iu
CD
Municipal Solid Waste in
The United States:
2000 Facts and Figures
G e n e r
n
Reduction
Disposal
@ Printed on paper that contains at least 50 percent postconsumer fiber.
-------
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (5305W)
EPA530-R-02-001
www.epa.gov
June 2002
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN THE UNITED STATES: 2000 UPDATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Overview 1
What Is Included in Municipal Solid Waste? 5
Municipal Solid Waste in Perspective 5
Trends Over Time 5
Municipal Solid Waste in 2000 5
Materials in MSW 6
Products in MSW 7
Residential and Commercial Sources of MSW 11
Management of MSW 11
Overview 11
Source Reduction 11
Recycling 14
Disposal 14
Perspective for the Nation 15
For Further Information 16
1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 17
Introduction 17
Background 17
The Solid Waste Management Hierarchy 17
Overview of the Method 18
How This Report Can Be Used 19
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste: In Perspective 22
The Two Methodologies for Characterizing MSW: Site Specific
Versus Material Flows 22
Municipal Solid Waste Defined in Greater Detail 23
Other Subtitle D Wastes 24
Materials and Products Not Included in These Estimates 25
-------
Overview of This Report 25
References 28
2 CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BY WEIGHT 30
Introduction 30
Municipal Solid Waste: Characterized by Material Type 31
Paper and Paperboard 35
Glass 39
Ferrous Metals 41
Aluminum 44
Other Nonferrous Metals 45
Plastics 45
Other Materials 50
Food Scraps 53
Yard Trimmings 54
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 55
Summary of Materials in Municipal Solid Waste 55
Products in Municipal Solid Waste 60
Durable Goods 61
Nondurable Goods 71
Containers and Packaging 78
Summary of Products in Municipal Solid Waste 89
Summary 92
MSW Generation 92
MSW Recovery 92
Long-Term Trends 93
References 95
3 MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 105
Introduction 105
Source Reduction 106
Source Reduction Through Redesign 108
-------
Modifying Practices To Reduce Materials Use 108
Reuse of Products and Packages 109
Management of Organic Materials Ill
Recovery For Recycling (Including Composting) 112
Recyclables Collection 112
Recyclables Processing 116
Combustion 119
Residues from Waste Management Facilities 121
Landfills 122
Summary of Historical and Current MSW Management 123
References 127
4 SOURCE REDUCTION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 130
Introduction 130
Measuring Source Reduction 130
Source Reduction Facts 132
A Source Reduction Success Story 136
Source Reduction Benefits 137
Factors Impacting Source Reduction 138
Additional Information 140
Appendix Page
A Material Flows Methodology 141
Domestic Production 141
Converting Scrap 141
Adjustments for Imports/Exports 141
Diversion 142
Adjustments for Product Lifetime 142
Municipal Solid Waste Generation and Discards 142
B Source Reduction/Expansion for Individual Components of MSW 145
C Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste 149
Introduction 149
Products in Consumer Electronics 151
in
-------
Methodology 151
Definition of Terms 153
Data Collection and Research 153
Generation 153
Recovered for Recycling 157
Discards After Recovery 159
Results 159
Current Recovery Programs 163
References 165
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
ES-1 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, and Discards of Municipal Solid
Waste, 1960-2000 (In Million of Tons) 2
ES-2 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting and Discards of Municipal Solid
Waste, 1960 - 2000 (In Pounds Per Person Per Day) 2
ES-3 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, and Discards of Municipal Solid
Waste, 1960-2000 (In Percent of Total Generation) 3
ES-4 Generation and Recovery of Materials in MSW, 2000 7
ES-5 Generation and Recovery of Products in MSW by Material, 2000 9
ES-6 Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste, 1992 - 2000 12
ES-7 Source Reduction by Major Material Categories, 2000 13
Materials in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream, 1960 to 2000
1 Generated 32
2 Recovery 33
3 Discarded 34
Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 2000
4 Paper and Paperboard 36
5 Glass 40
6 Metal 43
7 Plastics 47
8 Rubber and Leather 51
Categories of Products in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream, 1960 to 2000
9 Generated 62
10 Recovery 63
11 Discarded 64
Products in MSW with Detail on Durable Goods, 1960 to 2000
12 Generated 66
13 Recovery 67
-------
14 Discarded 68
Products in MSW with Detail on Nondurable Goods, 1960 to 2000
15 Generated 73
16 Recovery 74
17 Discarded 75
Products in MSW with Detail on Containers and Packaging, 1960 to 2000
18 Generated (by weight) 80
19 Generated (by percent) 81
20 Recovery (by weight) 82
21 Recovery (by percent) 83
22 Discarded (by weight) 84
23 Discarded (by percent) 85
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
24 Selected Examples of Source Reduction Practices 107
25 Number and Population Served by Curbside Recyclables Collection Programs,
2000 112
26 Materials Recovery Facilities, 2000 116
27 Municipal Waste-to-Energy Projects, 2000 120
28 Landfill Facilities, 2000 123
29 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion, and Discards of
Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2000 126
Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste
30 2000 Source Reduction by Major Material Categories 132
31 Significant Source Reduction and Source Expansion Within MSW 134
32 Source Reduction/(Expansion) for Functional Categories - 2000 135
Source Reduction/Expansion for Individual Components of MSW
B-l Source Reduction/Expansion for Individual Components of MSW - 2000 145
C-l Selected Consumer Electronics 152
C-2 Consumer Electronics Data Collection 154
VI
-------
C-3 Estimated Life of Selected Consumer Electronics 156
C-4 Total Generation of Consumer Electronics by Material in the Municipal
Waste Stream 159
C-5 Generation, Recovery, and Discards of Consumer Electronics in the Municipal
Waste Stream 2000 161
C-6 Selected Consumer Electronics as a Percentage of Total Miscellaneous Durable
Goods and Total MSW, 2000 162
Vll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
ES-1 MSW Generation Rates from 1960 to 2000 3
ES-2 MSW Recycling Rates from 1960 to 2000 4
ES-3 2000 Total MSW Generation - 232 Million Tons 6
ES-4 Products Generated in MSW - 2000 8
ES-5 Number of Landfills in the U.S 15
ES-6 Management of MS Win the U.S.-2000 16
1 Municipal Solid Waste in the Universe of Subtitle D Wastes 25
1-A Definition of Terms 27
Materials Generated and Recovered in Municipal Solid Waste
2 Paper and Paperboard Products Generated in MSW, 2000 35
3 Paper Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2000 37
4 Glass Products Generated in MSW, 2000 40
5 Glass Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2000 41
6 Metal Products Generated in MSW, 2000 42
7 Metals Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2000 44
8 Plastics Products Generated in MSW, 2000 46
9 Plastics Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2000 50
10 Generation of Materials in MSW, 1960 to 2000 56
11 Recovery and Discards of MSW, 1960 to 2000 57
12 Materials Recovery, 2000 58
13 Materials Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2000 59
Products Generated and Recovered in Municipal Solid Waste
14 Generation of Products in MSW, 1960 to 2000 89
15 Nondurable Goods Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2000 90
16 Containers and Packaging Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2000 91
Vlll
-------
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
17 Diagram of Solid Waste Management 106
18 Population Served by Curbside Recycling, 2000 113
19 States With Bottle Deposit Rules 115
20 Estimated MRF Throughput, 2000 117
21 Mixed Waste Processing Estimated Capacity, 2000 118
22 MSW Composting Capacity, 2000 118
23 Yard Trimmings Composting Programs, 2000 119
24 Municipal Waste-to-Energy Capacity, 2000 121
25 Number of Landfills in the U.S.,2000 123
26 Municipal Solid Waste Management, 1960 to 2000 125
Material Flows Methodology
A-1 Material Flows Methodology for Estimating Generation of Products and
Materials in MSW 143
A-2 Material Flows Methodology for Estimating Discards of Products and
Materials in MSW 144
C-l Selected Consumer Electronics 150
C-2 Life Cycle for Consumer Electronics 158
-------
-------
Executive Summary
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN THE UNITED STATES: 2000 FACTS AND FIGURES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
This report describes the national municipal solid waste (MSW) stream based on data
collected for 1960 through 2000. The historical perspective is useful for establishing trends in
types of MSW generated and in the ways it is managed. In this Executive Summary, we briefly
describe the methodology used to characterize MSW in the United States and provide the latest
facts and figures on MSW generation, recycling, and disposal.
In the United States, we generated approximately 231.9 million tons of MSW in 2000—
an increase of 0.9 million tons from 1999.* This is an increase of only 0.3 percent from 1999 to
2000. Excluding composting, the amount of MSW recycled increased to 53.4 million tons, an
increase of 3.3 million tons from 1999. This is a 6.6 percent increase in the tons recycled. The
tons recovered for recycling (including composting) rose to 69.9 million tons in 2000, up from
64.8 million tons in 1999. The recovery rate for recycling (including composting) was 30.1
percent in 2000, up from 28.1 percent in 1999. (See Tables ES-1 and ES-2 and Figures ES-1 and
ES-2.)
MSW generation in 2000 declined to 4.5 pounds per person per day.** The recycling rate
in 2000 was 1.4 pounds per person per day. Discards after recycling declined to 3.2 pounds per
person per day in 2000 (Table ES-3).
Data shown for 1999 have been adjusted to reflect the latest revisions and, therefore, may differ slightly from
the same measure reported previously. For example, tonnage of MSW generated in 1999 has been revised
upward from 229.9 million tons to 231.0 million tons.
The 2000 generation, recovery and disposal per person values were calculated from 2000 Census data. For data
years 1999 and earlier, population estimates based on 1990 Census data were used. Revised Census data for
1999 and earlier years were not available when this Executive Summary was prepared. The population data
series revisions will be included in later editions of this report.
1
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-1
GENERATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING,
AND DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 - 2000
(In millions of tons)
Millions of tons
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after Recovery
1960
88.1
5.6
Neg.
5.6
82.5
1970
121.1
8.0
Neg.
8.0
113.0
1980
151.6
14.5
Neg.
14.5
137.1
1990
205.2
29.0
4.2
33.2
172.0
1995
211.4
45.3
9.6
54.9
156.5
1998
223.4
48.0
13.1
61.1
162.3
1999
231.0
50.1
14.7
64.8
166.2
2000
231.9
53.4
16.5
69.9
162.0
Composting of yard trimmings and food wastes. Does not include mixed MSW composting or backyard
composting.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Table ES-2
GENERATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING
AND DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 - 2000
(In pounds per person per day)
Pounds oer nerson ner dav
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after Recovery
Population (millions)
1960
2.68
0.17
Neg.
0.17
2.51
179.979
1970
3.25
0.22
Neg.
0.22
3.03
203.984
1980
3.66
0.35
Neg.
0.35
3.31
227.255
1990
4.50
0.64
0.09
0.73
3.77
249.907
1995
4.40
0.94
0.20
1.14
3.26
263.168
1998
4.52
0.97
0.27
1.24
3.29
270.561
1999
4.64
1.01
0.30
1.31
3.33
272.691
2000
4.51
1.04
0.32
1.36
3.15
281.422
* Composting of yard trimmings and food wastes. Does not include mixed MSW composting or backyard
composting.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
The per capita discard rate may decline for 1999 and earlier years when revised Census population figures are
obtained.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-3
GENERATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING,
AND DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 - 2000
(In percent of total generation)
Percent of total generation
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after Recovery
1960
100.0%
6.4%
Neg.
6.4%
93.6%
1970
100.0%
6.6%
Neg.
6.6%
93.4%
1980
100.0%
9.6%
Neg.
9.6%
90.4%
1990
100.0%
14.2%
2.0%
16.2%
83.8%
1995
100.0%
21.5%
4.5%
26.0%
74.0%
1998
100.0%
21.5%
5.9%
27.4%
72.6%
1999
100.0%
21.7%
6.4%
28.1%
71.9%
2000
100.0%
23.0%
7.1%
30.1%
69.9%
* Composting of yard trimmings and food scraps. Does not include mixed MSW composting or backyard
composting.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Figure ES-1: MSW Generation Rates from 1960 to 2000
250 T
200-•
10.00
1970
1980
•Total MSW generation '
1990
Per capita generation
- • 8.00
• • 6.00
4.00
- • 2.00
0.00
2000
•5.
8
-------
Executive Summary
The state of the economy has a strong impact on consumption and waste generation.
Waste generation continued to increase through the 1990s as economic growth continued to be
strong. Between 1998 and 1999, paper and paperboard generation increased 4.9 percent. Total
MSW generation increased only slightly between 1999 and 2000, and this can be attributed, to a
great extent, to a decline in production of paper and paperboard of 1.7 percent.
70.0
1960
Figure ES-2: MSW recycling rates from 1960 to 2000
.50.0%
1970
1980
-Total MSW recycling —
1990
"Percent recycling
(Paper industry production is very sensitive to economic factors, and 2000 was not a good year
for the industry.) At the same time, recovery of products (including paper and paperboard)
increased substantially in 2000, and therefore a recycling rate of 30.1 percent was achieved in
spite of the slowdown in the economy. The paper and paperboard recovery, as a percent of
generation, increased from 40.9 percent to 45.4 percent in 2000. The majority of the increase in
recovery came from increased exports in 2000.
-------
Executive Summary
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE?
MSW—otherwise known as trash or garbage—consists of everyday items such as
product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers,
appliances, and batteries. Not included are materials that also may be disposed in landfills, but
are not generally considered MSW, such as construction and demolition debris, municipal
wastewater treatment sludges, and non-hazardous industrial wastes.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN PERSPECTIVE
Trends Over Time
Over the last few decades, the generation, recycling, and disposal of MSW have changed
substantially (see Tables ES-1, ES-2, and ES-3 and Figures ES-1 and ES-2). MSW generation
has continued to increase from 1960, when it was 88 million tons. The generation rate in 1960
was just 2.7 pounds per person per day; it grew to 3.7 pounds per person per day in 1980;
reached 4.5 pounds per person per day in 1990; and it stabilized at 4.5 pounds per person per day
in 2000 after increasing through the 1990s.
Over time, recycling rates have increased from 10 percent of MSW generated in 1980 to
16 percent in 1990, to 30 percent in 2000. Disposal has decreased from 90 percent of the amount
generated in 1980 to 70 percent of MSW in 2000. This compares to 73 percent in 1999.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN 2000
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has two ways of analyzing the 231.9
million tons of MSW generated in 2000. The first is by material (paper and paperboard, yard
trimmings, food scraps, plastics, metals, glass, wood, rubber, leather and textiles, and other); the
second is by several major product categories. The product-based categories are containers and
packaging; nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers) durable goods (e.g., appliances); food scraps;
and other materials.
-------
Executive Summary
Materials in MSW
A breakdown, by weight, of the MSW materials generated in 2000 is provided in Figure
ES-3. Paper and paperboard products made up the largest component of MSW generated (37
percent), and yard trimmings comprised the second-largest component (12 percent). Glass,
metals, plastics, wood, and food scraps each constituted between 5 and 11 percent of the total
MSW generated. Rubber, leather, and textiles combined made up about 7 percent of MSW,
while other miscellaneous wastes made up approximately 3 percent of the MSW generated in
2000.
Figure ES-3: 2000 Total MSW Generation - 232 Million Tons
(Before Recycling)
Food scraps 11.2%
[Yard tri
Paper 37.4%
A portion of each material category in MSW was recycled or composted in 2000. The
highest rates of recovery were achieved with yard trimmings, paper products, and metal
products. About 57 percent (15.8 million tons) of yard trimmings were recovered for composting
in 2000. This represents nearly a four-fold increase since 1990. About 45 percent (39.4 million
tons) of paper and paperboard were recovered for recycling in 2000. Recycling these organic
materials alone diverted nearly 24 percent of municipal solid waste from landfills and
combustion facilities. In addition, about 6.4 million tons, or about 35 percent, of metals were
-------
Executive Summary
recovered for recycling. Recycling rates for all materials categories in 2000 are listed in Table
ES-4.
Table ES-4
GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF MATERIALS IN MSW, 2000
(In millons of tons and percent of generation of each material)
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Metals
Steel
Aluminum
Other nonferrous metals*
Total metals
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Textiles
Wood
Other materials
Total Materials in Products
Other wastes
Food, other**
Yard trimminss
Miscellaneous inoraanic wastes
Total Other Wastes
TOTAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Weight
Generated
86.7
12.8
13.5
3.2
1.4
18.0
24.7
6.4
9.4
12.7
4.0
174.7
25.9
27.7
3.5
57.1
231.9
Weight
Recovered
39.4
2.9
4.6
0.9
0.9
6.4
1.3
0.8
1.3
0.5
0.9
53.4
0.7
15.8
Nes.
16.5
69.9
Recovery as
a Percent
of Generation
45.4%
23.0%
34.0%
27.4%
66.9%
35.4%
5.4%
12.2%
13.5%
3.8%
21.3%
30.6%
2.6%
56.9%
Nee.
28.8%
30.1%
Includes waste from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
* Includes lead from lead-acid batteries.
** Includes recovery of paper for composting.
Neg. = Less than 50,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Products in MSW
The breakdown, by weight, of product categories generated in 2000 is shown in Figure
ES-4. Containers and packaging comprised the largest portion of products generated, at 32.2
percent (75 million tons) of total MSW generation. Nondurable goods were the second-largest
-------
Executive Summary
fraction, comprising 27.5 percent (64 million tons). The third-largest category of products is
durable goods, which comprised 15.7 percent (36 million tons) of total MSW generation.
Figure ES-4: Products Generated in MSW - 2000
(Total Weight = 232 million tons)
The generation and recovery of the product categories in MSW in 2000 is shown in Table
ES-5. This table shows that recovery of containers and packaging was the highest of the three
product categories - almost 39 percent of containers and packaging generated in 2000 were
recovered for recycling. About 55 percent of all aluminum cans were recovered (45 percent of all
aluminum packaging, including foil), while 58 percent of steel packaging (mostly cans) was
recovered. Paper and paperboard containers and packaging were recovered at a rate of 56
percent; corrugated containers accounted for most of that amount.
Approximately 26 percent of glass containers were recovered, while about 6 percent of
wood packaging (mostly wood pallets removed from service) was recovered for recycling. About
9 percent of plastic containers and packaging were recovered, mostly soft drink, milk, and water
bottles.
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-5
GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF PRODUCTS IN MSW
BY MATERIAL, 2000
(In millons of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Durable Goods
Steel
Aluminum
Other non-ferrous metals*
Total metals
Glass
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Wood
Textiles
Other materials
Total durable goods
Nondurable Goods
Paper and paperboard
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Textiles
Other materials
Total nondurable goods
Containers and Packaeins
Steel
Aluminum
Total metals
Glass
Paper and paoerboard
Plastics
Wood
Other materials
Total containers and packaging
Other wastes
Food, other**
Yard trimminss
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
Total Other Wastes
TOTAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Weieht
Generated
10.6
1.0
1.4
13.0
1.6
7.5
5.5
4.8
2.8
1.1
36.3
47.3
6.0
0.8
6.4
3.2
63.7
2.9
2.0
4.9
11.2
39.4
11.2
7.9
0.1
74.7
25.9
27.7
3.5
57.1
231.9
Weight
Recovered
2.9
Nea.
0.9
3.8
Neg.
0.3
0.8
Nee.
0.2
0.9
6.0
17.3
Nee.
Nea.
1.0
Nee.
18.3
1.7
0.9
2.6
2.9
22.1
1.0
0.5
Neg.
29.1
0.7
15.8
Neg.
16.5
69.9
Recovery as
a Percent
of Generation
27.4%
Neg.
64.3%
29.2%
Nes.
4.0%
14.5%
Nea.
7.1%
81.8%
16.6%
36.6%
Nea.
Nee.
15.6%
Nea.
28.8%
58.6%
45.0%
53.1%
25.9%
56.1%
8.9%
6.3%
Nes.
38.9%
2.6%
56.9%
Nea.
28.8%
30.1%
Includes waste from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
* Includes lead from lead-acid batteries.
** Includes recovery of paper for composting.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Neg. = Less than 50,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
-------
Executive Summary
Overall recovery of nondurable goods was 28.8 percent in 2000. Most of this recovery
comes from paper products such as newspapers and high-grade office papers (e.g., white papers).
Newspapers constituted the largest portion of this recovery, with 58 percent of newspapers
generated being recovered for recycling. An estimated 54 percent of high-grade office papers
and 32 percent of magazines were recovered in 2000. Each of these categories' recovery
increased both in tonnage and percentage between 1999 and 2000.
Recovery percentages of other paper products in the nondurable goods category also
increased between 1999 and 2000, with Standard (A) mail* recovered at an estimated 32 percent,
directories at an estimated 18 percent, and other commercial printed products at an estimated 23
percent.
The nondurable goods category also includes clothing and other textile products—16
percent of these products were recovered for recycling or export in 2000.
Overall, durable goods were recovered at a rate of 16.6 percent in 2000. Nonferrous
metals other than aluminum had one of the highest recovery rates, at 67 percent, due to the high
rate of lead recovery from lead-acid batteries. Recovery of steel in all durable goods was 27.5
percent, with high rates of recovery from appliances and other miscellaneous durable goods.
Twenty-six percent of rubber in tires was recovered for recycling. (Other tires were retreaded
and shredded rubber tires were made into tire-derived fuel.)
One of the products with a very high recovery rate was lead-acid batteries, recovered at a
rate of 96.4 percent in 2000. Other products with particularly high recovery rates were steel from
major appliances (73.5 percent), corrugated boxes (70.7 percent), newspapers (58.2 percent),
steel cans (57.2 percent), and aluminum cans (54.6 percent).
Standard (A) mail was formerly called Third Class mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
10
-------
Executive Summary
RESIDENTIAL AND COMERCIAL SOURCES OF MSW
Sources of MSW, as characterized in this report, include both residential and commercial
locations. We estimated residential waste (including waste from multi-family dwellings) to be 55
to 65 percent of total MSW generation. Commercial waste (including waste from schools, some
industrial sites where packaging is generated, and businesses) constitutes between 35 and 45
percent of MSW. Local and regional factors, such as climate and level of commercial activity,
contribute to these variations.
MANAGEMENT OF MSW
Overview
EPA's integrated waste management hierarchy includes the following three components,
listed in order of preference:
• Source reduction (or waste prevention), including reuse of products and onsite, or
backyard, composting of yard trimmings
• Recycling, including offsite, or community, composting.
• Disposal, including waste combustion (preferably with energy recovery) and
landfilling.
Although EPA encourages the use of strategies that emphasize the top of the hierarchy
whenever possible, all three components remain important within an integrated waste
management system.
Source Reduction
When EPA established its waste management hierarchy in 1989, it emphasized the
importance of reducing the amount of waste created, reusing whenever possible, and then
recycling what is left. When municipal solid waste is reduced and reused, this is called "source
reduction"—meaning the material never enters the waste stream. Instead it is managed at the
source of generation.
11
-------
Executive Summary
Source reduction, also called waste prevention, includes the design, manufacture,
purchase, or use of materials, such as products and packaging, to reduce their amount or toxicity
before they enter the MSW management system. Examples of source reduction activities are:
• Designing products or packaging to reduce the quantity or the toxicity of the
materials used, or to make them easy to reuse.
• Reusing existing products or packaging; for example, refillable bottles, reusable
pallets, and reconditioned barrels and drums.
• Lengthening the lives of products such as tires as fewer need to be produced and
therefore disposed of.
• Using packaging that reduces the amount of damage or spoilage to the product.
• Managing nonproduct organic wastes (e.g., food scraps, yard trimmings) through
onsite composting or other alternatives to disposal (e.g., leaving grass clippings on
the lawn).
As the nation has begun to realize the value of its resources, both financial and material,
efforts to reduce waste generation have increased. EPA has been able to estimate source
reduction for the nation based on economic and waste data. Table ES-6 shows that steady
progress was made in waste prevention since 1990. In 2000, the United States prevented more
than 55 million tons of municipal solid waste from entering the waste stream since 1990.
Table ES-6
SOURCE REDUCTION OF
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SINCE 1990
(In millions of tons)
Year
1992
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Million Tons
Source Reduced
0.6
8.0
21.4
31.0
31.8
37.3
42.8
55.1
12
-------
Executive Summary
The waste prevention achieved to date comes from all parts of the waste stream.
However, reducing the amount of yard trimmings is a particularly important source reduction
success story. Table ES-7 shows that almost half of the waste prevented in 2000 came from
organic waste materials, particularly yard trimmings. This is likely the result of many locally
enacted bans on the disposal of yard trimmings from landfills around the country, as well as
successful campaigns promoting onsite composting and the use of mulching lawn mowers.
Prevention of waste other than yard trimmings has been important as well. Containers
and packaging represent approximately 28 percent of the materials source reduced in 2000, in
addition to nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers, clothing) at 17 percent, durable goods (e.g.,
appliances, furniture, tires) at 10 percent, and other MSW (e.g., yard trimmings, food scraps) at
45 percent.
Table ES-7
SOURCE REDUCTION BY MAJOR MATERIAL CATEGORIES, 2000
(In millions of tons)
Waste Stream
Durable Goods (e.g., appliances, furniture)
Nondurable Goods (e.g., newspapers, clothing)
Containers & Packaging (e.g., bottles, boxes)
Other MSW (e.g., yard trimmings, food scraps)
Total Source Reduction (1990 baseline)
Million Tons
Source Reduced
5.4
9.3
15.5
25.0
55.1
There are several materials for which disposal rates have increased. In particular, clothing
and footwear show significant increased disposal rates, as do plastic containers. Part of the rise
in plastics use can be attributed to the long-term trend of manufacturers substituting their glass
packaging with plastic. However, not all of the increases are due to material substitution.
Much of the nation's increase in waste generation in the 1990s was due to the booming
economy. Americans found themselves with additional dollars in their pockets after paying the
mortgage or rent and their other expenses. As a result, we increasingly became a nation of
consumers. The result was an increasing need for the disposal of municipal solid waste.
However, the United States made progress in the area of waste reduction and reuse, as indicated
13
-------
Executive Summary
by the 55 million tons of source reduction in 2000. Had this source reduction not occurred, waste
generation in 2000 would have risen from the actual level, 232 million tons, to 287 million tons.
Source reduction avoided an increase of nearly 25 percent.
Recycling
• Recycling (including community composting) recovered 30.1 percent (69.9 million
tons) of MSW in 2000.
• There were about 9,250 curbside recycling programs in the United States in 2000.
This is slightly fewer than the 9,300 curbside recycling programs identified in 1999.
• About 3,800 yard trimmings composting programs were reported in 2000.
Disposal
An estimated 14.5 percent of MSW was combusted in 2000, slightly down from 14.7
percent in 1999. During 2000, about 55.3 percent of MSW was landfilled, down somewhat from
57.2 percent in 1999. As shown in Figure ES-5, the number of municipal solid waste landfills
decreased substantially over the past 10 years, from nearly 8,000 in 1988 to 1,967 in 2000—
while average landfill size increased. At the national level, capacity does not appear to be a
problem, although regional dislocations sometimes occur.
• The percentage of MSW landfilled decreased slightly from 1999 to 2000. Over the
long term, the tonnage of MSW landfilled in 1990 was 140.1 million tons, but
decreased to 120.9 million tons in 1995. The tonnage increased to 132.1 million tons
in 1999, then declined to 128.3 in 2000. The tonnage landfilled results from an
interaction among generation, recycling, and combustion, which do not necessarily
rise and fall at the same time.
• The net per capita discard rate (after recovery for recycling, including composting)
was 3.15 pounds per person per day, down from 3.33 pounds per person per day in
1999* (Table ES-2).
Note that the calculated per capita discard rate may decline for 1999 and earlier years when revised Census
population figures are obtained.
14
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES-5: Number of Landfills in the United States
7924
8000 ,—
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000 --
1000 - —
7379
6326
5386
3558
3091
2216
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
MSW recovered for recycling (including composting) and disposed of by combustion
and landfilling in 2000 is shown in Figure ES-6. In 2000, 69.9 millions tons (30.1 percent) of
MSW were recycled, 33.7 million tons (14.5 percent) were combusted, and 128.3 million tons
(55.3 percent) were landfilled or otherwise disposed. (Relatively small amounts of this total
undoubtedly were littered or illegally dumped rather than landfilled.)
PERSPECTIVE FOR THE NATION
As economic growth results in more products and materials being generated, there will be
an increased need to invest in source reduction activities such as lightweighting of products and
packaging, reuse of products, grasscycling, and backyard composting. Also important will be
utilizing existing recycling and composting facilities, further developing this infrastructure, and
buying recycled products, to conserve resources and minimize our dependence on disposal
through combustion and landfilling.
15
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES-6: Management of MSW in the United States - 2000
[land Disposal 55°|
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
This report and related additional data are available on the Internet at
. Additional information on source reduction is available in National
Source Reduction Characterization Report for Municipal Solid Waste in the United States,
EPA530-R-99-034, November 1999.
16
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This report is the most recent in a series of reports sponsored by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to characterize municipal solid waste (MSW) in the United States.
Together with the previous reports, this report provides a historical database for a 40-year
characterization (by weight) of the materials and products in MSW.
Management of the nation's MSW continues to be a high priority issue for communities
as we enter the 21st Century. The concept of integrated solid waste management—source
reduction of wastes before they enter the waste stream, recovery of generated wastes for
recycling (including composting), and environmentally sound disposal through combustion
facilities and landfills that meet current standards—is being used by communities as they plan
for the future.
This chapter provides background on integrated waste management and this year's
characterization report, followed by a brief overview of the method. Next is a section on the
variety of uses for the information of this report. Then, more detail on the method is provided,
followed by a description of the contents of the remainder of the report.
BACKGROUND
The Solid Waste Management Hierarchy
EPA's 1989 Agenda for Action endorsed the concept of integrated waste management, by
which municipal solid waste is reduced or managed through several different practices, which
can be tailored to fit a particular community's needs. The components of the hierarchy are:
• Source reduction (including reuse of products and backyard composting of yard
trimmings).
• Recycling of materials (including composting).
17
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
• Waste combustion (preferably with energy recovery) and landfilling.
Each component of the hierarchy is addressed in this report.
Overview of the Method
Readers should note that this report characterizes the municipal solid waste stream of the
nation as a whole. Data in this report can be used at the national level. It also can be used to
address state, regional, and local situations, where more detailed data are not available or would
be too expensive to gather. More detail on uses for the information in this report for both
national and local uses is provided later in this chapter.
At the state or local level, recycling rates often are developed by counting and weighing
all the recyclables collected, then aggregating these data to yield a state or local recycling rate.
At the national level, we use instead a material flows method, which relies heavily on a mass
balance approach. From data gathered from industry associations, key businesses, and industry
sources, supported by government data from sources such as the Department of Commerce and
the U.S. Census Bureau, we estimate tons of materials and products generated, recycled, or
discarded. Other sources of data, such as waste characterizations and surveys performed by
government agencies, industry, or the press, supplement these data.
