: 

Residential recycling. 

Category: Collection point; 
Characteristic: Curbside and drop-off points. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, tin cans, and yard 
trimmings. 

Category: Single-unit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Multiunit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes, for up to three units. 

Category: Curbside collection frequency; 
Characteristic: Weekly. 

Category: Single-stream curbside collection ; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: $30 annual recycling fee per resident, with exceptions. 

Commercial recycling. 

Category: City recycling program; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Construction and demolition; 
Characteristic: No city program. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Other recycling program features. 

Category: City financial incentives to recycle; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Public outreach efforts; 
Characteristic: Television, radio, newspaper, billboard, and public 
transit ads; school programs; and public meetings. 

Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.); 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Recycling goal; 
Characteristic: 26 percent waste reduction from landfills by 2015. 

Source: Recycling coordinator in Atlanta, Georgia. 

[End of table] 

Table 2: Summary of Recycling Program in Austin, Texas: 

Residential recycling. 

Category: Collection point; 
Characteristic: Curbside. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, corrugated cardboard, glass, paper, plastic, 
tin cans, and yard trimmings. 

Category: Single-unit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Multiunit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes, for up to four units. 

Category: Curbside collection frequency; 
Characteristic: Weekly. 

Category: Single-stream curbside collection; 
Characteristic: No. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Commercial recycling. 

Category: City recycling program; 
Characteristic: Voluntary program for small businesses. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Same as residential materials. 

Category: Construction and demolition; 
Characteristic: No city program. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Other recycling program features. 

Category: City financial incentives to recycle; 
Characteristic: Garbage fee is based on size of the garbage can. 

Category: Public outreach efforts; 
Characteristic: Television, radio, and billboard ads; 
school programs; 
and press events. 

Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.); 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Recycling goal; 
Characteristic: None. 

Source: Recycling coordinator in Austin, Texas. 

[End of table] 

Table 3: Summary of Recycling Program in Chicago, Illinois: 

Residential recycling. 

Category: Collection point; 
Characteristic: Alley and some curbside. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, tin and steel cans, 
and yard trimmings. 

Category: Single-unit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Multiunit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes, for up to four units. 

Category: Curbside collection frequency; 
Characteristic: Weekly. 

Category: Single-stream curbside collection; 
Characteristic: No. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: 25 percent recycling goal and mandated local recycling 
coordinator position. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: A working recycling program and an annual report on the 
status of recycling program. 

Commercial recycling. 

Category: City recycling program; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Construction and demolition; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Property managers and building owners must have a 
recycling program that recycles at least three approved items. 

Other recycling program features. 

Category: City financial incentives to recycle; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Public outreach efforts; 
Characteristic: Television, radio, and billboard ads; 
school programs; 
and press events. 

Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.); 
Characteristic: None, except at special events. 

Category: Recycling goal; 
Characteristic: 25 percent. 

Source: Recycling coordinator in Chicago, Illinois. 

[End of table] 

Table 4: Summary of Recycling Program in Denver, Colorado: 

Residential recycling. 

Category: Collection point; 
Characteristic: Curbside. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, steel, Fall leaves, 
and Christmas trees. 

Category: Single-unit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Multiunit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes, for up to seven units. 

Category: Curbside collection frequency; 
Characteristic: Every 2 weeks. 

Category: Single-stream curbside collection; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Commercial recycling. 

Category: City recycling program; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Construction and demolition; 
Characteristic: No city program. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Other recycling program features. 

Category: City financial incentives to recycle; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Public outreach efforts; 
Characteristic: Television and radio ads, ads on trash trucks, flyers, 
brochures, Web site, and public meetings. 

Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.); 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Recycling goal; 
Characteristic: 30 percent waste diversion by 2011. 

Source: Recycling coordinator in Denver, Colorado. 

[End of table] 

Table 5: Summary of Recycling Program in Jacksonville, Florida: 

Residential recycling. 

Category: Collection point; 
Characteristic: Curbside. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, paper, and plastic. 

