Advisory group participants raised repeatedly that recycling-rate estimates differ by source and that the state lacks consistent, reliable data for several important populations. The disparities matter because accurate baseline data is needed to set targets and to design reporting and fee structures under any extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme.

Multiple presenters noted the U.S. recycling-rate figures differ by dataset: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s figure was cited as 32.1%, while The Recycling Partnership’s residential estimate was cited as 21% (the meeting’s slides and speakers attributed the difference in part to whether analysis is residential-only and to differing methodologies). MassDEP staff and municipal participants said Massachusetts’s available municipal reporting has a 30% non-reporting rate for municipalities and that roughly 75% of the population is served by municipal curbside programs, leaving an estimated 25% of households whose service status is uncertain because they contract with private haulers or live in building types not covered by municipal programs.

Speakers emphasized these points:

• The Recycling Partnership’s residential recycling rate was cited as roughly 21–27% in different slides and comments; EPA’s national figure was cited as 32.1.

• Municipal reporting to the DEP covers many but not all jurisdictions; about 30% of municipalities did not report in the dataset used for the presentation.

• Multifamily buildings, assisted-living or congregate housing and some large apartment buildings were specifically identified as frequently underserved or not adequately captured in municipal reporting.

Several participants called for a clearer definition of “recycling rate” (recovery rate versus recovery of specific materials) and recommended a focused follow-up to reconcile sources and to specify which populations are included in each dataset. Some jurisdictions’ needs assessments were cited as producing better data but also as time- and resource-intensive, and participants warned that data submission can be limited by service providers’ concerns about confidentiality and by the lack of statutory protections for proprietary data.

The advisory group identified as next steps: clarifying which datasets to cite in the background document, seeking updated or corrected DEP database exports from staff, and considering whether the commission should commission deeper data collection (for example, a data call or a protected-data needs assessment) before setting targets or fee structures.