NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This project was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Contract No. AWD-002044). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-72701-3
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/27978
Library of Congress Control Number: 2025941949

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; https://nap.nationalacademies.org.

The manufacturer’s authorized representative in the European Union for product safety is Authorised Rep Compliance Ltd., Ground Floor, 71 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin D02 P593 Ireland; www.arccompliance.com.

Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Municipal Solid Waste Recycling in the United States: Analysis of Current and Alternative Approaches. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27978.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE ON COSTS AND APPROACHES FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAMS

DON FULLERTON (Co-Chair), University of California, Santa Barbara; University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (Emeritus)

DEBRA REINHART (Co-Chair), University of Central Florida

MALAK ANSHASSI, Florida Polytechnic University

FATIMA HAFSA, World Bank

TRACY HORST, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

DEREK KELLENBERG, University of Montana

MARQUISE MCGRAW, American University (through June 2024)

JEREMY O’BRIEN, Solid Waste Association of North America (retired)

SUSAN ROBINSON, Waste Management (retired)

HILARY SIGMAN, Rutgers University

MITCHELL J. SMALL, Carnegie Mellon University (Emeritus)

REBECCA TAYLOR, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

SOFIA B. VILLAS-BOAS, University of California, Berkeley

Study Staff

ANDREW BREMER, Study Director (through March 2025)

LYLY LUHACHACK, Study Director (from March 2025)

NATALIE ARMSTRONG, Program Officer

KAVITA BERGER, Board Director, Board on Life Sciences

GAIL COHEN, Senior Board Director, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy

ANTHONY DEPINTO, Program Officer

CLIFFORD S. DUKE, Board Director, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (through May 2025)

CHARLES FERGUSON, Senior Board Director, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology

THOMASINA LYLES, Senior Program Assistant

CHRISTL SAUNDERS, Program Coordinator

LIANA VACCARI, Program Officer

RAY WASSEL, Scholar (through June 2024)

Sponsor

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NOTE: See Appendix B, Disclosure of Unavoidable Conflict of Interest.

Reviewers

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by DANNY REIBLE (NAE), Texas Tech University, and DAVID DZOMBAK (NAE), Carnegie Mellon University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Contents

SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Composition and Regulation of Solid Waste

1.2 The Importance of Recycling

1.3 MSW Recycling Costs and the Role of Public Policy

1.4 Study Scope and Approach

1.5 Organization of the Report

References

2 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING SYSTEMS

2.1 Today’s Recycling Systems

2.2 MSW Management

2.3 Technological Advances in MSW Recycling

2.4 Key Policy Options and Recommendations

References

3 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF RECYCLING PROGRAMS AND THE ROLE OF POLICY

3.1 What Problems Should Recycling Policies Fix?

3.2 The Heterogeneity of Recycling

3.3 Policy Approaches That Respond to Heterogeneity

3.4 Conclusions for Recycling Programs and Policy Choices

References

4 DIRECT COSTS AND FINANCING OF RECYCLING PROGRAMS

4.1 Curbside Recycling Programs

4.2 Traditional Financing Approaches

4.3 Evaluating Traditional Financing for Recycling

4.4 Alternative Financing: Recycling Programs

4.5 Key Policy Options and Recommendations

References

5 MATERIALS AND MARKETS

5.1 Recycling Rates

5.2 Demand for Recyclable Materials: End Markets

5.3 Global, Regional and Local Recycling Markets

5.4 Public Policies for End Markets

5.5 Key Policy Options

References

6 BEHAVIORAL CONSIDERATIONS AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF RECYCLING PROGRAMS

6.1 Program Availability

6.2 Attitudes Toward and Barriers to Recycling

6.3 Strategies for Promoting Behavior Changes

6.4 Overview of Social Impacts

6.5 Community Impacts

6.6 Pursuing Fairness in Access to Benefits of Recycling

6.7 Key Policy Options

References

7 BENEFITS AND MEASURING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND EXTERNALITIES OF RECYCLING PROGRAMS

7.1 Key Recycling Benefits

7.2 Recycling Rates: Current Sustainability Metrics

7.3 Life Cycle Assessment

7.4 Reported Environmental Footprints for Recycling Materials

7.5 Sustainability Materials Management

7.6 Reducing Environmental Footprints

References

APPENDIX A: COMMITTEE MEMBER BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

APPENDIX B: DISCLOSURE OF UNAVOIDABLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST

APPENDIX C: PUBLIC MEETING AGENDAS

Boxes, Figures, and Tables

BOXES

1-1 Statement of Task

2-1 Lithium-Ion Battery Fires

2-2 Case Study: Evaluating Selected Waste Systems in New York State

2-3 Case Study: Assessing Recycling Programs in Florida

2-4 ReMADE Institute

2-5 Case Study: Rumpke Recycling & Resource Center

3-1 Is Recycling Worth It?: A Formula for Assessing Net Social Costs

3-2 Case Study: Recycling Glass Jars or Bottles in Fargo

3-3 Optimal Incentives via Taxes or Deposit Return System

4-1 Case Study: Incorporating Social and Environmental Costs in Oregon

4-2 Waste and Recycling Streams from Renewable Energy Technologies

4-3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Grant Programs

4-4 EPA National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution: EPR Framework

4-5 Case Studies: State-Level Packaging and Recycled Content Legislation

4-6 Case Study: Colorado’s Extended Producer Responsibility Policy

4-7 Case Study: Oregon’s EPR Policy

4-8 Case Studies: State-Specific Needs Assessment Laws

4-9 California’s DRS Programs: A Redemption Value Case Study

4-10 States with Landfill Tipping Surcharges

5-1 Recycling and Composting Accountability Act

5-2 Case Study: Recycling Excellence in the United States

5-3 Case Study: Navigating Recycling Challenges for Toothpaste Containers

5-4 Closed- and Open-Loop Recycling

5-5 Case Studies: State Recycling Market Development Programs

5-6 Case Studies: Washington’s NextCycle Program

5-7 Case Study: UK Plastic Packaging Tax

5-8 Superfund Excise Tax on Hazardous Substances

6-1 Opposition and Support for Contingent Valuation and Willingness to Pay

6-2 Social Feedback Case Study

6-3 Case Study: Bin-Tagging as Feedback in Seattle

6-4 Case Study: Seattle’s Online Recycling Search Tools

6-5 Case Study: Quality Disconnect Between MRFs and Wisconsin End Users

6-6 Case Study: The Minnesota-Based Wood From the Hood

6-7 Case Study: Community-Centered Recycling in Phoenix

FIGURES

S-1 A simplified system diagram for municipal solid waste management systems primarily highlighting processes and materials discussed in this report

S-2 Major technological or behavioral decision stages and influences affecting recyclability of solid waste

2-1 A simplified system diagram for municipal solid waste management systems primarily highlighting processes and materials discussed in this report

2-2 Key stages and actors in the U.S. recycling system

2-3 Major technological or behavioral decision stages and influences affecting recyclability of solid waste

2-4 Hub-and-spoke recycling model

2-5 Environmental return on investment associated with the effects of keeping a recycling program (Contract A and B)

2-6 State-by-state residential recycling rates

2-7 State-by-state residential recyclable material lost in tons per year

2-8 Relationship of state-by-state annual recyclable materials lost per capita versus residential recycling rate

2-9 Examples of automation sorting technologies

4-1 Processing costs per ton for materials recovery facilities in the Northeast, 2019–2024

4-2 Revenues per ton recyclables for materials recovery facilities in the Northeast, 2019–2024

4-3 Estimated annual waste management costs for 2021, 2020, and 2011 by region

4-4 Comparison of redemption rates for deposit-return systems by deposit level

4-5 Bottle bill fact sheet

5-1 Recycling tonnages in the United States (1960–2018)

5-2 Recycling rates for five categories of materials in the United States, 1970–2015

5-3 Trends of U.S. municipal solid waste (MSW) expenditures by gross domestic product (GDP), 1970–2015

5-4 Plastics waste composition in the United States (percent by weight), for each material type and resin code

5-5 Virgin and recycled plastic prices in 2023 and 2024

5-6 Historical recycled commodity prices

5-7 Patents for recycling by material in countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2000–2021

5-8 Legislation related to chemical recycling

5-9 Recyclable waste and scrap materials (four types) traded worldwide, in thousands of metric tons, 2012–2023

5-10 U.S. waste and scrap paperboard imports and exports, in thousands of metric tons, 2012–2023

5-11 U.S. waste and scrap aluminum imports and exports, in thousands of metric tons, 2012–2023

5-12 U.S. waste and scrap plastics imports and exports, in thousands of metric tons, 2012–2023

5-13 U.S. exports of plastic waste and scrap to OECD and non-OECD countries, in thousands of metric tons, 2012–2023

5-14 U.S. imports of plastic waste and scrap from OECD and non-OECD countries, in thousands of metric tons, 2012–2023

5-15 Conceptual map of the proposed fee-and-reward program

6-1 Recyclable materials disposal channels

6-2 State-by-state levels of recycling access and participation

6-3 Fate of materials in residential recycling, tons per year

6-4 Number of U.S. households with food waste collection, 2005–2023

6-5 Food waste collection methods

6-6 Residential food waste collection programs by state

6-7 Importance of recycling

6-8 Barriers to recycling more household plastic waste

6-9 Support for regulations

6-10 Local officials’ agreement with statements regarding recycling benefits

6-11 Sample intervention graphic: Comparative social feedback versus non-comparative feedback

6-12 U.S. recycling laws

6-13 Screenshot of the online tool offered by Seattle Public Utilities

7-1 Life stages included in the sustainable materials management framework

TABLES

S-1 Summarized List of Data Needs and Their Uses for Recycling Approaches

2-1 MSW Recycling in Residential and Commercial/Multifamily Sectors

2-2 Estimated Increases in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Based on Discontinuing Recycling Programs in Florida

2-3 Summarized List of Data Needs and Their Uses for Recycling Approaches

3-1 Examples of the Wide Variation Across Components of Cost for Waste and Recycling

3-2 National Average Prices per Ton

3-3 Comparing Pigovian Tax Rates with Deposit-Return System Costs

4-1 Costs of Curbside Recycling and Residential Refuse Collection in North Carolina, 2023

4-2 Colorado Needs Assessment—Estimated Recycling Outcomes per Scenario

4-3 Colorado Needs Assessment—Estimated Costs per Scenario

4-4 Deposit-Return Programs in the United States

5-1 Recycling Tonnages in the United States, 1960–2018

5-2 Examples of Recycling Excellence in the United States

5-3 Resin Identification Codes

5-4 End Uses and Prices for Recycled Commodities

5-5 Key Definitions of Recycling Technologies

6-1 Time Costs of Recycling Under Different Scenarios

6-2 Five Types of Recyclers

6-3 Literature on Willingness-to-Pay Estimates

6-4 Social Dimensions in Waste Management

6-5 Potential Research Questions for Assessing the Recycling Value and Its Social Impact

6-6 How2Recycle Labels

7-1 Produce and Waste Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Models

7-2 Key Input Assumptions and Their Defaults for Each Assessment Model

7-3 Environmental Footprints for Recycling Materials

7-4 Political Feasibility of Each Scenario, Defined by Evaluating Similar Programs and Policy Challenges

Preface

Municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling programs play a crucial role in the U.S. waste management system, aiding in the reduction of waste disposed and the conservation of resources. These programs also drive economic activity and provide other social and environmental benefits. While most contemporary MSW recycling activities are local programs by nature, they are also impacted by policies and economic forces at the state, national, and international levels.

These programs face a multitude of challenges today that complicate their stability, efficacy, and economic efficiency. Some of these are historic challenges for the recycling industry—for example, contamination in the recycling material stream and securing suitable end markets for recycled materials. Meanwhile, new challenges have arisen over the past few years—for example, adapting to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the recycling industry and a changing international policy landscape that have placed additional limits on end markets for recycled materials.

Considering these challenges, the task of this committee was to assess the costs of MSW recycling programs in various contexts and to identify policy options to facilitate the effective implementation of these programs. As this report details, public policy is an invaluable tool in addressing these challenges and in shepherding solutions to the various challenges faced by MSW recycling programs. Well-designed policy at different levels of government can ultimately support the communities that administer recycling programs and can unlock the benefits they provide.

This report explains several major findings. First, many of the environmental benefits of local recycling spill over jurisdictional boundaries to the rest of the state and nation. No local government can be expected to shoulder the entire cost of providing these diffuse benefits, so they need additional financial help. Second, this financial help can be in the form of targeted incentives such as grant-making or policies that shift costs to producers to do the right kinds of recycling. However, beyond financial challenges, consumer behavior must also be modified to overcome recycling challenges, in some cases simply by providing more and better information to consumers and businesses. And third, a significant challenge in overcoming obstacles to effective MSW recycling programs is the heterogeneity across the industry. These differences include local material streams, local economies, proximity to end markets, existing infrastructure, geography, cultures and norms, and more. These forms of heterogeneity all impact outcomes of decision-making about options related to administering effective MSW recycling programs. Still, the committee has identified policy options and several recommendations to support these programs at all levels moving forward.

This report is the result of the committee’s deliberations. It describes the committee’s consensus conclusions and recommendations, and it identifies key policy options based on extensive information gathering, committee discussions, and input from a variety of experts who work in the MSW recycling industry. The committee met twice in-person over the course of its study and held several additional virtual information gathering meetings in 2024.

We thank the U.S. Congress for requesting this report, because it recognizes both the importance of recycling programs in meeting many of the waste management goals our nation has set as well as the need to identify and deploy novel policy solutions to support them. We also thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which sponsored the study.

The work of this committee was supported by several National Academies staff members. We are particularly grateful to Lyly Luhachack, Andrew Bremer, Thomasina Lyles, Natalie Armstrong, Anthony DePinto, Liana Vaccari, and Ray Wassel for their efforts.

Finally, we thank our fellow committee members for their hard work and contributions to the development of this report, and for offering their insight and expertise in our many discussions. Especially