Category: Single-unit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Multiunit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes, for up to 10 units. 

Category: Curbside collection frequency; 
Characteristic: Weekly. 

Category: Single-stream curbside collection; 
Characteristic: No. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Cities must offer a recycling program. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Residents required to recycle. 

Commercial recycling. 

Category: City recycling program; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Construction and demolition; 
Characteristic: No city program. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Other recycling program features. 

Category: City financial incentives to recycle; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Public outreach efforts; 
Characteristic: Television and radio ads and school programs. 

Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.); 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Recycling goal; 
Characteristic: None. 

Source: Recycling coordinator in Jacksonville, Florida. 

[End of table] 

Table 6: Summary of Recycling Program in Minneapolis, Minnesota: 

Residential recycling. 

Category: Collection point; 
Characteristic: Curbside. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, and household 
batteries. 

Category: Single-unit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Multiunit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Curbside collection frequency; 
Characteristic: Every 2 weeks. 

Category: Single-stream curbside collection; 
Characteristic: No. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: City must offer a recycling program. All yard waste and 
recyclable materials should be placed in appropriate containers as 
required and approved by the city engineer. Multiunit building owners 
must provide recycling for their building. 

Commercial recycling. 

Category: City recycling program; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Same as residential materials. 

Category: Construction and demolition; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Other recycling program features. 

Category: City financial incentives to recycle; 
Characteristic: $7 credit on monthly garbage bill for households that 
recycle. 

Category: Public outreach efforts; 
Characteristic: Inserts in utility bills, annual recycling calendars, 
community events, Web site, and parades. 

Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.); 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Recycling goal; 
Characteristic: Improve on last year's recycling rate. 

Source: Recycling coordinator in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

[End of table] 

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

Residential recycling. 

Category: Collection point; 
Characteristic: Curbside. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, tin cans, all scrap 
metal, and leaves. 

Category: Single-unit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Multiunit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Curbside collection frequency; 
Characteristic: Weekly. 

Category: Single-stream curbside collection; 
Characteristic: No. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Cities must have at least a 10-year solid waste plan 
and run a recycling program. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: City must create citizen advisory groups and a 
recycling program, designate which materials must be recycled, mandate 
amount of waste that must be recycled, and run a leaf collection 
program. Residents required to recycle or be subject to fines. 

Commercial recycling. 

Category: City recycling program; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Varies by businesses. Paper collected from office 
buildings and beverage containers from food establishments. 

Category: Construction and demolition; 
Characteristic: No city program. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: City must offer businesses a recycling program. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Businesses are required to recycle. 

Other recycling program features. 

Category: City financial incentives to recycle; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Public outreach efforts; 
Characteristic: Media, direct mail, Web site, and public transit ads. 

Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.); 
Characteristic: To be piloted in 2007. 

Category: Recycling goal; 
Characteristic: 25 percent by 2007. 

Source: Recycling coordinator in New York, New York. 

[End of table] 

Table 8: Summary of Recycling Program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 

Residential recycling. 

Category: Collection point; 
Characteristic: Curbside and drop-off. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, and paper. 

Category: Single-unit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Multiunit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes, for up to six units. 

Category: Curbside collection frequency; 
Characteristic: Every 2 weeks for most residences. 

Category: Single-stream curbside collection; 
Characteristic: Implementation began on July 2006. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: 25 percent recycling goal, curbside collection program. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: City must offer residential and commercial recycling 
program. Residents are required to recycle. 

Commercial recycling. 

Category: City recycling program; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Same as residential materials. 

Category: Construction and demolition; 
Characteristic: No city program. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Cities must have commercial recycling program. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Businesses must have recycling plan. 

Other recycling program features. 

Category: City financial incentives to recycle; 
Characteristic: A pilot program (Recycle Bank) gives each household up 
to $25 per month in retail coupons based on the weight of each 
household's recyclables. 

Category: Public outreach efforts; 
Characteristic: Television, radio, and newspaper ads; 
public meetings, and school programs. 

Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.); 
Characteristic: Recreation centers. 

Category: Recycling goal; 
Characteristic: 35 percent. 

Source: Recycling coordinator in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: Summary of Recycling Program in Portland, Oregon: 

Residential recycling. 

Category: Collection point; 
Characteristic: Curbside and drop-off. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, glass, metals, motor oil, paper, plastic, and 
yard trimmings. 

Category: Single-unit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Multiunit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes, for up to five units. 

Category: Curbside collection frequency; 
Characteristic: Weekly. 

Category: Single-stream curbside collection; 
Characteristic: No. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Local governments must provide weekly curbside 
recycling to populations greater than or equal to 4,000. It also 
specifies which materials must be recycled. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Requires curbside recycling and extends the list of 
items that must be recycled, including yard trimmings. 

Commercial recycling. 

Category: City recycling program; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Same as residential materials. 

Category: Construction and demolition; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Businesses must recycle 50 percent of their wastes. 

Other recycling program features. 

Category: City financial incentives to recycle; 
Characteristic: Garbage fee is based on size of the garbage can; 
cash deposit for beverage containers. 

Category: Public outreach efforts; 
Characteristic: Newsletters, radio spots, and bus billboards. 

Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.); 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Recycling goal; 
Characteristic: 75 percent by 2015. 

Source: Recycling coordinator in Portland, Oregon. 

[End of table] 

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

Residential recycling. 

Category: Collection point; 
Characteristic: Curbside and drop-off. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, food scraps, glass, metals, motor oil, paper, 
plastic, wood, and yard trimmings. 

Category: Single-unit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Multiunit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Curbside collection frequency; 
Characteristic: Weekly. 

Category: Single-stream curbside collection; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Local governments must develop a solid waste management 
plan, 50 percent diversion rate beginning in 2000 (total for 
residential and commercial). 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Commercial recycling. 

Category: City recycling program; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, food scraps, glass, metals, paper, plastic, 
wood, and yard trimmings. 

Category: Construction and demolition; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Same requirement as under residential category. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Other recycling program features. 

Category: City financial incentives to recycle; 
Characteristic: Residential disposal fee based on size of the garbage 
can. Commercial disposal fee based on collection frequency and size of 
garbage can, recycling container, and composting container, with up to 
a 75 percent discount based on the amount recycled and composted. 

Category: Public outreach efforts; 
Characteristic: Broad media, bus shelter ads, monthly letter from 
service provider, and brochures. 

Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.); 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Recycling goal; 
Characteristic: 75 percent diversion by 2010; 
100 percent diversion by 2020. 

Source: Recycling coordinator in San Francisco, California. 

[End of table] 

Table 11: Summary of Recycling Program in Seattle, Washington: 

Residential recycling. 

Category: Collection point; 
Characteristic: Curbside and drop-off. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, food scraps, compostable paper, glass, 
metals, paper, cardboard, plastic, wood, and yard trimmings. 

Category: Single-unit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Multiunit dwellings; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Curbside collection frequency; 
Characteristic: Every 2 weeks. 

Category: Single-stream curbside collection; 
Characteristic: Dual stream. Glass separated from other recyclables. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: Glass bottles and jars, paper, aluminum cans, and yard 
waste can not be disposed of in garbage cans. 

Commercial recycling. 

Category: City recycling program; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Materials collected; 
Characteristic: Aluminum, food scraps, paper, and plastic. 

Category: Construction and demolition; 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: State legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: None. 

Category: Local legal recycling requirements; 
Characteristic: No paper, cardboard, or yard waste in trash can. 

Other recycling program features. 

Category: City financial incentives to recycle; 
Characteristic: Garbage fee is based on size of the garbage can. 

Category: Public outreach efforts; 
Characteristic: Direct mail, television and radio ads, and newsletters. 

Category: Recycling in public places (e.g., streets, parks, etc.); 
Characteristic: Yes. 

Category: Recycling goal; 
Characteristic: 60 percent diversion by 2010. 