To estimate MSW generation, production data are adjusted by imports and exports from
the United States, where necessary. Allowances are made for the average life spans of different
products. Information on amounts of disposed MSW managed by combustion comes from
industry sources, as well. MSW not managed by recycling (including composting) or combustion
is assumed to be landfilled.
In any estimation of MSW generation, it is important to define what is and is not
included in municipal solid waste. EPA includes those materials that historically have been
handled in the municipal solid waste stream - those materials from municipal sources, sent to
municipal landfills. In this report, MSW includes wastes such as product packaging, newspapers,
18
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
office and classroom papers, bottles and cans, boxes, wood pallets, food scraps, grass clippings,
clothing, furniture, appliances, automobile tires, consumer electronics, and batteries.
A common error in using this report is to assume that all nonhazardous wastes are
included. As shown later in this chapter, municipal solid waste as defined here does not include
construction and demolition debris, biosolids (sewage sludges), industrial process wastes, or a
number of other wastes that may well go to a municipal waste landfill. These materials, over
time, have tended to be handled separately and are not included in the totals in this report. EPA
has addressed several of these materials separately, for instance, in Biosolids Generation, Use,
and Disposal in the United States, EPA 530-R-99-009, September 1999, and Characterization of
Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States, EPA 530-R-98-010,
May 1998. Recycling (including composting) is encouraged for these materials as well.
In addition, the source of municipal solid waste is important. EPA's figures include
municipal solid waste from homes, institutions such as schools and prisons, commercial sources
such as offices, restaurants and small businesses, and occasional industrial sources. MSW does
not include wastes of other types or from other sources such as automobile bodies, municipal
sludges, and combustion ash, that might be disposed of in municipal waste landfills or
combustion facilities.
HOW THIS REPORT CAN BE USED
Nationwide. The data in this report provide a nationwide picture of municipal solid
waste generation and management. The historical perspective is particularly useful in
establishing trends and highlighting changes that have occurred over the years, both in types of
wastes generated and in the ways they are managed. This perspective on MSW and its
management is useful in assessing national solid waste management needs and policy. The
consistency in method and scope aids in the use of the document for reporting over time. The
report is, however, of equal or greater value as a solid waste management planning tool for state
and local governments and private firms.
Local or state level. At the local or state level, the data in this report can be used to
develop approximate (but quick) estimates of MSW generation in a defined area. That is, the
19
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
data on generation of MS W per person nationally may be used to estimate generation in a city or
other local area based on the population in that area. This can be of value when a "ballpark"
estimate of MSW generation in an area is needed. For example, communities may use such an
estimate to determine the potential viability of regional versus single-community solid waste
management facilities. This information can help define solid waste management planning areas
and the planning needed in those areas. However, for communities making decisions where
knowledge of the amount and composition of MSW is crucial (e.g., where a solid waste
management facility is being sited), local estimates of the waste stream should be made.
Another useful feature of this report for local planning is the information provided on
MSW trends. Changes over time in total MSW generation and the mix of MSW materials can
affect the need for and use of various waste management alternatives. Observing trends in MSW
generation can help in planning an integrated waste management system that includes facilities
sized and designed for years of service.
While the national average data are useful as a checkpoint against local MSW
characterization data, any differences between local and national data should be examined
carefully. There are many regional variations that require each community to examine its own
waste management needs. Factors such as local and regional availability of suitable landfill
space, proximity of markets for recovered materials, population density, commercial and
industrial activity, and climatic and groundwater variations all may motivate each community to
make its own plans.
Specific reasons for regional differences may include:
• Variations in climate and local waste management practices, which greatly influence
generation of yard trimmings. For instance, yard trimmings exhibit strong seasonal
variations in most regions of the country. Also, the level of backyard composting in a
region will affect generation of yard trimmings.
• Differences in the scope of waste streams. That is, a local landfill may be receiving
construction and demolition debris in addition to MSW, but this report addresses
MSW only.
20
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
• Variance in the per capita generation of some products, such as newspapers and
telephone directories, depending upon the average size of the publications. Typically,
rural areas will generate less of these products on a per person basis than urban areas.
• Level of commercial activity in a community. This influences the generation rate of
some products, such as office paper, corrugated boxes, wood pallets, and food scraps
from restaurants.
• Variations in economic activity, which affect waste generation in both the residential
and the commercial sectors.
• Local and state regulations and practices. Deposit laws, bans on landfilling of specific
products, and variable rate pricing for waste collection are examples of practices that
can influence a local waste stream.
While caution should be used in applying the data in this report, for some areas, the
national breakdown of MSW by material may be the only such data available for use in
comparing and planning waste management alternatives. Planning a curbside recycling program,
for example, requires an estimate of household recyclables that may be recovered. If resources
are not available to adequately estimate these materials by other means, local planners may turn
to the national data. This is useful in areas that may have typical MSW generation or in areas
where appropriate adjustments in the data can be made to account for local conditions.
In summary, the data in this report can be used in local planning to:
• Develop approximate estimates of total MSW generation in an area.
• Check locally developed MSW data for accuracy and consistency.
• Account for trends in total MSW generation and the generation of individual
components.
• Help set goals and measure progress in source reduction and recycling (including
composting).
21
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology-
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: IN PERSPECTIVE
The Two Methodologies for Characterizing MSW: Site-Specific Versus Material Flows
There are two basic approaches to estimating quantities of municipal solid waste at the
local, state, or national levels—site-specific and material flows.
Site-specific studies. In the first method, which is site-specific, sampling, sorting, and
weighing the individual components of the waste stream could be used. This method is useful in
defining a local waste stream, especially if large numbers of samples are taken over several
seasons. Results of sampling also increase the body of knowledge about variations due to
climatic and seasonal changes, population density, regional differences, and the like. In addition,
quantities of MSW components such as food scraps and yard trimmings can only be estimated
through sampling and weighing studies.
A disadvantage of sampling studies based on a limited number of samples is that they
may be skewed and misleading if, for example, atypical circumstances were experienced during
the sampling. These circumstances could include an unusually wet or dry season, delivery of
some unusual wastes during the sampling period, or errors in the sampling methodology. Any
errors of this kind will be greatly magnified when a limited number of samples are taken to
represent a community's entire waste stream for a year. Magnification of errors could be even
more serious if a limited number of samples were relied upon for making the national estimates
of MSW. Also, extensive sampling would be prohibitively expensive for making the national
estimates. An additional disadvantage of sampling studies is that they do not provide information
about trends unless performed in a consistent manner over a long period of time.
Of course, at the state or local level, sampling may not be necessary—many states and
localities count all materials recovered for recycling, and many weigh all wastes being disposed
to generate state or local recycling rates from the "ground up." To use these figures at the
national level would require all states to perform these studies, and perform them in a way
conducive to developing a national summary, which so far has not been practical.
22
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
Material flows. The second approach to quantifying and characterizing the municipal
solid waste stream—the method used for this report—utilizes a material flows approach to
estimate the waste stream on a nationwide basis. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, EPA's Office
of Solid Waste and its predecessors at the Public Health Service sponsored work that began to
develop this methodology. This report represents the latest version of this database that has been
evolving for more than 20 years.
The material flows methodology is based on production data (by weight) for the
materials and products in the waste stream. To estimate generation data, specific adjustments are
made to the production data for each material and product category. Adjustments are made for
imports and exports and for diversions from MSW (e.g., for building materials made of plastic
and paperboard, which become construction and demolition debris). Adjustments also are made
for the life spans of various products. Finally, food scraps and yard trimmings and a small
amount of miscellaneous inorganic wastes are accounted for by compiling data from a variety of
waste sampling studies.
One problem with the material flows methodology is that product residues associated
with other items in MSW (usually containers) are not accounted for. These residues would
include, for example, food left in a jar, detergent left in a box or bottle, and dried paint in a can.
Some household hazardous wastes (e.g., pesticide left in a can) are included among these
product residues.
Municipal Solid Waste Defined in Greater Detail
As stated earlier, EPA includes those materials that historically have been handled in the
municipal waste stream—those materials from municipal sources, sent to municipal landfills. In
this report, MSW includes wastes such as product packaging, newspapers, office and classroom
paper, bottles and cans, boxes, wood pallets, food scraps, grass clippings, clothing, furniture,
appliances, automobile tires, consumer electronics, and automotive batteries. For purposes of
analysis, these products and materials are grouped in this report into the following categories:
durable goods, nondurable goods, containers and packaging, food scraps and yard trimmings,
and miscellaneous inorganic wastes.
23
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction and Methodology
Municipal solid wastes characterized in this report come from residential, commercial,
institutional, and industrial sources. Some examples of the types of MSW that come from each
of the broad categories of sources are:
Sources and Examples
Residential (single- and
multi-family homes)
Commercial (office buildings,
retail and wholesale estab-
lishments, restaurants)
Institutional (schools,
libraries, hospitals, prisons)
Industrial (packaging and
administrative; not process
wastes)
Example Products
Newspapers, clothing, disposable
tableware, food packaging, cans and
bottles, food scraps, yard trimmings
Corrugated boxes, food wastes, office
papers, disposable tableware, paper
napkins, yard trimmings
Cafeteria and restroom trash can wastes,
office papers, classroom wastes, yard
trimmings
Corrugated boxes, plastic film, wood
pallets, lunchroom wastes, office papers.
The material flows methodology used in this report does not readily lend itself to
quantification of wastes according to their source. For example, corrugated boxes may be
unpacked and discarded from residences, commercial establishments such as grocery stores,
institutions such as schools, or factories. The methodology estimates only the total quantity of
such boxes generated, not their places of disposal or recovery for recycling.
Other Subtitle D Wastes
Some people assume that "municipal solid waste" must include everything that is
landfilled in Subtitle D landfills. (Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
deals with wastes other than the hazardous wastes covered under Subtitle C.) As shown in Figure
1, however, RCRA Subtitle D includes many kinds of wastes. It has been common practice to
landfill wastes such as municipal sludges, nonhazardous industrial wastes, residue from
automobile salvage operations, and construction and demolition debris along with MSW, but
these other kinds of wastes are not included in the estimates presented in this report.
24
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
Figure 1. Municipal Solid Waste in the Universe of Subtitle D Wastes
Subtitle D Wastes
The Subtitle D Waste included in this report is Municipal Solid Waste, which includes:
Containers and packaging such as soft drink bottles and paperboard boxes
Durable goods such as furniture, appliances, and consumer electronics
Nondurable goods such as newspapers, trash bags, and clothing
Other wastes such as food scraps and yard trimmings
Subtitle D Wastes not included in this report are:
Municipal sludges Agricultural wastes
Industrial nonhazardous wastes Oil and gas wastes
Construction and demolition debris Mining wastes
Materials and Products Not Included in These Estimates
As noted earlier, other Subtitle D wastes (illustrated in Figure 1) are not included in these
estimates, even though some may be managed along with MSW (e.g., by combustion or
landfilling). Household hazardous wastes, while generated as MSW with other residential
wastes, are not identified separately in this report. Transportation equipment (including
automobiles and trucks) is not included in the wastes characterized in this report.
Certain other materials associated with products in MSW often are not accounted for
because the appropriate data series have not yet been developed. These include, for example,
inks and other pigments and some additives associated with packaging materials. Considerable
additional research would be required to estimate these materials, which constitute a relatively
small percentage of the waste stream.
Some adjustments are made in this report to account for packaging of imported goods,
but there is little available documentation of these amounts.
OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT
Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 presents the results of the municipal solid
waste characterization (by weight). Estimates of MSW generation, recovery, and discards are
presented in a series of tables, with discussion. Detailed tables and figures summarizing year
25
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
2000 MSW generation, recovery, and discards of products in each material category are
included.
In Chapter 3 of the report, estimates of year 2000 MSW management by the various
alternatives are summarized. These include recovery for recycling (including composting),
combustion, and landfilling. Also presented is a discussion of source reduction practices.
Summaries of the infrastructure currently available for each waste management alternative also
are included in Chapter 3.
Chapter 4 incorporates an estimate of source reduction for the nation.
A brief discussion of the material flows methodology for estimating generation, recycling
(including composting), and disposal is presented in Appendix A. Appendix B provides the
methodology and detailed results for source reduction. Appendix C provides the methodology
and results for estimates of generation, recovery, and discards of selected consumer electronics.
26
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
Figure 1-A
Definition of Terms
The material flows methodology produces an estimate of total municipal solid waste
generation in the United States, by material categories and by product categories.
The term generation as used in this report refers to the weight of materials and products
as they enter the waste management system from residential, commercial, institutional, and
industrial sources and before materials recovery or combustion takes place. Preconsumer
(industrial) scrap is not included in the generation estimates. Source reduction activities (e.g.,
backyard composting of yard trimmings) take place before generation.
Source reduction activities reduce the amount or toxicity of wastes before they enter the
municipal solid waste management system. Reuse is a source reduction activity involving the
recovery or reapplication of a package, used product, or material in a manner that retains its
original form or identity. Reuse of products such as refillable glass bottles, reusable plastic food
storage containers, or refurbished wood pallets is considered source reduction, not recycling.
Recovery of materials as estimated in this report includes products and yard trimmings
removed from the waste stream for the purpose of recycling (including composting). For
recovered products, recovery equals reported purchases of postconsumer recovered material
(e.g., glass cullet, old newspapers) plus net exports (if any) of the material. Thus, recovery of old
corrugated containers (OCC) is the sum of OCC purchases by paper mills plus net exports of
OCC. If recovery as reported by a data source includes converting or fabrication (preconsumer)
scrap, the preconsumer scrap is not counted toward the recovery estimates in this report.
Imported secondary materials also are not counted in recovery estimates in this report. For some
materials, additional uses, such as glass used for highway construction or newspapers used to
make insulation, are added into the recovery totals.
Combustion of MSW was estimated with and without energy recovery. Combustion with
energy recovery is often called "waste-to-energy," while combustion without energy recovery is
called incineration in this report. Combustion of separated materials—wood, rubber from tires,
paper, and plastics—is included in the estimates of combustion in this report.
Discards include the MSW remaining after recovery for recycling (including
composting). These discards presumably would be combusted or landfilled, although some
MSW is littered, stored or disposed onsite, or burned onsite, particularly in rural areas. No good
estimates for these other disposal practices are available, but the total amounts of MSW involved
are presumed to be small.
27
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
CHAPTER 1
REFERENCES
Darnay, A., and W.E. Franklin, The Role of Packaging in Solid Waste Management, 1966 to
1976. Public Health Service Publication No. 1855. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1969.
Franklin, W.E., and A. Darnay. The Role of Nonpachaging Paper in Solid Waste Management,
1966 to 1976. Public Health Service Publication No. 2040. U.S. Government Printing Office.
1971.
Darnay, A., and W.E. Franklin. Salvage Markets for Materials in Solid Wastes. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-29c. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1972.
Franklin, W.E., et al. Base Line Forecasts of Resource Recovery 1972 to 1990. Midwest
Research Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Second
Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Source Reduction (SW-122). 1974.
Smith, F.L., Jr. A Solid Waste Estimation Procedure: Material Flows Approach. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (SW-147). May 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Third
Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Source Reduction (SW-161). 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Fourth
Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction (SW-600). 1977.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Baseline. Prepared
for the Resource Conservation Committee. May 16, 1979.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Baseline: Working
Papers. Prepared for the Resource Conservation Committee. May 16, 1979.
Resource Conservation Committee. Choices for Conservation: Final Report to the President and
Congress (SW-779). July 1979.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960
to 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 11, 1986.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960
to 2000 (Update 1988). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 30, 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1990 Update. (EPA/SW-90-042). June 1990.
28
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1992 Update. (EPA/530-R-92-019). July 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1994 Update. EPA/530-R-94-042. November 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1995 Update. EPA/530-R-945-001. March 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1996 Update. EPA/530-R-97-015. June 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1997 Update. EPA/530-R-98-007. May 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1998 Update. EPA/530-R-99-021. September 1999.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and
Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 1998. EPA/530-F-00-024. April 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 1999 Facts
and Figures. EPA/530-R-01-014. July 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Task Force, Office of Solid
Waste. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. February 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. Subtitle D Study Phase I Report
(EPA/530-SW-054). October 1986.
29
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
CHAPTER 2
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BY WEIGHT
INTRODUCTION
The tables and figures in this chapter present the results of the update of EPA's municipal
solid waste characterization report through 2000. The data presented also incorporate some
revisions to previously reported data for 1999 and, in some instances, to data for earlier years.
The revisions generally are due to revisions and improvements in the data available from data
sources used in developing this report.
This chapter discusses how much municipal solid waste is generated, recovered, and
disposed of. First, an overview presents this information for the most recent years, and for
selected years back to 1960. This information is summarized in Tables 1 to 3 and Figures 10 to
13. Then, throughout the remainder of the chapter, MSW is characterized in more detail.
Findings are presented in two basic ways: the first portion of the chapter presents data by
material type. Some materials types of most use to planners (paper and paperboard, glass,
metals, plastics, and rubber and leather) are presented in detail in Tables 4 to 8 and Figures 3 to
9, while data on other materials also is summarized in Figures 12 and 13.
The second portion of the chapter presents data by product type. This information is
presented in Tables 9 to 23 and Figures 14 to 16. Products are classified into durable goods (e.g.,
appliances, furniture, tires); nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers, office papers, trash bags,
clothing); and containers and packaging (e.g., bottles, cans, corrugated boxes). A fourth major
category consists of other wastes—yard trimmings, food scraps, and miscellaneous inorganic
wastes. These wastes are not manufactured products, but to provide complete information in
each table, they are included in both the product and the material tables.
30
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
This chapter provides data on generation, recovery, and disposal of MSW. (See Chapter 1
for definitions of these terms.) Recovery, in this report, means that the materials have been
removed from the municipal waste stream. Recovery of materials in products means that the
materials are reported to have been purchased by an end user or have been exported from the
United States. For yard trimmings, recovery includes estimates of the trimmings delivered to a
composting facility (not backyard composting). Under these definitions, residues from a
materials recovery facility (MRF) or other waste processing facility are counted as generation
(and, of course, discards), since they are not purchased by an end user. Residues from an end
user facility (e.g., sludge from a paper deinking mill) are considered to be industrial process
wastes that are no longer part of the municipal waste stream.
Additional detail is provided for some of the materials and products in MSW that are of
the most interest to planners. These are paper and paperboard, glass, metals, plastics, and rubber
and leather (the latter category includes rubber in tires and rubber and leather in clothing and
footwear).
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: CHARACTERIZED BY MATERIAL TYPE
Generation, recovery, and discards of materials in MSW, by weight and by percentage of
generation or discards, are summarized in Tables 1 through 3. Figures 10 and 11 (later in this
chapter) illustrate this data over time. A snapshot, by material, for 2000 is provided in Figures 12
and 13. In the following sections, each material is discussed in detail.
31
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 1
MATERIALS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other **
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other **
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
29,990
6,720
10,300
340
180
10,820
390
1,840
1,760
3,030
70
54,620
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
88,120
1970
44,310
12,740
12,360
800
670
13,830
2,900
2,970
2,040
3,720
770
83,280
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
121,060
1980
55,160
15,130
12,620
1,730
1,160
15,510
6,830
4,200
2,530
7,010
2,520
108,890
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
151,640
1990
72,730
13,100
12,640
2,810
1,100
16,550
17,130
5,790
5,810
12,210
3,190
146,510
20,800
35,000
2,900
58,700
205,210
1995
81,670
12,830
11,640
2,960
1,260
15,860
18,900
6,030
7,400
10,440
3,650
156,780
21,740
29,690
3,150
54,580
211,360
1998
84,160
12,640
12,380
3,070
1,360
16,810
22,370
6,860
8,600
12,090
3,900
167,430
24,910
27,730
3,290
55,930
223,360
1999
88,260
12,910
13,290
3,120
1,380
17,790
24,080
6,210
9,060
12,360
4,000
174,670
25,160
27,730
3,380
56,270
230,940
2000
86,740
12,770
13,460
3,170
1,390
18,020
24,710
6,370
9,380
12,700
4,030
174,720
25,900
27,730
3,500
57,130
231,850
Percent of Total Generation
1960
34.0%
7.6%
1 1 .7%
0.4%
0.2%
12.3%
0.4%
2.1%
2.0%
3.4%
0.1%
62.0%
13.8%
22.7%
1.5%
38.0%
100.0%
1970
36.6%
10.5%
10.2%
0.7%
0.6%
11.4%
2.4%
2.5%
1.7%
3.1%
0.6%
68.8%
10.6%
19.2%
1.5%
31 .2%
100.0%
1980
36.4%
10.0%
8.3%
1.1%
0.8%
10.2%
4.5%
2.8%
1 .7%
4.6%
1 .7%
71.8%
8.6%
18.1%
1 .5%
28.2%
100.0%
1990
35.4%
6.4%
6.2%
1 .4%
0.5%
8.?%
8.3%
2.8%
2.8%
6.0%
1 .6%
71 .4%
10.1%
17.1%
1.4%
28.6%
100.0%
1995
38.6%
6.1%
5.5%
1 .4%
0.6%
7.5%
8.9%
2.9%
3.5%
4.9%
1.7%
74.2%
10.3%
14.0%
1 .5%
25.8%
100.0%
1998
37.7%
5.7%
5.5%
1 .4%
0.6%
7.5%
10.0%
3.1%
3.9%
5.4%
1 .7%
75.0%
1 1 .2%
12.4%
1 .5%
25.0%
100.0%
1999
38.2%
5.6%
5.8%
1.4%
0.6%
7.7%
10.4%
2.7%
3.9%
5.4%
1 .7%
75.6%
10.9%
12.0%
1 .5%
24.4%
100.0%
2000
37.4%
5.5%
5.8%
1 .4%
0.6%
7.8%
10.7%
2.7%
4.0%
5.5%
1 .7%
75.4%
1 1 .2%
12.0%
1.5%
24.6%
100.0%
Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial
process wastes, or certain other wastes.
Includes electrolytes in batteries and fluff pulp, feces, and urine in disposable diapers.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
32
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 2
RECOVERY* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each material)
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other **
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food, OtherA
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other **
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food, OtherA
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
5,080
100
50
Neg.
Neg.
50
Neg.
330
50
Neg.
Neg.
5,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
5,610
1970
6,770
160
150
10
320
450
Neg.
250
60
Neg.
300
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
8,020
1980
1 1 ,740
750
370
310
540
1,220
20
130
160
Neg.
500
14,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
14,520
1990
20,230
2,630
2,230
1,010
730
3,970
370
370
660
130
680
29,040
Neg.
4,200
Neg.
4,200
33,240
1995
32,700
3,140
4,130
930
810
5,870
990
540
900
450
750
45,340
570
9,000
Neg.
9,570
54,910
1998
34,360
2,940
4,310
880
930
6,120
1,200
860
1,120
490
860
47,950
580
12,560
Neg.
13,140
61,090
1999
36,080
3,000
4,530
880
930
6,340
1,280
780
1,230
490
860
50,060
550
14,170
Neg.
14,720
64,780
2000
39,370
2,940
4,580
870
930
6,380
1,340
780
1,270
480
860
53,420
680
15,770
Neg.
16,450
69,870
Percent of Generation of Each Material
1960
16.9%
1 .5%
0.5%
Neg.
Neg.
0.5%
Neg.
17.9%
2.8%
Neg.
Neg.
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.4%
1970
15.3%
1 .3%
1 .2%
1 .3%
47.8%
3.5%
Neg.
8.4%
2.9%
Neg.
39.0%
9.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.6%
1980
21 .3%
5.0%
2.9%
17.9%
46.6%
7.9%
0.3%
3.1%
6.3%
Neg.
19.8%
13.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
9.6%
1990
27.8%
20.1%
17.6%
35.9%
66.4%
24.0%
2.2%
6.4%
1 1 .4%
1.1%
21.3%
19.8%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
7.2%
16.2%
1995
40.0%
24.5%
35.5%
31 .4%
64.3%
37.0%
5.2%
9.0%
12.2%
4.3%
20.5%
28.9%
2.6%
30.3%
Neg.
17.5%
26.0%
1998
40.8%
23.3%
34.8%
28.7%
68.4%
36.4%
5.4%
12.5%
13.0%
4.1%
22.1%
28.6%
2.3%
45.3%
Neg.
23.5%
27.4%
1999
40.9%
23.2%
34.1%
28.2%
67.4%
35.6%
5.3%
12.6%
13.6%
4.0%
21.5%
28.7%
2.2%
51.1%
Neg.
26.2%
28.1%
2000
45.4%
23.0%
34.0%
27.4%
66.9%
35.4%
5.4%
12.2%
13.5%
3.8%
21 .3%
30.6%
2.6%
56.9%
Neg.
28.8%
30.1%
Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
Recovery of electrolytes in batteries; probably not recycled.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
' Includes recovery of paper for composting.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
33
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Table 3
MATERIALS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other "
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other **
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
24,910
6,620
10,250
340
180
10,770
390
1,510
1,710
3,030
70
49,010
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
82,510
1970
37,540
12,580
12,210
790
350
13,350
2,900
2,720
1,980
3,720
470
75,260
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
113,040
1980
43,420
14,380
12,250
1,420
620
14,290
6,810
4,070
2,370
7,010
2,020
94,370
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
137,120
1990
52,500
10,470
10,410
1,800
370
12,580
16,760
5,420
5,150
12,080
2,510
117,470
20,800
30,800
2,900
54,500
171,970
1995
48,970
9,690
7,510
2,030
450
9,990
17,910
5,490
6,500
9,990
2,900
1 1 1 ,440
21,170
20,690
3,150
45,010
156,450
1998
49,800
9,700
8,070
2,190
430
10,690
21,170
6,000
7,480
1 1 ,600
3,040
119,480
24,330
15,170
3,290
42,790
162,270
1999
52,180
9,910
8,760
2,240
450
1 1,450
22,800
5,430
7,830
1 1 ,870
3,140
124,610
24,610
13,560
3,380
41 ,550
166,160
2000
47,370
9,830
8,880
2,300
460
11,640
23,370
5,590
8,110
12,220
3,170
121,300
25,220
11,960
3,500
40,680
161,980
Percent of Total Discards
1960
30.2%
8.0%
12.4%
0.4%
0.2%
13.1%
0.5%
1 .8%
2.1%
3.7%
0.1%
59.4%
14.8%
24.2%
1.6%
40.6%
100.0%
1970
33.2%
11.1%
10.8%
0.7%
0.3%
11.8%
2.6%
2.4%
1 .8%
3.3%
0.4%
66.6%
1 1 .3%
20.5%
1 .6%
33.4%
100.0%
1980
31.7%
10.5%
8.9%
1 .0%
0.5%
10.4%
5.0%
3.0%
1.7%
5.1%
1.5%
68.8%
9.5%
20.1%
1 .6%
31.2%
100.0%
1990
30.5%
6.1%
6.1%
1 .0%
0.2%
7.3%
9.7%
3.2%
3.0%
7.0%
1.5%
68.3%
12.1%
17.9%
1 .7%
31 .7%
100.0%
1995
31.3%
6.2%
4.8%
1 .3%
0.3%
6.4%
1 1 .4%
3.5%
4.2%
6.4%
1.9%
71.2%
13.5%
13.2%
2.0%
28.8%
100.0%
1998
30.7%
6.0%
5.0%
1 .3%
0.3%
6.6%
13.0%
3.7%
4.6%
7.1%
1 .9%
73.6%
15.0%
9.3%
2.0%
26.4%
100.0%
1999
31.4%
6.0%
5.3%
1 .3%
0.3%
6.9%
13.7%
3.3%
4.7%
7.1%
1 .9%
75.0%
14.8%
8.2%
2.0%
25.0%
100.0%
2000
29.2%
6.1%
5.5%
1 .4%
0.3%
7.2%
14.4%
3.5%
5.0%
7.5%
2.0%
74.9%
15.6%
7.4%
2.2%
25.1%
100.0%
* Discards after materials and compost recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial
process wastes, or certain other wastes.
** Includes electrolytes in batteries and fluff pulp, feces, and urine in disposable diapers.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
34
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Paper and Paperboard
Collectively, the many products made of paper and paperboard* comprise the largest
component of MSW. The paper and paperboard category includes products such as office papers,
newspapers, corrugated boxes, milk cartons, tissue papers, and paper plates and cups (Figure 2
and Table 4).
Total generation of paper and paperboard in MSW grew from 30 million tons in 1960 to
86.7 million tons in 2000 (Table 1). As a percentage of total MSW generation, paper represented
34 percent in 1960 (Table 1). The percentage has varied over time, but increased to 37.4 percent
of total MSW generation in 2000. As Figure 3 illustrates, paper generation declined in 1996,
peaked at 88.3 million tons in 1999, and declined to 86.7 million tons in 2000.
Figure 2. Paper and paperboard products generated in MSW, 2000
Corrugated boxes
Newspapers
Office papers
Commercial printing
Folding and milk cartons
Standard (A) mail
Other papers
Tissue paper and towels
Bags and sacks
Magazines
Other packaging
Paper plates and cups
Books
Directories
10
15 20
million tons
25
30
35
The term "cardboard" is often used for products made of paperboard (boxboard and containerboard), but this
inexact term is not used in the paper industry.
35
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Table 4
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Product Category
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Newsprint
Groundwood inserts
Total Newspapers
Books
Magazines
Office Papers
Telephone Directories
Standard (A) Mail*
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Other Nonpackaging Paper**
Total Paper and Paperboard
Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper and Paperboard
Containers and Packaging
Total Paper and Paperboard
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
12,200
2,830
15,030
1,140
2,130
7,530
740
5,570
7,040
3,210
1,040
3,910
47,340
30,210
490
5,580
200
1,550
1,370
39,400
86,740
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
7,250
1,500
8,750
220
680
4,070
130
1,780
1,650
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
17,280
21,360
Neg.
430
Neg.
300
Neg.
22,090
39,370
(Percent of
generation)
59.4%
53.0%
58.2%
19.3%
31.9%
54.1%
17.6%
32.0%
23.4%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
36.5%
70.7%
Neg.
7.7%
Neg.
19.4%
Neg.
56.1%
45.4%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
4,950
1,330
6,280
920
1,450
3,460
610
3,790
5,390
3,210
1,040
3,910
30,060
8,850
490
5,150
200
1,250
1,370
17,310
47,370
* Formerly called Third Class Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
** Includes tissue in disposable diapers, paper in games and novelties, cards, etc.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
36
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 3. Paper generation and recovery, 1960 to 2000
1965 1970 1975
1985 1990 1995 2000
The sensitivity of paper products to economic conditions can be observed in Figure 3.
The tonnage of paper generated in 1975—a severe recession year—was actually less than the
tonnage in 1970, and the percentage of total generation was also less in 1975. Similar but less
pronounced declines in paper generation can be seen in other recession years.
The wide variety of products that comprise the paper and paperboard materials total is
illustrated in Table 4 and Figure 2. These products are classified as nondurable goods or as
containers and packaging, with nondurable goods being the larger category.