Source: Recycling coordinator in Seattle, Washington. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Federal Policy Options Reviewed by Recycling 
Stakeholders: 

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

Table 12: Federal Policy Options: 

Policy option: Establishing a nationwide campaign to educate the public 
about recycling; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 7. 

Policy option: Enacting a federal bottle bill in which beverage 
containers may be returned for money; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 6. 

Policy option: Requiring manufacturers to establish a system that 
consumers can use to recycle their products; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 4. 

Policy option: Providing additional grant money for recycling projects; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 3. 

Policy option: Facilitating the sharing of recycling best practices 
among municipalities; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 2. 

Policy option: Reducing or removing federal subsidies to industries 
that extract virgin materials; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 2. 

Policy option: Expanding EPA research on the economic and environmental 
benefits of recycling; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 2. 

Policy option: Requiring manufacturers to use a minimum percentage of 
recycled materials in their products; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 2. 

Policy option: Increasing taxes on operators of solid waste landfills; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 2. 

Policy option: Providing federal subsidies to industries that process 
recyclable materials; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 1. 

Policy option: Adopting mandatory national recycling goals for states 
or municipalities; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 1. 

Policy option: Providing federal subsidies to businesses that recycle 
their waste; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 1. 

Policy option: Expanding federal purchasing guidelines to include a 
greater number of products or greater percentage of recycled content; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 1. 

Policy option: Promoting existing markets and creating new markets for 
recycled materials; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 0. 

Policy option: Requiring manufacturers to design products that contain 
a minimum percentage of recyclable materials; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 0. 

Policy option: Providing federal subsidies to businesses that purchase 
products made with recycled materials; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 0. 

Policy option: Mandating that states establish recycling programs; 
Number of times cited as a top three priority: 0. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency: 
Office Of Solid Waste And Emergency Response: 
Washington, D.C. 20460: 

Oct 27 2006: 

Mr. John B. Stephenson: 
Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Stephenson: 

This letter provides EPA's comments and responses to the draft report 
"Recycling - Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling." We 
appreciate your report and the work that lies behind it. We have 
carefully reviewed the report and find it to be very well written, 
carefully researched and clearly argued. We have a number of technical 
and editorial suggestions which are provided in the enclosed document; 
however, we generally agree with the findings made in this report and 
with the recommendation that. EPA should establish performance measures 
and gather comprehensive performance data to evaluate the impact of its 
recycling programs. As mentioned in the Agency's recently published 
strategic plan, during fiscal year 2007 and through fiscal year 2008, 
EPA will develop performance measures for key aspects of the municipal 
waste reduction program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft. If you need 
additional information, you may contact Lillian Bagus, Director of the 
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste, 
at (703) 308-8474. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Susan Parker Bodine: 
Assistant Administrator: 

Enclosures: 

EPA Comments on GAO Draft Report to Congress - Recycling: Additional 
Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling: 

GAO Recommendation: To ensure that the Agency's available resources are 
utilized in the most effective and efficient manner, EPA should 
establish performance measures and gather comprehensive performance 
data to evaluate the impact of its recycling programs. 

EPA's response to GAO's recommendation: EPA agrees with GAO's 
recommendation. EPA is completing a municipal solid waste (MSW) 
strategy for addressing specific areas within the MSW universe. As 
mentioned in the Agency's recently published strategic plan, 'during 
fiscal year 2007 and through fiscal year 2008, EPA will develop 
performance measures for key aspects of the municipal waste reduction 
program. 

General Comment: The report uses 2003 data on MSW generation and 
recycling at various places in the report. The Agency now has data for 
2005. The full report will be released on October 31, 2006. For your 
reference, we have enclosed a copy of Municipal Solid Waste In The 
United States: 2005 Facts and Figures Executive Summary. We recommend 
the report be amended to reflect the new data so that it better 
reflects the country's current generation/recycling status. The 
following are excerpts from the report: 

In the United States in 2005, we generated approximately 245.7 million 
tons of MS W in 2005-a decrease of 1.6 million tons from 2004. 
Excluding composting, the amount of MSW recycled increased to 58.4 
million tons, an increase of 1.2 million tons from 2004. This is a 2 
percent increase in the tons recycled. The tons recovered for 
composting rose slightly to 20.6 million tons in 2005, up from 20.5 
million tons in 2004. The recovery rate for recycling (including 
composting) was 79 million tons or 32.1 percent in 2005, up from 31.4 
percent in 2004. MSW generation in 2005 declined to 4.54 pounds per 
person per day. This is a decrease of 1.5 percent from 2004. The 
recycling rate in 2005 was 1.46 pounds per person per day. Discards 
after recycling declined to 3.08 pounds per person per day in 2005. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

United States Department Of Commerce: 
The Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade: 
Washington, D.C. 20230: 

Oct 27 2006: 

Mr. John B. Stephenson: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Stephenson: 

Thank you for transmitting the draft report entitled, Recycling: 
Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling. The 
International Trade Administration appreciates the opportunity to 
review and comment on the draft report. 

The draft report properly recognizes the Department's efforts in 
support of increased international trade in recycled and recyclable 
materials. As its name implies, the Department's International Trade 
Administration (ITA) has as its central mission the promotion and 
liberalization of international trade in goods and services produced in 
the United States, including trade in recycled and recyclable 
materials. 

We would like to bring to your' attention several ongoing activities in 
support of ITA's mission: 

* The Office of Materials and Machinery (OMM) and the Office of Energy 
and Environmental Industries (OEEI) undertake industry analysis to 
identify and support policies that help U.S. recyclers, processors, and 
users of secondary raw materials compete in free and fair markets, and 
coordinate with other units within ITA to encourage exports of 
secondary raw materials and recycled goods to foreign markets. 

* ITA has played a major role in multilateral trade negotiations that 
positively affect trade in recyclable materials and goods, such as the 
Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement and Disposal of Hazardous 
Wastes. A key outcome of the Department's involvement was ensuring that 
recyclable secondary raw materials were not unnecessarily listed by the 
Convention among hazardous materials prohibited from international 
trade. Further, ITA is active in many multilateral trade initiatives, 
WTO negotiations, and bilateral FTAs (e.g. CAFTA, Malaysia FTA, Chile 
FTA) aimed at reducing barriers to the international flow of goods and 
materials for recycling and recycled products. 

* ITA assistance to the U.S. scrap processing industry ensured open 
access for secondary materials to the Indian and Chinese markets, the 
two fastest growing markets in the world. Secondary materials are the 
second largest U.S. export to China, representing a positive trade 
balance of over $4 billion in 2005, according to the Institute of Scrap 
Recycling Industries. 

* ITA is an active participant in President Bush's Asia Pacific 
Partnership for Clean Development and Climate (APP), a public-private 
partnership that seeks to accelerate the development and deployment of 
clean energy technologies in the six member countries (U.S., Australia, 
China, India, South Korea, Japan). Current APP work plans include 
projects to implement activities that utilize cutting-edge commercial 
technologies, for example the thermal recycling of waste plastics, 
waste tires, biomass, and other by-products as alternative raw 
materials in cement production. 

* Since July 2005, the Manufacturing and Services (MAS) unit of ITA has 
a new mandate to promote the domestic competitiveness of U.S. industry. 
MAS has been working to implement its expanded mandate by offering new 
services and programs to its private industry and government 
stakeholders. 

* OMM leads a multi-disciplinary team of analysts conducting a 
regulatory review of the Environmental Protection Agency's Definition 
of Solid Waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The 
Department's efforts are aimed at facilitating the recovery of more 
secondary raw materials from "waste" streams. 

* By promoting international trade of secondary raw materials and 
recycled goods, Commerce is stimulating the demand for domestic 
recycling markets to supply foreign buyers. Whether that demand is 
realized into actionable recycling programs has historically been 
determined by municipalities through the adoption of collection 
programs. 