Generation. Estimates of paper and paperboard generation are based on statistics
published by the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). These statistics include data
on new supply (production plus net imports) of the various paper and paperboard grades that go
into the products found in MSW. The AF&PA new supply statistics are adjusted to deduct
converting scrap, which is generated when sheets of paper or paperboard are cut to make
products such as envelopes or boxes. Converting scrap rates vary from product to product; the
rates used in this report were developed as part of a 1992 report for the Recycling Advisory
Council with a few more recent revisions as new data became available. Various deductions also
are made to account for products diverted out of municipal solid waste, such as gypsum
37
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight-
wallboard facings (classified as construction and demolition debris) or toilet tissue (which goes
to wastewater treatment plants).
Recovery. Estimates of recovery of paper and paperboard products for recycling are
based on annual reports of recovery published by AF&PA. The AF&PA reports include recovery
of paper and paperboard purchased by U.S. paper mills, plus exports of recovered paper, plus a
small amount estimated to have been used in other products such as animal bedding. Recovery as
reported by AF&PA includes both preconsumer and postconsumer paper.
To estimate recovery of postconsumer paper products for this EPA report, estimates of
recovery of converting scrap and returned overissue newspapers are deducted from the total
recovery amounts reported by AF&PA. In earlier versions of this EPA report, a simplifying
assumption that all converting scrap is recovered was made. For more recent updates, various
converting scrap recovery rates ranging from 70 percent to 98 percent were applied to the
estimates for 1990 through 2000. Because converting scrap and overissue are deducted, the
paper recovery rates presented in this report are always lower than the total recovery rates
published by AF&PA.
When recovered paper is repulped, and often deinked, at a recycling paper mill,
considerable amounts of sludge are generated in amounts varying from 5 percent to 35 percent of
the paper feedstock. Since these sludges are generated at an industrial site, they are considered to
be industrial process waste, not municipal solid waste; therefore they have been removed from
the municipal waste stream.
Recovery of paper and paperboard for recycling is at the highest rate overall compared to
most other materials in MSW. As Table 4 shows, 70.7 percent of all corrugated boxes were
recovered for recycling in 2000. Newspapers were recovered at a rate of 58.2 percent, and high-
grade office papers at 54.1 percent, with lesser percentages of other papers also recovered.
Approximately 39.4 million tons of postconsumer paper were recovered in 2000—45.4 percent
of total paper and paperboard generation.
38
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Discards After Recovery. After recovery of paper and paperboard for recycling,
discards were 47.4 million tons in 2000, or 29.2 percent of total MSW discards.
Glass
Glass is found in MSW primarily in the form of containers (Table 5 and Figures 4 and 5),
and also in durable goods such as furniture, appliances, and consumer electronics. In the
container category, glass is found in beer and soft drink bottles, wine and liquor bottles, and
bottles and jars for food, cosmetics, and other products. More detail on these products is included
in the later section on products in MSW.
Generation. Glass accounted for 6.7 million tons of MSW in 1960, or 7.6 percent of
total generation. Generation of glass continued to grow over the next two decades, but then glass
containers were widely displaced by other materials, principally aluminum and plastics. Thus the
tonnage of glass in MSW declined in the 1980s, from approximately 15.1 million tons in 1980 to
13.2 million tons in 1985. Beginning about 1987, however, the decline in generation of glass
containers slowed (Figure 5), and glass generation in 2000 was 12.8 million tons, about the same
as 1995. During the 1990s glass generation has varied from 12.4 to 13.6 million tons per year.
Glass was 10 percent of MSW generation in 1980, declining to 5.5 percent in 2000.
Recovery. Most recovered glass containers (bottles) are used to make new glass
containers, but a portion goes to other uses such as fiberglass insulation and glasphalt for
highway construction. Until recently, the Glass Packaging Institute published estimates of glass
bottle recovery annually. Since this data source is no longer available, it was assumed that
recovery of glass bottles held steady at 26.3 percent of generation, or 2.9 million tons, in 2000.
39
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight-
Table 5
GLASS PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Product Category
Durable Goods*
Containers and Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles and Jars
Total Glass Containers
Total Glass
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
1,580
5,860
1,970
3,360
11,190
12,770
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
Neg.
1,560
440
940
2,940
T940"
(Percent of
generation)
Neg.
26.6%
22.3%
28.0%
26.3%
23.0%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
1,580
4,300
1,530
2,420
8,250
9,830
Glass as a component of appliances, furniture, consumer electronics, etc.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Figure 4. Glass products generated in MSW, 2000
Beer & soft drink bottles*
Food, other bottles & jars
Wine & liquor bottles
Durable goods
' Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, and flavored drinks.
40
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 5. Glass generation and recovery, 1960 to 2000
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Discards After Recovery. Recovery for recycling lowered discards of glass to 9.8
million tons in 2000 (6.1 percent of total MSW discards).
Ferrous Metals
By weight, ferrous metals (iron and steel) are the largest category of metals in MSW
(Figure 6 and Table 6). The largest quantities of ferrous metals in MSW are found in durable
goods such as appliances, furniture, tires, and other miscellaneous durable goods. Containers and
packaging are the other source of ferrous metals in MSW. Large quantities of ferrous metals are
found in construction materials and in transportation products such as automobiles, locomotives,
and ships, but these are not counted as MSW in this report.
41
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 6. Metal products generated in MSW, 2000
QDurables ^Packaging nNondurables
Ferrous metals
Aluminum
Other nonferrous
million tons
Total generation and recovery of all metals in MSW from 1960 to 2000 are shown in
Figure 7.
Generation. Approximately 10.3 million tons of ferrous metals were generated in 1960.
Like glass, the tonnages grew during the 1960s, but began to drop as lighter materials (aluminum
and plastics) replaced steel in many applications. Since 1970, generation of ferrous metals has
varied between about 11 million tons in 1985 to 13.5 million tons in 2000. The percentage of
ferrous metals generation in MSW has declined from 11.7 percent in 1960 to 5.8 percent in
2000.
Recovery. The renewed emphasis on recovery and recycling in recent years has included
ferrous metals. Based on data from the Steel Recycling Institute, recovery of ferrous metals from
appliances ("white goods") was estimated to be 2.0 million tons in 2000. Overall recovery of
ferrous metals from durable goods (large and small appliances, furniture, and tires) was
estimated to be 27.5 percent (2.9 million tons) in 2000 (Table 6).
42
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 6
METAL PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Generation
Product Category
Durable Goods
Ferrous metals*
Aluminum**
Leadf
Other nonferrous metals^
Total Metals in Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Aluminum
Containers and Packaging
Steel
Food and other cans
Other steel packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum
Beer and soft drink cans
Food and other cans
Foil and closures
Total Aluminum Packaging
Total Metals in
Containers and Packaging
Total Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other nonferrous
* Ferrous metals (iron and steel) in appliances
(Thousand
tons)
10,580
1,000
960
430
12,970
220
2,640
240
2,880
1,520
50
380
1,950
4,830
18,020
13,460
3,170
1,390
, furniture, tires,
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
2,910
Neg.
930
Neg.
3,840
Neg.
1,510
160
1,670
830
Neg.
40
870
2,540
6,380
4,580
870
930
(Percent of
generation)
27.5%
Neg.
96.9%
Neg.
29.6%
Neg.
57.2%
66 7%
58.0%
54.6%
Neg.
10.5%
44.6%
52.6%
35.4%
34.0%
27.4%
66.9%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
7,670
1,000
30
430
9,130
220
1,130
80
1,210
690
50
340
1,080
2,290
11,640
8,880
2,300
460
and miscellaneous durables.
** Aluminum in appliances, furniture, and miscellaneous durables.
t Lead in lead-acid batteries.
Other nonferrous metals in appliances and miscellaneous durables.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
43
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Steel food cans and other steel cans were estimated to be recovered at a rate of 57.2
percent (1.5 million tons) in 2000. Approximately 160,000 tons of other steel packaging, mostly
steel barrels and drums, were estimated to have been recovered for recycling in 2000.
Discards After Recovery. In 2000, discards of ferrous metals after recovery were 8.9
million tons, or 5.5 percent of total discards.
Figure 7. Metals generation and recovery, 1960 to 2000
1960
1965 1970 1975
1985 1990 1995
Aluminum
The largest source of aluminum in MSW is aluminum cans and other packaging (Table 6
and Figure 6). Other sources of aluminum are found in durable and nondurable goods.
Generation. In 2000, nearly 2.0 million tons of aluminum were generated as containers
and packaging, while approximately 1.2 million tons were found in durable and nondurable
goods. The total—3.2 million tons—was 1.4 percent of total MSW generation in 2000.
Aluminum generation was only 340,000 tons (0.4 percent of MSW generation) in 1960.
44
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Recovery. Aluminum beverage containers were recovered at a rate of 54.6 percent of
generation (0.8 million tons) in 2000, and 44.6 percent of all aluminum in containers and
packaging was recovered for recycling in 2000.
Discards After Recovery. In 2000, about 2.3 million tons of aluminum were discarded
in MSW after recovery, which was 1.4 percent of total MSW discards.
Other Nonferrous Metals
Other nonferrous metals (e.g., lead, copper, zinc) are found in durable products such as
appliances, consumer electronics, etc. Lead in lead-acid batteries is the most prevalent
nonferrous metal (other than aluminum) in MSW. Note that only lead-acid batteries from
passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles are included. Lead-acid batteries used in large
equipment or industrial applications are not included.
Generation. Generation of other nonferrous metals in MSW totaled 1.4 million tons in
2000. Lead in batteries accounted for 960,000 tons of this amount. Generation of these metals
has increased slowly, up from 180,000 tons in 1960. As a percentage of total generation,
nonferrous metals have never exceeded 1 percent.
Recovery. Recovery of other nonferrous metals was 930,000 tons in 2000, with most of
this being lead recovered from batteries. It was estimated that 96.9 percent of battery lead was
recovered in 2000.
Discards After Recovery. In 2000,460,000 tons of other nonferrous metals were
discarded in MSW. Percentages of total discards remained less than 1 percent over the period.
Plastics
Plastics are a rapidly growing segment of MSW. While plastics are found in all major
MSW categories, the containers and packaging category has the most plastic tonnage (Figure 8
and Table 7).
45
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Figure 8. Plastics products generated in MSW, 2000
Durable goods
Nondurable goods
Bags, sacks and wraps
Other packaging
Other containers
Soft drink, milk, and water
containers
In durable goods, plastics are found in appliances, furniture, casings of lead-acid
batteries, and other products. (Note that plastics in transportation products generally are not
included in this report.) As shown in Table 7, a wide range of resin types is found in durable
goods. While some detail is provided in Table 7 for resins in durable goods, hundreds of
different resin formulations are used in appliances, carpets, and other durable goods; a complete
listing is beyond the scope of this report.
Plastics are found in such nondurable products as disposable diapers, trash bags, cups,
eating utensils, sporting and recreational equipment, medical devices, and household items such
as shower curtains. The plastic foodservice items generally are made of clear or foamed
polystyrene, while trash bags are made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or low-density
polyethylene (LDPE). A wide variety of other resins are used in other nondurable goods.
46
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 7
PLASTICS IN PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2000
(In thousands of tons, and percent of generation by resin)
Product Category
Durable Goods
PET
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Plastic Plates and Cups
LDPE/LLDPE
PS
Subtotal Plastic Plates and Cups
Trash Bags
HDPE
LDPE/LLDPE
Subtotal Trash Bags
All other nondurables*
PET
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Subtotal All Other Nondurables
Total Plastics in Nondurable Goods,
PET
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in Nondurable Goods
Generation Recovery
(Thousand (Thousand (Percent
tons) tons) of Gen.)
410
560
450
660
1,200
640
3,620
7,540 310 4.1%
20
850
870
230
620
850
210
410
590
1,540
850
570
90
4,260
by Resin
210
640
590
2,180
850
1,420
90
5,980 0 0.0%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
7,230
20
850
870
230
620
850
210
410
590
1,540
850
570
90
4,260
210
640
590
2,180
850
1,420
90
5,980
Plastic Containers & Packaging
Soft drink bottles
PET
Milk and water bottles
HDPE
830
690
290
210
34.9%
30.4%
540
480
HDPE = High density polyethylene
LDPE = Low density polyethylene
LLDPE = Linear low density polyethylene
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
PET = Polyethylene terephthalate
PP = Polypropylene
PS = Polystyrene
PVC = Polyvinyl chloride
47
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Table 7 (continued)
PLASTICS IN PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2000
(In thousands of tons,
Product Category
Plastic Containers & Packaging, cent.
Other plastic containers
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Subtotal Other Containers
Bags, sacks, & wraps
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, & Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging**
PET
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Subtotal Other Packaging
and percent of generation by resin)
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
880
1,190
80
30
60
0
-^Qf)
2,630
770
70
2,530
640
0
]Qf)
4,200
160
980
200
340
600
220
-^4f)
2,840
Recovery
(Thousand (Percent
tons) of Gen.)
90
170
260 9.9%
30
150
180 4.3%
50
10
10
20
90 3.2%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
790
1,020
80
30
60
0
^Qfl
2,370
740
70
2,380
640
0
4,020
110
970
200
340
590
220
^20
2,750
Total Plastics in Containers & Packaging, by Resin
PET
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in Cont. & Packaging
Total Plastics in MSW, by Resin
PET
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in MSW
1,870
3,630
350
2,900
1,300
220
gyp
11,190
2,490
4,830
1,390
5,740
3,350
2,280
4,630
24,710
430
420
150
10
70
1,030 9.2%
430
420
150
10
330
1,340 5.4%
1,440
3,210
350
2,750
1,290
220
9on
10,160
2,060
4,410
1,390
5,590
3,340
2,280
4,300
23,370
PET = Polyethylene terephthalate
PP = Polypropylene
HDPE = High density polyethylene
LDPE = Low density polyethylene
LLDPE = Linear low density polyethylene
* All other nondurables include plastics in disposable diapers, clothing, footwear, etc.
** Other plastic packaging includes coatings, closures, caps, trays, shapes, etc.
Some detail of recovery by resin omitted due to lack of data.
This table may understate the recovery of plastics due to the dispersed nature of plastics recycling activities.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
PS = Polystyrene
PVC = Polyvinyl chloride
48
-------
^Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Plastic resins also are used in a variety of container and packaging products such as
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) soft drink bottles, high-density polyethylene bottles for milk
and water, and a wide variety of other resin types used in other plastic containers, bags, sacks,
wraps, and lids.
Generation. Production data on plastics resin use in products are taken from the Modern
Plastics annual statistical issue and the American Plastics Council (APC) annual plastic recovery
survey. The basic data are adjusted for product service life, fabrication losses, and net imports of
plastic products to derive generation of plastics in the various products in MSW.
Plastics made up an estimated 390,000 tons of MSW generation in 1960. The quantity
has increased relatively steadily to 24.7 million tons in 2000 (Figure 9). As a percentage of
MSW generation, plastics were less than 1 percent in 1960, increasing to 10.7 percent in 2000.
Recovery for Recycling. While overall recovery of plastics for recycling is relatively
small—1.3 million tons, or 5.4 percent* of plastics generation in 2000 (Table 7)—recovery of
some plastic containers is more significant. PET soft drink bottles were recovered at a rate of
34.9 percent in 2000. Recovery of high-density polyethylene milk and water bottles was
estimated at about 30.4 percent in 2000. Significant recovery of plastics from lead-acid battery
casings and from some other containers was also reported. The primary source of data on plastics
recovery is an annual survey conducted for the APC.
Discards After Recovery. Discards of plastics in MSW after recovery were estimated at
23.4 million tons, or 14.4 percent of total MSW discards.
This number may be low. It is difficult to quantify plastics recovery because, unlike other end users such as
paper and steel mills, recovered plastic end users tend to be very dispersed.
49
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Figure 9. Plastics generation and recovery, 1960 to 2000
1960
1970
1975
1985
1995
Other Materials
Rubber and Leather. The predominant source of rubber in MSW is rubber tires from
automobiles and trucks (Table 8). Other sources of rubber and leather include clothing and
footwear and other miscellaneous durable and nondurable products. These other sources are
quite diverse, including such items as gaskets on appliances, furniture, and hot water bottles, for
example.
Generation. Generation of rubber and leather in MSW has shown slow growth over the
years, increasing from 1.8 million tons in 1960 to 6.4 million tons in 2000. One reason for the
relatively slow rate of growth is that tires have been made smaller and longer-wearing than in
earlier years.
As a percentage of total MSW generation, rubber and leather has been about 3 percent for
many years.
50
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Recovery for Recycling. The only recovery for recycling identified in this category is
rubber from tires, and that was estimated to be 780,000 tons (26.1 percent of rubber in tires in
2000) (Table 8). (This recovery estimate does not include tires retreaded or energy recovery from
tires.) Overall, 12.2 percent of rubber and leather in MSW was recovered in 2000.
Table 8
RUBBER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Generation
(Thousand
Product Category tons)
Durable Goods
Rubber in Tires* 2,990
Other Durables** 2,540
Total Rubber & Leather
Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Clothing and Footwear
Other Nondurables
Total Rubber & Leather
Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
Total Rubber & Leather
5,530
540
270
810
30
6,370
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
780
Neg.
780
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
780
(Percent of
generation)
26.1%
Neg.
14.1%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
12.2%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
2,210
2,540
4,750
540
270
810
30
5,590
* Automobile and truck tires. Does not include other materials in tires.
** Includes carpets and rugs and other miscellaneous durables.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Discards After Recovery. Discards of rubber and leather after recovery were 5.6 million
tons in 2000 (3.5 percent of total discards).
Textiles. Textiles in MSW are found mainly in discarded clothing, although other
sources identified were furniture, carpets, tires, footwear, and other nondurable goods such as
sheets and towels.
Generation. An estimated 9.4 million tons of textiles were generated in 2000 (4 percent
of total MSW generation).
51
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight-
Recovery for Recycling and Discards. Significant amounts of textiles are recovered for
reuse. However, the reused garments and wiper rags re-enter the waste stream eventually, so this
is considered a diversion rather than recovery for recycling and, therefore, not included in the
recovery for recycling estimates. Since data on elapsed time from recovery of textiles for reuse
to final discard are limited, it was assumed that reused textiles re-enter the waste stream the same
year that they are first discarded. It was estimated that 13.5 percent of textiles in clothing and
items such as sheets and pillowcases was recovered for export or reprocessing in 2000 (1.3
million tons) leaving discards of 8.1 million tons of textiles in 2000.
Wood. The sources of wood in MSW include furniture, other durable goods (e.g.,
cabinets for electronic equipment), wood packaging (crates, pallets), and some other
miscellaneous products.
Generation. Generation of wood in MSW was 12.7 million tons in 2000 (5.5 percent of
total MSW generation).
Recovery for Recycling and Discards. Wood pallet recovery for recycling (usually by
chipping for uses such as mulch or bedding material, but excluding wood combusted as fuel) was
estimated at 480,000 tons in 2000.
Accounting for pallet reuse and recovery for recycling, wood discards were 12.2 million
tons in 2000, or 7.5 percent of total MSW discards.
Other Products. Generation of "other products" waste is mainly associated with
disposable diapers, which are discussed under the section on Products in Municipal Solid Waste.
The only other significant source of materials in this category is the electrolytes and other
materials associated with lead-acid batteries that are not classified as plastics or nonferrous
metal.
52
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Food Scraps
Food scraps included here consist of uneaten food and food preparation scraps from
residences, commercial establishments such as grocery stores and sit-down and fast food
restaurants, institutional sources such as school cafeterias, and industrial sources such as factory
lunchrooms. Food scraps generated during the preparation of packaged food products is
considered industrial waste and therefore is not included in MSW food scrap estimates.
Generation. No production data are available for food scraps. Food scraps from
residential and commercial sources were estimated using data from sampling studies in various
parts of the country in combination with demographic data on population, grocery store sales,
restaurant sales, numbers of employees, and numbers of prisoners and students in institutions.
Generation of food scraps was estimated to be 25.9 million tons in 2000.
Recovery for Composting and Discards. Beginning in 1994 for this series of reports, a
significant amount of food scrap composting from commercial sources was identified. As the
data source (a survey published by BioCycle magazine) has improved, it has become apparent
that some other composted materials (e.g., paper and industrial food processing wastes) have
been included with food scraps classified as MSW in the past. For the 2000 estimate, a careful
separation of MSW food composted resulted in an estimate of approximately 370,000 tons.
A survey of paper composting conducted by the American Forest & Paper Association
yielded an estimate of approximately 160,000 tons of paper composted in 1997. In the absence
of better data, this amount was kept constant for the 2000 estimate. Finally, another BioCycle
survey yielded an estimate of approximately 150,000 tons of MSW composted (after an
adjustment to avoid double counting the AF&PA survey). The total—680,000 tons of food
scraps and other organic materials composted—is shown in the recovery tables on the line where
only food scrap recovery was shown in previous reports.
53
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Yard Trimmings
Yard trimmings* include grass, leaves, and tree and brush trimmings from residential,
institutional, and commercial sources.
Generation. In earlier versions of this report, generation of yard trimmings was
estimated using sampling studies and population data. While in past years, generation of yard
trimmings had been increasing steadily as population and residential housing grew (i.e., constant
generation on a per capita basis), in more recent years there has been a new trend—local and
state legislation on yard trimmings disposal in landfills.
Legislation affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills was tabulated, using published
sources. In 1992, 11 states and the District of Columbia—accounting for more than 28 percent of
the nation's population—had legislation in effect that bans or discourages yard trimmings
disposal in landfills. The tabulation of existing legislation also showed that by 1997, 23 states
and the District of Columbia, representing more than 50 percent of the nation's population, had
legislation affecting disposal of yard trimmings. This has led to an increase in backyard
composting and the use of mulching mowers to allow grass trimmings to remain in place.
Using these facts, it was estimated that the effect of this legislation was no increase in
yard trimmings generation (i.e., entering the waste management system) between 1990 and 1992
(i.e., the increase in yard trimmings due to natural population increases was offset by source
reduction efforts). Furthermore, with 50 percent of the population having yard trimmings
legislation in 1997, it also was estimated that yard trimmings declined approximately 6 percent
annually between 1992 and 1997. In the absence of significant new legislation, yard trimmings
generation has been kept constant for 1997 through 2000. An estimated 27.7 million tons of yard
trimmings were generated in MSW in 2000. (This compares to an estimated 35 million tons of
yard trimmings generated in 1992.)
Although limited data are available on the composition of yard trimmings, it is estimated that the average
composition by weight is about 50 percent grass, 25 percent brush, and 25 percent leaves. These are "ballpark"
numbers that will vary widely according to climate and region of the country.
54
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Recovery for Composting and Discards. Recovery for composting of yard trimmings
was estimated using a telephone survey of state agencies, which estimated tonnages composted
by facilities along with updated information on numbers of yard trimmings composting facilities.
Also, data compiled by BioCycle magazine indicated that there were about 3,000 composting
facilities for yard trimmings in 1992, increasing to 3,800 facilities in 2000. The survey resulted
in an estimate of 15.8 million tons of yard trimmings removed for composting in 2000—a
significant increase over the previous estimates. Discards of yard trimmings in 2000 thus were
12.0 million tons. Based on the survey results, the previous estimate of yard trimmings recovery
in 1999 was revised upward also, to a point halfway between recovery in 1998 and 2000.
It should be noted that the estimated 15.8 million tons recovered for composting in 2000
does not include yard trimmings recovered for landspreading disposal. It also should be noted
that these recovery estimates do not account for backyard composting by individuals and
practices such as less bagging of grass clippings. These are source reduction activities taking
place onsite, while the yard trimmings recovery estimates are based on material sent offsite.
Source reduction activities are estimated in Chapter 4.
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
This relatively small category of MSW also is derived from sampling studies. It is not
well defined and often shows up in sampling reports as "fines" or "other." It includes soil, bits of
concrete, stones, and the like.
Generation, Recovery, and Discards. This category contributed an estimated 3.5
million tons of MSW in 2000. No recovery of these products was identified; discards are the
same as generation.
Summary of Materials in Municipal Solid Waste
Generation. Changing quantities and composition of municipal solid waste generation
are illustrated in Figure 10. Generation of MSW has grown relatively steadily, from 88.1 million
tons in 1960 to 231.9 million tons in 2000.
55
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight-
Figure 10. Generation of materials in MSW, 1960 to 2000
" All Other includes primarily wood, rubber and leather, and textiles.
m All Other'
• Yard
DFood
M Plastics
m Metals
• Glass
DPaper
1965
1970
Over the years, paper and paperboard has been the dominant material category generated
in MSW, accounting for 37.4 percent of generation in 2000. Yard trimmings, the second largest
material component of MSW (12 percent of MSW generation) has been declining as a
percentage of MSW in recent years due to state and local legislated landfill bans and increased
emphasis on backyard composting and other source reduction measures such as the use of
mulching mowers.
Metals accounted for 7.8 percent of MSW generation in 2000; they have remained fairly
constant as a source of MSW. Glass generation increased until the 1980s, but decreased
somewhat in the 1990s. Glass generation was 12.8 million tons in 2000, 5.5 percent of MSW
generated. Food wastes have remained fairly constant in terms of MSW tonnage (11.2 percent of
generation in 2000). Plastics have increasingly been used in a variety of products and thus have
been a rapidly growing component of MSW. In terms of tonnage contributed, plastics ranked
fourth in 2000 (behind paper, yard trimmings, and food scraps), accounting for 10.7 percent of
MSW generation.
56
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Recovery and Discards. The effect of recovery on MSW discards is illustrated in Figure
11. Recovery of materials for recycling and composting grew at a rather slow pace from 1960 to
the 1980s, increasing from only 6.4 percent of generation in 1960 to 10.9 percent in 1985.
Renewed interest in recycling (including composting) as waste management alternatives came
about in the late 1980s, and the recovery rate in 1990 was estimated to be 16.2 percent of
generation, increasing to 30.1 percent in 2000.
Figure 11. Recovery and discards of MSW,* 1960 to 2000
100
50
Discards
* Generation - recovery = discards.
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Estimated recovery of materials (including composting) is shown in Figure 12. In 2000,
recovery of paper and paperboard dominated materials recovery at 56 percent of total tonnage
recovered, while yard trimmings contributed 23 percent of total recovery. Recovery of other
materials, while generally increasing, contributes much less tonnage, reflecting in part the
relatively smaller amounts of materials generated in those categories.
57
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 12. Materials recovery,* 2000
All other
Paper & paperboard
56%
Yard trimmings
23%
* In percent by weight of total recovery
Figure 13 illustrates the effect of recovery of materials for recycling, including
composting, on the composition of MSW discards. For example, paper and paperboard were 37.4
percent of MSW generated in 2000, but after recovery, paper and paperboard were 29.2 percent
of discards. Materials that have little or no recovery exhibit a larger percentage of MSW discards
compared to generation.
58
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 13. Materials generated and discarded
in municipal solid waste, 2000
(In percent of total generation and discards)
Other wastes
16%
Yard trimmings
12%
Food scraps \j:Xv
11%
Paper & paperboard
37%
Plastics
11%
Glass
Metals 6%
8%
Generation
Other wastes
20%
Yard trimmings
7%
Food wastes
16%
Plastics
14%
Discards
Paper & paperboard
29%
Metals
7%
59
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
The Chapter 2 section above gave a breakdown of municipal solid waste by material. It
described how the 231.9 million tons of MSW was generated, recycled (including composted),
and disposed of. The following section breaks out the same 231.9 million tons of MSW by
product.
PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
The purpose of this section is to show how the products that make up municipal solid
waste are generated, recycled (including composted), and discarded. For the analysis, products
are divided into three basic categories: durable goods, nondurable goods, and containers and
packaging. These three categories generally follow the definitions of the U.S. Department of
Commerce, one of EPA's data sources. By these definitions, durable goods, (e.g., appliances) are
those that last 3 years or more, while nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers and trash bags) last
less then 3 years. For this report, containers and packaging are assumed to be discarded the same
year the products they contain are purchased.
The following 15 tables (Tables 9 through 23) show generation, recycling (including
composting), and discards of municipal solid waste in the three categories—durable goods,
nondurable goods, and containers and packaging. Within these three categories, products are
listed by type—for instance, carpets and rugs, office paper, or aluminum cans. The materials the
product is made of may be stated as well (for instance, glass beverage containers or steel cans),
or the material may be obvious (for instance, magazines are made of paper). Some products,
such as tires or appliances, are made of several different material types.
At the bottom of each of these 15 tables (Tables 9 through 23), there is a section titled
"Other Wastes." This section contains information on food scraps, yard trimmings, and
miscellaneous inorganic wastes. These wastes are not products that can be estimated through the
material flows methodology, but they are estimated by other means, as described earlier.
60
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Within Tables 9 through 23, the first three tables—Tables 9 to 11—serve as an index to
the other tables. Table 9 shows which tables to consult for detailed information on generation;
Table 10 shows which tables to consult for detailed information on recovery; and Table 11 does
the same for detailed information on discards. The tables on generation all have the same
"bottom line"—231.9 million tons in 2000—with detail provided in different categories—
durable goods, nondurable goods, and containers and packaging. For Table 10 and related tables,
the "bottom line" is MSW recovered—69.9 million tons; and for Table 11 and related tables, the
"bottom line" is MSW discarded—162.0 million tons.
Durable Goods
Durable goods generally are defined as products having a lifetime of 3 years or more,
although there are some exceptions. In this report, durable goods include large and small
appliances, furniture and furnishings, carpets and rugs, rubber tires, lead-acid automotive
batteries, and miscellaneous durable goods (e.g., luggage, consumer electronics) (see Tables 12
through 14). These products often are called "oversize and bulky" in municipal solid waste
management practice, and they generally are handled in a somewhat different manner than other
components of MSW. That is, they are often picked up separately, and may not be mixed with
other MSW at the landfill, combustor, or other waste management facility. Durable goods are
made up of a wide variety of materials. In order of tonnage in MSW in 2000, these include:
ferrous metals, plastics, rubber and leather, wood, textiles, glass, other nonferrous metals (e.g.,
lead, copper), and aluminum.
Generation of durable goods in MSW totaled 36.3 million tons in 2000 (15.7 percent of
total MSW generation). After recovery for recycling, 30.3 million tons of durable goods
remained as discards in 2000.
61
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Table 9
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 18)
Total Product'* Wastes
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product" Wastes
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,920
17,330
27,370
54,620
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
88,120
1970
14,660
25,060
43,560
83,280
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
121,060
1980
21,800
34,420
52,670
108,890
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
151,640
1990
29,810
52,170
64,530
146,510
20,800
35,000
2,900
58,700
205,210
1995
31,140
57,250
68,390
156,780
21,740
29,690
3,150
54,580
211,360
1998
34,360
60,300
72,770
167,430
24,910
27,730
3,290
55,930
223,360
1999
35,350
62,990
76,330
174,670
25,160
27,730
3,380
56,270
230,940
2000
36,330
63,660
74,730
174,720
25,900
27,730
3,500
57,130
231 ,850
Percent of Total Generation
1960
1 1 .3%
19.7%
31.1%
62.0%
13.8%
22.7%
1.5%
38.0%
100.0%
1970
12.1%
20.7%
36.0%
68.8%
10.6%
19.2%
1.5%
31.2%
100.0%
1980
14.4%
22.7%
34.7%
71 .8%
8.6%
18.1%
1.5%
28.2%
100.0%
1990
14.5%
25.4%
31 .4%
71 .4%
10.1%
17.1%
1 .4%
28.6%
100.0%
1995
14.7%
27.1%
32.4%
74.2%
10.3%
14.0%
1.5%
25.8%
100.0%
1998
15.4%
27.0%
32.6%
75.0%
1 1 .2%
12.4%
1.5%
25.0%
100.0%
1999
15.3%
27.3%
33.1%
75.6%
10.9%
12.0%
1.5%
24.4%
100.0%
2000
15.7%
27.5%
32.2%
75.4%
11.2%
12.0%
1 .5%
24.6%
100.0%
1 Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial
process wastes, or certain other wastes.
' Other than food products.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
62
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 10
RECOVERY* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each category)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product" Wastes
Other Wastes
Food, Other*
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product" Wastes
Other Wastes
Food, OtherA
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
350
2,390
2,870
5,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
5,610
1970
940
3,730
3,350
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
8,020
1980
1,360
4,670
8,490
14,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
14,520
1990
3,460
8,800
16,780
29,040
Neg.
4,200
Neg.
4,200
33,240
1995
5,010
13,610
26,720
45,340
570
9,000
Neg.
9,570
54,910
1998
5,710
14,980
27,260
47,950
580
12,560
Neg.
13,140
61,090
1999
5,920
16,130
28,010
50,060
550
14,170
Neg.
14,720
64,780
2000
6,020
18,320
29,080
53,420
680
15,770
Neg.
16,450
69,870
Percent of Generation of Each Category
1960
3.5%
13.8%
10.5%
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.4%
1970
6.4%
14.9%
7.7%
9.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.6%
1980
6.2%
13.6%
16.1%
13.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
9.6%
1990
1 1 .6%
16.9%
26.0%
19.8%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
7.2%
16.2%
1995
16.1%
23.8%
39.1%
28.9%
2.6%
30.3%
Neg.
17.5%
26.0%
1998
16.6%
24.8%
37.5%
28.6%
2.3%
45.3%
Neg.
23.5%
27.4%
1999
16.7%
25.6%
36.7%
28.7%
2.2%
51.1%
Neg.
26.2%
28.1%
2000
16.6%
28.8%
38.9%
30.6%
2.6%
56.9%
Neg.
28.8%
30.1%
Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
Other than food products.
Includes recovery of paper for composting.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
63
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Table 11
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product"* Wastes
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product" Wastes
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,570
14,940
24,500
49,010
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
82,510
1970
13,720
21,330
40,210
75,260
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
113,040
1980
20,440
29,750
44,180
94,370
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
137,120
1990
26,350
43,370
47,750
117,470
20,800
30,800
2,900
54,500
171,970
1995
26,130
43,640
41,670
1 1 1 ,440
21,170
20,690
3,150
45,010
156,450
1998
28,650
45,320
45,510
119,480
24,330
15,170
3,290
42,790
162,270
1999
29,430
46,860
48,320
124,610
24,610
13,560
3,380
41,550
166,160
2000
30,310
45,340
45,650
121,300
25,220
11,960
3,500
40,680
161,980
Percent of Total Discards
1960
11.6%
18.1%
29.7%
59.4%
14.8%
24.2%
1 .6%
40.6%
100.0%
1970
12.1%
18.9%
35.6%
66.6%
1 1 .3%
20.5%
1 .6%
33.4%
100.0%
1980
14.9%
21.7%
32.2%
68.8%
9.5%
20.1%
1.6%
31.2%
100.0%
1990
15.3%
25.2%
27.8%
68.3%
12.1%
17.9%
1.7%
31.7%
100.0%
1995
16.7%
27.9%
26.6%
71.2%
13.5%
13.2%
2.0%
28.8%
100.0%
1998
17.7%
27.9%
28.0%
73.6%
15.0%
9.3%
2.0%
26.4%
100.0%
1999
17.7%
28.2%
29.1%
75.0%
14.8%
8.2%
2.0%
25.0%
100.0%
2000
18.7%
28.0%
28.2%
74.9%
15.6%
7.4%
2.2%
25.1%
100.0%
Discards after materials and compost recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris,
industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes.
Other than food products.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
64
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Major Appliances. Major appliances in MSW include refrigerators, washing machines,
and water heaters. They often are called "white goods" in the trade. Data on unit production of
appliances are taken from Appliance Manufacturer Market Profile. The unit data are converted
to weight using various conversion factors developed over the years, plus data on the materials
composition of the appliances. Adjustments also are made for the estimated lifetimes of the
appliances, which range up to 20 years.
Generation of major appliances has increased slowly over the years, and in fact was about
constant for the past 3 years. In 2000, generation was 3.6 million tons, or 1.6 percent of total
MSW generation. In general, appliances have increased in quantity but not in average weight
over the years. Ferrous metals (steel and iron) are the predominant materials in major appliances,
but other metals, plastics, glass, and other materials are also present.
Data on recovery of ferrous metals from major appliances are taken from a survey
conducted by the Steel Recycling Institute. Recovery of ferrous metals from shredded appliances
was estimated to be 2.0 million tons in 2000, leaving 1.6 million tons of appliances to be
discarded.
Small Appliances. This category includes items such as toasters, hair dryers, electric
coffeepots, and the like. Information on shipments of small appliances was obtained from U.S.
Department of Commerce data. Information on weights and materials composition of discarded
small appliances was obtained through interviews. It was estimated that 1.0 million tons of small
appliances were generated in 2000. A small amount of ferrous metals in small appliances is
recovered through magnetic separation.
Furniture and Furnishings. Data on sales of furniture and furnishings are provided by
the U.S. Department of Commerce in dollars. These data are converted to tons using factors
developed for this study over the years. Adjustments are made for imports and exports, and
adjustments are made for the lifetimes of the furniture.
65
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Table 12
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2000
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Products
Thousands of Tons
1960
1970
1980
1990 I 1995
1998
1999
2000
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Selected Consumer Electronics***
Other Miscellaneous Durables
Total Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durahla Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 18)
Total Product Wastes?
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
Products
1,630
2,150
1,120
Neg.
5.020
9920
17,330
27,370
54,620
12,200
20,000
1,300
33.500
88,120
2,170
2,830
1,890
820
fi.950
14.6BO
25,060
43,560
83,280
12,800
23,200
1,780
37.780
121.060
2,950
4,760
2,720
1,490
9.880
21.800
34,420
52,670
108,890
13,000
27,500
2,250
42.750
151.640
3,310
460
6,790
1,660
3,610
1,510
12.470
29810
52,170
64,530
146,510
20,800
35,000
2,900
58.700
205.210
Percent of To
1960
1970
1980
1990
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Selected Consumer Electronics***
Other Miscellaneous Durables
Total Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
1 .8%
2.4%
1.3%
Neg.
5.7%
1 1 .3%
19.7%
31.1%
62.0%
13.8%
22.7%
1.5%
38.0%
100.0%
1 .8%
2.3%
1 .6%
0.7%
5.7%
12.1%
20.7%
36.0%
68.8%
10.6%
19.2%
1 .5%
31 .2%
100.0%
1.9%
3.1%
1.8%
1 .0%
6.5%
14.4%
22.7%
34.7%
71 .8%
8.6%
18.1%
1 .5%
28 2%
1000%
1 .6%
0.2%
3.3%
0.8%
1.8%
0.7%
6.1%
14.5%
25.4%
31 .4%
71.4%
10.1%
17.1%
1 .4%
28 6%
1000%
3,420
710
7,170
2,230
3,770
1,810
12.030
31.140
57,250
68,390
156,780
21 ,740
29,690
3,150
54.580
21 1 .360
hal Genera
1995
3,650
890
7,600
2,410
4,510
1,930
13.370
34.360
60,300
72,770
167,430
24,910
27,730
3,290
55.930
223.360
3,680
940
7,710
2,470
4,630
1,940
1,760
12,220
13.980
35.350
62,990
76,330
174,670
25,160
27,730
3,380
56.270
230.940
3,640
1,000
7,840
2,570
4,670
1,940
2,120
12,550
14.670
36.330
63,660
74,730
174,720
25,900
27,730
3,500
57.130
231 .850
ion
1998
1999
2000
1 .6%
0.3%
3.4%
1.1%
1 .8%
0.9%
5.7%
14.7%
27.1%
32.4%
74.2%
10.3%
14.0%
1 .5%
25.8%
100.0%
1 .6%
0.4%
3.4%
1.1%
2.0%
0.9%
fi.0%
15.4%
27.0%
32.6%
75.0%
1 1 .2%
12.4%
1.5%
25 0%
100.0%
1 .6%
0.4%
3.3%
1.1%
2.0%
0.8%
0.8%
5.3%
6.1%
15.3%
27.3%
33.1%
75.6%
10.9%
12.0%
1 .5%
24 4%
,_ J 00 0%_
1 .6%
0.4%
3.4%
1.1%
2.0%
0.8%
0.9%
5.4%
6.3%
15.7%
27.5%
32.2%
75.4%
1 1 .2%
12.0%
1 .5%
24 6%
1 00 0%
" Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process
wastes, or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990. *" Not estimated separately prior to 1999.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd..
66
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 13
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2000
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Products
Thousands of Tons
1960 I 1970
1980
1990 I 1995
1Q98 1999
2000
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Selected Consumer Electronics***
Other Miscellaneous Durables
Total Miscellaneous Durables
Total parable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
Products
10
Neg.
330
Neg.
10
350
2,390
2,870
5,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea
5,610
50
Neg.
250
620
20
940
3,730
3,350
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
8020
130
Neg.
150
1,040
40
1.360
4,670
8,490
14,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
14 520
1,070
10
Neg.
Neg.
440
1,470
470
3460
8,800
16,780
29,040
Neg.
4,200
Neg.
4200
33240
2,070
10
Neg.
20
670
1,620
620
5.010
13,610
26,720
45,340
570
9,000
Neg.
9.570
54 910
1,940
20
Neg.
20
1,060
1,870
ROO
5710
14,980
27,260
47,950
580
12,560
Neg.
13 140
61 090
1,920
20
Neg.
20
1,280
1,870
160
650
810
5.920
16,130
28,010
50,060
550
14,170
Neg.
14.720
64 780
2,000
20
Neg.
30
1,210
1,870
190
700
890
6.020
18,320
29,080
53,420
680
15,770
Neg.
16.450
69.870
Percent of Generation of Each Product
1960
1970
1980 I 1990 I 1995
1998
1999
2000
Durable Gnnds
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Selected Consumer Electronics***
Other Miscellaneous Durables
Total Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goads
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
0.6%
Neg.
29.5%
Neg.
0.2%
35%
13.8%
10.5%
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
64%
2.3%
Neg.
13.2%
75.6%
0 3%
6 4%
14.9%
7.7%
9.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea
66%
4.4%
Neg.
5.5%
69.8%
0.4%
62%
13.6%
16.1%
13.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
9 6%
32.3%
2.2%
Neg.
Neg.
12.2%
97.4%
38%
11 6%
16.9%
26.0%
19.8%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
72%
162%
60.5%
1 .4%
Neg.
0.9%
17.8%
89.5%
52%
16 1%
23.8%
39.1%
28.9%
2.6%
30.3%
Neg.
1 7 5%
26 0%
53.2%
2.2%
Neg.
0.8%
23.5%
96.9%
60%
1 6 6%
24.8%
37.5%
28.6%
2.3%
45.3%
Neg.
23 5%
27 4%
52.2%
2.1%
Neg.
0.8%
27.6%
96.4%
9.1%
5.3%
58%
1 6 7%
25.6%
36.7%
28.7%
2.2%
51.1%
Neg.
26 2%
28 1%
54.9%
2.0%
Neg.
1 .2%
25.9%
96.4%
6.1%
16.6%
28.8%
38.9%
30.6%
2.6%
56.9%
Neg.
28 8%
30.1%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
" Not estimated separately prior to 1990. *" Not estimated separately prior to 1999.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
67
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Table 14
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2000
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Products
Thousands of Tons
1960
1970
1980
1990 I 1995
1998
1999
2000
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances"
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Selected Consumer Electronics***
Other Miscellaneous Durables
Total Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wavtpi
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
products
1,620
2,150
790
Neg.
5010
9570
14,940
24,500
49,010
12,200
20,000
1,300
33 ROO
82 510
2,120
2,830
1,640
200
6930
13720
21,330
40,210
75,260
12,800
23,200
1,780
37 7RO
113 040
2,820
4,760
2,570
450
9840
20 440
29,750
44,180
94,370
13,000
27,500
2,250
4? 750
137J2Q
2,240
450
6,790
1,660
3,170
40
12 000
26 350
43,370
47,750
117,470
20,800
30,800
2,900
54 500
171 970
1,350
700
7,170
2,210
3,100
190
11 410
2fi 130
43,640
41,670
1 1 1 ,440
21,170
20,690
3,150
45 010
156 450
1,710
870
7,600
2,390
3,450
60
12 570
28 650
45,320
45,510
119,480
24,330
15,170
3,290
42 790
JL62J>70
1,760
920
7,710
2,450
3,350
70
1,600
1 1 ,570
13 170
29 430
46,860
48,320
124,610
24,610
13,560
3,380
41 550
166 16IL
1,640
980
7,840
2,540
3,460
70
1,930
1 1 ,850
13 780
30 310
45,340
45,650
121,300
25,220
1 1 ,960
3,500
40 fiRO
161 980
Percent of Total Discards
1960
1970
1980
1990 I 1995 ! 1998
1999
2000
Durahlp Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Selected Consumer Electronics***
Other Miscellaneous Durables
Total Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Gnnds
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Tntal Other Wastpi
Total MSW Discarded - %
2.0%
2.6%
1 .0%
Neg.
6 1%
11 6%
18.1%
29.7%
59.4%
14.8%
24.2%
1.6%
40 6%
100.0%
1 .9%
2.5%
1.5%
0.2%
6 1%
12 1%
18.9%
35.6%
66.6%
11.3%
20.5%
1.6%
33 4%
100.0%
2.1%
3.5%
1 .9%
0.3%
72%
14 9%
21 .7%
32.2%
68.8%
9.5%
20.1%
1.6%
31 2%
100.0%
1 .3%
0.3%
3.9%
1 .0%
1 .8%
0.0%
7 0%
1 5 3%
25.2%
27.8%
68.3%
12.1%
17.9%
1 .7%
31 7%
100.0%
0.9%
0.4%
4.6%
1.4%
2.0%
0.1%
73%
1fi 7%
27.9%
26.6%
71 .2%
13.5%
13.2%
2.0%
28 8%
1 00 0%
1.1%
0.5%
4.7%
1 .5%
2.1%
0.0%
77%
1 7 7%
27.9%
28.0%
73.6%
15.0%
9.3%
2.0%
26 4%
1 00 0%
1.1%
0.6%
4.6%
1 .5%
2.0%
0.0%
1 .0%
6.9%
79%
1 7 7%
28.2%
29.1%
75.0%
14.8%
8.2%
2.0%
25 0%
1 00 0%
1 .0%
0.6%
4.8%
1 .6%
2.1%
0.0%
1 .2%
7.2%
85%
18 7%
28.0%
28.2%
74.9%
15.6%
7.4%
2.2%
25 1%
100.0%
* Discards after materials and compost recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes,
or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990. *** Not estimated separately prior to 1999.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
68
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Generation of waste furniture and furnishings in MSW has increased from 2.2 million
tons in 1960 to 7.8 million tons in 2000 (3.4 percent of total MSW). No significant recovery of
materials from furniture was identified. Wood is the largest material category in furniture, with
ferrous metals second. Plastics, glass, and other materials also are found in furniture.
Carpets and Rugs. An industry publication, Carpet and Rug Industrial Review,
publishes data on carpet sales in square yards. These data are converted to tons using various
factors developed for this report. An estimated 2.6 million tons of carpets and rugs were
generated in MSW in 2000, which was 1.1 percent of total generation.
A small amount of recycling of carpet fiber was identified—estimated to be about 1.2
percent of generation in 2000.
Vehicle Tires. The methodology for estimating generation of rubber tires for
automobiles and trucks is based on data on replacement tires purchased and vehicles deregistered
as reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It is assumed that for each replacement tire
purchased, a used tire enters the waste management system, and that tires on deregistered
vehicles also enter the waste management system. Retreaded tires are treated as a diversion out
of the waste stream; they are assumed to re-enter the waste stream after 2 years of use.
The quantities of tires in units are converted to weight and materials composition using
factors developed for this series of reports. In addition to rubber, tires include relatively small
amounts of textiles and ferrous metals. Generation of rubber tires increased from 1.1 million tons
in 1960 to 4.7 million tons in 2000 (2 percent of total MSW).
Data on recovery of tires in recent years are based on information from the Scrap Tire
Management Council. Rubber recovery from tires has been increasing in recent years. In 2000,
an estimated 25.9 percent of the weight of tires generated was recovered for recycling, leaving
3.5 million tons to be discarded. (Tires going to combustion facilities as fuel are included in the
combustion estimates in Chapter 3.)
69
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight-
Lead-Acid Batteries. The methodology for estimating generation of lead-acid batteries
is similar to the methodology for rubber tires as described above. An estimated 1.9 million tons
of lead-acid batteries from automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles were generated in MSW in
2000 (less than 1 percent of total generation).
The Battery Council International provided data on recovery of batteries. Recovery of
batteries for recycling has fluctuated between 60 percent and 98 percent or higher; recovery has
increased since 1980 as a growing number of communities have restricted batteries from
disposal at landfills or combustion facilities. In 2000, 96.4 percent of the lead in these batteries
was estimated to be recovered for recycling, as well as substantial quantities of the
polypropylene battery casings, so discards after recycling of these batteries decreased to 70,000
tons in 2000. (Some electrolytes and other materials in batteries are removed from the municipal
solid waste stream along with recovered lead and polypropylene; these materials are counted as
"recovered" along with the recyclable materials.)
Miscellaneous Durable Goods. Miscellaneous durable goods include consumer
electronics such as television sets, video cassette recorders, and personal computers; luggage;
sporting equipment; and the like. An estimated 14.7 million tons of these goods were generated
in 2000, amounting to 6.3 percent of MSW generated.
For the previous update of this report, generation of selected consumer electronic
products was estimated as a subset of miscellaneous durable goods for the first time. In 2000, an
estimated 2.1 million tons of these goods were generated. Of this, approximately 190,000 tons of
selected consumer electronics were recovered for recycling. Additional information on consumer
electronics can be found in Appendix C.
The miscellaneous durable goods category, as a whole, includes ferrous metals as well as
plastics, glass, rubber, wood, and other metals. An estimated 670,000 tons of ferrous metals were
estimated to have been recovered from this category through pre-combustion and post-
combustion magnetic separation at MSW combustion facilities in 2000, bringing total recovery
from this category to 890,000 tons. Discards of miscellaneous durable goods were 13.8 million
tons in 2000.
70
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Nondurable Goods
The Department of Commerce defines nondurable goods as those having a lifetime of
less than 3 years, and their definition was followed for this report to the extent possible.
Products made of paper and paperboard comprise the largest portion of nondurable
goods. Other nondurable products include paper and plastic plates, cups, and other disposable
food service products; disposable diapers; clothing and footwear; linens; and other miscellaneous
products. (See Tables 15 through 17.)
Generation of nondurable goods in MSW was 63.7 million tons in 2000 (27.5 percent of
total generation). Recovery of paper products in this category is quite significant, resulting in
18.3 million tons of nondurable goods recovered in 2000 (28.8 percent of nondurables
generation). This means that 45.3 million tons of nondurable goods were discarded in 2000 (28
percent of total MSW discards).
Paper and Paperboard Products. Generation, recovery, and discards of paper and
paperboard products in nondurable goods are summarized in Tables 15 through 17. A summary
for 2000 was shown earlier in Table 4. Generation of paper and paperboard nondurable products
increased each year from 1997 to 1999, but showed only a slight increase from 1999 to 2000.
Each of the paper and paperboard product categories in nondurable goods is discussed briefly
below.
• Newspapers are by far the largest single component of the nondurable goods
category, at 15 million tons generated in 2000 (6.5 percent of total MSW). In 2000,
an estimated 58.2 percent of newspapers generated were recovered for recycling,
leaving 6.3 million tons discarded (3.9 percent of total MSW discarded). Estimates of
newspaper generation are broken down into newsprint (the majority of the weight of
newspapers) and groundwood* inserts (primarily advertising) that are a significant
portion of the total weight of newspapers. This breakdown is shown in Table 4.
Groundwood papers, like newsprint, are made primarily from pulp prepared by a mechanical process. The other
major type of wood pulp is prepared by a chemical process. The nature of the pulp (groundwood vs. chemical)
affects the potential uses for the recovered paper.
71
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight-
Books amounted to approximately 1.1 million tons, or 0.5 percent of total MSW
generation, in 2000. Recovery of books is not well documented, but it was estimated
that approximately 220,000 tons of books were recovered in 2000. Books are made of
both groundwood and chemical pulp.
Magazines accounted for an estimated 2.1 million tons, or 0.9 percent of total MSW
generation, in 2000. Like books, recovery of magazines is not well documented. It
was estimated that 680,000 tons of magazines were recovered in 2000. Magazines are
predominately made of coated groundwood, but some uncoated groundwood and
chemical pulps also are used.
Many different kinds of papers are generated in offices. For this report, office-type
paper estimates include the high-grade papers such as copier paper, computer
printout, and stationery. (7.5 million tons, or 3.2 percent of total MSW generation, in
2000). These papers are almost entirely made of uncoated chemical pulp, although
some amounts of groundwood also are used. It should be noted that some of these
office-type papers are generated at locations other than offices, including homes and
institutions such as schools. Also, other kinds of papers (e.g., newspapers, magazines,
and packaging) are generated in offices, but are accounted for in other categories. An
estimated 4.1 million tons of office-type papers were recovered in 2000.
Directories were estimated to generate 740,000 tons (0.3 percent of total MSW) in
2000. These directories are made of groundwood. It was estimated that 130,000 tons
of directories were recovered in 2000.
Standard (A) Mail* includes catalogs and other direct bulk mailings; these amounted
to an estimated 5.6 million tons, or 2.4 percent of MSW generation, in 2000. Both
groundwood and chemical pulps are used in these mailings. It was estimated that 1.8
million tons were recovered in 2000. The U.S. Postal Service has implemented a
program to increase recovery of bulk mail, and many curbside collection programs
also include mail.
o.
The U.S. Postal Service has changed the name of the former Third Class Mail category to Standard (A) Mail.
72
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 15
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2000
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,920
1970
14,660
1980
21,800
1990
29,810
1995
31,140
1998
34,360
1999
35,350
2000
36,330
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office Papers
Directories**
Standard (A) Mail***
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Plastic Plates and Cupsf
Trash Bags**
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 18)
Total Product Wastes^
Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
7,110
1,920
1,520
1,260
1,090
270
Neg.
2,700
1,360
100
17,330
27,370
54,620
33,500
88,120
9,510
2,470
2,650
2,130
2,080
420
350
3,630
1,620
200
25,060
43,560
83,280
37,780
121,060
1 1 ,050
3,390
4,000
3,120
2,300
630
190
1,930
4,230
2,170
1,410
34,420
52,670
108,890
42,750
151,640
13,430
970
2,830
6,410
610
3,820
4,460
2,960
650
650
780
2,700
3,840
4,010
710
3,340
52,170
64,530
146,510
58,700
205,210
13,140
1,150
2,530
6,640
490
4,620
6,770
2,970
970
780
780
3,010
4,270
5,070
740
3,320
57,250
68,390
156,780
54,580
211,360
13,630
1,140
2,260
7,040
740
5,200
6,580
3,100
890
890
840
3,200
4,410
6,040
750
3,590
60,300
72,770
167,430
55,930
223,360
14,870
1,130
2,210
7,710
740
5,320
6,270
3,240
950
910
950
3,310
4,620
6,250
780
3,730
62,990
76,330
174,670
56,270
230,940
15,030
1,140
2,130
7,530
740
5,570
7,040
3,210
1,040
870
850
3,340
3,860
6,460
820
4,030
63,660
74,730
174,720
57,130
231 ,850
Percent of Total Generation
1960
1 1 .3%
1970
12.1%
1980
14.4%
1990
14.5%
1995
14.7%
1998
15.4%
1999
15.3%
2000
15.7%
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office Papers
Directories**
Standard (A) Mail***
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Plastic Plates and Cupsf
Trash Bags**
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product Wastes]:
Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
8.1%
2.2%
1 .7%
1 .4%
1 .2%
0.3%
Neg.
3.1%
1 .5%
0.1%
19.7%
31.1%
62.0%
38.0%
100.0%
7.9%
2.0%
2.2%
1 .8%
1 .7%
0.3%
0.3%
3.0%
1.3%
0.2%
20.7%
36.0%
68.8%
31.2%
100.0%
7.3%
2.2%
2.6%
2.1%
1.5%
0.4%
0.1%
1.3%
2.8%
1 .4%
0.9%
22.7%
34.7%
71.8%
28.2%
100.0%
6.5%
0.5%
1 .4%
3.1%
0.3%
1 .9%
2.2%
1 .4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
0.3%
1 .6%
25.4%
31 .4%
71.4%
28.6%
100.0%
6.2%
0.5%
1 .2%
3.1%
0.2%
2.2%
3.2%
1 .4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
1 .4%
2.0%
2.4%
0.4%
1 .6%
27.1%
32.4%
74.2%
25.8%
100.0%
6.1%
0.5%
1 .0%
3.2%
0.3%
2.3%
2.9%
1 .4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
1 .4%
2.0%
2.7%
0.3%
1 .6%
27.0%
32.6%
75.0%
25.0%
100.0%
6.4%
0.5%
1 .0%
3.3%
0.3%
2.3%
2.7%
1 .4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
1 .4%
2.0%
2.7%
0.3%
1 .6%
27.3%
33.1%
75.6%
24.4%
1 00.0%
6.5%
0.5%
0.9%
3.2%
0.3%
2.4%
3.0%
1 .4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
1 .4%
1 .7%
2.8%
0.4%
1 .7%
27.5%
32.2%
75.4%
24.6%
1 00.0%
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process
wastes, or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
*** Not estimated separately prior to 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
t Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
73
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight"
Table 16
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2000
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Thousands of Tons
1960
350
1970
940
1980
1,360
1990
3,460
1995
5,010
1998
5,710
1999
5,920
2000
6,020
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books"
Magazines**
Office Papers
Directories**
Standard (A) Mail***
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Plastic Plates and Cupsf
Trash Bags**
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product Wastes^
Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
1,820
100
250
130
Neg.
Neg.
40
50
Neg.
2,390
2,870
5,610
Neg.
5,610
2,250
260
710
340
Neg.
Neg.
110
60
Neg.
3,730
3,350
8,020
Neg.
8,020
3,020
280
870
350
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
150
Neg.
4,670
8,490
14,520
Neg.
14,520
5,110
100
300
1,700
40
200
700
Neg.
Neg.
10
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
520
120
Neg.
8,800
16,780
29,040
4,200
33,240
7,010
220
650
3,040
60
710
1,120
Neg.
Neg.
10
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
660
130
Neg.
13,610
26,720
45,340
9,570
54,910
7,210
160
470
3,550
100
980
1,580
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
800
130
Neg.
14,980
27,260
47,950
13,140
61,090
8,040
190
550
3,630
130
1,360
1,230
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
860
140
Neg.
16,130
28,010
50,060
14,720
64,780
8,750
220
680
4,070
130
1,780
1,650
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
900
140
Neg.
18,320
29,080
53,420
16,450
69,870
Percent of Generation of Each Product
1960
3.5%
1970
6.4%
1980
6.2%
1990
1 1 .6%
1995
16.1%
1998
16.6%
1999
16.7%
2000
16.6%
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office Papers
Directories**
Standard (A) Mail***
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Plastic Plates and Cupsf
Trash Bags**
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product Wastes^
Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
25.6%
5.2%
16.4%
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
1 .5%
Neg.
Neg.
13.8%
10.5%
10.3%
Neg.
6.4%
23.7%
10.5%
26.8%
16.0%
Neg.
Neg.
3.0%
Neg.
Neg.
14.9%
7.7%
9.6%
Neg.
6.6%
27.3%
8.3%
21.8%
1 1 .2%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.6%
16.1%
13.3%
Neg.
9.6%
38.0%
10.3%
10.6%
26.5%
6.6%
5.2%
15.7%
Neg.
Neg.
1 .5%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.0%
16.9%
Neg.
16.9%
26.0%
19.8%
7.2%
16.2%
53.3%
19.1%
25.7%
45.8%
12.2%
15.4%
16.5%
Neg.
Neg.
1 .3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.0%
17.6%
Neg.
23.8%
39.1%
28.9%
17.5%
26.0%
52.9%
14.0%
20.8%
50.4%
13.5%
18.8%
24.0%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.2%
17.3%
Neg.
24.8%
37.5%
28.6%
23.5%
27.4%
54.1%
16.8%
24.9%
47.1%
17.6%
25.6%
19.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.8%
17.9%
Neg.
25.6%
36.7%
28.7%
26.2%
28.1%
58.2%
19.3%
31.9%
54.1%
17.6%
32.0%
23.4%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.9%
17.1%
Neg.
28.8%
38.9%
30.6%
28.8%
30.1%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
*** Not estimated separately prior to 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
t Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
74
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 17
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2000
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office Papers
Directories**
Standard (A) Mail***
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Plastic Plates and Cupsf
Trash Bags**
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product Wastes^
Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office Papers
Directories**
Standard (A) Mail***
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Plastic Plates and Cupsf
Trash Bags**
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product Wastes^
Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,570
1970
13,720
1980
20,440
1990
26,350
1995
26,130
1998
28,650
1999
29,430
2000
30,310
5,290
1,820
1,270
1,130
1,090
270
Neg.
2,660
1,310
100
14,940
24,500
49,010
33,500
82,510
7,260
2,210
1,940
1,790
2,080
420
350
3,520
1,560
200
21 ,330
40,210
75,260
37,780
113,040
8,030
3,110
3,130
2,770
2,300
630
190
1,930
4,230
2,020
1,410
29,750
44,180
94,370
42,750
137,120
8,320
870
2,530
4,710
570
3,620
3,760
2,960
650
640
780
2,700
3,840
3,490
590
3,340
43,370
47,750
117,470
54,500
171,970
6,130
930
1,880
3,600
430
3,910
5,650
2,970
970
770
780
3,010
4,270
4,410
610
3,320
43,640
41,670
1 1 1 ,440
45,010
156,450
6,420
980
1,790
3,490
640
4,220
5,000
3,100
890
890
840
3,200
4,410
5,240
620
3,590
45,320
45,510
119,480
42,790
162,270
6,830
940
1,660
4,080
610
3,960
5,040
3,240
950
910
950
3,310
4,620
5,390
640
3,730
46,860
48,320
124,610
41,550
166,160
6,280
920
1,450
3,460
610
3,790
5,390
3,210
1,040
870
850
3,340
3,860
5,560
680
4,030
45,340
45,650
121,300
40,680
161,980
Percent of Total Discards
1960
1 1 .6%
1970
12.1%
1980
14.9%
1990
1 5.3%
1995
16.7%
1998
17.7%
1999
17.7%
2000
18.7%
6.4%
2.2%
1 .5%
1 .4%
1 .3%
0.3%
Neg.
3.2%
1 .6%
0.1%
18.1%
29.7%
59.4%
40.6%
100.0%
6.4%
2.0%
1.7%
1.6%
1.8%
0.4%
0.3%
3.1%
1 .4%
0.2%
18.9%
35.6%
66.6%
33.4%
100.0%
5.9%
2.3%
2.3%
2.0%
1 .7%
0.5%
0.1%
1 .4%
3.1%
1 .5%
1 .7%
21 .7%
32.2%
68.8%
31 .2%
100.0%
4.8%
0.5%
1 .5%
2.7%
0.3%
2.1%
2.2%
1 .7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
1 .6%
2.2%
2.0%
0.3%
1 .9%
25.2%
27.8%
68.3%
31 .7%
100.0%
3.9%
0.6%
1 .2%
2.3%
0.3%
2.5%
3.6%
1 .9%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
1.9%
2.7%
2.8%
0.4%
2.1%
27.9%
26.6%
71.2%
28.8%
100.0%
4.0%
0.6%
1.1%
2.2%
0.4%
2.6%
3.1%
1 .9%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
2.0%
2.7%
3.2%
0.4%
2.2%
27.9%
28.0%
73.6%
26.4%
100.0%
4.1%
0.6%
1 .0%
2.5%
0.4%
2.4%
3.0%
1 .9%
0.6%
0.5%
0.6%
2.0%
2.8%
3.2%
0.4%
2.2%
28.2%
29.1%
75.0%
25.0%
100.0%
3.9%
0.6%
0.9%
2.1%
0.4%
2.3%
3.3%
2.0%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
2.1%
2.4%
3.4%
0.4%
2.5%
28.0%
28.2%
74.9%
25.1%
100.0%
* Discards after materials and compost recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process
wastes, or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
"** Not estimated separately prior to 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
t Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
i Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
75
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
• Other Commercial Printing includes a wide range of paper items, including
brochures, reports, menus, and invitations. Both groundwood and chemical pulps are
used in these varied items. Generation was estimated at 7.0 million tons, or 3 percent
of MSW generation, in 2000, with recovery estimated at 1.7 million tons.
• Tissue paper and towels generation includes facial and sanitary tissues and napkins,
but not bathroom tissue, which is nearly all diverted from MSW into the wastewater
treatment system. Tissue paper and towels (not including bathroom tissue) amounted
to 3.2 million tons (1.4 percent of total MSW generation) in 2000. No significant
recovery of tissue products for recycling was identified, although there is some
composting of these items.
• Paper plates and cups include paper plates, cups, bowls, and other food service
products used in homes, in commercial establishments like restaurants, and in
institutional settings such as schools. Generation of these products was estimated at
1.0 million tons (0.4 percent of total MSW generation) in 2000. No significant
recovery for recycling of these products was identified.
• Other nonpackaging papers—including posters, photographic papers, cards, and
games—accounted for 3.9 million tons (1.7 percent of total MSW generation) in
2000. No significant recovery for recycling of these papers was identified.
Overall, generation of paper and paperboard products in nondurable goods was 47.3
million tons in 2000 (Table 4). While newspapers were recovered at the highest rate, other paper
products, such as books, magazines, and office papers, also were recovered for recycling, and the
overall recovery rate for paper in nondurable goods was 36.5 percent in 2000. Thus 30.1 million
tons of paper in nondurables were discarded in 2000.
Plastic Plates and Cups. This category includes plastic plates, cups, glasses, dishes and
bowls, hinged containers, and other containers used in food service at home, in restaurants and
other commercial establishments, and in institutional settings such as schools. These items are
made primarily of polystyrene resin. An estimated 870,000 tons of these products were
generated in 2000, or 0.4 percent of total MSW (see Table 15). No significant recovery for
recycling was identified in 2000.
Trash Bags. This category includes plastic trash bags made of high-density polyethylene
and low-density polyethylene for both indoor and outdoor use. Generation of plastic trash bags
76
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
amounted to 850,000 tons in 2000 (0.4 percent of MSW generation). No significant recovery for
recycling was identified.
Disposable Diapers. This category includes estimates of both infant diapers and adult
incontinence products. Generation was estimated using data on sales of the products along with
information on average weights and composition. An estimated 3.3 million tons of disposable
diapers were generated in 2000, or 1.4 percent of total MSW generation. (This tonnage includes
an adjustment for the urine and feces contained within the discarded diapers.) The materials
portion of the diapers includes wood pulp, plastics (including the super-absorbent materials now
present in most diapers), and tissue paper.
No significant recycling or composting of disposable diapers was identified in 2000.
Clothing and Footwear. Generation of clothing and footwear was estimated to be 6.5
million tons in 2000 (2.8 percent of total MSW). Textiles, rubber, and leather are major materials
components of this category, with some plastics present as well. Generation estimates for these
products are based on sales data from the Department of Commerce along with data on average
weights for each type of product included. Adjustments are made for net imports of these
products based on Department of Commerce data.
The Council for Textile Recycling has reported on recovery of textiles for exports,
reprocessing, and reuse. Based on their data, it was estimated that 900,000 tons of textiles in
clothing were recovered for export or recycling in 2000. (Reuse is not counted as recycling and
is discussed in Chapter 3.)
Towels, Sheets, and Pillowcases. An estimated 820,000 tons of towels, sheets, and
pillowcases were generated in 2000. Generation was estimated using a methodology similar to
that for clothing. An estimated 140,000 tons of these textiles were recovered for export or
recycling in 2000.
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables. Generation of other miscellaneous nondurables was
estimated to be 4.0 million tons in 2000 (1.7 percent of MSW). The primary material component
77
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
of miscellaneous nondurables is plastics, although some aluminum, rubber, and textiles also are
present. Typical products in miscellaneous nondurables include shower curtains and other
household items, disposable medical supplies, novelty items, and the like.
Generation of plastic products in miscellaneous nondurables is taken from resin sales
data published annually in Modern Plastics. Generation of other materials in these nondurable
products is estimated based on information in past reports in this series.
Containers and Packaging
Containers and packaging make up a major portion of MSW, amounting to 74.7 million
tons of generation in 2000 (32.2 percent of total generation). Generation in this category was
lower than generation in 1999, primarily because paper and paperboard packaging declined by
1.7 million tons. In that category, corrugated boxes declined by 1.2 million tons. There were
small declines in generation of glass bottles, steel packaging, and aluminum packaging. Plastics
packaging generation showed a small increase, and wood packaging (pallets) also increased.
Generation, recovery, and discards of containers and packaging are shown in detail in Tables 18
through 23.
There is substantial recovery of many container and packaging products, especially
corrugated containers. In 2000, 38.9 percent of containers and packaging generated was
recovered for recycling. Because of this recovery, containers and packaging comprised 28.2
percent of total MSW discards in 2000.
Containers and packaging in MSW are made of several materials: paper and paperboard,
glass, steel, aluminum, plastics, wood, and small amounts of other materials. Material categories
are discussed separately below.
Glass Containers. Glass containers include beer and soft drink bottles (which includes
carbonated drinks and non-carbonated waters, teas, and flavored drinks containing not more than
10 percent fruit juice), wine and liquor bottles, and bottles and jars for food, cosmetics, and other
products. Generation of glass containers is estimated using Department of Commerce data.
78
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Adjustments are made for imports and exports of empty glass containers and of containers
holding products (e.g., imported beer).
Generation of glass containers was 11.2 million tons in 2000, or 4.8 percent of MSW
generation (Tables 18 and 19). While generation increased somewhat between 1998 and 1999, it
was back to 1998 levels in 2000.
The Glass Packaging Institute no longer reports recovery of glass bottles, and no other
data source was found. Therefore, the recovery percentage has been kept constant at 26.3 percent
of generation. An estimated 2.9 million tons of glass containers were recovered for recycling in
2000. Glass container discards thus were 8.3 million tons in 2000, or 5.1 percent of total MSW
discards.
Steel Containers and Packaging. Steel food and other cans, and other steel packaging
(e.g., strapping and steel barrels and drums), totaled 2.9 million tons in 2000 (1.2 percent of total
MSW generation), with most of that amount being cans for food products (Tables 18 and 19).
Generation estimates are based on data supplied by the Steel Recycling Institute (SRI), the
Reusable Industrial Packaging Association, and the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI).
Estimates include adjustments for net imports.
79
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Table 18
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2000
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,920
17,330
1970
14,660
25,060
1980
21 ,800
34,420
1990
29,810
52,170
1995
31,140
57,250
1998
34,360
60,300
1999
35,350
62,990
2000
36,330
63,660
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Food and Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Packaging
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons**
Folding Cartons**
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks'*
Wrapping Papers**
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
Milk Bottles**
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks**
Wraps**
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
1,400
1,080
3,710
6,190
640
3,760
260
4,660
Neg.
Neg.
170
170
7,330
3,840
2,940
14,110
60
60
120
2,000
120
27,370
54,620
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
88,120
5,580
1,900
4,440
11,920
1,570
3,540
270
5,380
100
60
410
570
12,760
4,830
3,810
21 ,400
910
1,180
2,090
2,070
130
43,560
83,280
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
121,060
6,740
2,450
4,780
13,970
520
2,850
240
3,610
850
40
380
1,270
17,080
790
3,820
230
3,380
200
850
26,350
260
230
890
390
840
790
3,400
3,940
130
52,670
108,890
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
151,640
5,640
2,030
4,160
1 1 ,830
150
2,540
200
2,890
1,550
20
330
1,900
24,010
510
4,300
290
2,440
110
1,020
32,680
430
530
1,430
940
1,530
2,040
6,900
8,180
150
64,530
146,510
20,800
35,000
2,900
58,700
205,210
5,120
1,790
4,620
11,530
Neg.
2,690
210
2,900
1,590
40
350
1,980
28,800
510
5,310
260
1,980
70
1,150
38,080
650
620
1,180
1,200
1,710
2,220
7,580
6,170
150
68,390
156,780
21,740
29,690
3,150
54,580
211,360
5,390
1,920
3,880
11,190
Neg.
2,690
250
2,940
1,530
50
370
1,950
29,760
470
5,550
230
1,680
1,420
39,110
820
700
2,330
1,480
1,980
2,580
9,890
7,470
220
72,770
167,430
24,910
27,730
3,290
55,930
223,360
5,620
2,010
3,770
1 1 ,400
Neg.
2,660
240
2,900
1,530
50
380
1,960
31,360
490
5,610
240
1,680
1,750
41,130
810
690
2,640
1,690
2,550
2,680
11,060
7,650
230
76,330
174,670
25,160
27,730
3,380
56,270
230,940
5,860
1,970
3,360
11,190
Neg.
2,640
240
2,880
1,520
50
380
1,950
30,210
490
5,580
200
1,550
1,370
39,400
830
690
2,630
1,650
2,550
2,840
11,190
7,880
240
74,730
174,720
25,900
27,730
3,500
57,130
231 ,850
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1980. Paper wraps not reported separately after 1996.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
80
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 19
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2000
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In percent of total generation)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Percent of Total Generation
1960
1 1 .3%
19.7%
1970
12.1%
20.7%
1980
14.4%
22.7%
1990
14.5%
25.4%
1995 1998
14.7%
27.1%
15.4%
27.0%
1999
15.3%
27.3%
2000
15.7%
27.5%
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Food and Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Packaging
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons**
Folding Cartons**
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks**
Wrapping Papers**
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
Milk Bottles**
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks"
Wraps'*
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
1 .6%
1 .2%
4.2%
7.0%
0.7%
4.3%
0.3%
5.3%
Neg.
Neg.
0.2%
0.2%
8.3%
4.4%
3.3%
16.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
2.3%
0.1%
31.1%
62.0%
13.8%
22.7%
1 .5%
38.0%
100.0%
4.6%
1 .6%
3.7%
9.8%
1 .3%
2.9%
0.2%
4.4%
0.1%
Neg.
0.3%
0.5%
10.5%
4.0%
3.1%
17.7%
0.8%
1 .0%
1 .7%
1 .7%
0.1%
36.0%
68.8%
10.6%
19.2%
1.5%
31 .2%
100.0%
4.4%
1 .6%
3.2%
9.2%
0.3%
1 .9%
0.2%
2.4%
0.6%
Neg.
0.3%
0.8%
11.3%
0.5%
2.5%
0.2%
2.2%
0.1%
0.6%
17.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.6%
0.3%
0.6%
0.5%
2.2%
2.6%
0.1%
34.7%
71 .8%
8.6%
18.1%
1 .5%
28.2%
100.0%
2.7%
1 .0%
2.0%
5.8%
0.1%
1 .2%
0.1%
1 .4%
0.8%
Neg.
0.2%
0.9%
1 1 .7%
0.2%
2.1%
0.1%
1.2%
0.1%
0.5%
15.9%
0.2%
0.3%
0.7%
0.5%
0.7%
1 .0%
3.4%
4.0%
0.1%
31 .4%
71 .4%
10.1%
17.1%
1 .4%
28.6%
100.0%
2.4%
0.8%
2.2%
5.5%
Neg.
1 .3%
0.1%
1 .4%
0.8%
Neg.
0.2%
0.9%
13.6%
0.2%
2.5%
0.1%
0.9%
0.0%
0.5%
18.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.6%
0.6%
0.8%
1.1%
3.6%
2.9%
0.1%
32.4%
74.2%
10.3%
14.0%
1 .5%
25.8%
100.0%
2.4%
0.9%
1 .7%
5.0%
Neg.
1 .2%
0.1%
1 .3%
0.7%
Neg.
0.2%
0.9%
13.3%
0.2%
2.5%
0.1%
0.8%
0.6%
17.5%
0.4%
0.3%
1 .0%
0.7%
0.9%
1 .2%
4.4%
3.3%
0.1%
32.6%
75.0%
1 1 .2%
12.4%
1 .5%
25.0%
100.0%
2.4%
0.9%
1 .6%
4.9%
Neg.
1 .2%
0.1%
1 .3%
0.7%
Neg.
0.2%
0.8%
13.6%
0.2%
2.4%
0.1%
0.7%
0.8%
17.8%
0.4%
0.3%
1.1%
0.7%
1.1%
1 .2%
4.8%
3.3%
0.1%
33.1%
75.6%
10.9%
12.0%
1 .5%
24.4%
100.0%
2.5%
0.8%
1 .4%
4.8%
Neg.
1.1%
0.1%
1 .2%
0.7%
Neg.
0.2%
0.8%
13.0%
0.2%
2.4%
0.1%
0.7%
0.6%
17.0%
0.4%
0.3%
1.1%
0.7%
1.1%
1 .2%
4.8%
3.4%
0.1%
32.2%
75.4%
1 1 .2%
12.0%
1 .5%
24.6%
100.0%
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1980. Paper wraps not reported separately after 1996.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
81
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 20
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2000
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Thousands of Tons
1960
350
2,390
1970
940
3,730
1980
1,360
4,670
1990
3,460
8,800
1995
5,010
13,610
1998
5,710
14,980
1999
5,920
16,130
2000
6,020
18,320
Containers and Packaqinq
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Food and Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons**
Folding Cartons'*
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks**
Wrapping Papers**
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
Milk Bottles**
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks**
Wraps**
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaqinq
Total Containers & Pkq
Total Product Wastes?
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
90
10
Neg.
100
10
20
Neg.
30
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
2,520
220
2,740
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
2,870
5,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
5,610
140
10
Neg.
150
20
60
Neg.
80
10
Neg.
Neg.
10
2,760
350
3,110
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
3,350
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
8,020
730
20
Neg.
750
50
150
Neg.
200
310
Neg.
Neg.
320
6,390
Neg.
520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
300
7,210
10
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
10
Neg.
Neg.
8,490
14,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
14,520
1,890
210
520
2,620
40
590
60
690
990
Neg.
20
1,010
11,530
Neg.
340
Neg.
200
Neg.
Neg.
12,070
140
20
20
30
30
20
260
130
Neg.
16,780
29,040
Neg.
4,200
Neg.
4,200
33,240
1,670
470
1,000
3,140
Neg.
1,510
50
1,560
900
Neg.
30
930
18,480
Neg.
1,080
Neg.
340
Neg.
Neg.
19,900
300
190
150
40
40
20
740
450
Neg.
26,720
45,340
570
9,000
Neg.
9,570
54,910
1,560
440
940
2,940
Neg.
1,500
170
1,670
850
Neg.
30
880
19,790
Neg.
230
Neg.
300
Neg.
20,320
290
220
250
10
120
70
960
490
Neg.
27,260
47,950
580
12,560
Neg.
13,140
61,090
1,590
450
960
3,000
Neg.
1,510
170
1,680
850
Neg.
30
880
20,330
Neg.
400
Neg.
220
Neg.
20,950
290
220
290
10
130
70
1,010
490
Neg.
28,010
50,060
550
14,170
Neg.
14,720
64,780
1,560
440
940
2,940
Neg.
1,510
160
1,670
830
Neg.
40
870
21,360
Neg.
430
Neg.
300
Neg.
22,090
290
210
260
10
170
90
1,030
480
Neg.
29,080
53,420
680
15,770
Neg.
16,450
69,870
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1980. Paper wraps not reported separately after 1996.
t Other than food products.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
82
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 21
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2000
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND
(In percent of generation of each product)
Percent of Generation of Each Product
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
1960 1970 1980 1990
3.5%
13.8%
6.4%
14.9%
6.2%
13.6%
1 1 .6%
16.9%
1995 1998 1999 2000
16.1%
23.8%
16.6%
24.8%
16.7%
25.6%
16.6%
28.8%
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Food and Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons'*
Folding Cartons**
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks**
Wrapping Papers**
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
Milk Bottles**
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks**
Wraps**
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
6.4%
Neg.
Neg.
1 .6%
1.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
34.4%
7.5%
19.4%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
10.5%
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.4%
2.5%
Neg.
Neg.
1 .3%
1 .3%
1 .7%
Neg.
1 .5%
10.0%
Neg.
Neg.
1 .8%
21.6%
9.2%
14.5%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
7.7%
9.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.6%
10.8%
Neg.
Neg.
5.4%
9.6%
5.3%
Neg.
5.5%
36.5%
Neg.
Neg.
25.2%
37.4%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
35.3%
27.4%
3.8%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
16.1%
13.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
9.6%
33.5%
10.3%
12.5%
22.1%
26.7%
23.2%
30.0%
23.9%
63.9%
Neg.
6.1%
53.2%
48.0%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
36.9%
32.6%
3.8%
1 .4%
3.2%
2.0%
1 .0%
3.8%
1 .6%
Neg.
26.0%
19.8%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
7.2%
16.2%
32.6%
26.3%
21.6%
27.2%
Neg.
56.1%
23.8%
53.8%
56.6%
Neg.
8.6%
47.0%
64.2%
Neg.
20.3%
Neg.
17.2%
Neg.
Neg.
52.3%
46.2%
30.6%
12.7%
3.3%
2.3%
0.9%
9.8%
7.3%
Neg.
39.1%
28.9%
2.6%
30.3%
Neg.
17.5%
26.0%
28.9%
22.9%
24.2%
26.3%
Neg.
55.8%
68.0%
56.8%
55.6%
Neg.
8.1%
45.1%
66.5%
Neg.
4.1%
Neg.
17.9%
Neg.
52.0%
35.4%
31.4%
10.7%
0.7%
6.1%
2.7%
9.7%
6.6%
Neg.
37.5%
28.6%
2.3%
45.3%
Neg.
23.5%
27.4%
28.3%
22.4%
25.5%
26.3%
Neg.
56.8%
70.8%
57.9%
55.6%
Neg.
7.9%
44.9%
64.8%
Neg.
7.1%
Neg.
13.1%
Neg.
50.9%
35.8%
31 .9%
11.0%
0.6%
5.1%
2.6%
9.1%
6.4%
Neg.
36.7%
28.7%
2.2%
51.1%
26.2%
28.1%
26.6%
22.3%
28.0%
26.3%
Neg.
57.2%
66.7%
58.0%
54.6%
Neg.
10.5%
44.6%
70.7%
Neg.
7.7%
Neg.
19.4%
Neg.
56.1%
34.9%
30.4%
9.9%
0.6%
6.7%
3.2%
9.2%
6.1%
Neg.
38.9%
30.6%
2.6%
56.9%
28.8%
30.1%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1980. Paper wraps not reported separately after 1996.
t Other than food products.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
83
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight-
Table 22
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2000
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,570
14,940
1970
13,720
21,330
1980
20,440
29,750
1990
26,350
43,370
1995 1998
26,130
43,640
28,650
45,320
1999
29,430
46,860
2000
30,310
45,340
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Food and Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons**
Folding Cartons'*
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks**
Wrapping Papers**
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
Milk Bottles**
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks**
Wraps**
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkq
Total Product Wastes}
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
1,310
1,070
3,710
6,090
630
3,740
260
4,630
Neg.
Neg.
170
170
4,810
3,840
2,720
11,370
60
60
120
2,000
120
24,500
49,010
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
82,510
5,440
1,890
4,440
1 1 ,770
1,550
3,480
270
5,300
90
60
410
560
10,000
4,830
3,460
18,290
910
1,180
2,090
2,070
130
40,210
75,260
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
113,040
6,010
2,430
4,780
13,220
470
2,700
240
3,410
540
40
380
950
10,690
790
3,300
230
3,380
200
550
19,140
250
230
890
390
840
790
3,390
3,940
130
44,180
94,370
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
137,120
3,750
1,820
3,640
9,210
110
1,950
140
2,200
560
20
310
890
12,480
510
3,960
290
2,240
110
1,020
20,610
290
510
1,410
910
1,500
2,020
6,640
8,050
150
47,750
117,470
20,800
30,800
2,900
54,500
171,970
3,450
1,320
3,620
8,390
3,830
1,480
2,940
8,250
Neg. Neg.
1,180
160
1,340
690
40
320
1,050
10,320
510
4,230
260
1,640
70
1,150
18,180
350
430
1,030
1,160
1,670
2,200
6,840
5,720
150
41,670
1 1 1 ,440
21,170
20,690
3,150
45,010
156,450
1,190
80
1,270
680
50
340
1,070
9,970
470
5,320
230
1,380
1,420
18,790
530
480
2,080
1,470
1,860
2,510
8,930
6,980
220
45,510
119,480
24,330
15,170
3,290
42,790
162,270
4,030
1,560
2,810
8,400
Neg.
1,150
70
1,220
680
50
350
1,080
1 1 ,030
490
5,210
240
1,460
1,750
20,180
520
470
2,350
1,680
2,420
2,610
10,050
7,160
230
48,320
124,610
24,610
13,560
3,380
41,550
166,160
4,300
1,530
2,420
8,250
Neg.
1,130
80
1,210
690
50
340
1,080
8,850
490
5,150
200
1,250
1,370
17,310
540
480
2,370
1,640
2,380
2,750
10,160
7,400
240
45,650
121,300
25,220
1 1 ,960
3,500
40,680
161,980
* Discards after materials and compost recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes,
or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1980. Paper wraps not reported separately after 1996.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
84
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 23
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2000
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In percent of total discards)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail In Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Percent of Total Discards
1960
1 1 .6%
18.1%
1970
12.1%
18.9%
1980
14.9%
21.7%
1990
15.3%
25.2%
1995
16.7%
27.9%
1998
17.7%
27.9%
1999
17.7%
28.2%
2000
18.7%
28.0%
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Food and Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons"
Folding Cartons"
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks'*
Wrapping Papers**
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
Milk Bottles**
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks**
Wraps**
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
1 .6%
1 .3%
4.5%
7.4%
0.8%
4.5%
0.3%
5.6%
Neg.
Neg.
0.2%
0.2%
5.8%
4.7%
3.3%
13.8%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
2.4%
0.1%
29.7%
59.4%
14.8%
24.2%
1 .6%
40.6%
100.0%
4.8%
1 .7%
3.9%
10.4%
1.4%
3.1%
0.2%
4.7%
0.1%
Neg.
0.4%
0.5%
8.8%
4.3%
3.1%
16.2%
0.8%
1 .0%
1 .8%
1 .8%
0.1%
35.6%
66.6%
11.3%
20.5%
1 .6%
33.4%
100.0%
4.4%
1.8%
3.5%
9.6%
0.3%
2.0%
0.2%
2.5%
0.4%
Neg.
0.3%
0.7%
7.8%
0.6%
2.4%
0.2%
2.5%
0.1%
0.4%
14.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.6%
0.3%
0.6%
0.6%
2.5%
2.9%
0.1%
32.2%
68.8%
9.5%
20.1%
1 .6%
31.2%
100.0%
2.2%
1.1%
2.1%
5.4%
0.1%
1.1%
0.1%
1 .3%
0.3%
Neg.
0.2%
0.5%
7.3%
0.3%
2.3%
0.2%
1 .3%
0.1%
0.6%
12.0%
0.2%
0.3%
0.8%
0.5%
0.9%
1 .2%
3.9%
4.7%
0.1%
27.8%
68.3%
12.1%
17.9%
1 .7%
31 .7%
100.0%
2.2%
0.8%
2.3%
5.4%
Neg.
0.8%
0.1%
0.9%
0.4%
Neg.
0.2%
0.7%
6.6%
0.3%
2.7%
0.2%
1 .0%
0.0%
0.7%
1 1 .6%
0.2%
0.3%
0.7%
0.7%
1.1%
1 .4%
4.4%
3.7%
0.1%
26.6%
71 .2%
13.5%
13.2%
2.0%
28.8%
100.0%
2.4%
0.9%
1 .8%
5.1%
Neg.
0.7%
0.0%
0.8%
0.4%
Neg.
0.2%
0.7%
6.1%
0.3%
3.3%
0.1%
0.9%
0.9%
1 1 .6%
0.3%
0.3%
1 .3%
0.9%
1.1%
1 .5%
5.5%
4.3%
0.1%
28.0%
73.6%
15.0%
9.3%
2.0%
26.4%
100.0%
2.4%
0.9%
1 .7%
5.1%
Neg.
0.7%
0.0%
0.7%
0.4%
Neg.
0.2%
0.6%
6.6%
0.3%
3.1%
0.1%
0.9%
1.1%
12.1%
0.3%
0.3%
1 .4%
1 .0%
1 .5%
1 .6%
6.0%
4.3%
0.1%
29.1%
75.0%
14.8%
8.2%
2.0%
25.0%
100.0%
2.7%
0.9%
1 .5%
5.1%
Neg.
0.7%
0.0%
0.7%
0.4%
Neg.
0.2%
0.7%
5.5%
0.3%
3.2%
0.1%
0.8%
0.8%
10.7%
0.3%
0.3%
1.5%
1.0%
1 .5%
1 .7%
6.3%
4.6%
0.1%
28.2%
74.9%
15.6%
7.4%
2.2%
25.1%
100.0%
* Discards after materials and compost recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes,
or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1980. Paper wraps not reported separately after 1996.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
85
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight-
The Steel Recycling Institute provided recovery data for steel containers and packaging.
An estimated 1.7 million tons of steel packaging were recovered in 2000, or 58 percent of
generation. The SRI estimates include recovery from residential sources, pre-combustion and
post-combustion magnetic separation of steel cans and other ferrous products at MSW
combustion facilities, and recycling of drums and barrels not suitable for reconditioning.
Aluminum Containers and Packaging. Aluminum containers and packaging include
beer and soft drink cans (including all carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks, tea, tonic,
waters, and juice beverages), other cans, and foil and closures. Aluminum can generation had
been estimated based on can shipments data from the Can Manufacturers Institute and can
weight data from the Aluminum Association, while data on other aluminum packaging is based
on Department of Commerce data.
In 1996, the Can Manufacturers Association began publishing data on consumption of
beverages in cans. The consumption data are adjusted for imports and exports of beverages in
cans, and therefore are more accurate for generation calculations than shipments alone. The
generation methodology was therefore revised to use consumption data. Total aluminum
container and packaging generation in 2000 was 2.0 million tons, or 0.8 percent of total MSW
generation.
Formerly, aluminum can recovery data were obtained from the Aluminum Association.
More recently, the aluminum can recovery methodology was revised to account for imports of
used beverage cans (UBC); these imports have been increasing in recent years. The imported
UBC tonnage is now subtracted from the tonnage of UBC reported by the Aluminum
Association to have been melted by U.S. end users and recovered for export.* The effect of this
change is to lower the aluminum beverage can recovery rate.
Note, however, that the imported UBC do contribute to recycled aluminum content in can sheet and other
aluminum products.
86
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Recovery of aluminum beverage cans in 2000 was 0.8 million tons, or 54.6 percent of
generation. Recovery of all aluminum packaging was estimated to be 44.6 percent of total
generation in 2000. After recovery for recycling, 1.1 million tons of aluminum packaging were
discarded in 2000.
Paper and Paperboard Containers and Packaging. Corrugated boxes are the largest
single product category of MSW at 30.2 million tons generated, or 13 percent of total generation,
in 2000. Corrugated boxes also represent the largest single category of product recovery, at 21.4
million tons of recovery in 2000 (70.7 percent of boxes generated were recovered). After
recovery, 8.9 million tons of corrugated boxes were discarded, or 5.5 percent of MSW discards
in 2000.
Other paper and paperboard packaging in MSW includes milk cartons, folding boxes
(e.g., cereal boxes, frozen food boxes, some department store boxes), bags and sacks, and other
paper and paperboard packaging. Overall, paper and paperboard containers and packaging
totaled 39.4 million tons of MSW generation in 2000, or 17 percent of total generation.
While recovery of corrugated boxes is by far the largest component of paper packaging
recovery, smaller amounts of other paper packaging products are recovered (estimated at
730,000 tons in 2000). The overall recovery rate for paper and paperboard packaging in 2000
was 56.1 percent. Other paper and paperboard packaging such as folding boxes and sacks is
generally recovered as mixed papers.
Plastic Containers and Packaging. Many different plastic resins are used to make a
variety of packaging products. Some of these include polyethylene terephthalate soft drink
bottles, high-density polyethylene milk and water jugs, film products (including bags and sacks)
made of low-density polyethylene, and other containers and other packaging (including coatings,
closures, etc.) made of polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, polypropylene, and other resins.
Estimates of generation of plastic containers and packaging are based on data on resin sales by
end use published annually by Modern Plastics, a trade publication, and the American Plastics
Council's annual plastics recovery survey.
87
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Plastic containers and packaging have exhibited rapid growth in MSW, with generation
increasing from 120,000 tons in 1960 (0.1 percent of generation) to 11.2 million tons in 2000
(4.8 percent of MSW generation). (Note: plastic packaging as a category in this report does not
include single-service plates and cups and trash bags, which are classified as nondurable goods.)
Estimates of recovery of plastic products are based on data published annually by the
American Plastics Council. Plastic soft drink bottles were estimated to have been recovered at a
34.9 percent rate in 2000 (290,000 tons). Recovery of plastic milk and water bottles was
estimated to have been 210,000 tons, or 30.4 percent of generation. Overall, recovery of plastic
containers and packaging was estimated to be 1.0 ton, or 9.2 percent, in 2000. Discards of plastic
packaging thus were 10.2 million tons in 2000, or 6.3 percent of total MSW discards.
Wood Packaging. Wood packaging includes wood crates and pallets (mostly pallets).
Data on production of wood packaging are from the National Wooden Pallet and Container
Association and, more recently, the USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station and
Virginia Polytechnic Institute. In 2000, 7.9 million tons of wood pallets and other wood
packaging were estimated to have been generated, or 3.4 percent of total MSW generation.
Wood pallet recovery for recycling (usually by chipping for uses such as mulch or
bedding material, but excluding wood combusted as fuel) was estimated at 480,000 tons in 2000.
A considerable number of pallets are refurbished and reused (see Chapter 3).
Wood packaging discards were estimated to have been 7.4 million tons in 2000, or 4.6
percent of total MSW discards.
Other Packaging. Estimates are included for some other miscellaneous packaging such
as bags made of textiles, small amounts of leather, and the like. These latter quantities are not
well documented; it was estimated that 240,000 tons were generated in 2000.
-------
•Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Summary of Products in Municipal Solid Waste
The materials composition of municipal solid waste generation by product category is
illustrated in Figure 14. This figure shows graphically that generation of durable goods has
increased very gradually over the years. Nondurable goods and containers and packaging have
accounted for the large increases in MSW generation.
The materials composition of nondurable goods in 2000 is shown in Figure 15. Paper and
paperboard made up 74 percent of nondurables in MSW generation, with plastics contributing 9
percent, and textiles 10 percent. Other materials contributed lesser percentages. After recovery
for recycling, paper and paperboard were 66 percent of nondurable discards, with plastics being
13 percent, and textiles 12 percent.
The materials composition of containers and packaging in MSW in 2000 is shown in
Figure 16. By weight, paper and paperboard products made up 53 percent of containers and
packaging generation, with glass and plastics each accounting for 15 percent. Wood was 11
percent, and metals were 6 percent.
Figure 14. Generation of products in MSW, 1960 to 2000
1960
1965
1985
89
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Figure 15. Nondurable goods generated and discarded
in municipal solid waste, 2000
(In percent of total generation and discards)
Rubber & leather
1%
Paper & paperboard
74%
Generation
Textiles
12%
Rubbers leather
2%
Plastics
13%
Paper& paperboard
66%
Discards
90
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 16. Containers and packaging generated and discarded
in municipal solid waste, 2000
(In percent of total generation and discards)
Plastics
15%
Wood
11%
Metals
6%
Plastics
22%
Metals
5%
Generation
Paper & paperboard
53%
Paper & paperboard
38%
Discards
91
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight '
The percentage of materials discards from containers and packaging is affected by
recovery for recycling. After recovery for recycling, paper and paperboard dropped to 38 percent
of discards. Glass containers accounted for 18 percent of discards of containers and packaging,
plastics were 22 percent, wood was 17 percent, and metals were 5 percent.
SUMMARY
The data presented in this chapter can be summarized by the following observations:
MSW Generation
• Total generation of municipal solid waste in 2000 was 231.9 million tons, only 0.3
percent higher than generation in 1999 (230.9 million tons). By contrast, the increase
from 1998 to 1999 was 3.3 percent. In 1990, total MSW generation was 205.2 million
tons.
• Paper and paperboard products made up the largest percentage of all materials in
MSW, at 37.4 percent of total generation. Generation of paper and paperboard
products did, however, decline from 88.3 million tons in 1999 to 86.7 million tons in
2000. (The decline was almost certainly due to economic conditions.) Paper and
paperboard products have ranged between 37 and 38 percent of generation for the
past few years.
• Yard trimmings comprised the second largest material category, estimated at 27.7
million tons, or 12 percent of total generation, in 2000. This compares to 35.0 million
tons (17.1 percent of total generation) in 1990. This decline is largely due to state
legislation affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills, including source reduction
measures such as backyard composting and leaving grass trimmings on the yard.
• Plastic products generation in 2000 was 24.7 million tons, or 10.7 percent of
generation. This was a growth of 630,000 tons (2.5 percent) from 1999 to 2000. Most
of this increase in plastics generation came from the durable goods category. By
contrast, plastics generation increased by 7.6 percent from 1998 to 1999.
MSW Recovery
• Recovery of materials in MSW increased from 64.8 million tons in 1999 (28.1
percent of total generation) to 69.9 million tons in 2000 (30.1 percent of generation).
92
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
• Recovery of products and other wastes in MSW increased by 5.1 million tons from
1999 to 2000. Recovery of paper and paperboard products accounted for most of this
increase by growing 3.3 million tons over recovery in 1999. Recovery of paper and
paperboard was up from 40.9 percent in 1999 to 45.4 percent in 2000.
• The increase in recovery of paper and paperboard products has been due to increases
in recovery, over time, from all categories: corrugated boxes, newspapers, and
printing-writing papers such as office papers, books, magazines, directories, Standard
(A) mail (catalogs, circulars, etc.), and other commercial printing. Key categories
whose recovery rose from 1999 to 2000 include corrugated boxes, newspapers, office
papers, Standard (A) mail, and other commercial printing. Recovery of corrugated
boxes increased from 20.3 million tons in 1999 to 21.4 million tons in 2000 (from
64.8 percent of generation to 70.7 percent of generation). Newspaper recovery
increased from 8.0 million tons in 1999 to 8.8 million tons in 2000 (from 54.1 percent
of generation to 58.2 percent of generation). Recovery of office-type (high grade)
papers increased from 3.6 million tons in 1999 to 4.1 million tons in 2000 (from 47.1
percent of generation to 54.1 percent of generation). Recovery of Standard (A) mail
and other commercial printing both increased by an estimated 420,000 tons from
1999 to 2000.
• Containers and packaging led the major product categories in tonnage and percentage
recovery, increasing from 28.0 million tons in 1999 to 29.1 million tons (38.9 percent
of generation) in 2000. Nondurable goods had the second-highest tonnage recovery in
2000—18.3 million tons, or 28.8 percent of generation.
• Measured by tonnage, the most-recovered products and materials in 2000 were
corrugated boxes (21.4 million tons), yard trimmings (15.8 million tons), newspapers
(8.8 million tons), high-grade office papers (4.1 million tons), glass containers (2.9
million tons), and steel from major appliances (2.0 million tons). Collectively, these
products accounted for nearly 79 percent of total MSW recovery in 2000.
• Measured by percentage of generation, products and other wastes with the highest
recovery rates in 2000 were lead-acid batteries (96.4 percent), corrugated boxes (70.7
percent), newspapers (58.2 percent), steel packaging (58 percent), yard trimmings
(56.9 percent), steel in major appliances (54.9 percent of total appliance generation),
aluminum beverage cans (54.6 percent), and office papers (54.1 percent).
Long-Term Trends
• Generation of MSW has increased (except in some recession years), from 88.1
million tons in 1960 to 231.9 million tons in 2000.
• Generation of paper and paperboard, the largest material component of MSW, has
increased almost every year (1996 and 2000 were exceptions). Generation of yard
trimmings, the second largest component, has remained stable during recent years.
93
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
• State legislation affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills and source reduction
measures at residences have helped contain generation of yard trimmings. Generation
of other materials is generally on an upward trend, although glass generation has
declined in some years, including 2000.
• In percentage of total MSW generation, recovery for recycling (including
composting) did not exceed 15 percent until 1990. Growth in the recovery rate to
current levels (30.1 percent) reflects a rapid increase in the infrastructure for recovery
starting in the late 1980s.
• Recovery (as a percentage of generation) of most materials in MSW has increased
dramatically over the 40 years for which statistics have been tabulated. Some
examples:
1960 1980 1990 2000
Paper and paperboard 17% 21% 28% 45%
Glass 2% 5% 20% 23%
Metals 1% 8% 24% 35%
Plastics - <1% 2% 5%
Yard trimmings - - 12% 57%
94
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
CHAPTER 2
REFERENCES
GENERAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 1999 Facts
and Figures. EPA/530-R-01-014. July 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1997 Update. EPAy530-R-98-007. May 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1996 Update. EPA/530-R-97-015. June 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1995 Update. EPA/530-R-96-001. November 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1994 Update. EPA/530-R-94-042. November 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1992 Update. EPA/530-R-92-019. July 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1990 Update. EPA/530-SW-90-042. June 1991.
Franklin, M.A. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000
(Update 1988). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/530-SW-88-033. NTIS PB88-
232780/WEP. March 1988.
Franklin, M.A. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. REPT-15-3490-00. NTIS PB87-178323/WEP. July
1986.
ALUMINUM CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING
The Aluminum Association. Aluminum Statistical Review. Various years.
The Aluminum Association, .
Can Manufacturers Institute. Can Shipments Report. Various years.
Resource Recycling's Container Recycling Update. Various issues.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Closures for
Containers." MQ34H. Various years.
95
-------
Chapter2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Merchandise Trade (7602.00.0030 -
Aluminum Used Beverage Container Scrap SEC 9100).
CARPETS AND RUGS
The Carpet and Rug Institute. Carpet & Rug Industry Review. Various years.
Modern Plastics. "Resin Statistics." January issue. Various years.
Personal communication with a representative of the Carpet and Rug Institute. February 14,
1992.
Rauch Associates, Inc. The Ranch Guide to the U.S. Adhesives and Sealants Industry. ISBN O-
932157-05-X.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Carpets and
Rugs." MA22Q. Various years.
DISPOSABLE DIAPERS
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Confidential industry sources.
Kimberly-Clark. Annual Report. Various years.
Ninner, N.R., A.M. Sterling, and A.R. Liss. Female Incontinence. 1980.
FOOD SCRAPS
California Integrated Waste Management Board. "Waste Disposal Rates for Business Types."
.
Food Manufacturers Institute. "Reducing Waste Disposal Costs: How to Evaluate the Benefits of
Composting in the Supermarket Industry." Composting Workbook. 1994.
Goldstein, Nora. "National Trends in Food Residuals Composting Part I." BioCycle. July 1997.
Goldstein, Nora and Dave Block. "Nationwide Inventory of Food Residuals Composting Part II."
BioCycle. August 1997.
Goldstein, Nora, Jim Glenn, and Kevin Gray. "Nationwide Overview of Food Residuals
Composting." BioCycle. August 1998.
Grocery Committee on Solid Waste. Composting Task Force Report. October 24, 1991.
Hinshaw, Jane, and Ivan Braun. "Targeting Commercial Businesses for Recycling." Resource
Recycling. November 1991.
96
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Kunzler, Conni, and Molly Farrell. "Food Service Composting Projects Update." BioCycle. May
1996.
Kunzler, Conni, and Rebecca Roe. "Food Service Composting Projects on the Rise." BioCycle.
April 1995.
Luboff, Christine, and Karen May. "Measuring Generation of Food Residuals." July 1995.
Marion, James, New York State Department of Corrections. Presentation at the BioCycle
conference. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1994.
Newell, Ty, Elizabeth Markstahler, and Matthew Snyder. "Commercial Food Waste from
Restaurants and Grocery Stores." Resource Recycling. February 1993.
Savage, George M. "The History and Utility of Waste Characterization Studies." MSW
Management. May/June 1994.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Estimating and Addressing America's Food Losses."
Economic Research Service, . July 1997.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1996."
Economic Research Service. Judith Jones Putnam. April 1996.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Combined Annual and Revised Monthly
Retail Trade." Current Business Reports. BR/95-RV.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Monthly Retail Trade." Current
Business Reports. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports. Various
years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. "Trends and Forecasts: Retail Sales." U.S. Industrial Outlook
1994.
Walsh, Patrick, Wayne Pferdehirt, and Phil O'Leary. "Collection of Recyclables from
Multifamily Housing and Businesses." Waste Age. April 1993.
FURNITURE AND FURNISHINGS
Smith, F.L. A Solid Waste Estimation Procedure: Material Flows Approach. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA/530-SW-147. May 1974.
97
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Spendlove, MJ. "A Profile of the Nonferrous Secondary Metals Industry." U.S. Bureau of
Mines. Proceedings of the Second Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium. 1970.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures and Annual
Survey of Manufactures. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Average
Weight and Width of Broadwoven Fabrics (Gray)." MC-22T. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Office
Furniture." MA-25H. Various years.
GLASS CONTAINERS
Bingham, T.H., et al. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost of Regulatory and Fiscal
Policy Instruments on Product Packaging. Research Triangle Institute for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management. March 1974.
Brewers Almanac. Various years.
Egan, Katherine. "Glass Recycling Rate Drops Seven Percent in 1997." Waste Age's Recycling
Times. June 1, 1998.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Baseline. Prepared
for the Resource Conservation Committee. May 16, 1979.
Franklin, W.E., et al. Base Line Forecasts of Resource Recovery, 1972 to 1990. Midwest
Research Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs. March 1975.
Glass Packaging Institute. Annual Report. Various years.
Resource Recycling, Container Recycling Update. Various issues.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Glass
Containers." M32G. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Exports, Schedule B Commodity by Country - Domestic
Merchandise. FT 447. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports for Consumption. FT 247. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports of Merchandise for Consumption. FT 110 and FT
125. Various years.
98
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
LEAD-ACID BATTERIES
American Automobile Manufacturers Association. AAMA Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures.
Various years.
Battery Council International. Industry Statistics. Various years.
Battery Council International. National Recycling Rate Study. March 1995.
Battery Council International. National Recycling Rate Study. December 1996.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Products Containing Lead and Cadmium in
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA/530-SW-89-015A. NTIS PB89-151039/WEP. January 1989.
Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. Motorcycle Statistical Annual. Various years.
U. S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports By Commodity. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook "Metals." Various years.
MAJOR APPLIANCES
American Iron and Steel Institute Annual Statistical Report. Various years.
Appliance Magazine. Corcoran Communications. September 1983.
Appliance Manufacturer. Annual Industry Marketing Guide, March issue of various years.
Appliance Manufacturer. Market Profile. Various years.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Trends and Forecasts. 1971 to 1988.
Electrical Merchandising. January 1951.
Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association. Statistical Highlights. Various years.
National Industrial Pollution Control Council. The Disposal of Major Appliances. June 1971.
Personal communication with a representative of Amana, Inc. November 1991.
Personal communication with a representative of Steel Recycling Institute. August 1997.
Sears, Roebuck and Co. Spring and Fall Retail Catalogs. Various years.
99
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Major
Household Appliances." MA36F. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Various years.
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
American Forest & Paper Association, Paper Recycling Group. Annual Statistical Summary
Waste Paper Utilization. Various years.
American Forest & Paper Association. Statistics of Paper, Paperboard & Wood Pulp. Various
years.
American Forest & Paper Association. Paper, Paperboard, Pulp Capacity and Fiber
Consumption. Various years.
American Forest & Paper Association. Monthly Statistical Report. Various issues.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Evaluation of Proposed New Recycled Paper Standards and
Definitions. Special Task Force on Standards and Definitions, Recycled Paper Committee,
Recycling Advisory Council. January 27, 1992.
U.S. Postal Service. Annual Report of the Postmaster General. Various years.
Yellow Pages Publishers Association. Yellow Pages Publishers Environmental Network:
Progress Report for the Year 1996. March 1997.
PLASTICS
Modern Plastics. Resin Statistics. January issue. Various years.
R.W. Beck and Associates. "Postconsumer Plastics Recycling Rate Study." American Plastics
Council. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook. Various years.
RUBBER
American Automobile Manufacturers Association. AAMA Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures.
Various years.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Markets for Scrap Tires. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA/530-SW-90-07A. October 1991.
100
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
International Tire and Rubber Association, Inc. formerly American Retreader's Association, Inc.
Louisville, Kentucky.
International Tire and Rubber Association, Inc. The Tire Retreading/Repair Journal. April 1997.
McRee, Robert E. "Recap - Recapture: Incineration of Rubber for Energy Recovery" Presented
at the Joint NTDRA/RMA International Symposium. Washington, DC. October 22, 1982.
National Petroleum News Market Facts. Mid-June issue. Various years.
Personal communication with the Scrap Tire Management Council. September 1996.
Retreader's Journal. April 1987.
Rubber Manufacturers Association. .
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight'
Can Manufacturers Institute. Can Shipments Report. Various years.
Personal communication with a representative of the Association of Container Reconditioning.
June 1994.
Personal communications with representatives of the Steel Recycling Institute. Various years.
Smith, F.L. A Solid Waste Estimation Procedure: Material Flows Approach. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA/530-SW-147. May 1974.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Closures for
Containers." MQ34H. Various years.
TEXTILES AND FOOTWEAR
Council for Textile Recycling. Textile Recycling Fact Sheet.
J.C. Penney's Catalog. 1990.
National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers. Fact Sheet. Various years.
Riggle, David. "Tapping Textile Recycling." BioCycle. February 1992.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Apparel."
MA23A, MA23E, MA23G. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Sheets,
Towels and Pillowcases." MQ23X. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. MA31 A,
MQ31A, MA23E, MA23G, and MA23A. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Various years.
Spiegel Catalog. Fall/winter 1997.
WOOD PACKAGING
Araman, Phillip and Robert Bush. "An Update on the Pallet Industry." Brooks Forest Products
Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Release pending.
Araman, Phillip and Robert Bush. "Use of New Wood Pallets, Containers is Stagnant to
Declining." Pallet Enterprise. September 1997.
102
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Eshbach, Ovid, Ed. Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals. Second Edition. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Hardwood Market Report. February 28, 1998.
Personal communication with representative of the National Wooden Pallet and Container
Association. September 1996.
Personal communication with representative of the U.S. Forestry Service Laboratory, Princeton,
NJ. December 1991.
Personal communication with representative of U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
Forest Products Laboratory. December 1991.
Personal communication with representative of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute. December
1991.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. Wood Used in U.S.
Manufacturing Industries, 1977. December 1983.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southern Research Center and Brooks Forest
Products Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, .
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook. "Wood Products." Various years.
YARD TRIMMINGS
Composting Council Research and Education Foundation. "1995 Compost Capacity Survey."
James Butler and Associates. October 1996.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the
Year 2000. Appendix J and Appendix K. Keep America Beautiful, Inc. September 1994.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Survey of Selected State Officials. September 1997.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Survey of Selected State Officials. July 2001.
Glenn, Jim. "The State of Garbage in America Part I." BioCycle. April 1998.
Goldstein, Nora. "The State of Garbage in America Part II." BioCycle. November 2000.
Goldstein, Nora and Jim Glenn. "The State of Garbage in America Part I." BioCycle. April 1997.
Goldstein, Nora and Jim Glenn. "The State of Garbage in America Part II." BioCycle. May 1997.
Raymond Communications. "State Recycling Laws Update." Various years.
103
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight-
Savage, George M. "The History and Utility of Waste Characterization Studies." MSW
Management. May/June 1994.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America, Part I." BioCycle. April 1995.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America, Part II." BioCycle. May 1995.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America, Part II." BioCycle. May 1996.
"Yard Waste Legislation: Disposal Bans and Similar Bills as of July, 1993." Composting
Council. Fact Sheet. July 1993.
104
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
CHAPTER 3
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
INTRODUCTION
EPA's tiered integrated waste management strategy includes the following components:
1. Source reduction (including reuse of products and backyard composting of yard
trimmings).
2. Recycling of materials (including composting).
3. Waste combustion (preferably with energy recovery) and landfilling.
The three components are put into context in Figure 17.
This chapter addresses how source reduction activities are included within an integrated
waste management system. Source reduction activities have the effect of reducing MSW
generation, while other management alternatives deal with MSW once it is generated. National
estimates of source reduction can be found in Chapter 4.
Estimates of the historical recovery of materials for recycling, including yard trimmings
for composting, are presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents estimates of MSW combustion. It
also presents estimates for quantities of waste landfilled, which are obtained by subtracting the
amounts recovered for recycling (including composting) and the amounts combusted from total
MSW generation.
Also included in this chapter is a discussion of the current MSW management
infrastructure. Current solid waste collection, processing, and disposal programs and facilities
are highlighted with tables and figures.
105
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste'
Figure
Changes in
package
design
t
1
17. Diagram of Solid Waste Management
Generation
of waste for
Changes in
purchasing
habits
t
j
management
Changes in
industrial
practices
t
|
Backyard Increased Other
composting, reuse changes in
grasscycling use patterns
Recovery for
recycling (including
composting)
t ,
r
Combustion
disposal
Landfill
disposal
SOURCE REDUCTION
WASTE REDUCTION
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
SOURCE REDUCTION
Source reduction is gaining more attention as an important solid waste management
option. Source reduction, often called "waste prevention," is defined by EPA as "any change in
the design, manufacturing, purchase, or use of materials or products (including packaging) to
reduce their amount or toxicity before they become municipal solid waste. Prevention also refers
to the reuse of products or materials." Thus, source reduction activities affect the waste stream
before the point of generation. In this report, MSW is considered to have been generated if it is
placed at curbside or in a receptacle such as a dumpster for pickup, or if it is taken by the
generator to another site for recycling (including composting) or disposal.
Source reduction encompasses a very broad range of activities by private citizens,
communities, commercial establishments, institutional agencies, and manufacturers and
distributors. Examples of source reduction actions are shown in Table 24 and include:
• Redesigning products or packages so as to reduce the quantity of materials or the
toxicity of the materials used, by substituting lighter materials for heavier ones and
lengthening the life of products to postpone disposal.
• Using packaging that reduces the amount of damage or spoilage to the product.
106
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
• Reducing amounts of products or packages used through modification of current
practices by processors and consumers.
• Reusing products or packages already manufactured.
• Managing non-product organic wastes (food scraps, yard trimmings) through
backyard composting or other on-site alternatives to disposal.
Table 24
SELECTED EXAMPLES OF SOURCE REDUCTION PRACTICES
Source Reduction Practice
Materials reduction
Materials substitution
Lengthen life
MSW Product Categories
Durable Nondurable
Goods Goods
• Downgauge metals in • Paperless purchase
appliances orders
• Use of composites
in appliances and
electronic circuitry
• High mileage tires • Regular servicing
• Electronic components • Look at warranties
reduce moving parts • Extend warranties
Containers &
Packaging
- Concentrates
Organics
• Xeriscaping
• Cereal in bags
• Coffee brick
* Multi-use products
• Design for secondary
uses
Colrisuufer-Hi'aclijces '.•.•.'.'.•.•.'.'.•.•.'.'.•,•.'.'.•.•.'.'.'.•.'.•.•.•.'.•.•.'.'.•.'.'.'.•.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
By design
Secondary
• Purchase long lived
products
• Modular design
• Borrow or rent for
temporary use
• Give to charity
• Buy or sell at
garage sales
• Repair
• Duplexing
• Sharing
• Reduce unwanted
mail
• Envelopes
• Clothing
• Waste paper
scratch pads
• Purchasing:
products in bulk,
concentrates
• Pallets
• Returnable secondary
packaging
• Loosefill
• Grocery sacks
• Dairy containers
• Glass and plastic jars
Reduce/Eliminate Toxins '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'*'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
• Eliminate PCBs
* Soy ink, waterbased
* Waterbased solvents
« Reduce mercury
• Replace lead foil on
wine bottles
Rjettuce O^ganiCs. •.'.•.'.'.' .m .'.'.' .m .'.'.' .m .•.'.'.'.•.• .m .m .'.' .m .'.' .\m .'.•.•.'.'.'.•.•.•.• .f .•.'.'.'.'.•.'
Food scraps
Yard trimmings
• Backyard composting
• Vermi-composting
• Backyard composting
• Grasscycling
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
107
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste'
Source Reduction Through Redesign
Since source reduction of products and packages can save money by reducing materials
and energy costs, manufacturers and packaging designers have been pursuing these activities for
many years. Combined with other source reduction measures, redesign can have a significant
effect on material use and eventual discards. Design for source reduction can take several
approaches.
Materials substitution can make a product or package lighter. For example, there has
been a continuous trend of substitution of lighter materials such as plastics and aluminum for
materials such as glass and steel. The substitution also may involve a flexible package instead of
a rigid package. A product or package can be redesigned to reduce weight or volume. Toxic
materials in products or packaging can be replaced with non-toxic substitutes. Considerable
efforts have been made in this area in the past few years.
Lengthening product life delays the time when the product enters the municipal waste
stream. The responsibility for lengthening product life lies partly with manufacturers and partly
with consumers. Manufacturers can design products to last longer and be easier to repair. Since
some of these design modifications may make products more expensive, at least initially,
manufacturers must be willing to invest in new product development, and consumers must
demand the products and be willing to pay for them to make the goal work. Consumers and
manufacturers also must be willing to care for and repair products.
Modifying Practices To Reduce Materials Use
Businesses and individuals often can modify their current practices to reduce the amounts
of waste generated. In a business office, electronic mail can replace printed memoranda and data.
Reports can be copied on both sides of the paper (duplexed). Modifying practices can be
combined with other source reduction measures to reduce generation and limit material use.
108
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Individuals and businesses can request removal from mailing lists to reduce the amount
of mail received and discarded. When practical, products can be purchased in large sizes or in
bulk to minimize the amount of packaging per unit of product. Concentrated products also can
reduce packaging requirements; some of these products, such as fabric softeners and powdered
detergent, are designed for use with refillable containers.
Reuse of Products and Packages
Similar to lengthening product life, reuse of products and packages delays the time when
the items must finally be discarded as waste. When a product is reused, presumably purchase and
use of a new product is delayed, although this may not always be true.
Many of the products characterized for this report are reused in sizable quantities (e.g.,
furniture, wood pallets, and clothing). The recovery of products and materials for recycling
(including composting) as characterized in Chapter 2 does not include reuse of products, but
reuse is discussed in this section.
Durable Goods. There is a long tradition of reuse of durable goods such as large and
small appliances, furniture, and carpets. Often this is done informally as individuals pass on used
goods to family members and friends. Other durable goods are donated to charitable
organizations for resale or use by needy families. Some communities and other organizations
have facilitated exchange programs for citizens, and there are for-profit retail stores that deal in
used furniture, appliances, and carpets. Individuals resell other at garage sales, flea markets, and
the like. Borrowing and sharing items like tools also can reduce the number of products
ultimately discarded. There is generally a lack of data on the volume of durable goods reused in
the United States and what the ultimate effect on MSW generation might be.
Nondurable Goods. While nondurable goods by their very nature are designed for short-
term use and disposal, there is considerable reuse of some items classified as nondurable. In
particular, footwear, clothing, and other textile goods often are reused. Much of the reuse is
accomplished through the same types of channels as those described above for durable goods.
That is, private individuals, charitable organizations, and retail outlets (consignment shops) all
109
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste'
facilitate reuse of discarded clothing and footwear. In addition, considerable amounts of textiles
are reused as wiping cloths before being discarded.
Another often-cited waste prevention measure is the use of washable plates, cups,
napkins, towels, diapers, and other such products, instead of the disposable variety. (This will
reduce solid waste but will have other environmental effects, such as increased water and energy
use.) Other reusable items are available, for example: reusable air filters, reusable coffee filters,
and reconditioned printer cartridges.
Containers and Packaging. Containers and packaging can be reused in two ways: they
can be used again for their original purpose, or they can be used in other ways.
Glass bottles are a prime example of reuse of a container for its original purpose.
Refillable glass beer and soft drink bottles can be collected, washed, and refilled for use again.
Some years ago large numbers of refillable glass soft drink bottles were used, but single-use
glass bottles, plastic bottles, and aluminum cans have largely replaced these. Considerable
numbers of beer bottles are collected for refilling, often by restaurants and taverns, where the
bottles can easily be collected and returned by the distributor. The Glass Packaging Institute
estimates that refillable glass bottles achieve a rate of 8 trips (refillings) per bottle.
Another example in this category is the use of refurbished wood pallets for shipping
palletized goods. Based on USD A Forest Service data, more than 6 million tons of wood pallets
were refurbished and returned to service in 2000. It also is common practice to recondition steel
drums and barrels for reuse.
Many other containers and packages can be recycled, but are not often reused. Some
refillable containers (e.g., plastic laundry softener bottles) have been introduced: the original
container can be refilled using concentrate purchased in small packages. This practice can
achieve a notable source reduction in packaging. As another example, some grocery stores will
allow customers to reuse grocery sacks, perhaps allowing a refund for each sack brought back
for reuse. Also, many parcel shippers will take back plastic packaging "peanuts" for reuse.
110
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Many ingenious reuses for containers and packaging are possible in the home. People
reuse boxes, bags, jars, jugs, and cans for many purposes around the house. There are no reliable
estimates as to how these activities affect the waste stream.
Management of Organic Materials
Food scraps and yard trimmings combined made up about 23 percent of MSW generation
in 2000, so source reduction measures aimed at these products can have an important effect on
waste generation. Composting is the usual method for recovering these organic materials. As
defined in this report, composting of organic materials after they are taken to a central
composting facility is a waste management activity comparable to recovery for recycling.
Estimates for these offsite composting activities are included in this chapter.
There are several types of source reduction that take place at the point of generation (e.g.,
the yard of a home or business). Estimates for these practices are provided in Chapter 4. The
practice of backyard composting of yard trimmings and generation of certain food discards has
been growing. There also is a trend toward leaving grass clippings on lawns, sometimes through
the use of mulching mowers. Other actions contributing to reduced organics disposal are:
establishing variable rates for collection of wastes (also known as unit-based pricing or Pay-As-
You-Throw), which encourage residents to reduce the amount of wastes set out; improved
technology (mulching mowers); xeriscaping (landscaping with plants that use minimal water and
generate minimal waste); and certain legislation such as bans of disposal of yard trimmings in
landfills.
Part of the impetus for source reduction of yard trimmings is the large number of state
regulations discouraging landfilling or other disposal of yard trimmings. The Composting
Council and other sources reported that in 1992, 12 states (amounting to more than 28 percent of
the nation's population) had in effect legislation affecting management of yard trimmings. In
1998, 24 states plus the District of Columbia (amounting to about 50 percent of the nation's
population) had in effect legislation discouraging disposal of yard trimmings.
ill
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste'
RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING (INCLUDING COMPOSTING)
Recyclables Collection
Before recyclable materials can be processed and recycled into new products, they must
be collected. Most residential recycling involves curbside recyclables collection, drop-off
programs, buy-back operations, and/or container deposit systems. Collection of recyclables from
commercial establishments is usually separate from residential recyclables collection programs.
Curbside Recyclables Collection. In 2000, more than 9,200 curbside recyclables
collection programs were reported in the United States. As shown in Table 25 and Figure 18, the
extent of residential curbside recycling programs varies tremendously by geographic region, with
the largest numbers of curbside collection programs in the Northeast and Midwest.
Table 25
NUMBER AND POPULATION SERVED BY
CURBSIDE RECYCLABLES COLLECTION PROGRAMS, 2000
Number of Population Population Served
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
Total (1)
Percent of Total
Programs (in
3,459
1,427
3,582
779
9,247
U.S. Population
thousands)
51,830
80,092
41,389
51,165
224,475
(in thousands)
43,482
37,510
22,618
29,555
133,165
Percent*
84%
47%
55%
58%
59%
49%
* Percent of population served by curbside programs was calculated using
population of states reporting data.
Source: Statistical Abstract 2000, U.S. Bureau of Census, BioCycle November 2000.
112
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 18. Population served by curbside recycling, 2000
100 -|
90 -
80 -
70 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
NORTHEAST
Source: BioCycle, November 2000.
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
In 2000, nearly one-half (49 percent) of the U.S. population, or 133 million persons, had
access to curbside recyclables collection programs. The Northeast region had the largest
population served—43.5 million persons. In the Northeast, about 84 percent of the population
had access to curbside recyclables collection, while in the South 47 percent of the population had
access to curbside recycling.
Drop-off Centers. Drop-off centers typically collect residential materials, although some
accept materials from businesses. They are found in locations such as grocery stores, sheltered
workshops, charitable organizations, city-sponsored sites, and apartment complexes. Types of
materials collected vary greatly; however, drop-off centers can usually accept a greater variety of
materials than a curbside collection program.
It is difficult to quantify drop-off centers in the United States. It is estimated that there
were 12,694 programs in 1997, according to a BioCycle survey. In some areas, particularly those
with sparse population, drop-off centers may be the only option for collecting recyclable
materials. In other areas, they supplement other collection methods.
113
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Buy-back Centers. A buy-back center is typically a commercial operation that pays
individuals for recovered materials. This could include scrap metal dealers, aluminum can
centers, waste haulers, or paper dealers. Materials are collected by individuals, small businesses,
and charitable organizations.
Deposit Systems. Nine states have container deposit systems: Connecticut, Delaware,
Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont (Figure 19). In these
programs, the consumer pays a deposit on beverage containers at the point of purchase, which is
redeemed on return of the empty containers. California has a similar system where containers
can be redeemed, but the consumer pays a redemption fee. With the exception of California, no
new deposit laws have been enacted since the early 1980s, due in part to the convenience and
economics of curbside recycling.
Deposit systems generally target beverage containers (primarily beer and soft drink),
which account for less than 4 percent of total MSW generation. It is estimated that about 35
percent of all recovery of beverage containers comes from the 9 traditional deposit states
mentioned above, and an additional 20 percent of recovered beverage containers comes from
California. (Note: These recovery estimates reflect not only containers redeemed by consumers
for deposit, but also containers recovered through existing curbside and drop-off recycling
programs. Containers recovered through these programs eventually are credited to the distributor
and counted toward the redemption rate.)
114
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 19.
The Container R*evelm« Inftitute, 1999
Commercial Recyclables Collection. The largest quantity of recovered materials comes
from the commercial sector. Old corrugated containers (OCC) and office papers are widely
collected from commercial establishments. Grocery stores and other retail outlets that require
corrugated packaging are part of an infrastructure that brings in the most recovered material.
OCC often is baled at the retail outlet and picked up by a paper dealer.
Office paper (e.g., white, mixed color, computer paper, etc.) is part of another
commercial recyclables collection infrastructure. Depending on the quantities generated,
businesses (e.g., banks, institutions, schools, printing operations, etc.) can sort materials and
have them picked up by a paper dealer, or self deliver the materials to the recycler. It should be
noted that commercial operations also make recycling available for materials other than paper.
Multi-family residence recycling could be classified as either residential or commercial
recyclables collection. Multi-family refuse collection is usually handled as a commercial account
by waste haulers. These commercial waste haulers may handle recycling at multi-family
dwellings (typically five or more units) as well.
115
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Recyclables Processing
Processing recyclable materials is performed at materials recovery facilities (MRFs),
mixed waste processing facilities, and mixed waste composting facilities. Some materials are
sorted at the curb and require less attention. Other materials are sorted into categories at the curb,
such as a paper category and a container category, with additional sorting at a MRF. Mixed
waste also can be processed to pull out recyclable and compostable materials.
Materials Recovery Facilities. Materials recovery facilities vary widely across the
United States, depending on the incoming materials and the technology and labor used to sort the
materials. In 2000, 480 MRFs were operating in the United States, with an estimated total daily
throughput of 62,000 tons per day (Table 26). The most extensive recyclables processing
throughput per million persons occurs in the Northeast and West (Figure 20).
The majority of MRFs are considered low technology, meaning that the materials are
predominantly sorted manually. MRFs classified as high technology sort recyclables using eddy
currents, magnetic pulleys, optical sensors, and air classifiers. As MRFs change and grow, many
low-technology MRFs add high tech features, and high-technology MRFs include manual
sorting, reducing the distinction between high- and low-technology MRFs.
Table 26
MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITIES, 2000
Estimated
Throughput
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
U.S. Total
Number
107
149
117
107
480
(tpd)
15,055
17,161
12,188
17,567
61,971
Source: Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc.
2001 report release pending.
116
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
300 r
250
S 200
150
100
50
Figure 20. Estimated MRF Throughput, 2000
(tons per day per million persons)
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Mixed Waste Processing. Mixed waste processing facilities are less common than
conventional MRFs, but there are several facilities in operation in the United States, as shown in
Figure 21. Mixed waste processing facilities receive waste just as if it were going to a landfill.
The mixed waste is loaded on conveyors and, using both mechanical and manual (high and low
technology) sorting, recyclable materials are removed for further processing. In 2000, there were
reported to be 43 mixed waste processing facilities in the United States, handling about 29,000
tons of waste per day. The Western region of the United States has the largest concentration of
these processing facilities.
Mixed Waste Composting. Mixed waste composting starts with unsorted MSW. Large
items are removed, as well as ferrous and other metals, depending on the type of operation.
Mixed waste composting takes advantage of the high percentage of organic components of
MSW, such as paper, food scraps and yard trimmings, wood, and other materials. In 2000, there
were 15 mixed waste composting facilities, fewer than the 19 reported in 1999. (Facilities were
closed in the South and Midwest.) The highest processing capacity per million persons was
found in the South, as shown in Figure 22.
117
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste-
Figure 21. Mixed Waste Processing Estimated Capacity, 2000
(tons per day per million persons)
4OU
400 -
« 350 -
g
s
8. 300 '
C
g
E 250 -
Q.
S 200-
Q.
0
f 150 -
1
s 100 -
50-
, , | 1
I
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Figure 22. MSW Composting Capacity, 2000
(Capacity in tons per day per million persons)
6 -
5 -
E 4-
f 3
2-
1 -
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
118
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Yard Trimmings Composting. Yard trimmings composting is much more prevalent
than mixed waste composting. Onsite management of yard trimmings is not included in this
section, but is discussed in the source reduction section (Chapter 4). In 2000, about 3,800 yard
trimmings composting programs were reported. About 75 percent of these programs are in the
Northeast and Midwest regions, as shown in Figure 23. Based on 15.8 million tons of yard
trimmings recovered for composting in the United States (Table 2, Chapter 2), yard trimmings
composting facilities handled approximately 43,200 tons per day in 2000.
2,000
1,800 -
1,600 -
1,400 -
| 1,200 -
I 1,000-
| 800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
0
Figure 23. Yard Trimmings Composting Programs, 2000
(In number of programs)
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
COMBUSTION
Most of the municipal solid waste combustion currently practiced in this country
incorporates recovery of an energy product (generally steam or electricity). The resulting energy
reduces the amount needed from other sources, and the sale of the energy helps to offset the cost
of operating the facility. In past years, it was common to burn municipal solid waste in
incinerators as a volume reduction practice; energy recovery became more prevalent in the
1980s.
119
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste-
Total U.S. MSW combustion with energy recovery, referred to as waste-to-energy
(WTE) combustion, had a 2000 design capacity of 95,700 tons per day. There were 102 WTE
facilities in 2000 (Table 27). In tons of capacity per million persons, the Southern region had the
most MSW combustion capacity in 2000 (Figure 24).
In addition to facilities combusting mixed MSW (processed or unprocessed), there is a
small but growing amount of combustion of source-separated MSW. In particular, there is
considerable interest in using rubber tires as fuel in dedicated facilities or as fuel in cement kilns.
In addition, there is combustion of wood wastes and some paper and plastic wastes, usually in
boilers that already burn some other type of solid fuel. For this report, it was estimated that about
2.3 million tons of MSW were combusted in this manner in 2000, with tires contributing a
majority of that total.
Table 27
MUNICIPAL WASTE-TO-ENERGY* PROJECTS, 2000
Design
Number Capacity
Region Operational (tpd)
NORTHEAST 40 44,865
SOUTH 34 34,115
MIDWEST 21 12,198
WEST 7 4,559
U.S. Total (1) 102 95,737
* Projects on hold or inactive were not included.
Facilities in Hawaii and Alaska not included.
WTE includes mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived
fuel facilities.
Source: "The IWSA Directory of Waste-To-Energy Plants."
Integrated Waste Services Association, 2000.
120
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
In most cases the facilities have a stated daily capacity, but they normally operate at less
than capacity over the course of a year. It was assumed for this report that throughput over a year
of operation is 90 percent of rated capacity. The total throughput of MSW through all
combustion facilities was an estimated 33.7 million tons, or 14.5 percent of MSW generation, in
2000.
Figure 24. Municipal Waste-to-Energy Capacity, 2000
(Capacity in tons per million persons)
90 -
80 -
70 •
60 -
bU -
30 -
20 -
10 -
n
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
RESIDUES FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
Whenever municipal wastes are processed, residues will remain. For the purposes of this
report, it is assumed that most of these residues are landfilled. MRFs and compost facilities
generate some residues when processing various recovered materials. These residues include
materials that are unacceptable to end users (e.g., broken glass, wet newspapers), other
contaminants (e.g., products made of plastic resins that are not wanted by the end user), or dirt.
While residue generation varies widely, 5 to 10 percent is probably typical for a MRF. Residues
from a MRF or compost facility are generally landfilled. Since the recovery estimates in this
report are based on recovered materials purchased by end users rather than materials entering a
processing facility, the residues are counted with other disposed materials.
121
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste-
ash is not counted as MSW in this report because it generally must be managed separately.*
(There are a number of efforts underway to reuse ash.) As a general "rule of thumb," MSW
combustor ash amounts to about 25 percent (dry weight) of unprocessed MSW input. This
percentage will vary from facility to facility depending upon the types of waste input and the
efficiency and configuration of the facility.
LANDFILLS
Although the number of landfills is decreasing, the capacity has remained relatively
constant because newer landfills are much larger than those built many years ago. In 2000,
approximately 2,000 municipal solid waste landfills were reported in the contiguous United
States.
Table 28 and Figure 25 show the number of landfills in each region. The Southeast and
West had the largest number of landfills. Thirty-four states had more than 10 years of capacity
left. Only two states reported having less than 5 years of capacity remaining.
Note that many combustion facilities do magnetic separation of residues to recover ferrous metals (e.g., steel
cans and steel in other miscellaneous durable goods). This recovered steel is included in the total recovery of
ferrous metals in MSW reported in Chapter 2.
122
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 28
LANDFILL FACILITIES, 2000
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTHEAST
MIDWEST
WEST
U.S. Total *
Number of
Landfills *
154
699
459
655
1,967
Number of States with
Years Capacity Remaining
>10yr StolOyr <5yr
6 2 1
12 3 1
750
920
34 12 2
* Excludes landfills reported in Alaska (239) and Hawaii (10).
Source: BioCycle April 2000.
nu
er
of
Ian
dfil
Is
Figure 25. Number of Landfills in the United States, 2000
800
200
0
Northeast South
Source: BioCycle, April 2000.
Midwest
West
SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MSW MANAGEMENT
This summary provides some perspective on historical and current municipal solid waste
management practices in the United States. The results are summarized in Figure 26 and Table
29.
123
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Historically, municipal solid waste generation has grown relatively steadily (from 88.1
million tons in 1960 to 231.9 million tons in 2000). In the 1960s and early 1970s a large
percentage of MSW was burned in incinerators, with little recovery for recycling. Landfill
disposal typically consisted of open dumping, often accompanied by open burning of the waste
for volume reduction. Through the mid-1980s, incineration declined considerably and landfills
became difficult to site, while waste generation continued to increase. Materials recovery rates
increased very slowly in this time period, and the burden on the nation's landfills grew
dramatically. As Figure 26 shows, discards of MSW to landfill or other disposal peaked in the
1986 - 1987 period, then declined as materials recovery and combustion increased. Thanks to a
small increase in MSW generation along with a significant increase in recovery for recycling
(including composting), landfilled tonnage decreased from 1999 to 2000.
Since 1996 (a recession year), the tonnage of MSW landfilled has been growing again.
Generation has increased while combustion has declined and recycling has grown slowly.
Although there are now fewer municipal solid waste landfills, their average size has increased,
and capacity at the national level does not appear to be a problem. It should be noted, however,
that there are fewer years of landfill capacity available than there were 3 years ago. Compared to
3 years ago, more states have less than a decade of capacity left, and regional dislocations in
landfill capacity sometimes occur.
Recovery of products and yard trimmings has increased steadily, reaching 30.1 percent of
generation in 2000. Combustion tonnage has declined since 1997, to 14.5 percent of generation
in 2000. Tonnage landfilled reached a low of 115.8 million tons in 1996, then increased again.
As a percentage of total MSW generation, landfilling has consistently decreased—from 83.2
percent of generation in 1986 to 55.3 percent in 2000.
124
-------
'Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 26. Municipal solid waste management, 1960 to 2000
250
200 -
150 -
Recovery of the composting
component of recycling
100 -
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
125
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 29
GENERATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING, COMBUSTION,
AND DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of Tons
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after recovery
Combustion**
Discards to landfill,
other disposalf
1960
88,120
5,610
5,610
82,510
7?nnn
55,510
1970
121,060
8,020
8,020
113,040
7S inn
87,940
1980
151,640
14,520
Neg.
14,520
137,120
n 7nn
123,420
1990
205,210
29,040
33,240
171,970
Tl QIYl
140,070
1994
214,360
42,150
S4sn
50,630
163,730
37 AQO
131,240
1995
211,360
45,340
54,910
156,450
IS Wl
120,910
1998
223,360
47,950
n UP
61,090
162,270
344in
127,860
1999
230,940
50,060
14770
64,780
166,160
^un4n
132,120
2000
231,850
53,420
ifidsn
69,870
161,980
H7
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
CHAPTER 3
REFERENCES
GENERAL
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Solid Waste Management at the Crossroads. December 1997.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Various years.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Task Force, Office of Solid
Waste. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. February 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1990 Update. EPA/530-SW-90-042. June 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1992 Update. EPA/530-R-92-019. July 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1994 Update. EPA/530-R-94-042. November 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1995 Update. EPA/530-R-945-001. March 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1996 Update. EPA/530-R-97-015. June 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1997 Update. EPA/530-R-98-007. May 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1999 Facts
and Figures. EPA/530-R-01-014. July 2001.
SOURCE REDUCTION
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. Green Products by Design:
Choices for a Cleaner Environment. OTA-E-541. October 1992.
Council on Packaging in the Environment. "COPE Backgrounder: Source Reduction." March
1995.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Materials Technology: Packaging Design and the Environment.
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. April 1991.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the
Year 2000. Keep America Beautiful, Inc. 1994.
127
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste'
Rattray, Tom. "Source Reduction—An Endangered Species?" Resource Recycling. November
1990.
Raymond Communications Inc. State Recycling Laws Update Year-End Edition 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Consumer's Handbook for Reducing Solid Waste.
EPA/530-K-92-003. August 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Wise: Second Year Progress Report. EPA/530-R-
96-016. September 1996.
RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING
Block, Dave, and Nora Goldstein. "Solid Waste Composting Trends in the U.S." BioCycle.
November 2000.
Glenn, Jim. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. April 1998.
Glenn, Jim. "MSW Composting in the United States." BioCycle. November 1997.
Glenn, Jim. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. April 1998.
Goldstein, Nora, and Celeste Madtes. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. November
2000.
Governmental Advisory Associates. The Materials Recycling and Processing Industry in the
United States: 1995-96 Yearbook, Atlas, and Directory. 1995.
Governmental Advisory Associates. 7997 Update to the Materials Recycling and Processing
Industry in the United States. 1991.
Governmental Advisory Associates. Communications with Franklin Associates. 1998.
Governmental Advisory Associates. Unpublished data.
Kreith, Frank. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1994.
The Composting Council. "MSW Composting Facilities." Fall 1995.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States.
1997.
COMBUSTION
"1991-1992 Energy-from-Waste Report." Solid Waste & Power. HCI Publications. October
1991, December 1990.
128
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Integrated Waste Services Association. "High Court Rules Ash Not Exempt from Subtitle C
Regulation." Update. Summer 1994.
Integrated Waste Services Association. The IWSA Directory ofWaste-to-Energy Plants. 2000.
Kiser, Jonathan V.L. "A Comprehensive Report on the Status of Municipal Waste Combustion."
Waste Age. November 1990.
Kiser, Jonathan V.L. "Municipal Waste Combustion in North America: 1992 Update." Waste
Age. November 1992.
Kiser, Jonathan V.L. "The 1992 Municipal Waste Combustion Guide." National Solid Wastes
Management Association. February 1992.
Kiser, Jonathan V.L. "The IWSA Municipal Waste Combustion Directory: 1993." Integrated
Waste Services Association. February 1994.
Kiser, Jonathan V.L., and John Menapace. "The 1995 IWSA Municipal Waste Combustion
Directory Of United States Facilities." Integrated Waste Services Association. March 1995.
Kiser, Jonathan V.L., and John Menapace. "The 1996 IWSA Municipal Waste Combustion
Directory of United States Facilities." Integrated Waste Services Association. March 1996.
Rigo, Greg and Maria Zannes. "The 1997-1998 IWSA Waste-to-Energy Director of United
States Facilities." Integrated Waste Services Association. November 1997.
Levy, Steven J. Municipal Waste Combustion Inventory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste, Municipal & Industrial Solid Waste Division. November 22, 1991.
National Solid Wastes Management Association. "The 1992 Municipal Waste Combustion
Guide." Waste Age. November 1992.
"The 1991 Municipal Waste Combustion Guide." Waste Age. 1991.
129
-------
Chapter 4 Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste
CHAPTER 4
SOURCE REDUCTION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
INTRODUCTION
During the past 40 years, the amount of waste the United States creates has more than
doubled, growing from 88 to 232 million tons per year. The most effective way to reduce this
growth is by preventing waste from being generated in the first place.
Source reduction, also known as "waste prevention," is the practice of designing,
manufacturing, purchasing, or using materials (such as products and packaging) in ways that
reduce the amount or toxicity of trash created. Reusing items is another way to reduce waste at
the source. Reuse lowers our consumption of new items that eventually enter the waste
collection and disposal system.
Source reduction means consuming and throwing away less. It includes actions such as
purchasing durable, long-lasting goods and seeking products and packaging that are as free of
excessive packaging and toxins as possible. It can be as complex as redesigning a product to use
fewer raw materials in production, have a longer life, or be used again after its original use is
completed. It can be as simple as declining an unnecessary bag for a small purchase that doesn't
really need one. Because source reduction actually prevents the generation of waste in the first
place, it is the most preferable method of waste management. Because it decreases our resource
use, source reduction protects the environment.
MEASURING SOURCE REDUCTION
Source reduction has been an increasingly important aspect of municipal solid waste
programs since the late 1980s. The task of actually measuring how much source reduction has
taken place—how much waste prevention there has been—has proved difficult.
This chapter presents the results of EPA studies designed to measure source reduction for
the entire municipal solid waste stream. MSW includes wastes such as durable goods,
nondurable goods, containers and packaging, food scraps, yard trimmings, and miscellaneous
130
-------
Chapter 4 Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste
inorganic wastes from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. MSW does
not include sewage, hazardous wastes, nonhazardous industrial waste, construction and
demolition debris, or automobile bodies.
Unlike recycling, where there are actual materials to weigh all through the process,
measuring source reduction means trying to measure something that no longer exists. To
measure the absence of waste at the national level, a factor had to be found—something in the
population or economy that has most closely followed the pattern of waste generation.
Population increases or decreases of course have an impact, but EPA analysis showed that
population is not the best indicator of waste generation. The gross domestic product (GDP),
which measures the value of goods and services produced in the United States, had a relatively
good correlation to waste generation. But, going all the way back to 1960, what ended up having
the best relationship with waste generation was personal consumption expenditures (PCE)—
commonly referred to as "consumer spending." This makes perfect sense since consumer
spending reflects the goods and products, including food, and their packaging, which are used,
and ultimately discarded, as municipal solid waste.
Between 1960 and 1990, increasing consumer spending produced a measured steep and
steady increase in waste generation in the United States. After 1990 consumer spending
continued to grow. If the waste stream had grown at the same rate as consumer spending, about
287 million tons of waste would have been generated in 2000. Instead, only 232 million tons of
waste were actually generated. That's 55 million tons of waste that never made it into the waste
stream. Source reduction is simply the difference between the amount of MSW projected to be
generated in 2000 and the actual amount of MSW that was generated in 2000.
The November 1999 National Source Reduction Characterization Report for Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States (EPA/530-R-99-034) explains the methodology that was used to
produce the source reduction estimates presented in this report. Details on the chosen
methodology, including an explanation of the reasons for using PCE, are provided in that report.
Updates to previously published data are reflected in this report. These updates are the result of
recent revisions in national economic data, particularly PCE, made by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, as well as adjustments to estimates of historical waste generation.
131
-------
Chapter 4 Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste-
SOURCE REDUCTION FACTS
More than 55 million tons of MSW were source reduced in the United States in 2000.
The precise figure is 55,146,000 tons. Table 30 shows that containers and packaging represent
approximately 28 percent of the amount source reduced in 2000. Nondurable goods (e.g.,
newspapers, clothing) represent 17 percent, durable goods (e.g., appliances, furniture, tires) 10
percent, and other MSW (e.g., yard trimmings, food scraps) 45 percent.
Table 31 lists items that showed significant decreases (source reduction) and increases
(source expansion) in waste generation in 2000. The top portion of the table shows 14 major
contributors to source reduction. These 14 accounted for 87 percent of the nation's entire 2000
waste reduction. The bottom portion of the table shows four items that together account for 63
percent of the increases in waste generation. A complete listing of source reduction or expansion
for individual MSW components can be found in Appendix B.
Table 30: 2000 Source Reduction by Major Material Categories
Waste Stream
Durable Goods (e.g., appliances, furniture)
Nondurable Goods (e.g., newspapers,
clothing)
Containers & Packaging (e.g., bottles, boxes)
Other MSW (e.g., yard trimmings, food
scraps)
Total Source Reduction (1990 baseline)
Tons Source Reduced
5,361,000
9,302,000
15,518,000
24,965,000
55,146,000
Percentage
10%
17%
28%
45%
100%
132
-------
Chapter 4 Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste
Source reduction data for certain materials need to be considered in conjunction with
similar data for other related materials. For example, glass containers have contributed
significantly to source reduction. This source reduction reflects the fact that plastic containers
have been substituted for glass in many instances. There is significant source expansion of
plastic containers shown in this study. In order to correctly reflect the impact of such material
substitution, Table 32 shows source reduction and expansion for "functional" categories defined
so that individual materials are not taken out of context. Thus, for example, Table 32 shows that
source reduction for "Bags and Sacks" is 1,527,000 tons in the aggregate. This is a result of
source reduction in paper bags and sacks (1,862,000 tons) and source expansion in plastic bags
and sacks (335,000 tons).
133
-------
Chapter 4
Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste-
Table 31: Significant Source Reduction and Source Expansion Within MSW
(Thousands of Tons)
Waste Stream Showing Significant
Source Reduction or Source
Expansion
Significant Source Reduction
Yard Trimmings
Newspapers
Wood Packaging
Corrugated Boxes
Food Scraps
Miscellaneous Durables
Glass Food/Other Bottles & Jars
Glass Beer/Soft Drink Bottles
Paper Bags/Sacks
Magazines
Furniture/Furnishings
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Office Paper
Major Appliances
Total
Significant Source Expansion
Clothing/Footwear
Other Commercial Printing
Plastic-Other Containers
Plastic Wraps
Total
Source Reduction /
(Expansion)
21,219
3,752
3,560
3,369
3,190
2,770
2,458
2,028
1,862
1,828
1,656
1,510
1,435
989
51,627
(852)
(802)
(630)
(410)
(2,695)
134
-------
Chapter 4
Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 32: Source Reduction/(Expansion) for Functional Categories - 2000
(Thousands of Tons)
Product
Durable Goods
Miscellaneous Durables
Furniture/Furnishings
Major Appliances
Tires
Batteries, Lead Acid
Small Appliances
Carpets/Rugs
Subtotal
Product
Nondurable Goods
Publications
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Office Paper
Tissue Paper/Towels
Miscellaneous Nondurables
Disposable Diapers
Trash Bags
Towels, Sheets, Pillowcases
Plates/Cups
Standard (A) Mail
Other Commercial Printing
Clothing/Footwear
Source Reduction /
(Expansion)
2,770
1,656
989
379
172
(248)
(357)
5,361
Source Reduction /
(Expansion)
5,910
1,510
1,435
930
641
436
241
173
(92)
(228)
(802)
(continued on next page)
(852)
135
-------
Chapter 4
Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste'
Product
Subtotal
Packaging
Paper Boxes
Beverage Containers
Wood Packaging
Food Containers
Bags and Sacks
Misc. Packaging
Wrapping
Packaging Subtotal
OTHER MSW WASTES
Yard Trimmings
Food Scraps
Misc. Inorganics
Subtotal
Grand Total
Source Reduction /
(Expansion)
9,302
3,803
3,800
3,560
3,370
1,527
(175)
(367)
15,518
21,219
3,190
556
24,965
55,146
A SOURCE REDUCTION SUCCESS STORY
As shown in Table 32, by far the single largest contributor to source reduction is yard
trimmings. Yard trimmings account for 21.2 million out of 55.1 million tons of source reduction,
about 38 percent of the total. No other category listed in Table 32 accounts for more than 5.9
million tons. The amount of yard trimmings grew steadily from 1960 to 1990, peaking at 1990
and 35 million tons. It then fell to 27.7 million tons in 2000.
There are many other areas in which major gains in source reduction are possible. For
example, consider corrugated boxes. Corrugated boxes provided 3,369 tons of source reduction.
However, corrugated box waste grew from 24 million tons in 1990 to 30.2 million tons in 2000.
136
-------
Chapter 4 Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste
Experience elsewhere, such as Canada's National Packaging Protocol, suggests that more source
reduction could be accomplished. Canadian statistics show that the quantity of new paper
packaging used declined approximately 1 million tonnes (1.1 million tons) between 1992 and
1996.*
SOURCE REDUCTION BENEFITS
Source reduction, including material reuse, can help reduce waste disposal and handling
costs, because it avoids the costs of recycling, municipal composting, landfilling, and
combustion. Source reduction also conserves resources, such as water and energy, and reduces
pollution, including greenhouse gases, that contribute to global warming.
Source reduction saves natural resources. Waste is not just created when consumers
throw items away. Throughout the life cycle of a product—from extraction of raw materials to
transportation to processing and manufacturing facilities to manufacture and use—waste is
generated. Reusing items or making them with less material decreases waste dramatically.
Ultimately, fewer materials will need to be recycled or sent to landfills or waste combustion
facilities.
Source reduction reduces toxicity of waste. Selecting nonhazardous or fewer hazardous
items is another important component of source reduction. Using less hazardous alternatives for
certain items (e.g., cleaning products and pesticides), sharing products that contain hazardous
chemicals instead of throwing out leftovers, reading label directions carefully, and using the
smallest amount necessary are ways to reduce waste toxicity.
Source reduction reduces costs. The benefits of preventing waste go beyond reducing
reliance on other forms of waste disposal. Preventing waste also can mean economic savings for
communities, businesses, schools, and individual consumers.
* Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. National Packaging Protocol 1996 Milestone Report. January
1998.
137
-------
Chapter 4 Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste'
• When these households reduce waste at the source, they dispose of less trash,
resulting in lower trash disposal fees and longer landfill life. This reduces the cost of
waste management to their community.
• Industry also has an economic incentive to practice source reduction. When
businesses manufacture their products with less packaging, they are buying less raw
material. A decrease in manufacturing costs can mean a larger profit margin, with
savings that can be passed on to the consumer. Add decreased waste disposal costs to
this, and significant savings can be achieved.
• Consumers also can share in the economic benefits of source reduction. Buying
products in bulk, with less packaging, or that are reusable (not single-use) frequently
means a cost savings. What is good for the environment can be good for the
pocketbook as well.
FACTORS IMPACTING SOURCE REDUCTION
Since 1990, source reduction has increased at an impressive rate in the United States—
nearly doubling in the last 4 years alone. Economic growth, combined with improvements in
materials/resource management, resulted in more than 55 million tons of waste prevented in
2000. This trend may change as the nation's economic growth slows.
A fundamental business principal asserts that waste is an indicator of inefficiency.
Therefore, when an organization becomes more efficient in their use of resources, they generate
less waste. And, in the business world, increased efficiency translates to increased profits. The
prosperity that the United States experienced in the latter half of the 1990s afforded many
companies the opportunity to invest in operational efficiencies, thus generating less waste
material. This can be seen in the reduction of wood packaging waste due to wooden pallets being
reused multiple times instead of being sent to the landfill after just one use. Newspapers also
have made large gains in waste reduction. They are being made lighter and slightly smaller than
in prior years. It's also likely that the increased use of the Internet has contributed to the
reduction in newspaper waste.
Unfortunately, economic prosperity does not always translate into a reduction in waste
generation. In some cases it appears that as individuals and some businesses become more
prosperous, they also become more wasteful. This is reflected in the expansion of waste from
138
-------
Chapter 4 Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste
clothing and footwear shown in Table 31 above. Some business-related activities, such as other
commercial printing, including reports and prospectuses, also have produced significant
increases in waste, also shown in Table 31.
So the good news is that, overall, more products are being made with less waste and
Americans are recycling more. The bad news is—we're also consuming more and, in some
instances, generating more waste.
139
-------
Chapter 4 Source Reduction of Municipal Solid Waste'
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Early attempts by localities and states often focused on measuring a single waste stream
in a single community. In time, research will develop additional information about specific waste
streams for use on a statewide or national level. EPA's Source Reduction Program Potential
Manual and planning packet, published in 1997 (EPA/530-E-97-001), presents some of this
research.
Work by EPA has helped state regulators, local solid waste managers, and residential
consumers work together to achieve their impressive reductions in yard trimmings waste.
Relevant EPA work includes:
• The Source Reduction Program Potential Manual (EPA 530-R-97-002), which
showed that grasscycling and home composting have great potential for source
reduction.
• The Organic Materials Management Strategies (EPA 530-R-99-016), which
identified grasscycling and home composting as sources of potential savings in local
solid waste management costs.
• Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1999 Facts and Figures (EPA 530-R-01-
014), which highlighted the important role of yard trimmings bans from landfills as a
factor in producing source reduction of yard trimmings.
140
-------
Appendix A Material Flows Methodology
APPENDIX A
MATERIAL FLOWS METHODOLOGY
The material flows methodology is illustrated in Figures A-l and A-2. The crucial first
step is making estimates of the generation of the materials and products in MSW (Figure A-l).
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION
Data on domestic production of materials and products were compiled using published
data series. U.S. Department of Commerce sources were used where available, but in several
instances more detailed information on production of goods by end use is available from trade
associations. The goal is to obtain a consistent historical data series for each product and/or
material.
CONVERTING SCRAP
The domestic production numbers were then adjusted for converting or fabrication scrap
generated in the production processes. Examples of these kinds of scrap would be clippings from
plants that make boxes from paperboard, glass scrap (cullet) generated in a glass bottle plant, or
plastic scrap from a fabricator of plastic consumer products. This scrap typically has a high value
because it is clean and readily identifiable, and it is almost always recovered and recycled within
the industry that generated it. Thus, converting/fabrication scrap is not counted as part of the
postconsumer recovery of waste.
ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPORTS/EXPORTS
In some instances imports and exports of products are a significant part of MSW, and
adjustments were made to account for this.
141
-------
Appendix A Material Flows Methodology'
DIVERSION
Various adjustments were made to account for diversions from MSW. Some consumer
products are permanently diverted from the municipal waste stream because of the way they are
used. For example, some paperboard is used in building materials, which are not counted as
MSW. Another example of diversion is toilet tissue, which is disposed in sewer systems rather
than becoming MSW.
In other instances, products are temporarily diverted from the municipal waste stream.
For example, textiles reused as rags are assumed to enter the waste stream the same year the
textiles are initially discarded.
ADJUSTMENTS FOR PRODUCT LIFETIME
Some products (e.g., newspapers and packaging) normally have a very short lifetime;
these products are assumed to be discarded in the same year they are produced. In other
instances (e.g., furniture and appliances), products have relatively long lifetimes. Data on
average product lifetimes are used to adjust the data series to account for this.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND DISCARDS
The result of these estimates and calculations is a material-by-material and product-by-
product estimate of MSW generation, recovery, and discards.
142
-------
'Appendix A
Material Flows Methodology
Domestic Production
of
Materials/Products
Imports
of
Materials/Products
Conversion/
Fabricating
Scrap
Exports
of
Materials/Products
Diversion
of
Materials/Products
Permanent
Diversion
Municipal
Solid Waste
Generation
I Temporary
Diversion
Figure A-1. Material flows methodology for estimating
generation of products and materials in municipal solid waste.
143
-------
Appendix A
Material Flows Methodology'
MSW
Generation
Recovery
for
Recycling
Recovery
for
Composting
T
Discards
after
Recycling
and
Composting
Recovery for
Combustion
with
Energy
Recovery
Recovery for
Combustion
without
Energy Recovery
Discards
to Landfill
and
Other
Disposal
Figure A-2. Material flows methodology for estimating
discards of products and materials in municipal solid waste.
144
-------
Appendix B
Source Reduction/Expansion for Individual Components ofMSW
APPENDIX B
Table B-l. Source Reduction/Expansion for Individual Components of MSW - 2000
(Thousands of Tons)
Waste Stream by Commodity
Durable Goods
Miscellaneous Durables
Furniture/Furnishings
Major Appliances
Tires
Batteries, Lead Acid
Carpets/Rugs
Small Appliances
SR Subtotal
SE Subtotal
Net Value
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Magazines
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Office Paper
Tissue Paper/Towels
Miscellaneous Nondurables
Source Reduction /
Expansion
2,770
1,656
989
379
172
(248)
(357)
5,966
(605)
5,361
3,752
1,828
1,510
1,435
930
641
(continued on next page)
145
-------
Appendix B
Source Reduction/Expansion for Individual Components ofMSW
Waste Stream by Commodity
Source Reduction /
Expansion
Disposable Diapers
Trash Bags
Books
Towels, Sheets, Pillowcases
Telephone Directories
Plastic Plates/Cups
Standard (A) Mail
Third Class Mail
Other Commercial Printing
Clothing/Footwear
SR Subtotal
SE Subtotal
Net Value
436
241
217
173
113
39
(131)
(228)
(802)
(852)
11,315
(2,013)
9,302
Packaging
Wood Packaging
Corrugated Boxes
Glass Food/Other Bottles & Jars
Glass Beer/Soft Drink Bottles
Paper Bags/Sacks
Steel Food/Other Cans
3,560
3,369
2,458
2,028
1,862
912
(continued on next page)
146
-------
Appendix B
Source Reduction/Expansion for Individual Components ofMSW
Waste Stream by Commodity
Source Reduction /
Expansion
Glass Wine/Liquor Bottles
Aluminum Beer/Soft Drink Cans
Folding Cartons
Milk Cartons
Steel Beer/Soft Drink Cans
Other Paperboard Packaging
Wrapping Papers
Aluminum-Foils/Closure
Other Paper Packaging
Plastic Milk Bottles
Steel-Other Packaging
Plastics-Other Packaging
Aluminum-Other Cans
Other Misc. Packaging
Plastic Soft Drink Bottles
Plastic Bags/Sacks
Plastic Wraps
Plastic-Other Containers
SR Subtotal
SE Subtotal
Net Value
869
648
434
223
210
206
154
82
57
51
40
13
(22)
(30)
(229)
(335)
(410)
(630)
17,175
(1,657)
15,518
(continued on next page)
147
-------
Appendix B
Source Reduction/Expansion for Individual Components ofMSW
Source Reduction /
Waste Stream by Commodity Expansion
Other Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Food Scraps
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
SR Subtotal
SE Subtotal
Net Value
SR Total
SE Total
Grand Total
21,219
3,190
556
24,965
0
24,965
59,420
(4,274)
55,146
148
-------
Appendix C Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
APPENDIX C
CONSUMER ELECTRONICS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
INTRODUCTION
Consumer electronic products (electronics) are a fast growing segment of the MSW
stream, creating increasing opportunities for recycling. Generation of these products from both
residences and commercial establishments is increasing. In the past two years, EPA has studied
consumer electronics to estimate generation, recovery, and disposal of these products.
The tables and figures in this appendix represent the results of the characterization of
consumer electronics in MSW. In previous editions of the EPA report, Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, EPA has included electronics under the category
"Miscellaneous Durables," along with other products such as toys, toasters, dishes, and luggage.
EPA now has defined consumer electronic products as a subcategory under the Miscellaneous
Durables category. Due to data limitations, this appendix addresses many but not all categories
of electronic products. (Electronics that are not covered specifically in this appendix are included
in the main body of this report in Chapter 2 as part of Other Miscellaneous Durables). The 1999
generation estimates relied on sales data provided by the Consumer Electronics Association
(CEA). Generation estimates for 2000 combine CEA data with data from the U.S. Census
Bureau.
Consumer electronic products include electronic products used in residences and
commercial establishments such as businesses and institutions. Consumer electronics include
video and audio equipment and information age products. Video products include standard
televisions (TV), projection TV, high density TV, liquid crystal display TV, VCR decks,
camcorders, laserdisc players, digital versatile disc players, and TV/personal computers (PC).
149
-------
Appendix C
Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste'
Figure C-l:
SELECTED CONSUMER ELECTRONICS:
Total Units Shipped 1984 - 2000
(1,000 units)
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
* Units Shipped
Audio products include rack audio systems, compact audio systems, portable compact
discs (CD), portable headset audio, total CD players, and home radios. Information products
include cordless/corded telephones, wireless telephones, telephone answering machines,
facsimile (fax) machines, word processors, personal computers, computer printers, computer
monitors, modems, and fax modems. Certain other electronic products such as separate audio
components are excluded because of data limitations.
This appendix presents findings for consumer electronics by material composition (e.g.,
metals, glass, and plastic), as well as total generation, recovery, and discards for 2000.
Additionally, this appendix categorizes consumer electronics as video products, audio products,
or information products. The growth of selected consumer electronic product sales since 1984 is
depicted in Figure C-l. In 1984, less than 150 million units were shipped. The number of units
shipped increased to more than 530 million by 2000.
The rapid growth in consumer electronic sales has caused an increase in the quantity of
electronic products in the MSW stream. Management of these wastes is a concern to
150
-------
'Appendix C Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
governmental officials responsible for the safe handling of solid waste. Below, we list the
specific electronic products included in this appendix, followed by a discussion of the
methodology and data limitations.
PRODUCTS IN CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
The consumer electronics category includes video, audio, and information products. The
specific products included in the consumer electronics category were limited by available sales
and trade data. For example, pagers and radar detectors were not included because historical data
were not available. Some additional items excluded due to inadequate data were: separate audio
components, home theater-in-a-box, digital cameras, electronic accessories, and electronic
games. It should be noted that consumer electronics not estimated separately will continue to be
included in the "Miscellaneous Durables" category in the annual characterization studies in the
subcategory "Other Miscellaneous Durables" (Tables 12 to 14 in Chapter 2 of the main report).
Table C-l lists the selected consumer electronic products.
METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted to develop a reproducible methodology for estimating generation,
recovery for recycling, and discards of consumer electronics on an annual basis. The
methodology relies on published data on shipments of consumer electronics (adjusted for
imports and exports) for the years 1984 to 1999. The methodology combines data from two
sources: (1) The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA); and (2) the U.S. Department of
Commerce trade data. CEA data reflect shipments of consumer electronics to retail outlets. The
U.S. Census Bureau's Current Industrial Reports include trade data (shipments, imports, and
exports) from the U.S. Department of Commerce. In order to estimate generation, the number of
units shipped is combined with the average life span and weight of each product. Average
weights for consumer electronics were estimated after collecting information from catalogs and
consumer electronic magazines and weighing available items. The information was then
compared to information from retail shops, repair shops, demanufacturers, recyclers, other
organizations, and government agencies to arrive at the estimates for composition of waste after
retail sales, recovery for recycling, and discards.
151
-------
Appendix C
Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
Table C-l
SELECTED CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
Video Products
Televisions
Projection TV
HDTV*
LCD TV
TV/VCR Combinations*
Videocassette Players
VCR Decks
Camcorders
Laserdiscs players
Digital Versatile Disc Players*
TV/PC Combinations*
Audio Products
Rack Audio Systems
Compact Audio Systems
Portable CD
Portable Headset Audio
Total CD Players
Home Radios
Information Products
Cordless/Corded Telephones
Wireless Telephones
Telephone Answering Machines
Fax Machines
Personal Word Processors
Personal Computers
Computer Printers
Computer Monitors
Modems/Fax Modems
*Items not expected to enter the municipal waste stream until after 2000.
152
-------
Appendix C Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Generation: This analysis defines generation as the weight of products that enter the
waste management system from residential and commercial sources, before materials recovery
takes place. Primary life and secondary life (reuse) occur before generation. In other words,
waste is generated only after the first and any subsequent users of the product are through using
it for its original purpose.
Recovery for recycling: This analysis defines recovery for recycling as the products
removed from the waste stream for the purpose of recycling. Product recovery for overseas
markets is considered recovery for recycling.
Discards: This analysis defines discards as the consumer electronics remaining after
recovery for recycling. Discards are presumably combusted or landfilled in MSW or hazardous
waste facilities, although some electronic products are placed in storage.
Data Collection and Research
In addition to sales and trade data, information was collected regarding the weight,
expected life span, and composition for each type of consumer electronic product analyzed.
Numerous research and case studies were reviewed. Additional information sources include
manufacturers, retailers, repair shops, demanufacturers, recyclers, industry organizations, and
governmental agencies. Table C-2 lists the types of information received from each of these
entities.
Generation
Consumer electronic generation was estimated by calculating the annual apparent
consumption for each electronic product and estimating how many years a particular product is
used before it is disposed. Apparent consumption equals U.S. manufacturer shipments plus U.S.
153
-------
Appendix C
Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
Table C-2
Consumer Electronics Data Collection
Manufacturers
Retail Shops
Repair Shops
Demanufacturers
Recyclers
Organizations
Government
Information Requested
Product weights, composition, and life span
Product weights
Product composition and life span
Product composition and life span
Product composition and life span
Information on units shipped
Units shipped, _product weights, composition, and life span
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
imports minus U.S. exports. The year in which a particular electronic item enters the municipal
solid waste stream was determined from the estimated life span of the item. The average weight
of each item also was estimated.
Factory sales through retail outlets for the years 1984 through 1999 were obtained from
the Consumer Electronics Association. These data estimate the number of units shipped, adjusted
for imports and exports, to U.S. retailers. To supplement the CEA data, Current Industrial
Reports, published by the U.S. Census Bureau, was used to obtain shipment, import, and export
data.
All consumer electronics included in this study have an estimated lifespan. The estimated
lifespan includes primary and, when applicable, secondary use (reuse) of a product. Reuse of
consumer electronic products thus is taken into account in the methodology. Consumer
electronics repair shops provided estimates on life span of all audio and video products.
Telephone repair shops provided estimates for life spans of cordless/corded telephones and
wireless telephones.
Estimated computer and computer monitor life spans found in the Electronic Product
Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report for the National Safety Council were used. Estimated
life spans for all other computer peripherals, such as personal word processors, printers, fax
machines, and fax modems, were based on data gathered from trade associations and businesses.
154
-------
Appendix C Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
Life span ranges for the selected consumer electronics are shown in Figure C-3.
Televisions have a lifespan of 13 to 15 years—the longest lifespan of all consumer electronics
studied. Wireless telephones have the shortest lifespan—2 to 4 years—of all consumer
electronics studied. The methodology of this analysis used the life span, weight, and number of
shipments to determine the generation for a particular year.
As an example of the methodology, consider VCR generation. VCRs have an estimated
lifespan of 7 to 10 years, which corresponds to shipments made from 1990 to 1993. The average
total weight of VCR shipments during 1990 and 1993 years, which translates to the weight of
VCRs generated in 2000, can be estimated by multiplying the average weight of VCRs
manufactured between 1990 and 1993 by the number of VCRs shipped between the same years.
The generation of other consumer electronics was estimated similarly based on the expected life
of the individual products. Generation of consumer electronics in the waste stream is the
summation of the individual product estimates.
The ranges shown in Table C-3 represent both the primary and secondary life of the
products. As stated above, the secondary life (or reuse) of a product takes place before a product
enters the municipal waste stream.
The average weights for the selected consumer electronics were estimated for the years
1984 through 1999. Since consumer electronics sold in 2000 do not represent the consumer
electronics currently entering the waste stream, a time series was developed based on expected
life spans. Average weights for these years were estimated after collecting information from
catalogs and consumer electronic magazines, and weighing available items. If weights for a
specific product and year were not found, average weights were extrapolated from existing
estimates. For example, camcorder weights were found for the years 1985, 1990, 1995, and
1998. Camcorder weights for the other years were estimated from these weights. Current average
weights were based on information from retail outlets and retail and manufacturers' Web sites.
155
-------
Appendix C
Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste •
Table C-3
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SELECTED CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS
(in years)
Video Products
Direct View Color TV
Projection TV
LCD Color TV
Videocassette Players
VCR Decks
Camcorders
Laserdisc Players
Audio Products
Rack Audio System
Compact Audio System
Portable CD
Portable Headset Audio
Total CD Players
Home Radios
Information Products
Cordless/Corded Telephones
Wireless Telephones
Telephone Answering Machines
Fax Machines
Personal Word Processors
Personal Computers
Computer Printers
Computer Monitors
Modem/Fax Modems
Range of Primary and Secondary
Use (Reuse) Life Expectancy
13 to 15
13 to 15
13 to 15
7 to 10
7 to 10
7 to 10
7 to 10
3 to 15
3 to 15
3 to 15
3 to 15
3 to 15
3 to 15
3 to 6
2 to 4
3 to 6
3 to 6
3 to 6
3 to 6
3 to 5
6 to 7
3 to 6
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Retail sources also provided national market data on the number of televisions sold. Due
to the wide range of sizes for televisions, televisions have a wide range of weights. To account
for the varying weights of televisions, a weighted average was developed by comparing retail
and market share data.
156
-------
Appendix C Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
All other average weights were estimated after collecting as many weights as possible
from the sources listed above for each size and style of product. Market share data were not
available for the other products.
Data received from the various information sources were combined to estimate the
material composition of the selected consumer electronic products. The primary sources used to
estimate composition data include:
• The Recycling and Demanufacturing of Computers and Electronic Equipment in
Pasco County, Florida.
• End-of-Life Electronic Equipment Pilot Program Summary Report, Alachua County,
Florida.
• Recycling Used Electronics, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance.
• Analysis of Five Community Consumer/Residential Collections End-Of-Life
Electronic and Electrical Equipment.
• Information provided by the National Recycling Coalition.
• Discussions with repair shop personnel, recyclers, and demanufacturers.
Information on composition for the selected consumer electronics includes products from
several different years. Since the composition estimates were developed from recovery data, it
was assumed that the data represents a mix of products from various years. Therefore the
composition for each specific consumer electronic product was assumed to be the same for the
entire data series.
RECOVERED FOR RECYCLING
After primary and secondary use of consumer electronics, recovered products are taken to
a demanufacturer (see Figure C-2). Recovery may occur through a local collection program, such
as a one-day collection event, or through ongoing collection at a permanent site. Some
generators may have the option of taking consumer electronics directly to a demanufacturer
private recycler. Other consumer electronic products are left at repair shops or traded for nev
products through retailers or manufacturers. Some retailers and manufacturers have initiated
or a
new
157
-------
Appendix C
Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
pilot take-back programs. Repair shops typically will remove any usable parts before recycling
or discarding. Demanufacturers recycle the products into raw materials and salvaged parts for
repair. Parts that cannot be recycled are to be disposed of by the demanufacturer in accordance
with federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. Demanufacturing is
complicated by the variety of consumer products available for recovery. For example, although
all consumer electronics contain plastic, the plastic resins vary from product to product.
According to the American Plastic Council, there are few large, homogenous streams of material
that can be targeted for recovery through recycling1. A number of public and private
organizations, including APC, are studying the problems and possible solutions for increased
consumer electronic product recovery.
Figure C-2: Life Cycle for Consumer Electronics
Primary Use of
Consumer
Electronics
^-
Secondary Use
(Reuse) of
Consumer
Electronics
V
L
\
^
Demanufac-
turing
1
T
Disposal
Raw Materials
Whole Parts
for Repair
1 Plastics from Residential Electronics Recycling. A summary report from the Electrical and Electronics Group of
the American Plastics Council. 2000.
158
-------
Appendix C
Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
Although there has been an increase in collection programs throughout the country to
divert old and outdated consumer electronics from disposal, central collection of recovery data
does not exist. The recovery estimates in this analysis rely upon the information in the National
Safety Council's Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report; Recycling of
Selected Electronic Products in the United States for TVs, computers, and monitors. For these
products, as well as for word processors and printers, data from written reports was
supplemented by personal communications with state government experts, representatives of
trade associations, and representatives of businesses. All other consumer electronic product
recovery was assumed to be negligible.
Discards After Recovery
Since recycling of consumer electronics is in its infancy, the majority of the consumer
electronic waste generated is discarded. A factor that could affect the final discard amount is the
number of products placed into storage. Storage of consumer electronics exists, but is difficult to
quantify. This methodology assumes that consumer electronics are leaving storage at the same
rate they are entering. Discards in this analysis equal generation minus recovery for recycling.
RESULTS
The composition by material of the selected consumer electronic products generated is
summarized in Table C-4. The material composition of each consumer electronic category is
discussed below.
Table C-4
TOTAL GENERATION OF CONSUMER ELECTRONICS BY MATERIAL
IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM
(In percent of total generation)
Type of Consumer Electronics
Video Products
Audio Products
Information Products
Total
Steel
22%
21%
27%
24%
Copper &
Brass
3%
0%
5%
3%
Alumi-
num
0%
0%
4%
2%
Lead
7%
0%
3%
4%
Other
Metals
10%
30%
4%
11%
Glass
27%
0%
8%
15%
Wood
20%
3%
0%
9%
Plastic
11%
47%
46%
32%
Other
0%
0%
2%
1%
Source: Franklin Associates. Ltd.
159
-------
Appendix C Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
Video Products: Video products are composed of 22 percent steel, 27 percent glass, and
11 percent plastic. Televisions are a large portion of this category. Cathode ray tubes (CRTs) are
a major source of glass and steel. Plastic is the major component in the frame housings of video
products. Lead, which accounts for 7 percent of the material generated from video products,
comes from CRTs. The source of the remaining material is circuit boards, wiring, and other
small, miscellaneous items.
Audio Products: Audio products contain 51 percent steel and other metals, 47 percent
plastic, and 3 percent wood. Usually, audio products are cased in plastic frames that contain steel
and other metals.
Information Products: Information products contain 27 percent steel. Copper and brass,
aluminum, lead, and other metals comprise 16 percent of information products. Plastic accounts
for approximately 46 percent of the weight of information products; however, in many cases, the
percentage of plastic is much higher. For example, corded/cordless telephones, wireless phones,
and answering machines are reported to be composed mostly of plastic.
Total selected consumer electronic products: As shown in Table C-4, the average
composition of all three types of consumer electronic is 24 percent steel, 3 percent copper and
brass, 2 percent aluminum, 4 percent lead, 11 percent other metals, 15 percent glass, 9 percent
wood, 32 percent plastic, and 1 percent other materials.
Table C-5 summarizes generation, recovery for recycling, and discards for the three types
of consumer electronics.
160
-------
Appendix C
Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
Table C-5
GENERATION, RECOVERY, AND DISCARDS OF CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM 2000
(in tons)
Type of Consumer Electronics
Video Products
Audio Products
Information Products
Total
Total
Generation
859.300
348.200
916.900
2.124.400
Total
Recovery
1.200
0
192,500
193.700
%
Recovered
0.1%
Nee.
21%
9%
Total
Discards
858.100
348.200
724.400
1 .930.700
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Generation, recovery, and discards of each consumer electronic category are discussed
below.
Generation: In 2000, a total of 2,124,400 tons of consumer electronics were generated.
This includes 859,300 tons of video products, 348,200 tons of audio products, and 916,900 tons
of information products.
Recovery: As shown in Table C-5, an estimated 193,700 tons of consumer electronics
were recovered in 2000. This includes 1,200 tons of video products and 192,500 tons of
information products. Recovery of audio products is considered to be negligible.
Discards: Final discards of the three types of consumer electronics are 1,930,700 tons, or
91 percent of generation.
Generation of selected consumer electronics as a percentage of miscellaneous durables
and total MSW is shown in Table C-6. The EPA report Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1998 Update and earlier editions included consumer electronics as
part of the larger category "Miscellaneous Durables." Table C-6 separates the selected consumer
electronic products category from the miscellaneous durables category. Generation of the
selected consumer electronics is estimated at 14 percent of total miscellaneous durables
generation, 21 percent of the recovery for recycling, and 14 percent of the discards.
161
-------
Appendix C
Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
Generation of selected consumer electronic products was estimated at less than 1 percent
of total MSW generation and less than one-half of 1 percent of recovery. Selected consumer
electronics were estimated to be about one percent of total MSW discards.
Although the weight of the selected consumer electronics that enter the waste stream is
estimated at only 1 percent of total MSW discards, some of these products do present a problem.
Television and computer CRTs, which contain lead, are for the most part discarded into U.S.
landfills. Besides lead, other hazardous materials that may be found in consumer electronics
include cadmium, hexavalent chromium, mercury and brominated flame-retardant materials.
Table C-6
SELECTED CONSUMER ELECTRONICS AS A
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS DURABLE
GOODS AND TOTAL MSW, 2000
(1,000 TONS)
Selected Consumer
Electronics
Miscellaneous Durable
Goods
Total Miscellaneous Durable
Goods
Consumer Electronics as %
of Misc. Durable Goods
Total MSW
Consumer Electronics as %
of Total MSW
Generation
2.120
12.550
14.670
14%
231.850
0.9%
Recovery
190
700
890
21%
69.870
0.3%
Recovery
%of
Generation
9%
6%
6%
30%
Discards
1.930
11.850
13.780
14%
161.980
1.2%
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
162
-------
Appendix C Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
CURRENT RECOVERY PROGRAMS
Numerous city, county, and state agencies across the United States are considering
options for consumer electronics collection and management. Many have conducted 1-day
consumer electronics collection events, while others provide ongoing collection programs.
Typically both public and private entities work together to ensure the success of the programs. In
addition to removing hazardous materials from the waste stream, the collection programs
provide valuable information to help guide the development of long-term recovery programs.
More information on state, local, and regional programs is available at .
Many times, manufacturers, retailers, and industry organizations lead the collection and
recovery efforts. The Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA), in cooperation with several
electronics manufacturers2, has announced an electronics collection and recycling pilot project to
evaluate different collection and recycling models. The EIA Electronics Recycling Project is a
grant program that assists with funds for regional and state household electronics recycling
efforts3. Sony Electronics teamed with the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
(MOEA) and Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) in October 2000 to provide a public take-back
and recycling program free of charge for Sony products. A 3-month pilot program during 1999
that teamed Sony, MOEA, and WMI with the American Plastics Council and
Panasonic/Matsushita collected 600 tons of consumer electronics4.
Hewlett-Packard and IBM PC Recycling Service both allow consumers and businesses to
recycle any manufacturer's computer equipment for a fee5. The equipment will be either
recycled or refurbished and donated to charity. Dell Computer Corporation, Compaq, and
Gateway provide their consumers with the options of trading in, recycling or donating old
2 Electronic Industries Alliance, Canon, Hewlett Packard, JVC, Kodak, Nokia, Panasonic, Philips Electronics,
Sharp, Sony, and Thomson. Press release dated June 21, 2001. www.eiae.org.
3 www.eia.org/communications/press_release. October 15, 2001.
4 www.epa.gov/epr/products/emulti.html.
5 warp.external.hp.com/recycle; www.ibm.com/ibm/environment. September 2001.
163
-------
Appendix C Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
computer equipment when new products are purchased6. United Recycling Industries provides a
computer recycling mail-in program for residents of seven Midwestern states7.
Best Buy has held 2-day collection events in approximately 10 markets across the
country. The programs collected computers, monitors, TVs, VCRs, and other consumer
electronics from any manufacturer. Fees were charged for some items such as computer monitors
and televisions. The first six collections recovered approximately 100 tons of consumer
electronics8.
Other companies such as Apple Computer, Intel, Philips Electronics, and Xerox have
taken product stewardship initiatives through changing the design of their products. Product
design to improve the ease of disassembly, using recovered and remanufactured parts, if
possible, and reducing the types of plastic resin used in manufacturing are examples of company
policies that enhance consumer electronic recyclability.
6 www.dell.com: www.gateway.com: www.epa.gov. September 2001.
7 www.unitedrecycling.com/takeback. September 2001.
8 www.e4partners.com. September 2001.
164
-------
Appendix C Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES
Alster, Norm. "Are Old PCs Poisoning Us?" Business Week. June 2000.
"Annual and Monthly Buying Guide." Consumer Reports. Various Issues 1984 - 1995.
Dann, Carolyn. End-of-Life Electronics Equipment Pilot Collection Program Summary Report -
Alachua County, Florida. October 1999. Center for Environmental Communications.
Franklin County Solid Waste Management District. Consumer Electronics Collection Report
DEP Technical Assistance Grant. October 1998. Franklin County, MA. Average age of products
recovered.
Jun Fujimoto, Tetsuya Tamura, et al. NEC Corporation. A New Era Computer Product Focused
on Environmentally Relevant Factors. 1995 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and
the Environment. May 1995. Composition of notebook-type computers.
Lehman, Richard L., Reggie Caudill, Julian Kliokis. Processes and Products for Utilization of
Reclaimed CRT Glass. Presentation at Demanufacturing of Electronic Equipment for Reuse and
Recycling [DEER2] Information Exchange. October 26 - 27, 1999. Center for Ceramics
Research. Rutgers University.
Matthews, H. Scott, Francis C. McMichael, et al. Disposition and End-of-Life Options for
Personal Computers. Green Design Initiative Technical Report #97-10. Carnegie Mellon
University.
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Management of Waste Electronic Appliances.
August 1995.
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Recycling Used Electronics. Report on
Minnesota's Demonstration Project. July 2001.
National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. Contracting for Proper Recovery
and Recycling of Electronic Products. March 2, 2000.
National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. Proper Management of End-of-
Life Electronic Products (other than CRTs). January 27, 2000.
National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. State and Local Policy Initiative
and Voluntary Programs. December 2, 1999.
National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. Trends in Electronics Recycling
in the United States. November 3, 1999.
National Safety Council. Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report. May
1999.
165
-------
Appendix C Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
Pasco County and Center for Environmental Communications. The Recycling and
Demanufacturing of Computers and Electronic Equipment in Pasco County, Florida. April
2000.
Pitts, Greg. Computer and Electronics Disposition Eco-Industrial Park. Presentation at
Demanufacturing of Electronic Eq
Exchange. October 26 - 27, 1999.
Demanufacturing of Electronic Equipment for Reuse and Recycling [DEER2] Information
Southern Waste Information eXchange, Inc. SWIX. Used TV & Computer Recycling &
Management in Florida: A Resource Guide. September 1999.
U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Economics and Statistics Administration.
1997 Economic Census. Industry Series. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. EC97M-
3343A. Employment and value in dollars data.
U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Current Industrial Report: Communication
Equipment. 1985 - 1999.
U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Current Industrial Report: Computers and
Office and Accounting Machines. 1980 - 1999.
U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Current Industrial Report: Consumer
Electronics. 1980- 1999.
U.S. EPA. Analysis of Five Community Consumer/Residential Collections. End-Of-Life
Electronic and Electrical Equipment. April 1999. EPA-901-R-98-003.
166
-------
i
Appendix C Consumer Electronics in Municipal Solid Waste
Personal communication with the following (August and September 2001):
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, David Janke
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Thomas Metzner
Delaware Solid Waste Authority, Rich Von Stetton
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Raoul Clarke
Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Kent Forrester
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Paula Napier
Maine Department of Environmental Protection, George McDonald
Maryland Environmental Service, Hallie Clemm
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Brooke Nash
Northeast Recycling Council, John Leigh
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Jeff Dennison
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Robin Heston
New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Scott Menrath
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Scott Mouw
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Bill Bree and Chris Taylor
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality, Tom Hyatt
Product Stewardship Institute, Scott Cassel
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Julie Hackbarth
Washington Department of Ecology, Jay Shepherd and Gretchen Newman
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Kate Cooper
167
-------
~° O 5-5; m c
§ 3? of co = 3.
So w P S. s-
5: 03 ^.
•<
—h
O
—\
TJ
I
c
CO
CD
if)
8
O
CD
CO
CD
CO
D
O
CD 03
5.
------- |