I hope that the GAO will consider this information in the preparation 
of its final report. If you have any questions, please contact me or 
David Cammarota, Director of the Office of Materials and Machinery, at 
202-482-5157. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Michelle O'Neill: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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

FOOTNOTES 

[1] According to EPA, municipal solid waste is trash or garbage 
consisting of everyday items such as product packaging, grass 
clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, 
appliances, and batteries. Not included are construction and demolition 
debris, municipal wastewater treatment sludge, hazardous wastes, and 
nonhazardous industrial wastes. 

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

[3] EPA-530-R-06-011. 

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

[5] Pub. L. No. 94-580. 

[6] We interviewed recycling coordinators from Atlanta, Georgia; 
Austin, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; Jacksonville, 
Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; New York, New York; Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, 
Washington. 

[7] EPA contracts with a private firm, Franklin Associates, Ltd., to 
produce its report, "Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: Facts 
and Figures." BioCycle publishes "The State of Garbage," a review of 
nationwide municipal solid waste management in the United States. 

[8] EPA-530-R-06-011 and Phil Simmons, Nora Goldstein, Scott M. 
Kaufman, Nickolas J. Themelis, and James Thompson, Jr., "The State of 
Garbage in America," BioCycle, vol. 47, no. 4 (Apr. 2006). 

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

[10] David H. Folz, "Municipal Recycling Performance: A Public Sector 
Environmental Success Story," Public Administration Review, vol. 59, 
no. 4 (July-Aug. 1999) and Morton Barlaz and Daniel Loughlin, 
"Strengthening Markets for Recyclables: A Worldwide Perspective, Part 
1. Policies for Strengthening Recycling in the U.S.," Environmental 
Research and Education Foundation (Raleigh, North Carolina: Nov. 2001). 

[11] David H. Folz and Jacqueline Giles, "Municipal Experience with Pay 
as You Throw Policies: Findings from a National Survey," State and 
Local Government Review, vol. 34, no. 2 (2002) and Barlaz and Loughlin, 
"Strengthening Markets for Recyclables: A Worldwide Perspective, Part 
1. Policies for Strengthening Recycling in the U.S." 

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

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

[14] EPA-530-R-06-011. 

[15] EPA-530-R-99-013. 

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

[17] EPA-530-R-92-015. 

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

[19] EPA-530-R-99-013. 

[20] EPA-530-R-92-015. 

[21] Lisa A. Skumatz and John Green, "Movin' on Up - Strategies for 
Increasing Multi-family Recycling," Skumatz Economic Research 
Associates, Research Paper 9989, (Seattle, Washington: Sept. 1999). 

[22] EPA-530-R-92-015. 

[23] The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries represents over 1,200 
companies that process, broker, and consume scrap commodities, 
including metals, paper, plastics, glass, rubber, electronics, and 
textiles. It provides education, advocacy, and compliance training, and 
promotes public awareness of the value and importance of recycling. 

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

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

[26] Since the Businesses and Environmentalists Allied for Recycling 
study was conducted, Hawaii became the 11th U.S. state to pass deposit 
legislation. Hawaii's law was enacted on June 25, 2002 and was fully 
implemented on January 1, 2005. 

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

[28] EPA-530-R-06-011. 

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

[30] Producer take back programs are specific tools for recycling 
within the broader framework of extended producer responsibility 
efforts. Extended producer responsibility has been described by the 
Product Policy Institute as a principle which extends the 
responsibilities of the manufacturer of the product to various parts of 
the entire life cycle of the product, and especially to the take back, 
recycling, and final disposal of the product. 

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

[32] 2004 Me. Laws 661 (codified at Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38, § 
1610). 

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

[34] According to EPA, extended product responsibility calls on all 
those in the product life cycle--manufacturers, retailers, and 
disposers--to share responsibility for the environmental impact of 
products. Extended producer responsibility assigns responsibility to 
the producer alone. 

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

[36] Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 1353 (2005). 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm: 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: