United States Solid Waste and
Environmental Protection Emergency Response EPA530-R-97-015
Agency (5305W) May 1997
&EPA Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste in
The United States:
1996 Update
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN THE UNITED STATES
1996 UPDATE
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division
Office of Solid Waste
Report No. EPA530-R-97-015
by
Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Prairie Village, KS
June 1997
Printed on recycled paper
-------
ii
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN THE UNITED STATES: 1996 UPDATE
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 15
Background 15
How this report can be used 16
Municipal solid waste in perspective 18
Municipal solid waste defined 18
Other Subtitle D wastes 18
The solid waste management hierarchy 19
Methodologies for characterizing municipal solid waste 20
The two methodologies 20
Definition of terms 21
Materials and products not included in these estimates 22
Projections 22
Overview of this report 23
References 24
2 CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BY WEIGHT 27
Introduction 27
Materials in municipal solid waste 27
Paper and paperboard 31
Glass 34
Ferrous metals 36
Aluminum 38
Other nonferrous metals 39
Plastics 39
Other materials 43
Food wastes 45
Yard trimmings 46
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes 47
Summary of materials in municipal solid waste 47
Products in municipal solid waste 51
Durable goods 51
Nondurable goods 60
Containers and packaging 67
Summary of products in municipal solid waste 76
Summary 79
References 81
3 MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 89
Introduction 89
Source reduction 89
Source reduction through redesign 92
Modifying practices to reduce materials use 94
Reuse of products and packages 94
Reuse infrastructure 99
Management of organic materials 103
iii
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Chapter Page
3 MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (continued)
Recovery for recycling (including composting) 103
Recyclables collection 103
Recyclables processing 106
Combustion 109
Residues from waste management facilities Ill
Landfill 112
Summary of historical and current MSW management 113
References 115
4 PROJECTIONS OF MSW GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT
AND ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES 119
Introduction 119
Overview of this chapter 119
Materials generation in municipal solid waste 120
Paper and paperboard 120
Glass 122
Ferrous metals 122
Aluminum 122
Other nonferrous metals 122
Plastics 123
Wood wastes 123
Other materials 123
Food wastes 123
Yard trimmings 124
Projected growth rates for materials in MSW 125
Product generation in municipal solid waste 126
Durable goods 127
Nondurable goods 127
Containers and packaging 129
The effects of yard trimmings source reduction 131
Projections of MSW recovery 133
Discussion of assumptions 134
Scenarios for 2000 135
Scenarios for 2010 136
Projections of MSW discards after recovery 136
Projections of MSW combustion 138
Summary of projected MSW management 139
Additional perspectives on municipal solid waste 141
Generation and discards by individuals 141
Residential and commercial generation of MSW 143
Organic/inorganic fractions of MSW discards 145
Ranking of products in MSW by weight 146
References 150
Appendix
A Material Flows Methodology 153
B Recovery Scenarios for 2000 and 2010 157
iv
-------
List of Tables
Table Page
ES-1 Generation and recovery of materials in MSW, 1995 6
ES-2 Generation and recovery of products in MSW by material, 1995 8
Materials in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream, 1960 to 1995
1 Generated 28
2 Recovery 29
3 Discarded 30
Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 1995
4 Paper and paperboard 31
5 Glass 34
6 Metals 37
7 Plastics 40
8 Rubber and leather 44
Categories of Products in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream, 1960 to 1995
9 Generated 52
10 Recovery 53
11 Discarded 54
Products in MSW with Detail on Durable Goods, 1960 to 1995
12 Generated 57
13 Recovery 58
14 Discarded 59
Products in MSW with Detail on Nondurable Goods, 1960 to 1995
15 Generated 64
16 Recovery 65
17 Discarded 66
Products in MSW with Detail on Containers and Packaging, 1960 to 1995
18 Generated (by weight) 70
19 Generated (by percent) 71
20 Recovery (by weight) 72
21 Recovery (by percent) 73
22 Discarded (by weight) 74
23 Discarded (by percent) 75
24 Selected examples of source reduction practices 91
25 Refrigerator source reduction, 1965 to 1995 93
26 Plastic sack source reduction, 1985 to 1995 95
27 Newspaper source reduction, 1985 to 1995 96
28 Newspaper publisher newsprint conservation measures 97
29 Selected collection and reuse programs for durable goods 99
30 Selected electronics reuse operations 100
31 Selected communities with municipal textile recycling programs 101
32 Selected pallet reuse operations 102
33 Number and population served by curbside recycling programs, 1995 104
34 Material recovery facilities, 1995 107
v
-------
List of Tables (continued)
Table Page
35 Municipal waste combustors, 1995 110
36 Landfills in the United States by region, 1995 112
37 Generation, materials recovery, composting, combustion, and discards
of municipal solid waste, 1960 to 1995 113
38 Projections of materials generated in the municipal waste stream; 1995, 2000, and 2010...121
39 Average annual rates of increase (or decrease) of generation of materials in MSW 125
40 Projections of categories of products generated in the municipal waste stream;
1995, 2000, and 2010 127
Projections of Products Generated in MSW, 1995 to 2010
41 Durable goods 128
42 Nondurable goods 129
43 Containers and packaging 130
44 Comparison of three scenarios for source reduction of yard trimmings, 2000 and 2010 132
45 Projected generation and ranges of recovery, 2000 135
46 Projected generation and ranges of recovery, 2010 137
47 Projections of materials discarded in MSW: 1995, 2000, and 2010 138
48 Generation, recovery, combustion and disposal of municipal solid waste:
1995, 2000, and 2010 139
Additional Perspectives on Municipal Solid Waste
49 Per capita generation, materials recovery, combustion, and discards of municipal
solid waste, 1960 to 2010 142
50 Per capita generation of material solid waste, by material, 1960 to 2010 143
51 Classification of MSW generation into residential and commercial fractions, 1995 144
52 Composition of MSW discards by organic and inorganic fractions, 1960 to 2010 145
53 Generation of municipal solid waste, 1995 arranged in descending order by weight 147
54 Recovery of municipal solid waste, 1995 arranged in descending order by weight 148
55 Discards of municipal solid waste, 1995 arranged in descending order by weight 149
B-l Scenarios for recovery of MSW, 2000 159
B-2 Scenarios for recovery of MSW, 2010 160
vi
-------
List of Figures
Figure Page
ES-1 Materials generated in MSW by weight, 1995 5
ES-2 Products generated in MSW by weight, 1995 7
ES-3 Management of MSW in U.S., 1995 10
ES-4 Municipal solid waste management (thousand tons), 1960 to 1995 13
1 Municipal solid waste in the universe of Subtitle D wastes 19
Materials Generated and Recovered in Municipal Solid Waste
2 Paper and paperboard products generated in MSW, 1995 32
3 Paper generation and recovery, 1960 to 1995 33
4 Glass products generated in MS W, 1995 35
5 Glass generation and recovery, 1960 to 1995 35
6 Metal products generated in MSW, 1995 36
7 Metals generation and recovery, 1960 to 1995 38
8 Plastics products generated in MSW, 1995 42
9 Plastics generation and recovery, 1960 to 1995 43
10 Generation of materials in MSW, 1960 to 1995 48
11 Materials recovery and discards of MSW, 1960 to 1995 48
12 Materials recovery, 1995 49
13 Materials generated and discarded in MSW, 1995 50
Products Generated and Recovered in Municipal Solid Waste
14 Generation of products in MSW, 1960 to 1995 76
15 Nondurable goods generated and discarded in MSW, 1995 77
16 Containers and packaging generated and discarded in MSW, 1995 78
17 Diagram of solid waste management 90
18 Refrigerator source reduction, 1965 to 1995 93
19 Plastic sack source reduction, 1985 to 1995 95
20 Newsprint source reduction, 1985 to 1995 97
21 Population served in curbside programs, 1995 104
22 States with deposit/redemption legislation 106
23 Existing and planned MRFs, 1995 107
24 Mixed waste processing capacity, 1995 108
25 MSW composting capacity, 1995 109
26 Yard trimmings composting programs, 1995 109
27 Municipal waste combustion capacity, 1995 110
28 Landfill capacity in the U.S., 1995 112
29 Municipal solid waste management, 1960 to 1995 114
30 Materials generated in MSW; 1995, 2000, and 2010 120
31 Products generated in MSW; 1995, 2000, and 2010 126
32 Municipal solid waste management (thousand tons), 1960 to 2010 140
33 Municipal solid waste management (percent), 1960 to 2010 140
A-l Material flows methodology for estimating generation of products and materials
in municipal solid waste 154
A-2 Material flows methodology for estimating discards of products and materials
in municipal solid waste 155
vii
-------
viii
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN THE UNITED STATES: 1996 UPDATE
Executive Summary
FEATURES OF THIS REPORT
This report is the latest in a series of reports published by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) describing the national municipal solid
waste (MSW) stream. The report characterizes the national solid waste stream for
the previous calendar year based on data collected from 1960 through 1995. It also
discusses trends and highlights changes that have occurred over the years, both
in the types of wastes generated and in the ways they are managed. Although the
report does not specifically address local and regional variations in the waste
stream, the data in the report can be used to develop approximate estimates of
MSW generation and composition in defined areas.
This report includes information on:
• Total MSW generation, recovery, and discards from 1960 to
1995.
• Per capita generation and discard rates.
• Materials (e.g., paper, glass, metals, plastic) that comprise
MSW, as well as products (e.g., durable and nondurable goods,
containers, packaging) found in the waste stream.
• Aggregate data on the infrastructure for MSW management,
including estimates of the number of curbside recycling
programs, drop-off centers, and materials recovery facilities in
the United States.
• Trends in MSW management from 1960 to 1995, including
examples of source reduction of specific products, selected
materials reuse programs, recovery for recycling (including
composting), and disposal via combustion and landfilling.
• Projections for MSW generation and management through
2010, including three scenarios of conditions that could achieve
targeted recovery rates.
l
-------
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
1995 MSW Generation and Management:
• A total of 208 million tons of MSW was generated in 1995.
This reflects a decrease of more than 1 million tons from
1994, when MSW generation was over 209 million tons.
• The per capita generation rate in 1995 was 4.3 pounds per
person per day, compared to 4.4 pounds per person per day
in 1994.
• The per capita discard rate (after recovery for recycling,
including composting) was 3.2 pounds per person per day in
1995, down from 3.3 pounds per person per day in 1994.
• Recycling (including composting) recovered 27 percent (56
million tons) of MSW in 1995, up from 25 percent (52
million tons) in 1994.
• There were over 7,000 curbside recycling programs in the
United States in 1995, as well as nearly 9,000 drop-off centers
for recyclables. More than 300 materials recovery facilities
helped process the recyclables collected.
• Recovery of paper and paperboard reached 40 percent (33
million tons) in 1995, accounting for more than half of the
total MSW recovered. In addition, more than 9 million
tons of yard trimmings were recovered for composting in
1995, accounting for the second largest fraction of total
recovery. The percentage of yard trimmings composted (30
percent) has doubled since 1992.
• Landfills managed 57 percent of MSW generated (118
million tons), down from 60 percent in 1994. Combustion
facilities managed 16 percent (33.5 million tons) of the total
MSW generated, slightly more than the 15 percent managed
in 1994.
2
-------
Trends in MSW Generation and Management:
• Per capita MSW generation is expected to remain relatively
stable through the year 2000. This rate will remain steady
because even though the per capita generation of certain
MSW components will continue to rise, source reduction
efforts are beginning to have an effect.
• Generation of yard trimmings is projected to decline from
29.8 million tons in 1995 to 27.1 million tons in 2000. This
decline is due to the effect of source reduction efforts, such
as grasscycling and backyard composting, spurred, in part, by
legislation passed by many states banning yard trimmings
from landfills or charging residents separately for pickup.
• Generation rates for paper and paperboard, plastics, and
wood are all projected to increase faster than population
until 2010, while generation rates for glass, metals, and food
wastes are projected to increase at about the same rate as
population growth.
• Annual generation of MSW is projected to increase to 222
million tons by the year 2000 and 253 million tons in 2010.
Containers and packaging are expected to remain the largest
category of products in MSW, at 36 percent of total
generation by 2000 and 38 percent by 2010. Nondurables will
remain the second largest category at 28 percent of total
MSW generation by 2000 and 29 percent by 2010.
• For the year 2000, possible recovery scenarios are presented
for 30 and 35 percent recovery levels. Possible recovery
scenarios between 30 and 40 percent are made for the year
2010.
• Combustion is expected to remain relatively unchanged,
managing about 16 percent of the total MSW generated by
the year 2000 (36 million tons) and 15 percent by 2010 (39
million tons).
• While the percentage of total MSW being disposed of in
landfills is decreasing, the actual tonnage is expected to
increase to 119 million tons by 2000, and 125 million tons by
2010. Landfilling is expected to continue to be the single
most predominant MSW management method in future
years.
3
-------
DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY
Municipal solid waste ( MSW) includes wastes such as durable goods, nondurable goods,
containers and packaging, food scraps, yard trimmings, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes from
residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. Examples of waste from these
categories include appliances, automobile tires, newspapers, clothing, boxes, disposable
tableware, office and classroom paper, wood pallets, and cafeteria wastes. MSW does not include
wastes from other sources, such as construction and demolition debris, automobile bodies,
municipal sludges, combustion ash, and industrial process wastes that might also be disposed in
municipal waste landfills or incinerators.
Source reduction activities reduce the amount or toxicity of wastes before they enter the
municipal solid waste management system (see Generation). 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 are examples of source reduction.
Generation refers to the amount (weight or volume) of materials and products that enter the
waste stream before recycling (including composting), landfilling, or combustion takes place.
Recovery of materials means removing MSW from the waste stream for the purpose of recycling
(including composting). Recovery for recycling as defined for this report includes purchases of
postconsumer recovered materials plus net exports of the materials. Recovery of yard trimmings
includes diverting yard trimmings from disposal to a composting facility. For some materials,
recovery for uses such as highway construction or insulation is considered recovery along with
materials used in remanufacturing processes.
Combustion includes combustion of mixed MSW, fuel prepared from MSW, or a separated
component of MSW (such as rubber tires), with or without energy recovery.
Discards include the municipal solid waste remaining after recycling (including composting).
These discards are usually combusted or disposed of in landfills, although some MSW is littered,
stored, or disposed on site, particularly in rural areas.
~ ~ ~
Methodology. There are two primary methods for conducting a waste characterization study. The
first is a source-specific approach in which the individual components of the waste stream are
sampled, sorted, and weighed. Although this method is useful for defining a local waste stream,
extrapolating from a limited number of studies can produce a skewed or misleading picture if used
for a nationwide characterization of waste. Atypical circumstances encountered during sampling
or errors in the sample would be greatly magnified when expanded to represent the nation's entire
waste stream. The second method, which is used in this report, is called the "material flows
methodology." EPA's Office of Solid Waste and its predecessors in the Public Health Service
sponsored work in the 1960s and early 1970s to develop the material flows methodology. This
methodology is based on production data (by weight) for the materials and products in the waste
stream, with adjustments for imports, exports, and product lifetimes.
Note that when the report is updated, there are numerical discrepancies in waste generation,
recovery, and discards from previous editions. These differences are due to revised estimates from
source data (e.g., industry associations and federal agencies) made to the MSW characterization
database.
4
-------
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN 1995
MSW consists of both materials and products. Materials in MSW include
paper and paperboard, yard trimmings, glass, metal, plastic, wood, and food
wastes. Each material category (except for food wastes and yard trimmings) is
made up of many different products. Products in MSW are grouped into three
main categories: (1) durable goods (e.g., appliances), (2) nondurable goods (e.g.,
newspapers), and (3) containers and packaging. These product categories
generally contain each type of MSW material, with some exceptions. The durable
goods category contains no paper and paperboard. The nondurable goods category
includes only small amounts of metals and essentially no glass or wood. The
containers and packaging category includes only very small amounts of rubber,
leather, and textiles.
Materials in MSW
In 1995, MSW generation totaled 208 million tons. Figure ES-1 provides a
breakdown, by weight, of the MSW materials generated in 1995. Paper and
paperboard products made up the largest component of MSW generated (39
percent), and yard trimmings comprised the second largest material component
(14 percent). Glass, metals, plastics, wood, and food wastes each constituted
Figure ES-1. Materials generated in MSW by weight, 1995
(Total weight = 208.0 million tons)
Glass 6.2%
12.8 million tons
Metals 7.6%
15.8 million tons
Plastics 9.1%
19.0 million tons
Paper & paperboard 39.2%
81.5 million tons
Wood 7.1%
14.9 million tons
Food 6.7%
14.0 million tons
Other 9.8%
Yard trimmings 14.3$>
29.8 million tons 20.2 million tons
5
-------
between 6 and 10 percent of the total MSW generated. Other materials in MSW,
such as rubber, leather, textiles, and miscellaneous wastes, made up
approximately 10 percent of the MSW generated in 1995.
A portion of each material category in MSW was recycled (including being
composted) in 1995, as illustrated in Table ES-1. It should be noted, however, that
recovery rates for some products within a material category are higher than the
overall recovery rate for the material category, because some products are not
Table ES-1
GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF MATERIALS IN MSW, 1995
(In millions of tons and percent of generation of each material)
Weight
Generated
Weight
Recovered
Recovery
as a Percent
of Generation
Paper and paperboard
81.5
32.6
40.0%
Glass
12.8
3.1
24.5%
Metals
Ferrous metals
11.6
4.2
36.5%
Aluminum
3.0
1.0
34.5%
Other nonferrous metals
1.3
0.9
69.4%
Total metals
15.8
6.2
38.9%
Plastics
19.0
1.0
5.2%
Rubber and Leather
6.0
0.5
8.9%
Textiles
7.4
0.9
12.2%
Wood
14.9
1.4
9.6%
Other materials
3.6
0.8
23.1%
Total Materials in Products
161.1
46.6
28.9%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
14.0
0.6
4.1%
Yard Trimmings
29.8
9.0
30.3%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
3.2
Neg.
Neg.
Total Other Wastes
46.9
9.6
20.4%
TOTAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
208.0
56.2
27.0%
Includes wastes from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
Neg. = Less than 50,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
6
-------
recovered at all. For example, aluminum cans are recovered at rates above 60
percent, but the overall recovery rate for aluminum is only 35 percent. Likewise,
even though corrugated containers are recovered at rates above 64 percent, the
overall recovery rate for paper and paperboard is 40 percent.
Products in MSW
Figure ES-2 shows the breakdown, by weight, of MSW products generated
in 1995. Containers and packaging comprised the largest portion of products
generated, at 35 percent (73 million tons) of total MSW generation. Nondurable
goods were the second largest fraction, comprising about 27 percent (57 million
tons). The third main category of products is durable goods, which comprised 15
percent (31 million tons) of total MSW generation.
Figure ES-2. Products generated in
MSW by weight, 1995
(Total weight = 208.0 mi
lion tons)
Nondurable goods 27.4% / I 1
57.0 million tons / 1
\
/
\ Containers & packaging 35.0%
\ _
°—0! h
V
31.2 million tons \
^L^
S Yard trimmings 14.3%
Food, other 8.3%^^
29.8 million tons
17.1 million tons
Table ES-2 shows the generation and recovery of the product categories in
MSW. Recovery of containers and packaging was the highest of the three
product categories—38 percent of containers and packaging generated in 1995
were recovered for recycling. About 52 percent of aluminum packaging was
recovered (mostly aluminum beverage cans), while more than 54 percent of steel
7
-------
Table ES-2
GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF PRODUCTS IN MSW
BY MATERIAL, 1995
(In millions of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Recovery
Weight
Weight
as a Percent
Generated
Recovered
of Generation
Durable goods
Ferrous metals
8.7
2.7
30.7%
Aluminum
0.8
Neg.
Neg.
Other non-ferrous metals
1.3
0.9
69.4%
Total metals
10.8
3.6
33.1%
Glass
1.3
Neg.
Neg.
Plastics
6.2
0.2
3.8%
Rubber and leather
5.2
0.5
10.3%
Wood
4.2
Neg.
Neg.
Textiles
2.3
0.1
5.0%
Other materials
1.1
0.8
77.8%
Total durable goods
31.2
5.3
17.0%
Nondurable goods
Paper and paperboard
43.5
12.7
29.3%
Plastics
5.1
Neg.
<1%
Rubber and leather
0.8
Neg.
Neg.
Textiles
5.0
0.8
15.8%
Other materials
2.7
Neg.
Neg.
Total nondurable goods
57.0
13.5
23.7%
Containers and packaging
Steel
2.8
1.6
54.6%
Aluminum
2.0
1.0
51.6%
Total metals
4.8
2.6
53.4%
Glass
11.5
3.1
27.3%
Paper and paperboard
38.1
19.9
52.3%
Plastics
7.7
0.7
9.7%
Wood
10.6
1.4
13.5%
Other materials
0.1
Neg.
Neg.
Total containers and packaging
72.9
27.8
38.1%
Other wastes
Food wastes
14.0
0.6
4.1%
Yard trimmings
29.8
9.0
30.3%
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
3.2
Neg.
Neg.
Total other wastes
46.9
9.6
20.4%
TOTAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
208.0
56.2
27.0%
Includes wastes from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
Neg. = less than 50,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
8
-------
packaging (mostly cans) was recovered. Paper and paperboard packaging recovery
was estimated at 52 percent; corrugated containers accounted for most of that
figure. Approximately 27 percent of glass containers were recovered overall,
while about 14 percent of wood packaging (mostly pallets) was recovered. About
10 percent of plastic containers and packaging was recovered in 1995, most of
which was made up of soft drink, milk, and water bottles.
Overall recovery of nondurable goods was almost 24 percent in 1995.
Newspapers constituted the largest portion of this recovery, with 53 percent of
newspapers generated being recovered for recycling. Office papers and magazines
were also recovered in significant quantities in 1995, at 44 percent and 28 percent,
respectively. Over 16 percent of clothing and other textile nondurable products
also were recovered for recycling.
Overall, durable goods were recovered at a rate of 17 percent in 1995, up
from 15 percent in 1994. Nonferrous metals had one of the highest recovery
rates, at 70 percent, due to the high rate of lead recovery from lead-acid batteries.
Nearly 31 percent of ferrous metals were recovered from appliances and
miscellaneous durable goods. Excluding retreads and tire derived fuel use, over
17 percent of tires also were recovered for recycling.
Residential and Commercial Sources of MSW
Sources of MSW, as characterized in this report, include both residential
and commercial locations. Residential waste (including waste from multi-family
dwellings) is estimated 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.
Local and regional factors, such as climate and level of commercial activity,
contribute to these variations.
9
-------
MANAGEMENT OF MSW
EPA's integrated waste management hierarchy includes the following
components:
• Source reduction (including reuse of products and backyard
composting of yard trimmings).
• Recycling (including composting).
• Waste combustion (preferably with energy recovery) and
landfilling.
Figure ES-3 shows how much MSW was recovered for recycling
(including composting) and how much was disposed of by combustion and
landfilling in 1995. Approximately 27 percent (56 million tons) of MSW was
recycled and composted; an estimated 16 percent (33 million tons) was combusted
(nearly all with energy recovery); and the remainder, 57 percent (118 million
tons), was landfilled (small amounts may have been littered or self-disposed).
Figure ES-3. Management of MSW in U.S., 1995
(Total weight = 208.0 million tons)
Landfill, other, 56.9°
118.3 million tons
Recovery for recycling
(including composting), 27.0%
56.2 million tons
Combustion, 16.1%
33.5 million tons
10
-------
Source Reduction
Source reduction 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. Some 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.
• Lengthening the lives of products to postpone disposal.
• Using packaging that reduces the amount of damage or spoilage to
the product.
• Managing nonproduct organic wastes (e.g., food scraps and yard
trimmings) through onsite composting or other alternatives to
disposal (e.g., leaving grass clippings on the lawn).
Although product source reduction activities are not quantified at the
national level in this report, the report includes several case studies that
illustrate the impact of source reduction on different product categories. For
example, newspaper publishers have reduced the weight of their newsprint from
93 pages per pound in 1985 to 118 pages per pound in 1995. Efforts to reuse
electronics, durable goods, textiles, and pallets have also been successful.
Numerous businesses exist nationwide, for example, that upgrade and repair
computers, and use their valuable components to rebuild other electronic items.
Recovery
Recovery for recycling (including composting) continues to be one of the
most effective waste management techniques. In 1995, approximately 46 percent
of the U.S. population (121 million people) had access to the nation's 7,000
curbside recycling programs. Most of these programs (40 percent) were in the
11
-------
Midwest, although the Northeast had the largest population served. In addition,
nearly 9,000 drop-off centers for recyclables were reported in 35 states in 1995.
More than 300 materials recovery facilities helped process the recyclables
collected in 1995. An estimated 3,300 yard trimmings composting programs (not
backyard composting) existed in 1995, the majority of which were in the
Northeast and Midwest.
Combustion
Most MSW combustion in the United States involves the recovery of an
energy product (generally steam or electricity). Total MSW combustion with
energy recovery, referred to as waste-to-energy combustion, currently has a
design capacity of 99,000 tons per day. There were 112 waste-to-energy
combustion facilities in the United States in 1995: One-third of these were located
in the Northeast, accounting for 60 percent of the total design capacity.
Landfilling
Although the number of landfills in the United States is decreasing,
landfill capacity has remained relatively constant. In 1995, more than 2,500
landfills existed in the United States, with the Southeast and West having the
greatest number of landfills. Excluding Alaska and Hawaii, thirty-seven states
have landfills reporting more than 10 years of capacity remaining. Only two
states report having less than 5 years of capacity left.
Trends in MSW Management
MSW generation has grown steadily from 88 million tons in 1960 to 208
million tons in 1995 (Figure ES-4). In the 1960s and early 1970s, a large percentage
of MSW was burned. Through the mid-1980s, incineration declined considerably
and landfills became more difficult to site. MSW generation continued to rise,
however, while materials recovery rates increased slowly. As a result, the burden
on the nation's landfills grew dramatically. As recovery rates increased in the late
1980s and early 1990s—and combustion stayed constant—discards to landfills
have steadily decreased.
12
-------
Figure ES-4. Municipal Solid Waste Management, 1960 to 1995
225,000
Recovery for the Composting
Component of Recycling
200,000
y for Recycling
175,000
150,000
125,000
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
The report presents projections for MSW generation and management
through 2010, including possible scenarios for recovery. The MSW generation
projections are based on historical trends in combination with expected
population and subsequent economic growth. For the year 2000, possible
recovery scenarios are presented for 30 and 35 percent recovery levels. Possible
recovery scenarios between 30 and 40 percent are made for the year 2010.
To achieve these increased levels of recovery, EPA assumed that local,
state, and federal agencies would continue to emphasize recycling (including
composting) as a priority; that industries would continue to make the necessary
investments in recovery and utilization of materials; that sufficient end-user
capacity would be available for most recovered materials; that state and local
governments would continue to expand programs designed to keep yard
trimmings out of landfills; and that most U.S. citizens would continue to have
access to some sort of recovery program and that they would be willing to
participate.
13
-------
14
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND
This report is the most recent in a series of reports sponsored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to characterize municipal solid waste (MSW)
in the United States. Together with the previous reports, this report provides a
historical database for a 35-year characterization (by weight) of the materials and
products in MSW, with projections through the year 2010.
Management of the nation's municipal solid waste (MSW) continues to be
a high priority issue for many communities as we near the turn of the century.
Increasingly, 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.
There are many regional variations that require each community to
examine its own waste management needs. Such factors 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.
Identifying the components of the waste stream is an important step
toward addressing the issues associated with the generation and management of
municipal solid wastes. MSW characterizations, which analyze the quantity and
composition of the municipal solid waste stream, involve estimating how much
MSW is generated, recycled (including composting), combusted, and disposed of
in landfills. By determining the makeup of the waste stream, waste
characterizations also provide valuable data for setting waste management goals,
tracking progress toward those goals, and supporting planning at the national,
state, and local levels. For example, waste characterizations can be used to
highlight opportunities for source reduction and recycling and provide
information on any special management issues that should be considered.
Readers should note that this report characterizes the municipal solid
waste stream of the nation as a whole. Local and regional variations are not
addressed, but suggestions for use of the information in this report by local
planners are included in this chapter.
15
-------
HOW THIS REPORT CAN BE USED
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 the 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 report is, however, of
equal or greater value as a solid waste management planning tool for state and
local governments and private firms.
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 wastes, industrial
process wastes, or a number of other wastes that may well go to a municipal
waste landfill.
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 data on generation of MSW 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 possible reasons for these
differences, for example:
• Scope of waste streams may differ. That is, a local landfill may be
receiving construction and demolition wastes in addition to MSW, but
this report addresses MSW only.
16
-------
• Per capita generation of some products, such as newspapers and
telephone directories, varies widely 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.
• The level of commercial activity in a community will influence the
generation rate of some products, such as office paper, corrugated boxes,
wood pallets, and food wastes from restaurants.
• Variations in economic activity can affect waste generation in both the
residential and the commercial sectors.
• Variations in climate and local waste management practices will
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.
• Generation and discards of other products will be affected by 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 can reasonably be expected to have
typical/average 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 the following ways for
local planning:
• to develop approximate estimates of total MSW generation in an area
• to check locally developed MSW data for accuracy and consistency
• to help estimate quantities of recyclables and other MSW components
in an area
• to account for trends in total MSW generation and the generation of
individual components.
17
-------
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN PERSPECTIVE
Municipal Solid Waste Defined
Municipal solid waste includes durable goods, nondurable goods,
containers and packaging, food wastes and yard trimmings, and miscellaneous
inorganic wastes (Figure 1). 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)
The material flows methodology used in this report does not readily lend
itself to the 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 sludge, nonhazardous industrial wastes, residue from
automobile salvage operations, and construction and demolition wastes along
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.
18
-------
Figure 1. Municipal solid waste in the universe of Subtitle D wastes
Subtitle D Wastes
Municipal Solid Waste
Municipal sludge
Industrial nonhazardous waste
Construction & demolition waste
Municipal Solid Waste
Agricultural waste
Durable Goods
Oil and gas waste
Mining waste
Nondurable Goods
Containers & Packaging
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
with MSW, but these other kinds of wastes are not included in the estimates
presented in this report.
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)
• waste combustion (preferably with energy recovery) and landfilling.
With the exception of source reduction, this updated characterization
report includes estimates of the quantities of MSW managed by each practice in
the hierarchy.
19
-------
METHODOLOGIES FOR CHARACTERIZING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
The Two Methodologies
There are two basic approaches to estimating quantities of municipal solid
waste. The first method, which is site-specific, involves sampling, sorting, and
weighing the individual components of the waste stream. 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 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 was 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.
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
over 20 years.
The material flows methodology is based on production data (by weight)
for the materials and products in the waste stream. Generation data is the result
of making specific adjustments to the production data by 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). Adjustments are also made for the lifetimes of products. Finally,
food wastes and yard trimmings and a small amount of miscellaneous inorganic
wastes are accounted for by compiling data from a variety of waste sampling
studies.
20
-------
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 ajar,
detergent left in a box or bottle, dried paint in a can, etc. Some household
hazardous wastes, e.g., pesticide left in a can, are also included among these
product residues.
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 ahead of 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 towards the 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 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.
21
-------
Discards include the MSW remaining after recovery for recycling
(including composting). These discards would presumably be combusted or
landfilled, although some MSW is littered, stored or disposed on-site, or burned
on-site, 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.
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 are often 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.
PROJECTIONS
The projections of MSW generation to the year 2010 were not based on
total quantities, but were aggregated from separate projections for each product
and material. The projections are based on trend analysis of the 35-year historical
database developed for each product (including trends in per person generation),
from information in other government and private sources, and, in some cases,
best professional judgment. In the case of paper products, the relationship with
real Gross Domestic Product was taken into account.
Based on correlations of MSW generation with population and Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), the projections for most products were kept higher than
projected population growth but lower than projected GDP growth. (See Chapter
5 of EPA report 530-R-94-042, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 1994 Update, for an explanation of the correlation of MSW
generation with these demographic and economic factors.)
It should be emphasized that projections are not predictions. Projections
are based on an assumption that there will be no unforeseen changes in current
trends. Thus, the economy is assumed to remain stable and population trends
22
-------
are assumed to be as projected by the Bureau of the Census. Additional
discussions of projection assumptions are included in Chapter 4.
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 1995 MSW generation,
recovery, and discards of products in each material category are included.
In Chapter 3 of the report, estimates of 1995 MSW management by the
various alternatives are summarized. These include recovery for recycling
(including composting), combustion, and landfilling. A discussion of source
reduction is also included in Chapter 3. In a new feature, "snapshot" summaries
of the infrastructure available for each waste management alternative are
included in Chapter 3.
Projections of municipal solid waste generation and management to the
year 2010 are included in Chapter 4. Projections are made by material and by
product. A discussion of assumptions and trends is included. In addition, there is
a discussion of the potential effects of source reduction in this chapter.
23
-------
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 Nonpackaging 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.
24
-------
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.
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, 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.
25
-------
26
-------
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 study through 1995. The data
presented also incorporate revisions to previously reported data for 1994 and, in
some instances, to data for earlier years. The revisions are generally due to
revisions in the various source data series used to prepare this report.
The findings are presented in two ways: a breakdown of municipal solid
waste (MSW) by material, and a breakdown by product (both by weight and by
percentage of generation or discards). While some products, for example, paper
towels, are made up of a single material—paper—other products, for example,
rubber tires, contain more than one material, such as rubber, ferrous metals, and
textiles. Thus the materials summary tables represent an aggregation of the
materials that go into all the products in MSW. (Note that the totals for the
materials and the products tables are the same.)
The summary tables and figures provide information on generation of
each material and product, and recovery for recycling (including composting, if
any). Tables and figures displaying discards of materials and products after
recovery for recycling (including composting) follow.
Recovery means that the materials have been removed from the
municipal solid waste stream. Recovery of materials in products means that the
materials are reported to have been purchased by an end-user or exported. 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 (a MRF) or other waste processing facility are
counted as generation, since they are not purchased by an end-user. Residues
from an end-user facility (e.g., sludges from a paper deinking mill) are considered
to be industrial process wastes that are no longer part of the municipal solid
waste stream.
Additional detail is provided for some of the materials and products in
MSW that are of the most interest to planners: paper, glass, metals, plastics, and
rubber and leather.
MATERIALS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Generation, recovery, and discards of materials in MSW, by weight and by
percentage of generation or discards, are summarized in Tables 1 through 3.
Following these tables, each material is discussed in detail.
27
-------
Table 1
MATERIALS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1995
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of Tons
Materials
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Paper and Paperboard
29,990
44,310
55,160
72,720
70,990
74,260
77,430
80,840
81,540
Glass
6,720
12,740
15,130
13,110
12,590
13,130
13,620
13,350
12,830
Metals
Ferrous
10,300
12,360
12,620
12,640
12,660
12,080
11,920
11,780
11,590
Aluminum
340
800
1,730
2,810
2,840
2,870
2,930
3,040
2,950
Other Nonferrous
180
670
1,160
1,100
1,130
1,120
1,110
1,350
1,310
Total Metals
10,820
13,830
15,510
16,550
16,630
16,070
15,960
16,170
15,850
Plastics
390
2,900
6,830
17,130
17,710
18,410
18,970
19,260
18,990
Rubber and Leather
1,840
2,970
4,200
5,790
5,870
5,800
5,680
6,210
6,030
Textiles
1,760
2,040
2,530
5,810
6,060
6,630
6,820
7,260
7,400
Wood
3,030
3,720
7,010
11,900
12,110
12,980
13,490
14,370
14,860
Other **
70
770
2,520
3,190
3,310
3,370
3,410
3,700
3,630
Total Materials in Products
54.620
83.280
108.890
146.200
145.270
150.650
155.380
161.160
161.130
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
12,200
12,800
13,000
13,200
13,660
13,560
13,720
13,870
14,020
Yard Trimmings
20,000
23,200
27,500
35,000
35,000
35,000
33,250
31,500
29,750
Miscellaneous Inoraanic Wastes
1.300
1.780
2.250
2.900
2.950
3.000
3.050
3.100
3.150
Total Other Wastes
33,500
37,780
42,750
51,100
51,610
51,560
50,020
48,470
46,920
Total MSW Generated - Weight
88,120
121,060
151,640
197,300
196,880
202,210
205,400
209,630
208,050
Percent of Total Generation
Materials
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Paper and Paperboard
34.0%
36.6%
36.4%
36.9%
36.1%
36.7%
37.7%
38.6%
39.2%
Glass
7.6%
10.5%
10.0%
6.6%
6.4%
6.5%
6.6%
6.4%
6.2%
Metals
Ferrous
11.7%
10.2%
8.3%
6.4%
6.4%
6.0%
5.8%
5.6%
5.6%
Aluminum
0.4%
0.7%
1.1%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.5%
1.4%
Other Nonferrous
0.2%
0.6%
0.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
Total Metals
12.3%
11.4%
10.2%
8.4%
8.4%
7.9%
7.8%
7.7%
7.6%
Plastics
0.4%
2.4%
4.5%
8.7%
9.0%
9.1%
9.2%
9.2%
9.1%
Rubber and Leather
2.1%
2.5%
2.8%
2.9%
3.0%
2.9%
2.8%
3.0%
2.9%
Textiles
2.0%
1.7%
1.7%
2.9%
3.1%
3.3%
3.3%
3.5%
3.6%
Wood
3.4%
3.1%
4.6%
6.0%
6.2%
6.4%
6.6%
6.9%
7.1%
Other **
0.1%
0.6%
1.7%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.8%
1.7%
Total Materials in Products
62.0%
68.8%
71.8%
74.1%
73.8%
74.5%
75.6%
76.9%
77.4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
13.8%
10.6%
8.6%
6.7%
6.9%
6.7%
6.7%
6.6%
6.7%
Yard Trimmings
22.7%
19.2%
18.1%
17.7%
17.8%
17.3%
16.2%
15.0%
14.3%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
Total Other Wastes
38.0%
31.2%
28.2%
25.9%
26.2%
25.5%
24.4%
23.1%
22.6%
Total MSW Generated - %
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
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.
28
-------
Table 2
RECOVERY* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1995
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each material)
Thousands of Tons
Materials
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Paper and Paperboard
5,080
6,770
11,740
20,230
22,520
24,470
25,480
29,470
32,620
Glass
100
160
750
2,620
2,560
2,890
3,010
3,110
3,140
Metals
Ferrous
50
150
370
2,580
3,050
3,350
3,910
4,120
4,230
Aluminum
Neg.
10
310
1,010
1,010
1,110
1,050
1,150
1,020
Other Nonferrous
Neg.
320
540
730
740
710
700
990
910
Total Metals
50
480
1,220
4,320
4,800
5,170
5,660
6,260
6,160
Plastics
Neg.
Neg.
20
370
450
600
670
940
1,000
Rubber and Leather
330
250
130
370
390
380
360
500
530
Textiles
50
60
160
670
700
780
800
870
900
Wood
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
390
790
1,060
1,310
1,430
1,430
Other **
Neq.
300
500
680
680
670
650
910
840
Total Materials in Products
5,610
8,020
14,520
29,650
32,890
36,020
37,940
43,490
46,620
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
480
570
Yard Trimmings
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
4,200
4,800
5,400
6,900
8,000
9,000
Miscellaneous Inorqanic Wastes
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Total Other Wastes
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
4.200
4.800
5.400
6.900
8.480
9.570
Total MSW Recovered - Weiaht
5.610
8.020
14.520
33.850
37.690
41.420
44.840
51.970
56.190
Percent of Generation of Each Material
Materials
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Paper and Paperboard
16.9%
15.3%
21.3%
27.8%
31.7%
33.0%
32.9%
36.5%
40.0%
Glass
1.5%
1.3%
5.0%
20.0%
20.3%
22.0%
22.1%
23.3%
24.5%
Metals
Ferrous
0.5%
1.2%
2.9%
20.4%
24.1%
27.7%
32.8%
35.0%
36.5%
Aluminum
Neg.
1.3%
17.9%
35.9%
35.6%
38.7%
35.8%
37.8%
34.6%
Other Nonferrous
Neg.
47.8%
46.6%
66.4%
65.5%
63.4%
63.1%
73.3%
69.5%
Total Metals
0.5%
3.5%
7.9%
26.1%
28.9%
32.2%
35.5%
38.7%
38.9%
Plastics
Neg.
Neg.
0.3%
2.2%
2.5%
3.3%
3.5%
4.9%
5.3%
Rubber and Leather
17.9%
8.4%
3.1%
6.4%
6.6%
6.6%
6.3%
8.1%
8.8%
Textiles
2.8%
2.9%
6.3%
11.5%
11.6%
11.8%
11.7%
12.0%
12.2%
Wood
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
3.3%
6.5%
8.2%
9.7%
10.0%
9.6%
Other **
Neg.
39.0%
19.8%
21.3%
20.5%
19.9%
19.1%
24.6%
23.1%
Total Materials in Products
10.3%
9.6%
13.3%
20.3%
22.6%
23.9%
24.4%
27.0%
28.9%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
3.5%
4.1%
Yard Trimmings
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
12.0%
13.7%
15.4%
20.8%
25.4%
30.3%
Miscellaneous Inorqanic Wastes
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
Total Other Wastes
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
8.2%
9.3%
10.5%
13.8%
17.5%
20.4%
Total MSW Recovered - %
6.4%
6.6%
9.6%
17.2%
19.1%
20.5%
21.8%
24.8%
27.0%
* 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.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
29
-------
Table 3
MATERIALS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1995
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Thousands of Tons
Materials
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Paper and Paperboard
24,910
37,540
43,420
52,490
48,470
49,790
51,950
51,370
48,920
Glass
6,620
12,580
14,380
10,490
10,030
10,240
10,610
10,240
9,690
Metals
Ferrous
10,250
12,210
12,250
10,060
9,610
8,730
8,010
7,660
7,360
Aluminum
340
790
1,420
1,800
1,830
1,760
1,880
1,890
1,930
Other Nonferrous
180
350
620
370
390
410
410
360
400
Total Metals
10,770
13,350
14,290
12,230
11,830
10,900
10,300
9,910
9,690
Plastics
390
2,900
6,810
16,760
17,260
17,810
18,300
18,320
17,990
Rubber and Leather
1,510
2,720
4,070
5,420
5,480
5,420
5,320
5,710
5,500
Textiles
1,710
1,980
2,370
5,140
5,360
5,850
6,020
6,390
6,500
Wood
3,030
3,720
7,010
11,510
11,320
11,920
12,180
12,940
13,430
Other **
70
470
2,020
2,510
2,630
2,700
2,760
2,790
2,790
Total Materials in Products
49,010
75,260
94,370
116,550
112,380
114,630
117,440
117,670
114,510
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
12,200
12,800
13,000
13,200
13,660
13,560
13,720
13,390
13,450
Yard Trimmings
20,000
23,200
27,500
30,800
30,200
29,600
26,350
23,500
20,750
Miscellaneous Inorqanic Wastes
1,300
1,780
2,250
2,900
2,950
3,000
3,050
3,100
3,150
Total Other Wastes
33,500
37,780
42,750
46,900
46,810
46,160
43,120
39,990
37,350
Total MSW Discarded - Weiaht
82,510
113,040
137,120
163,450
159,190
160,790
160,560
157,660
151,860
Percent of Total Discards
Materials
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Paper and Paperboard
30.2%
33.2%
31.7%
32.1%
30.4%
31.0%
32.4%
32.6%
32.2%
Glass
8.0%
11.1%
10.5%
6.4%
6.3%
6.4%
6.6%
6.5%
6.4%
Metals
Ferrous
12.4%
10.8%
8.9%
6.2%
6.0%
5.4%
5.0%
4.9%
4.8%
Aluminum
0.4%
0.7%
1.0%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.2%
1.2%
1.3%
Other Nonferrous
0.2%
0.3%
0.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
Total Metals
13.1%
11.8%
10.4%
7.5%
7.4%
6.8%
6.4%
6.3%
6.4%
Plastics
0.5%
2.6%
5.0%
10.3%
10.8%
11.1%
11.4%
11.6%
11.8%
Rubber and Leather
1.8%
2.4%
3.0%
3.3%
3.4%
3.4%
3.3%
3.6%
3.6%
Textiles
2.1%
1.8%
1.7%
3.1%
3.4%
3.6%
3.7%
4.1%
4.3%
Wood
3.7%
3.3%
5.1%
7.0%
7.1%
7.4%
7.6%
8.2%
8.8%
Other **
0.1%
0.4%
1.5%
1.5%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.8%
1.8%
Total Materials in Products
59.4%
66.6%
68.8%
71.3%
70.6%
71.3%
73.1%
74.6%
75.4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
14.8%
11.3%
9.5%
8.1%
8.6%
8.4%
8.5%
8.5%
8.9%
Yard Trimmings
24.2%
20.5%
20.1%
18.8%
19.0%
18.4%
16.4%
14.9%
13.7%
Miscellaneous Inorqanic Wastes
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.8%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
2.0%
2.1%
Total Other Wastes
40.6%
33.4%
31.2%
28.7%
29.4%
28.7%
26.9%
25.4%
24.6%
Total MSW Discarded - %
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
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.
30
-------
Paper and Paperboard
By any measure, the many products made of paper and paperboard, taken
collectively, are the largest component of MSW. The wide variety of products
that comprise the paper and paperboard materials total is illustrated in Table 4
and Figures 2 and 3. In this report, these products are classified as either
nondurable goods or as containers and packaging, with nondurable goods being
the larger category.
Table 4
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS IN MSW, 1995
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Generation
Recovery
Discards
(Thousands
(Thousands
(Percent of
(Thousanc
Product Category
tons)
tons)
generation)
tons)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Newsprint
10,660
5,700
53.5%
4,960
Groundwood inserts
2,470
1,260
51.0%
1,210
Total Newspapers
13,130
6,960
53.0%
6,170
Books
1,170
220
18.8%
950
Magazines
2,370
670
28.3%
1,700
Office Papers
6,800
3,010
44.3%
3,790
Telephone Directories
490
60
12.2%
430
Third Class Mail
4,620
710
15.4%
3,910
Other Commercial Printing
7,110
1,100
15.5%
6,010
Tissue Paper and Towels
2,950
Neg.
Neg.
2,950
Paper Plates and Cups
970
Neg.
Neg.
970
Other Nonpackaging Paper*
3,870
Neg.
Neg.
3,870
Total Paper and Paperboard
Nondurable Goods
43,480
12,730
29.3%
30,750
Containers and Packaging
Corrugated Boxes
28,800
18,480
64.2%
10,320
Milk Cartons
510
Neg.
Neg.
510
Folding Cartons
5,310
1,070
20.2%
4,240
Other Paperboard Packaging
260
Neg.
Neg.
260
Bags and Sacks
1,990
340
17.1%
1,650
Wrapping Papers
70
Neg.
Neg.
70
Other Paper Packaging
1,120
Neg.
Neg.
1,120
Total Paper and Paperboard
Containers and Packaging
38,060
19,890
52.3%
18,170
Total Paper and Paperboard
81,540
32,620
40.0%
48,920
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.
31
-------
Figure 2. Paper and paperboard products generated in MSW, 1995
Corrugated boxes
Newspapers
Commercial printing
Office papers
Folding and milk cartons
Third class mail
Other papers
Tissue paper and towels
Magazines
Bags and sacks
Other packaging
Books
Paper plates and cups
Directories
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Thousand tons
25,000
30,000
Total generation of paper and paperboard in MSW has grown steadily
from 30 million tons in 1960 to 81.5 million tons in 1995 (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 39.2 percent of total
MSW generation in 1995.
(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.)
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 are also made to account for products diverted out
of municipal solid waste, such as gypsum wallboard facings or toilet tissue.
32
-------
Figure 3. Paper generation and recovery, 1960 to 1995
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Generation
¦ _
/ "
¦ — ¦
i^i
mS*
¦
1"*
Recovery
3-D-0-0-°^
pO-Q-O
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
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 recent updates, various converting scrap recovery rates
ranging from 70 percent to 98 percent were applied to the estimates for 1990
through 1995. The converting scrap recovery rates were developed for a 1992
report for the Recycling Advisory Council. 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.
33
-------
Recovery of paper and paperboard for recycling is at the highest rate
overall compared to all other materials in MSW. As Table 4 shows, 64.2 percent
of all corrugated boxes were recovered for recycling in 1995. Newspapers were
recovered at a rate of 53.0 percent, and high grade office papers at 44.3 percent,
with lesser percentages of other papers being recovered also. Approximately 32.6
million tons of postconsumer paper were recovered in 1995—40.0 percent of total
paper and paperboard generation.
Discards After Recovery. After recovery of paper and paperboard for
recycling, discards were 48.9 million tons in 1995, or 32.2 percent of total MSW
discards.
Glass is found in MSW primarily in the form of containers (Table 5 and
Figures 4 and 5), but also in durable goods like 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
Glass
Table 5
GLASS PRODUCTS IN MSW, 1995
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Product Category
Durable Goods*
Generation Recovery Discards
(Thousand (Thousand (Percent of (Thousand
tons) tons) generation) tons)
1,300 Neg. Neg. 1,300
Containers and Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles 5,120 1,670 32.6%
Wine and Liquor Bottles 1,790 470 26.3%
Food and Other Bottles and Jars 4,620 1,000 21.6%
Total Glass Containers 11,530 3,140 27.2%
3,450
1,320
3,620
8,390
Total Glass 12,830 3,140 24.5%
9,690
* 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.
34
-------
Figure 4. Glass products generated in MSW, 1995
Beer & soft drink bottles
Food, other bottles & jars
Wine & liquor bottles
Durable goods
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Thousand tons
1985. Beginning about 1987, however, the decline in generation of glass
containers slowed (Figure 5), and glass generation in 1995 was 12.8 million tons,
about the same as 1987. During the 1990's glass generation has varied from 12.6 to
13.6 million tons per year. Glass was 10 percent of MSW generation in 1980,
declining to 6.2 percent in 1995.
Figure 5. Glass generation and recovery, 1960 to 1995
16,000
Generation
14,000
12,000
C
o
10,000
~o
c
TO
-------
Recovery. Published estimates indicate 3.1 million tons of glass containers
were recovered for recycling in 1995. Based on 1995 glass generation, an estimated
27.2 percent of glass containers was recovered for recycling, with a 24.5 percent
recovery rate for all glass in MSW. Most of the recovered glass went into new
glass containers, but a portion went to other uses such as fiberglass and glasphalt
for highway construction. The Glass Packaging Institute reported a recovery rate
of 37 percent for glass containers in 1995; this recovery rate includes an allowance
for refilling of bottles. Since this EPA report classifies refilling as reuse (source
reduction) rather than recovery for recycling, the recovery rate estimated for this
report is 27.2 percent of glass containers.
Discards After Recovery. Recovery for recycling lowered discards of glass to
9.7 million tons in 1995 (6.4 percent of total MSW discards).
Ferrous Metals
By weight, ferrous metals 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
durables. 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.
Total generation and recovery of all metals in MSW from 1960 to 1995 are
shown in Figure 7.
Figure 6. Metal products generated in MSW, 1995
~ Durables H Packaging D Nondurables
Ferrous
Aluminum
Nonferrous
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Thousand tons
36
-------
Table 6
METAL PRODUCTS IN MSW, 1995
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Generation
Recovery
Discards
(Thousand
(Thousand
(Percent of
(Thousand
Product Category
tons)
tons)
generation)
tons)
Durable Goods
Ferrous metals*
8,740
2,680
30.7%
6,060
Aluminum**
800
Neg.
Neg.
800
Leadt
950
910
95.8%
40
Other nonferrous metalst
360
Neg.
Neg.
360
Total Metals in Durable Goods
10,850
3,590
33.1%
7,260
Nondurable Goods
Aluminum
180
Neg.
Neg.
180
Containers and Packaging
Steel
Food and other cans
2,640
1,500
56.8%
1,140
Other steel packaging
210
50
23.8%
160
Total Steel Packaging
2,850
1,550
54.4%
1,300
Aluminum
Beer and soft drink cans
1,580
990
62.7%
590
Food and other cans
40
Neg.
7.0%
40
Foil and closures
350
30
8.6%
320
Total Aluminum Packaging
1,970
1,020
51.8%
950
Total Metals in
Containers and Packaging
4,820
2,570
53.3%
2,250
Total Metals
15,850
6,160
38.9%
9,690
Ferrous
11,590
4,230
36.5%
7,360
Aluminum
2,950
1,020
34.6%
1,930
Other nonferrous
1,310
910
69.5%
400
* Ferrous metals in appliances, furniture, tires, 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.
Generation. Approximately 10.3 million tons of ferrous metals were
generated in 1960. Like glass, the tonnages grew during the 1960s and 1970s, but
began to drop as lighter materials like aluminum and plastics replaced steel in
many applications. Generation of ferrous metals did, however, increase to 12.7
million tons in 1991, then dropped to 11.6 million tons in 1995. The percentage of
ferrous metals generation in MSW has declined from 11.7 percent in 1960 to 5.6
percent in 1995.
Recovery. The renewed emphasis on recovery and recycling in recent
years has included ferrous metals. Based on data from the Steel Recycling
37
-------
Figure 7. Metals generation and recovery, 1960 to 1995
18,000
Generation
16,000
14,000
12,000
-------
Recovery. Aluminum beverage containers were recovered at a rate of 62.7
percent of generation (990,000 tons) in 1995, and 51.8 percent of all aluminum in
containers and packaging was recovered for recycling in 1995.
Discards After Recovery. In 1995, 1.9 million tons of aluminum were
discarded in MSW after recovery, which was 1.3 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 car and 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 1.3
million tons in 1995. Lead in batteries accounted for 950,000 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 one
percent.
Recovery. Recovery of the other nonferrous metals was 910,000 tons in
1995, with most of this being lead recovered from batteries. It was estimated that
95.8 percent of battery lead was recovered in 1995.
Discards After Recovery. In 1995, 400,000 tons of nonferrous metals were
discarded in MSW. Percentages of total discards remained less than one percent
over the entire period.
Plastics
Plastics are a rapidly growing segment of MSW. Plastics are found in
durable and nondurable goods and in containers and packaging, with the latter
being the largest category of plastics in MSW (Table 7 and Figure 8).
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, there are hundreds of different resin
formulations 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,
39
-------
Table 7
PLASTICS IN PRODUCTS IN MSW, 1995
(In thousands of tons, and percent of generation by resin)
Generation Recovery Discards
(Thousand (Thousand (Percent (Thousand
Product Category tons) tons) of Gen.) tons)
Durable Goods
PET 440 30 410
HDPE 680 40 640
PVC 480 Neg. 480
LDPE/LLDPE 800 20 780
PP 1,220 110 1,110
PS 740 10 730
Other resins 1,850 30_ 1,820
Total Plastics in Durable Goods 6,210 240 3.9% 5,970
Nondurable Goods
Plastic Plates and Cups
LDPE/LLDPE 20 20
PS 770 10 760
Subtotal Plastic Plates and Cups 790
Trash Bags
HDPE 200 200
LDPE/LLDPE 550 550
Subtotal Trash Bags 750 750
All other nondurables*
PET 120 120
HDPE 310 310
PVC 530 530
LDPE/LLDPE 1,290 1,290
PP 710 710
PS 500 500
Other resins 80 80
Subtotal All Other Nondurables 3,540 3,540
Total Plastics in Nondurable Goods, by resin
PET 120 120
HDPE 510 510
PVC 530 530
LDPE/LLDPE 1,860 1,860
PP 710 710
PS 1,270 10 1,260
Other resins 80 80
Total Plastics in Nondurable Goods 5,080 10 0.2% 5,070
Plastic Containers & Packaging
Soft drink bottles
PET 620 290 330
HDPE 40_ 10_ 30
Subtotal Soft Drink Bottles 660 300 45.5% 360
Milk and water bottles
HDPE 630 190 30.2% 440
HDPE=High density polyethylene PET=Polyethylene terephthalate PS=Polystyrene
LDPE=Low density polyethylene PP=Polypropylene PVC=Polyvinyl chloride
LLDPE=Linear Low density polyethylene
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
40
-------
Table 7 (continued)
PLASTICS IN PRODUCTS IN MSW, 1995
(In thousands of tons, and percent of generation by resin)
Generation Recovery Discards
(Thousand
(Thousand
(Percent
(Thousand
Product Category
tons)
tons)
of Gen.)
tons)
Plastic Containers & Packaging, cont.
Other plastic containers
PET
330
40
290
HDPE
700
120
580
PVC
70
Neg.
70
LDPE/LLDPE
30
Neg.
30
PP
70
Neg.
70
PS
40
Neg.
40
Other resins
10
Neg.
10
Subtotal Other Containers
1,250
160
12.8%
1,090
Bags, sacks, & wraps
HDPE
430
10
420
PVC
60
60
LDPE/LLDPE
1,960
70
1,890
PP
380
380
PS
60
60
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, & Wraps
2,890
80
2.8%
2,810
Other Plastics Packaging**
PET
180
Neg.
180
HDPE
530
Neg.
530
PVC
360
Neg.
360
LDPE/LLDPE
480
Neg.
480
PP
530
20
510
PS
140
Neg.
140
Other resins
50
Neg.
50
Subtotal Other Packaging
2,270
20
0.9%
2,250
Total Plastics in Containers & Packaging, by
resin
PET
1,130
330
800
HDPE
2,330
330
2,000
PVC
490
Neg.
490
LDPE/LLDPE
2,470
70
2,400
PP
980
20
960
PS
240
Neg.
240
Other resins
60
Neg.
60
Total Plastics in Containers & Packaging
7,700
750
9.7%
6,950
Total Plastics in MSW, by resin
PET
1,690
360
1,330
HDPE
3,520
370
3,150
PVC
1,500
Neg.
1,500
LDPE/LLDPE
5,130
90
5,040
PP
2,910
130
2,780
PS
2,250
20
2,230
Other resins
1,990
30
1,960
Total Plastics in MSW
18,990
1,000
5.3%
17,990
HDPE=High density polyethylene PET=Polyethylene terephthalate PS=Polystyrene
LDPE=Low density polyethylene PP=Polypropylene PVC=Polyvinyl chloride
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.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
41
-------
household items such as shower curtains, etc. The plastic foodservice items are
generally made of clear or foamed polystyrene, while trash bags are made of
high-density polyethylene or low-density polyethylene. A wide variety of other
resins are used in other nondurable goods.
Plastic resins are also used in a variety of container and packaging products
such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) soft drink bottles, high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) bottles for milk and water, and a wide variety of other resin
types used in other plastic containers, bags, sacks, wraps, lids, etc.
Generation. Production data on plastics resin use in products is taken from
the Modem Plastics annual statistical issue and the American Plastics Council
annual plastic recovery survey. The basic data are adjusted for product service
life, fabrication losses, and for net imports of plastic products to derive
generation of plastics in the various products in MSW.
Plastics comprised an estimated 390,000 tons of MSW generation in 1960.
The quantity has increased relatively steadily to 19.0 million tons in 1995 (Figure
9). As a percentage of MSW generation, plastics were less than one percent in
1960, increasing to 9.1 percent in 1995.
Recovery for Recycling. While overall recovery of plastics for recycling is
relatively small—1.0 million tons, or 5.3 percent of plastics generation in 1995
(Table 9)—recovery of some plastic containers is increasing. Plastic (polyethylene
terephthalate) soft drink bottles and their base cups were recovered at a rate of
about 45.5 percent in 1995. Recovery of high-density polyethylene milk and water
bottles was estimated at about 30.2 percent in 1995. Significant recovery of plastics
from lead-acid battery casings and from some other containers was also reported.
Figure 8. Plastics products generated in MSW, 1995
Durables
Nondurables
Bags, sacks and wraps
Other packaging
Soft drink, milk, and water
containers
Other containers
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Thousand tons
J I I I I L
I
]
42
-------
Figure 9. Plastics generation and recovery, 1960 to 1995
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Generation
L
..c.
OitiiCo-o-D-o-o-o-o^^
Recovery
0-J3-0-0-0-CW3-J3-0-0-0-0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980 1985
1990
1995
The primary source of data on plastics recovery is an annual survey
conducted for the American Plastics Council (APC). Recently there has been a
change in the way APC reports plastics recovery data. In previous years, APC had
reported the quantity of resin actually recycled after being cleaned and processed.
Starting in 1994 data reported by APC are recovery for recycling before processing
at the reclaimer. Thus, the plastics data are now more consistent with the data
reported for the other materials.
Discards After Recovery. Discards of plastics in MSW after recovery were
18.0 million tons, or 11.8 percent of total MSW discards.
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 6.0
million tons in 1995. 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 3.0 percent for many years.
43
-------
Table 8
RUBBER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS IN MSW, 1995
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Generation
Recovery
Discards
(Thousand
(Thousand
(Percent of
(Thousand
Product Category
tons)
tons)
generation)
tons)
Durable Goods
Rubber in Tires*
3,060
530
17.3%
2,530
Other Durables**
2,190
Neg.
Neg.
2,190
Total Rubber & Leather
Durable Goods
5,250
530
10.1%
4,720
Nondurable Goods
Clothing and Footwear
540
Neg.
Neg.
540
Other Nondurables
220
Neg.
Neg.
220
Total Rubber & Leather
Nondurable Goods
760
Neg.
Neg.
760
Containers and Packaging
20
Neg.
Neg.
20
Total Rubber & Leather
6,030
530
8.8%
5,500
* 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.
Recovery for Recycling. The only recovery for recycling identified in
this category is rubber from tires, and that was estimated to be 530,000 tons (17.3
percent of rubber in tires in 1995) (Table 8). (This recovery estimate does not
include tires retreaded or energy recovery from tires.) Overall, 8.8 percent of
rubber and leather in MSW was recovered in 1995.
Discards After Recovery. Discards of rubber and leather after
recovery were 5.5 million tons in 1995 (3.6 percent of total discards).
Textiles. Textiles in MSW are found mainly in discarded clothing,
although other sources were identified to be furniture, carpets, tires, footwear,
and other nondurable goods such as sheets and towels.
Generation. An estimated 7.4 million tons of textiles were generated
in 1995 (3.6 percent of total MSW generation).
Recovery for Recycling and Discards. A significant amount of
textiles is 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
44
-------
discard is limited, it was assumed that reused textiles re-enter the waste stream
the same year that they are first discarded. It was estimated that 12.2 percent of
textiles in clothing and items such as sheets and pillowcases was recovered for
export or reprocessing in 1995 (900,000 tons) leaving discards of 6.5 million tons
of textiles in 1995.
Wood. The sources of wood in MSW include furniture, miscellaneous
durables (e.g., cabinets for electronic equipment), wood packaging (crates, pallets),
and some other miscellaneous products.
Generation. Generation of wood in MSW was 14.9 million tons in
1995 (7.1 percent of total MSW generation).
Recovery for Recycling and Discards. Recovery of wood pallets
(usually by chipping) has been increasing along with recovery of other materials.
It was estimated that 1.4 million tons of wood waste were recovered in 1995,
leaving wood discards of 13.4 million tons (8.8 percent of total discards).
Other Products. Generation of "other product" 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.
Food Wastes
Food wastes included here consist of uneaten food and food preparation
wastes from residences, commercial establishments (restaurants, fast food
establishments), institutional sources such as school cafeterias, and industrial
sources such as factory lunchrooms.
Generation. Obviously no production data are available for food wastes.
Food wastes from residential and commercial sources were estimated using data
from sampling studies in combination with demographic data on population,
numbers of garbage disposers in homes, grocery store sales, restaurant sales,
numbers of employees, and numbers of prisoners and students in institutions.
Generation of food wastes was estimated to be 14.0 million tons in 1995.
The use of garbage disposals, which send food wastes to wastewater treatment
systems rather than MSW, and use of prepared foods both at home and in food
service establishments, affect the amount of food waste in MSW. (When foods
are prepared and packaged off site, food preparation wastes are categorized as
industrial wastes rather than MSW.)
It should be noted that recent residential food waste sampling studies in
Seattle, Washington and Crawford County, Illinois indicate higher per capita
45
-------
residential food waste generation rates than those used in this study. As
additional sampling data becomes available, increasing the estimate of food
waste generation may be warranted.
Recovery for Composting and Discards. Beginning in 1994 for this series of
reports, a significant amount of food waste composting from commercial sources
was identified. In 1995 this amount was estimated at 570,000 tons, or 4.1 percent
of food waste generation. As discussed in Chapter 3, composting of food wastes in
backyard composting projects is classified as source reduction. Discards of food
wastes in 1995 were 13.5 million tons, or 8.9 percent of total discards.
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 recent years there has been a new trend. That is local and state
legislation affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills.
Using data published by the Composting Council as updated from more
recent sources, legislation affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills was
tabulated. In 1992, 11 states and the District of Columbia—accounting for over 28
percent of the nation's population—had in effect legislation banning or
discouraging yard trimmings disposal in landfills. The tabulation of existing
legislation also shows that by 1996-97, over two dozen states including more than
50 percent of the nation's population will have legislation requiring source
separation or banning of yard trimmings from landfills. Also, data compiled by
BioCycle magazine indicates that there were about 3,000 composting facilities for
yard trimmings in 1992, increasing to over 3,300 facilities in 1995.
Using these facts, it was estimated that the effect of this legislation was no
increase in yard trimmings generation (e.g., 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 expected to have yard trimmings
legislation in 1996-97, it was also estimated that yard trimmings declined
approximately 5.5 percent annually between 1992 and 1995. Because of this
Although there are limited data 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.
46
-------
phenomenon, yard trimmings generation is shown to be declining. An
estimated 29.8 million tons of yard trimmings were generated in MSW in 1995
(this compares to an estimated 35 million tons of yard trimmings generated in
1992).
Recovery for Composting and Discards. Quantitative national information
on composting of yard trimmings is difficult to obtain, but estimates were based
on a literature search, telephone conversations with state officials, and data on
numbers of composting programs. Recovery data from state officials were
adjusted where appropriate to exclude quantities of non-yard trimmings
included in recovery values such as disaster waste. Some states consider
landspreading of yard trimmings or yard trimmings used as landfill cover as
recovery. Average tons recovered per compost facility from those states with data
was used to account for facilities in states without recovery quantity data.
Removal of yard trimmings for composting was estimated to be 30.3
percent of generation in 1995 (9.0 million tons), leaving 20.8 million tons of yard
trimmings to be discarded. (It should be noted that the estimated 9.0 million tons
recovered for composting does not include yard trimmings recovered for
landspreading disposal.)
It should also be noted that these recovery estimates do not account for
backyard composting by individuals or practices such as less bagging of grass
clippings; since the yard trimming estimates are based on sampling studies at the
landfill or transfer station, they are based on the quantities received there. These
source reduction practices are discussed in Chapter 3.
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
This relatively small category of MSW is also 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 3.2 million tons of MSW in 1995. 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 208.1 million tons in 1995.
Over the years paper and paperboard has been the dominant material
generated in MSW, accounting for 39.2 percent of generation in 1995. Yard
trimmings, the second largest material component of MSW (14.3 percent of
47
-------
Figure 10. Generation of materials in MSW, 1960 to 1995
Ctther
000 -¦
<2 150
000 -¦
000 --
Plastics
000 --
Metals
000 -
000 -
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
* All other primarily includes wood, rubber and leather, and textiles.
1990
1995
MSW generation) have 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 account for 7.6 percent of MSW generation and have remained
fairly constant as a source of MSW, while glass increased until the 1980s and has
since declined or shown a slower rate of increase. In 1995 glass represented 6.2
percent of MSW generation. Food wastes have remained fairly constant in terms
Figure 11. Materials recovery and discards of MSW*, 1960 to 1995
225,000
200,000
175,000
150,000
125,000 ¦¦
100,000 ¦¦
75,000
50,000 ¦
25,000 ¦
Recovery
Discards
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Generation = recovery + discards
48
-------
Figure 12. Materials recovery*, 1995
Yard trimmings and
food wastes
17.0%
Paper and
Paperboard
58.0%
Metals 11.0%
Glass 5.6%
Plastics 1.8%
All Others 6.6%
* In percent by weight of total recovery.
of MSW tonnage (6.7 percent of generation). 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, they ranked third in 1995 (behind paper
and yard trimmings) and account for 9.1 percent of MSW generation.
Recovery and Discards. The effect of recovery on MSW discards is
illustrated in Figure 11. Recovery of materials for recycling grew at a rather slow
pace during most of the historical period covered by this data series,
increasing only from 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 17.2 percent of generation, increasing to 27.0 percent in 1995.
Estimated recovery of materials (including composting) are shown in
Figure 12. In 1995, recovery of paper and paperboard dominated materials
recovery at 58.0 percent of total tonnage recovered. Recovery of other materials,
while generally increasing, contributes much less tonnage, reflecting in part the
relatively smaller amounts of materials generated in those categories.
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 39.2 percent of MSW generated in 1995, but after recovery,
paper and paperboard were 32.2 percent of discards.
Materials that have little or no recovery exhibit a larger percentage of
MSW discards compared to generation. For instance, food wastes were 6.7
percent of MSW generation in 1995, but 8.9 percent of discards.
49
-------
Figure 13. Materials generated and discarded
in municipal solid waste, 1995
(in percent of total generation and discards)
Paper & Paperboard 39.
Other Wastes 16.9%
Metals 7.6%
Plastics 9.1%
Yard Trimmings 14.3%
Food Wastes 6.7%
Generation
Paper & Paperboard 32.2'
Metals 6.4%
Other Wastes 20.6%
Plastics 11.8%
Food Wastes 8.9%
Yard Trimmings 13.7%
Discards
50
-------
PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Generation, recovery, and discards of products in municipal solid waste
are shown in a series of tables in this section. (Note that the totals for these tables
are the same as the previous series of tables for materials in MSW.) The products
in MSW are categorized as durable goods, nondurable goods, and containers and
packaging. Generation, recovery, and discards of these products are summarized
in Tables 9 through 11. Each product category is discussed in more detail below,
with detailed tables highlighting the products in each.
Durable Goods
Durable goods generally are defined as products having a lifetime of three
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 durables (e.g.,
luggage, consumer electronics) (see Tables 12 through 14).* These products are
often called "oversize and bulky" in municipal solid waste management practice,
and they are generally 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 1995, these include: ferrous metals, plastics,
rubber and leather, wood, textiles, other nonferrous metals (e.g., lead, copper),
glass, and aluminum.
Generation of durable goods in MSW totaled 31.2 million tons in 1995
(15.0 percent of total MSW generation). After recovery for recycling, 25.9 million
tons of durable goods remained as discards in 1995.
Major Appliances. Major appliances in MSW include refrigerators,
washing machines, water heaters, etc. They are often called "white goods" in the
trade. Data on unit production of appliances are taken from Appliance
Manufacturer Annual Report. 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 are also made for the estimated
lifetimes of the appliances, which range up to 20 years.
Generation of these products in MSW has increased very slowly; it was
estimated to be 3.4 million tons in 1995 (1.6 percent of total MSW). In general,
appliances have increased in quantity but not in average weight over the years.
Ferrous metals are the predominant materials in major appliances, but other
metals, plastics, glass, and other materials are also present.
Automobiles and other transportation equipment are not included in this report.
51
-------
Table 9
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS GENERATED*
IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1995
Thousands of Tons
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
9,920
14,660
21,800
29,810
30,360
30,430
30,260
31,120
31,230
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
17,330
25,060
34,420
52,170
50,570
52,780
54,900
56,850
57,040
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
27,370
43,560
52,670
64,220
64,340
67,440
70,220
73,190
72,860
(Detail in Table 18)
Total Product** Wastes
54,620
83,280
108,890
146,200
145,270
150,650
155,380
161,160
161,130
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
12,200
12,800
13,000
13,200
13,660
13,560
13,720
13,870
14,020
Yard Trimmings
20,000
23,200
27,500
35,000
35,000
35,000
33,250
31,500
29,750
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1,300
1,780
2,250
2,900
2,950
3,000
3,050
3,100
3,150
Total Other Wastes
33,500
37,780
42,750
51,100
51,610
51,560
50,020
48,470
46,920
Total MSW Generated - Weight
88,120
121,060
151,640
197,300
196,880
202,210
205,400
209,630
208,050
Percent of Total Generation
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
11.3%
12.1%
14.4%
15.1%
15.4%
15.0%
14.7%
14.8%
15.0%
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
19.7%
20.7%
22.7%
26.4%
25.7%
26.1%
26.7%
27.1%
27.4%
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
31.1%
36.0%
34.7%
32.5%
32.7%
33.4%
34.2%
34.9%
35.0%
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product** Wastes
62.0%
68.8%
71.8%
74.1%
73.8%
74.5%
75.6%
76.9%
77.4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
13.8%
10.6%
8.6%
6.7%
6.9%
6.7%
6.7%
6.6%
6.7%
Yard Trimmings
22.7%
19.2%
18.1%
17.7%
17.8%
17.3%
16.2%
15.0%
14.3%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
Total Other Wastes
38.0%
31.2%
28.2%
25.9%
26.2%
25.5%
24.4%
23.1%
22.6%
Total MSW Generated - %
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
* 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.
52
-------
Table 10
RECOVERY* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1995
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each category)
Thousands of Tons
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
350
940
1,360
3,810
3,980
4,150
4,460
5,230
5,320
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
2,390
3,730
4,670
8,800
10,390
11,070
11,080
12,610
13,520
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
2,870
3,350
8,490
17,040
18,520
20,800
22,400
25,650
27,780
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product** Wastes
5.610
8.020
14.520
29.650
32.890
36.020
37.940
43.490
46.620
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
480
570
Yard Trimmings
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
4,200
4,800
5,400
6,900
8,000
9,000
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Total Other Wastes
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
4.200
4.800
5.400
6.900
8.480
9.570
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
5,610
8,020
14,520
33,850
37,690
41,420
44,840
51,970
56,190
Percent of Generation of Each Category
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
3.5%
6.4%
6.2%
12.8%
13.1%
13.6%
14.7%
16.8%
17.0%
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
13.8%
14.9%
13.6%
16.9%
20.5%
21.0%
20.2%
22.2%
23.7%
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
10.5%
7.7%
16.1%
26.5%
28.8%
30.8%
31.9%
35.0%
38.1%
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product** Wastes
10.3%
9.6%
13.3%
20.3%
22.6%
23.9%
24.4%
27.0%
28.9%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
3.5%
4.1%
Yard Trimmings
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
12.0%
13.7%
15.4%
20.8%
25.4%
30.3%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Total Other Wastes
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
8.2%
9.3%
10.5%
13.8%
17.5%
20.4%
Total MSW Recovered - %
6.4%
6.6%
9.6%
17.2%
19.1%
20.5%
21.8%
24.8%
27.0%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
'* Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
53
-------
Table 11
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS DISCARDED*
IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1995
Thousands of Tons
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
9,570
13,720
20,440
26,000
26,380
26,280
25,800
25,890
25,910
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
14,940
21,330
29,750
43,370
40,180
41,710
43,820
44,240
43,520
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
24,500
40,210
44,180
47,180
45,820
46,640
47,820
47,540
45,080
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product** Wastes
49.010
75.260
94.370
116.550
112.380
114.630
117.440
117.670
114.510
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
12,200
12,800
13,000
13,200
13,660
13,560
13,720
13,390
13,450
Yard Trimmings
20,000
23,200
27,500
30,800
30,200
29,600
26,350
23,500
20,750
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1,300
1,780
2,250
2,900
2,950
3,000
3,050
3,100
3,150
Total Other Wastes
33.500
37.780
42.750
46.900
46.810
46.160
43.120
39.990
37.350
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
82,510
113,040
137,120
163,450
159,190
160,790
160,560
157,660
151,860
Percent of Total Discards
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
11.6%
12.1%
14.9%
15.9%
16.6%
16.3%
16.1%
16.4%
17.1%
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
18.1%
18.9%
21.7%
26.5%
25.2%
25.9%
27.3%
28.1%
28.7%
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
29.7%
35.6%
32.2%
28.9%
28.8%
29.0%
29.8%
30.2%
29.7%
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product** Wastes
59.4%
66.6%
68.8%
71.3%
70.6%
71.3%
73.1%
74.6%
75.4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
14.8%
11.3%
9.5%
8.1%
8.6%
8.4%
8.5%
8.5%
8.9%
Yard Trimmings
24.2%
20.5%
20.1%
18.8%
19.0%
18.4%
16.4%
14.9%
13.7%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.8%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
2.0%
2.1%
Total Other Wastes
40.6%
33.4%
31.2%
28.7%
29.4%
28.7%
26.9%
25.4%
24.6%
Total MSW Discarded - %
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
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.
54
-------
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 2.1 million tons in 1995, leaving
1.3 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 Department of Commerce data. Information on
weights and materials composition of small appliances was obtained through
interviews. It was estimated that 710,000 tons of small appliances were generated
in 1995. A small amount of ferrous metals in small appliances may be recovered
through magnetic separation, but no specific data on recovery were found.
Furniture and Furnishings. Data on sales of furniture and furnishings are
provided by the 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.
Generation of furniture and furnishings in MSW has increased from 2.2
million tons in 1960 to 7.2 million tons in 1995 (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 are also 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 2.2 million
tons of carpets and rugs were generated in MSW in 1995, which was 1.1 percent
of total generation.
A small amount of recycling of carpet fiber was identified—estimated to be
less than one percent recovery in 1995.
Vehicle Tires. The methodology for estimating generation of rubber tires
for automobiles and trucks are 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 two 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.
55
-------
Generation of rubber tires increased from 1.1 million tons in 1960 to 3.8 million
tons in 1995 (1.8 percent of total MSW).
Data on 1995 recovery of rubber tires are based on data from the Scrap Tire
Management Council. Previous years were based on an EPA scrap tire market
study, updated with information from Scrap Tire News. Rubber recovery from
tires has been small, but increasing in recent years. In 1995, an estimated 17.5
percent of tire rubber generated was recovered for recycling, leaving 3.1 million
tons to be discarded. (Tires going to combustion facilities are included in the
combustion estimates in Chapter 3.)
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 1995 (0.9 percent of total generation).
Data on recovery of batteries are provided by the Battery Council
International. 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
combustors. In 1995, 95.8 percent of the lead in these batteries was recovered for
recycling as well as substantial quantities of the polypropylene battery casings; so
discards after recycling of these batteries were decreased to 80,000 tons in 1995.
(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 Durables. Miscellaneous durable goods include consumer
electronics such as television sets, video cassette recorders, personal computers,
luggage, sporting equipment, and the like. (Small appliances were included with
miscellaneous durables in previous reports in this series, but are estimated
separately in this report.) An estimated 12.0 million tons of these goods were
generated in 1995, amounting to 5.8 percent of MSW generated. Small amounts
of ferrous metals are estimated to be recovered from this category, decreasing
discards to 11.3 million tons. In addition to ferrous metals, this category includes
plastics, glass, rubber, wood, and other metals.
56
-------
Table 12
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1995
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of Tons
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
1,630
2,170
2,950
3,310
3,310
3,280
3,260
3,280
3,420
Small Appliances**
460
490
520
570
650
710
Furniture and Furnishings
2,150
2,830
4,760
6,790
6,930
6,940
6,920
6,980
7,160
Carpets and Rugs**
1,660
1,740
1,820
2,000
2,120
2,230
Rubber Tires
1,120
1,890
2,720
3,610
3,500
3,610
3,410
4,080
3,770
Batteries, lead acid
Neg.
820
1,490
1,510
1,540
1,530
1,530
2,010
1,910
Miscellaneous Durables
5,020
6,950
9,880
12,470
12,850
12,730
12,570
12,000
12,030
Total Durable Goods
9,920
14,660
21,800
29,810
30,360
30,430
30,260
31,120
31,230
Nondurable Goods
17,330
25,060
34,420
52,170
50,570
52,780
54,900
56,850
57,040
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
27,370
43,560
52,670
64,220
64,340
67,440
70,220
73,190
72,860
(Detail in Table 18)
Total Product Wastesf
54,620
83,280
108,890
146,200
145,270
150,650
155,380
161,160
161,130
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
12,200
12,800
13,000
13,200
13,660
13,560
13,720
13,870
14,020
Yard Trimmings
20,000
23,200
27,500
35,000
35,000
35,000
33,250
31,500
29,750
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1,300
1,780
2,250
2,900
2,950
3,000
3,050
3,100
3,150
Total Other Wastes
33,500
37,780
42,750
51,100
51,610
51,560
50,020
48,470
46,920
Total MSW Generated - Weight
88,120
121,060
151,640
197,300
196,880
202,210
205,400
209,630
208,050
Percent of Total Generation
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
1.8%
1.8%
1.9%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
Small Appliances**
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Furniture and Furnishings
2.4%
2.3%
3.1%
3.4%
3.5%
3.4%
3.4%
3.3%
3.4%
Carpets and Rugs**
0.8%
0.9%
0.9%
1.0%
1.0%
1.1%
Rubber Tires
1.3%
1.6%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.9%
1.8%
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Neg.
0.7%
1.0%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.7%
1.0%
0.9%
Miscellaneous Durables
5.7%
5.7%
6.5%
6.3%
6.5%
6.3%
6.1%
5.7%
5.8%
Total Durable Goods
11.3%
12.1%
14.4%
15.1%
15.4%
15.0%
14.7%
14.8%
15.0%
Nondurable Goods
19.7%
20.7%
22.7%
26.4%
25.7%
26.1%
26.7%
27.1%
27.4%
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
31.1%
36.0%
34.7%
32.5%
32.7%
33.4%
34.2%
34.9%
35.0%
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product Wastesf
62.0%
68.8%
71.8%
74.1%
73.8%
74.5%
75.6%
76.9%
77.4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
13.8%
10.6%
8.6%
6.7%
6.9%
6.7%
6.7%
6.6%
6.7%
Yard Trimmings
22.7%
19.2%
18.1%
17.7%
17.8%
17.3%
16.2%
15.0%
14.3%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
Total Other Wastes
38.0%
31.2%
28.2%
25.9%
26.2%
25.5%
24.4%
23.1%
22.6%
Total MSW Generated - %
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
* 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.
f Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
57
-------
Table 13
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1995
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Thousands of Tons
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
10
50
130
1,070
1,230
1,450
1,840
1,910
2,070
Small Appliances**
10
10
10
10
10
10
Furniture and Furnishings
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Carpets and Rugs**
Neg.
10
10
10
10
20
Rubber Tires
330
250
150
440
460
470
450
620
660
Batteries, lead acid
Neg.
620
1,040
1,480
1,490
1,450
1,420
1,980
1,830
Miscellaneous Durables
10
20
40
810
780
760
730
700
730
Total Durable Goods
350
940
1,360
3,810
3,980
4,150
4,460
5,230
5,320
Nondurable Goods
2,390
3,730
4,670
8,800
10,390
11,070
11,080
12,610
13,520
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
2,870
3,350
8,490
17,040
18,520
20,800
22,400
25,650
27,780
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product Wastesf
5,610
8,020
14,520
29,650
32,890
36,020
37,940
43,490
46,620
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
480
570
Yard Trimmings
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
4,200
4,800
5,400
6,900
8,000
9,000
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Total Other Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
4,200
4,800
5,400
6,900
8,480
9,570
Total MSW Recovered - Weiaht
5.610
8.020
14.520
33.850
37.690
41.420
44.840
51.970
56.190
Percent of Generation of Each Product
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
0.6%
2.3%
4.4%
32.3%
37.2%
44.2%
56.4%
58.2%
60.5%
Small Appliances**
2.2%
2.0%
1.9%
1.8%
1.5%
1.4%
Furniture and Furnishings
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Carpets and Rugs**
Neg.
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.9%
Rubber Tires
29.5%
13.2%
5.5%
12.2%
13.1%
13.0%
13.2%
15.2%
17.5%
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Neg.
75.6%
69.8%
98.0%
96.8%
94.8%
92.8%
98.5%
95.8%
Miscellaneous Durables
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
6.5%
6.1%
6.0%
5.8%
5.8%
6.1%
Total Durable Goods
3.5%
6.4%
6.2%
12.8%
13.1%
13.6%
14.7%
16.8%
17.0%
Nondurable Goods
13.8%
14.9%
13.6%
16.9%
20.5%
21.0%
20.2%
22.2%
23.7%
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
10.5%
7.7%
16.1%
26.5%
28.8%
30.8%
31.9%
35.0%
38.1%
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product Wastesf
10.3%
9.6%
13.3%
20.3%
22.6%
23.9%
24.4%
27.0%
28.9%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
3.5%
4.1%
Yard Trimmings
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
12.0%
13.7%
15.4%
20.8%
25.4%
30.3%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Total Other Wastes
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
8.2%
9.3%
10.5%
13.8%
17.5%
20.4%
Total MSW Recovered - %
6.4%
6.6%
9.6%
17.2%
19.1%
20.5%
21.8%
24.8%
27.0%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
f Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
58
-------
Table 14
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1995
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Thousands of Tons
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
1,620
2,120
2,820
2,240
2,080
1,830
1,420
1,370
1,350
Small Appliances**
450
480
510
560
640
700
Furniture and Furnishings
2,150
2,830
4,760
6,790
6,930
6,940
6,920
6,980
7,160
Carpets and Rugs**
1,660
1,730
1,810
1,990
2,110
2,210
Rubber Tires
790
1,640
2,570
3,170
3,040
3,140
2,960
3,460
3,110
Batteries, lead acid
Neg.
200
450
30
50
80
110
30
80
Miscellaneous Durables
5,010
6,930
9,840
11,660
12,070
11,970
11,840
11,300
11,300
Total Durable Goods
9,570
13,720
20,440
26,000
26,380
26,280
25,800
25,890
25,910
Nondurable Goods
14,940
21,330
29,750
43,370
40,180
41,710
43,820
44,240
43,520
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
24,500
40,210
44,180
47,180
45,820
46,640
47,820
47,540
45,080
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product Wastesf
49,010
75,260
94,370
116,550
112,380
114,630
117,440
117,670
114,510
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
12,200
12,800
13,000
13,200
13,660
13,560
13,720
13,390
13,450
Yard Trimmings
20,000
23,200
27,500
30,800
30,200
29,600
26,350
23,500
20,750
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1,300
1,780
2,250
2,900
2,950
3,000
3,050
3,100
3,150
Total Other Wastes
33,500
37,780
42,750
46,900
46,810
46,160
43,120
39,990
37,350
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
82,510
113,040
137,120
163,450
159,190
160,790
160,560
157,660
151,860
Percent of Total Discards
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
2.0%
1.9%
2.1%
1.4%
1.3%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
Small Appliances**
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
Furniture and Furnishings
2.6%
2.5%
3.5%
4.2%
4.4%
4.3%
4.3%
4.4%
4.7%
Carpets and Rugs**
1.0%
1.1%
1.1%
1.2%
1.3%
1.5%
Rubber Tires
1.0%
1.5%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
2.0%
1.8%
2.2%
2.0%
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Neg.
0.2%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
Miscellaneous Durables
6.1%
6.1%
7.2%
7.1%
7.6%
7.4%
7.4%
7.2%
7.4%
Total Durable Goods
11.6%
12.1%
14.9%
15.9%
16.6%
16.3%
16.1%
16.4%
17.1%
Nondurable Goods
18.1%
18.9%
21.7%
26.5%
25.2%
25.9%
27.3%
28.1%
28.7%
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
29.7%
35.6%
32.2%
28.9%
28.8%
29.0%
29.8%
30.2%
29.7%
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product Wastesf
59.4%
66.6%
68.8%
71.3%
70.6%
71.3%
73.1%
74.6%
75.4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
14.8%
11.3%
9.5%
8.1%
8.6%
8.4%
8.5%
8.5%
8.9%
Yard Trimmings
24.2%
20.5%
20.1%
18.8%
19.0%
18.4%
16.4%
14.9%
13.7%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.8%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
2.0%
2.1%
Total Other Wastes
40.6%
33.4%
31.2%
28.7%
29.4%
28.7%
26.9%
25.4%
24.6%
Total MSW Discarded - %
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
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.
f Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
59
-------
Nondurable Goods
The Department of Commerce defines nondurable goods as those having
a lifetime of less than three years, and this 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 57.0 million tons in 1995
(27.4 percent of total generation). Recovery of paper products in this category is
quite significant, resulting in 13.5 million tons of nondurable goods recovered in
1995 (23.7 percent of nondurables generation). This means that 43.5 million tons
of nondurable goods were discarded in 1995 (28.7 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 1995 was shown earlier in Table 4. 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 13.1 million tons generated in 1995 (6.5 percent of total
MSW). In 1995, 53.0 percent of newspapers generated were recovered for
recycling, leaving 6.2 million tons discarded (4.1 percent of total MSW
discarded). Estimates of newspaper generation are broken down into
newsprint (the majority of the weight of newspapers) and the
groundwood* inserts (primarily advertising) that are a significant
portion of the total weight of newspapers. This breakdown is shown in
Table 4.
• Books amounted to approximately 1.2 million tons, or 0.6 percent of
total MSW generation, in 1995. Recovery of books is not well
documented, but it was estimated that approximately 220,000 tons of
books were recovered in 1995. Books are made of both groundwood and
chemical pulp.
• Magazines accounted for an estimated 2.4 million tons, or 1.1 percent of
total MSW generation, in 1995. Like books, recovery of magazines is not
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.
60
-------
well documented. It was estimated that 670,000 tons of magazines were
recovered in 1995. Magazines are predominately made of coated
groundwood, but some uncoated groundwood and chemical pulps are
also 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, stationery, etc. (7.1 million tons, or 3.3 percent
of total MSW generation, in 1995). These papers are almost entirely
made of uncoated chemical pulp, although some amounts of
groundwood are also 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 3.0 million tons of
office-type papers were recovered in 1995.
• Telephone directories were estimated to generate 490,000 tons (0.2
percent of total MSW) in 1995. These directories are made of
groundwood. It was estimated that 60,000 tons of directories were
recovered in 1995. The Yellow Pages Publishers Association (YPPA) has
instituted a programs to encourage recovery of directories and has
begun to collect and publish data on generation. Beginning in 1993 the
generation data in this report are taken from YPPA data; therefore, there
is some discontinuity with the data published for earlier years, which
was estimated. YPPA has discontinued its practice of estimating
recovery of directories.
• Third-class mail includes catalogs and other direct bulk mailings; these
amounted to 4.6 million tons, or 2.2 percent of MSW generation, in
1995. Both groundwood and chemical pulps are used in these mailings.
It was estimated that 710,000 tons were recovered in 1995. The U.S.
Postal Service is implementing a program to increase recovery of bulk
mail in the future.
• Other commercial printing includes a wide range of paper items:
brochures, reports, menus, invitations, etc. Both groundwood and
chemical pulps are used in these varied items. Generation was
estimated at 7.1 million tons, or 3.4 percent of MSW generation, in 1995,
with recovery at 1.1 million tons.
• Tissue paper and towels include facial and sanitary tissues and napkins,
but not bathroom tissue, which is nearly all diverted from MSW into
the wastewater treatment system. Tissue products amounted to 2.9
million tons (1.4 percent of total MSW generation) in 1995. No
significant recovery of tissue products was identified.
61
-------
• 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 970,000 tons (0.5 percent of total MSW
generation) in 1995. No significant recovery of these products was
identified.
• Other nonpackaging papers—including posters, photographic papers,
cards and games, etc.—accounted for 3.8 million tons (2.4 percent of total
MSW generation) in 1995. No significant recovery of these papers was
identified.
Overall, generation of paper and paperboard products in nondurable goods
was 43.5 million tons in 1995 (Table 4). While newspapers were recovered at the
highest rate, other paper products, such as books, magazines, and office papers,
were also recovered for recycling, and the overall recovery rate for paper in
nondurables was 29.3 percent in 1995. Thus 30.8 million tons of paper in
nondurables were discarded in 1995.
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 790,000 tons of these products were generated in 1995, or 0.4 percent of
total MSW (see Table 15). An estimated 13,000 tons of these products were
recovered for recycling in 1995.
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 3.0 million tons of disposable diapers were generated in 1995, 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.
There has been some investigation of recycling/composting of disposable
diapers, but no significant recovery was identified for 1995.
Clothing and Footwear. Generation of clothing and footwear was
estimated to be 5.1 million tons in 1995 (2.4 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.
62
-------
The Council for Textile Recycling has reported on recovery of textiles for
exports, reprocessing, and reuse. Based on their data, it was estimated that 660,000
tons of textiles in clothing were recovered for export or recycling in 1995. (Reuse
is not counted as recycling and is discussed in Chapter 3.)
Towels, Sheets, and Pillowcases. An estimated 740,000 tons of towels,
sheets, and pillowcases were generated in 1995. Generation was estimated using a
methodology similar to that for clothing. An estimated 120,000 tons of these
textiles were recovered for export or recycling in 1995.
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables. Generation of other miscellaneous
nondurables was estimated to be 3.3 million tons in 1995 (1.6 percent of MSW).
The primary material component of miscellaneous nondurables is plastics,
although some aluminum, rubber, and textiles are also 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 Modem Plastics. Generation of other
materials in these nondurable products is estimated based on information in past
reports in this series.
63
-------
Table 15
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1995
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of Tons
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
9,920
14,660
21,800
29,810
30,360
30,430
30,260
31,120
31,230
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
7,110
9,510
11,050
13,430
12,480
12,680
12,940
13,680
13,130
Books and Magazines
1,920
2,470
3,390
Books**
970
870
930
1,070
1,180
1,170
Magazines**
2,830
2,200
2,370
2,240
2,250
2,370
Office Papers
1,520
2,650
4,000
6,410
6,320
6,660
6,610
6,970
6,800
Telephone Directories**
610
630
680
480
470
490
Third Class Mail**
3,820
3,690
3,560
4,000
4,400
4,620
Other Commercial Printing
1,260
2,130
3,120
4,460
4,710
5,500
6,500
6,080
7,110
Tissue Paper and Towels
1,090
2,080
2,300
2,960
2,690
2,750
2,870
2,860
2,950
Paper Plates and Cups
270
420
630
650
660
680
800
870
970
Plastic Plates and Cupsf
190
650
640
680
700
810
790
Trash Bags**
780
770
840
890
940
750
Disposable Diapers
Neg.
350
1,930
2,700
2,810
2,870
2,910
2,980
2,960
Other Nonpackaging Paper
2,700
3,630
4,230
3,840
3,800
4,120
4,250
4,470
3,800
Clothing and Footwear
1,360
1,620
2,170
4,010
4,230
4,400
4,580
4,870
5,070
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
710
710
720
730
750
740
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
100
200
1,410
3,340
3,360
3,340
3,330
3,270
3,320
Total Nondurable Goods
17,330
25,060
34,420
52,170
50,570
52,780
54,900
56,850
57,040
Containers and Packaging
27,370
43,560
52,670
64,220
64,340
67,440
70,220
73,190
72,860
(Detail in Table 18)
Total Product Wastesf
54,620
83,280
108,890
146,200
145,270
150,650
155,380
161,160
161,130
Other Wastes
33,500
37,780
42,750
51,100
51,610
51,560
50,020
48,470
46,920
Total MSW Generated - Weight
88,120
121,060
151,640
197,300
196,880
202,210
205,400
209,630
208,050
Percent of Total Generation
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
11.3%
12.1%
14.4%
15.1%
15.4%
15.0%
14.7%
14.8%
15.0%
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
8.1%
7.9%
7.3%
6.8%
6.3%
6.3%
6.3%
6.5%
6.3%
Books and Magazines
2.2%
2.0%
2.2%
Books**
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
Magazines**
1.4%
1.1%
1.2%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
Office Papers
1.7%
2.2%
2.6%
3.2%
3.2%
3.3%
3.2%
3.3%
3.3%
Telephone Directories**
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Third Class Mail**
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.9%
2.1%
2.2%
Other Commercial Printing
1.4%
1.8%
2.1%
2.3%
2.4%
2.7%
3.2%
2.9%
3.4%
Tissue Paper and Towels
1.2%
1.7%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
Paper Plates and Cups
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
Plastic Plates and Cupsf
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
Trash Bags**
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
Disposable Diapers
Neg.
0.3%
1.3%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
Other Nonpackaging Paper
3.1%
3.0%
2.8%
1.9%
1.9%
2.0%
2.1%
2.1%
1.8%
Clothing and Footwear
1.5%
1.3%
1.4%
2.0%
2.1%
2.2%
2.2%
2.3%
2.4%
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
0.1%
0.2%
0.9%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
Total Nondurables
19.7%
20.7%
22.7%
26.4%
25.7%
26.1%
26.7%
27.1%
27.4%
Containers and Packaging
31.1%
36.0%
34.7%
32.5%
32.7%
33.4%
34.2%
34.9%
35.0%
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product Wastesf
62.0%
68.8%
71.8%
74.1%
73.8%
74.5%
75.6%
76.9%
77.4%
Other Wastes
38.0%
31.2%
28.2%
25.9%
26.2%
25.5%
24.4%
23.1%
22.6%
Total MSW Generated - %
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
* 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.
f 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.
64
-------
Table 16
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1995
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Thousands of Tons
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
350
940
1,360
3,810
3,980
4,150
4,460
5,230
5,320
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
1,820
2,250
3,020
5,110
5,740
6,000
5,670
6,250
6,960
Books and Magazines
100
260
280
Books**
100
120
140
180
220
220
Magazines**
300
340
380
450
630
670
Office Papers
250
710
870
1,700
2,270
2,440
2,650
2,940
3,010
Telephone Directories**
40
50
50
50
50
60
Third Class Mail**
200
330
350
440
690
710
Other Commercial Printing
130
340
350
700
850
1,000
900
1,050
1,100
Tissue Paper and Towels
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Paper Plates and Cups
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Plastic Plates and Cupsf
Neg.
10
20
20
20
10
10
Trash Bags**
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Disposable Diapers
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Other Nonpackaging Paper
40
110
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Clothing and Footwear
50
60
150
520
550
570
600
640
660
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
120
120
120
120
130
120
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Total Nondurable Goods
2.390
3.730
4.670
8.800
10.390
11.070
11.080
12.610
13.520
Containers and Packaging
2,870
3,350
8,490
17,040
18,520
20,800
22,400
25,650
27,780
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product Wastesf
5,610
8,020
14,520
29,650
32,890
36,020
37,940
43,490
46,620
Other Wastes
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
4.200
4.800
5.400
6.900
8.480
9.570
Total MSW Recovered - Weiaht
5.610
8.020
14.520
33.850
37.690
41.420
44.840
51.970
56.190
Percent of Generation of Each Product
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
3.5%
6.4%
6.2%
12.8%
13.1%
13.6%
14.7%
16.8%
17.0%
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
25.6%
23.7%
27.3%
38.0%
46.0%
47.3%
43.8%
45.7%
53.0%
Books and Magazines
5.2%
10.5%
8.3%
Books**
10.3%
13.8%
15.1%
16.8%
18.6%
18.8%
Magazines**
10.6%
15.5%
16.0%
20.1%
28.0%
28.3%
Office Papers
16.4%
26.8%
21.8%
26.5%
35.9%
36.6%
40.1%
42.2%
44.3%
Telephone Directories**
6.6%
7.9%
7.4%
10.4%
10.6%
12.2%
Third Class Mail**
5.2%
8.9%
9.8%
11.0%
15.7%
15.4%
Other Commercial Printing
10.3%
16.0%
11.2%
15.7%
18.0%
18.2%
13.8%
17.3%
15.5%
Tissue Paper and Towels
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Paper Plates and Cups
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Plastic Plates and Cupsf
Neg.
1.5%
3.1%
2.9%
2.9%
1.2%
1.3%
Trash Bags**
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Disposable Diapers
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Other Nonpackaging Paper
1.5%
3.0%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Clothing and Footwear
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.0%
13.0%
13.0%
13.1%
13.1%
13.0%
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
16.9%
16.9%
16.7%
16.4%
17.3%
16.2%
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Total Nondurables
13.8%
14.9%
13.6%
16.9%
20.5%
21.0%
20.2%
22.2%
23.7%
Containers and Packaging
10.5%
7.7%
16.1%
26.5%
28.8%
30.8%
31.9%
35.0%
38.1%
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product Wastesf
10.3%
9.6%
13.3%
20.3%
22.6%
23.9%
24.4%
27.0%
28.9%
Other Wastes
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
8.2%
9.3%
10.5%
13.8%
17.5%
20.4%
Total MSW Recovered - %
6.4%
6.6%
9.6%
17.2%
19.1%
20.5%
21.8%
24.8%
27.0%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
f 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.
65
-------
Table 17
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1995
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Thousands of Tons
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
9,570
13,720
20,440
26,000
26,380
26,280
25,800
25,890
25,910
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
5,290
7,260
8,030
8,320
6,740
6,680
7,270
7,430
6,170
Books and Magazines
1,820
2,210
3,110
Books**
870
750
790
890
960
950
Magazines**
2,530
1,860
1,990
1,790
1,620
1,700
Office Papers
1,270
1,940
3,130
4,710
4,050
4,220
3,960
4,030
3,790
Telephone Directories**
570
580
630
430
420
430
Third Class Mail**
3,620
3,360
3,210
3,560
3,710
3,910
Other Commercial Printing
1,130
1,790
2,770
3,760
3,860
4,500
5,600
5,030
6,010
Tissue Paper and Towels
1,090
2,080
2,300
2,960
2,690
2,750
2,870
2,860
2,950
Paper Plates and Cups
270
420
630
650
660
680
800
870
970
Plastic Plates and Cupst
190
640
620
660
680
800
780
Trash Bags**
780
770
840
890
940
750
Disposable Diapers
Neg.
350
1,930
2,700
2,810
2,870
2,910
2,980
2,960
Other Nonpackaging Paper
2,660
3,520
4,230
3,840
3,800
4,120
4,250
4,470
3,800
Clothing and Footwear
1,310
1,560
2,020
3,490
3,680
3,830
3,980
4,230
4,410
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
590
590
600
610
620
620
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
100
200
1,410
3,340
3,360
3,340
3,330
3,270
3,320
Total Nondurable Goods
14,940
21,330
29,750
43,370
40,180
41,710
43,820
44,240
43,520
Containers and Packaging
24,500
40,210
44,180
47,180
45,820
46,640
47,820
47,540
45,080
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product Wastes}
49,010
75,260
94,370
116,550
112,380
114,630
117,440
117,670
114,510
Other Wastes
33,500
37.780
42.750
46.900
46.810
46.160
43.120
39.990
37.350
Total MSWDiscarded - Weight
82,510
113,040
137,120
163,450
159,190
160,790
160,560
157,660
151,860
Percent of Total Discards
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
11.6%
12.1%
14.9%
15.9%
16.6%
16.3%
16.1%
16.4%
17.1%
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
6.4%
6.4%
5.9%
5.1%
4.2%
4.2%
4.5%
4.7%
4.1%
Books and Magazines
2.2%
2.0%
2.3%
Books**
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
Magazines**
1.5%
1.2%
1.2%
1.1%
1.0%
1.1%
Office Papers
1.5%
1.7%
2.3%
2.9%
2.5%
2.6%
2.5%
2.6%
2.5%
Telephone Directories**
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Third Class Mail**
2.2%
2.1%
2.0%
2.2%
2.4%
2.6%
Other Commercial Printing
1.4%
1.6%
2.0%
2.3%
2.4%
2.8%
3.5%
3.2%
4.0%
Tissue Paper and Towels
1.3%
1.8%
1.7%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.8%
1.8%
1.9%
Paper Plates and Cups
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
Plastic Plates and Cupst
0.1%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
Trash Bags**
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
Disposable Diapers
Neg.
0.3%
1.4%
1.7%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.9%
1.9%
Other Nonpackaging Paper
3.2%
3.1%
3.1%
2.3%
2.4%
2.6%
2.6%
2.8%
2.5%
Clothing and Footwear
1.6%
1.4%
1.5%
2.1%
2.3%
2.4%
2.5%
2.7%
2.9%
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
0.1%
0.2%
1.7%
2.0%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.2%
Total Nondurables
18.1%
18.9%
21.7%
26.5%
25.2%
25.9%
27.3%
28.1%
28.7%
Containers and Packaging
29.7%
35.6%
32.2%
28.9%
28.8%
29.0%
29.8%
30.2%
29.7%
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product Wastes}
59.4%
66.6%
68.8%
71.3%
70.6%
71.3%
73.1%
74.6%
75.4%
Other Wastes
40.6%
33.4%
31.2%
28.7%
29.4%
28.7%
26.9%
25.4%
24.6%
Total MSW Discarded - %
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
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.
f 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.
66
-------
Containers and Packaging
Containers and packaging make up a major portion of MSW, amounting
to 72.9 million tons of generation in 1995 (35.0 percent of total generation).
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 1995, 38.1 percent of containers and packaging
generated was recovered for recycling. Because of this recovery, containers and
packaging comprised 29.7 percent of total MSW discards in 1995.
Containers and packaging in MSW are made of several materials: paper
and paperboard, glass, ferrous metals, aluminum, plastics, wood, and small
amounts of other materials. Each materials category is discussed separately below.
Glass Containers. Glass containers include beer and soft drink bottles, 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.
Adjustments are made for imports and exports of both empty glass containers
and containers holding products, e.g., imported beer.
Generation of these glass containers was 11.5 million tons in 1995, or 5.5
percent of MSW generation (Tables 18 and 19). This is a slight decrease in
generation compared to 1994.
The Glass Packaging Institute (GPI) reports a recovery rate for glass
containers, but includes reuse of refillable bottles in the figure. Since refilling is
defined as reuse rather than recycling in this report, the refilled bottles are not
counted as recovery here. An estimated 3.1 million tons of glass containers were
recovered for recycling in 1995, or 27.2 percent of generation. After recovery for
recycling, glass container discards were 8.4 million tons in 1995, or 5.5 percent of
total MSW discards.
Steel Containers and Packaging. Steel beer and soft drink cans, food and
other cans, and other steel packaging (e.g., strapping), totaled 2.9 million tons in
1995 (1.4 percent of total MSW generation), with most of that amount being "tin"
cans for food (Tables 18 and 19). Generation estimates are based on data supplied
by the Steel Recycling Institute (SRI), the American Iron and Steel Institute
(AISI), and the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI). Generation estimates include
adjustments for imports and exports.
Recovery data for steel containers and packaging were provided by the
Steel Recycling Institute. An estimated 1.6 million tons of steel packaging were
recovered in 1995, or 54.4 percent of generation. The SRI estimates include both
67
-------
recovery from residential sources and magnetic separation of steel cans and other
products at waste-to-energy facilities.
Aluminum Containers and Packaging. Aluminum containers and
packaging include beer and soft drink cans, other cans, and foil and closures.
Aluminum can generation is estimated based on data from the Can
Manufacturers Institute and the Aluminum Association, while data on other
aluminum packaging is based on Department of Commerce data. Total
aluminum container and packaging generation in 1995 was 2.0 million tons, or
0.9 percent of total MSW generation.
Aluminum can recovery data comes from the Aluminum Association.
Aluminum beer and soft drink cans were recovered at an estimated 62.7 percent
rate in 1995. Recovery of all aluminum packaging was estimated to be 51.8
percent of total generation in 1995. After recovery for recycling, 950,000 tons of
aluminum packaging were discarded in 1995. This represented 0.6 percent of
MSW discards.
Paper and Paperboard Containers and Packaging. Corrugated boxes are the
largest single product category of MSW at 28.8 million tons generated, or 13.8
percent of total generation, in 1995. Corrugated boxes also represent the largest
single category of product recovery, at 18.5 million tons of recovery in 1995 (64.2
percent of boxes generated were recovered). After recovery, 10.3 million tons of
corrugated boxes were discarded, or 6.8 percent of MSW discards in 1995.
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, wrapping papers, and other paper and paperboard packaging.
Overall, paper and paperboard containers and packaging totaled 38.1 million tons
of MSW generation in 1995, or 18.3 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 1.4 million tons in 1995). The overall recovery rate
for paper and paperboard packaging in 1995 was 52.3 percent. Other paper
packaging like folding boxes and sacks is mostly 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 (PET) soft drink bottles—some with high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) base cups, HDPE milk jugs, film products (including bags and sacks)
made of low-density polyethylene (LDPE and LLDPE), and containers and other
packaging (including coatings, closures, etc.) made of polyvinyl chloride,
polystyrene, polypropylene, and other resins.
68
-------
Estimates of generation of plastic containers and packaging are based on
data on resin sales by end use published annually by Modem Plastics, a trade
publication and the American Plastics Council annual plastic recovery survey.
Adjustments are made for imports and exports based on Department of
Commerce data.
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 7.7 million tons in 1995 (3.7 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 and base cups
were estimated to have been recovered at a 45.5 percent rate in 1995 (300,000
tons). Recovery of plastic milk and water bottles was estimated to have been
185,000 tons, or 30.2 percent of generation. Overall, recovery of plastic containers
and packaging was estimated to be 750,000 tons, or 9.7 percent in 1995. Discards of
plastic containers and packaging were thus 7.0 million tons in 1995, or 4.6 percent
of total discards.
Wood Packaging. Wood packaging includes wood crates and pallets
(mostly pallets). Data on production of wood packaging (in units) is obtained
from the Wooden Pallet and Container Association, and converted to weight
using converting factors for wood. In 1995, 10.6 million tons of wood packaging
were estimated to have been generated. Wood packaging was thus 5.1 percent of
total MSW generation in 1995.
There is increasing recovery of wood pallets, mostly by chipping to make
products like mulch. Recovery of wood pallets was estimated based on data from
the Wooden Pallet and Container Association. It was estimated that 1.4 million
tons of wood were recovered in this manner in 1995, or 13.5 percent of
generation. This left 9.2 million tons discarded in 1995, or 6.0 percent of discards.
There is considerable reuse of wood pallets. Reuse was not counted as
recycling in this chapter, but is accounted for when calculating wood pallet
generation. Reuse of pallets is discussed further in the section on source
reduction in Chapter 3.
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, but were estimated to amount
to 160,000 tons generated in 1995.
69
-------
Table 18
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1995
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons)
Thousands of Tons
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
9,920
14,660
21,800
29,810
30,360
30,430
30,260
31,120
31,230
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
17,330
25,060
34,420
52,170
50,570
52,780
54,900
56,850
57,040
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaqinq
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
1,400
5,580
6,740
5,640
5,270
5,480
5,480
5,250
5,120
Wine and Liquor Bottles
1,080
1,900
2,450
2,030
1,810
1,930
1,960
1,800
1,790
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
3,710
4,440
4,780
4,160
4,110
4,350
4,830
5,000
4,620
Total Glass Packaging
6,190
11,920
13,970
11,830
11,190
11,760
12,270
12,050
11,530
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
640
1,570
520
150
90
80
70
10
Neg.
Food and Other Cans
3,760
3,540
2,850
2,540
2,990
2,730
2,710
2,990
2,640
Other Steel Packaging
260
270
240
200
190
170
210
220
210
Total Steel Packaging
4,660
5,380
3,610
2,890
3,270
2,980
2,990
3,220
2,850
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Neg.
100
850
1,550
1,580
1,580
1,610
1,710
1,580
Other Cans
Neg.
60
40
20
30
30
30
40
40
Foil and Closures
170
410
380
330
320
330
350
340
350
Total Aluminum Packaging
170
570
1,270
1,900
1,930
1,940
1,990
2,090
1,970
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
7,330
12,760
17,080
24,010
24,100
25,400
26,650
28,140
28,800
Milk Cartons**
790
500
500
480
470
520
510
Folding Cartons**
3,820
4,300
4,590
4,590
4,880
5,150
5,310
Other Paperboard Packaging
3,840
4,830
230
290
270
280
300
300
260
Bags and Sacks**
3,380
2,440
2,280
2,320
2,180
2,300
1,990
Wrapping Papers**
200
110
80
80
90
80
70
Other Paper Packaging
2,940
3,810
850
1,020
1,050
1,120
1,040
1,070
1,120
Total Paper & Board Pkg
14,110
21,400
26,350
32,670
32,870
34,270
35,610
37,560
38,060
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
260
430
450
510
560
600
660
Milk Bottles**
230
530
490
520
540
580
630
Other Containers
60
910
890
1,430
1,440
1,540
1,610
1,380
1,250
Bags and Sacks**
390
940
930
970
1,050
1,320
1,170
Wraps**
840
1,530
1,700
1,820
1,820
1,770
1,720
Other Plastics Packaging
60
1,180
790
2,040
2,020
2,160
2,280
2,250
2,270
Total Plastics Packaging
120
2,090
3,400
6,900
7,030
7,520
7,860
7,900
7,700
Wood Packaging
2,000
2,070
3,940
7,880
7,900
8,810
9,340
10,210
10,590
Other Misc. Packaging
120
130
130
150
150
160
160
160
160
Total Containers & Pkg
27,370
43,560
52,670
64,220
64,340
67,440
70,220
73,190
72,860
Total Product Wastesf
54,620
83,280
108,890
146,200
145,270
150,650
155,380
161,160
161,130
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
12,200
12,800
13,000
13,200
13,660
13,560
13,720
13,870
14,020
Yard Trimmings
20,000
23,200
27,500
35,000
35,000
35,000
33,250
31,500
29,750
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1,300
1,780
2,250
2,900
2,950
3,000
3,050
3,100
3,150
Total Other Wastes
33.500
37.780
42.750
51.100
51.610
51.560
50.020
48.470
46.920
Total MSW Generated - Weight
88,120
121,060
151,640
197,300
196,880
202,210
205,400
209,630
208,050
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
f Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
70
-------
Table 19
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1995
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In percent of total generation)
Percent of Total Generation
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
11.3%
12.1%
14.4%
15.1%
15.4%
15.0%
14.7%
14.8%
15.0%
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
19.7%
20.7%
22.7%
26.4%
25.7%
26.1%
26.7%
27.1%
27.4%
(Detail in Table 151
Containers and Packaaina
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
1.6%
4.6%
4.4%
2.9%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.5%
2.5%
Wine and Liquor Bottles
1.2%
1.6%
1.6%
1.0%
0.9%
1.0%
1.0%
0.9%
0.9%
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
4.2%
3.7%
3.2%
2.1%
2.1%
2.2%
2.4%
2.4%
2.2%
Total Glass Packaging
7.0%
9.8%
9.2%
6.0%
5.7%
5.8%
6.0%
5.7%
5.5%
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
0.7%
1.3%
0.3%
0.1%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Food and Other Cans
4.3%
2.9%
1.9%
1.3%
1.5%
1.4%
1.3%
1.4%
1.3%
Other Steel Packaging
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Total Steel Packaging
5.3%
4.4%
2.4%
1.5%
1.7%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Neg.
0.1%
0.6%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
Other Cans
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Foil and Closures
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Total Aluminum Packaging
0.2%
0.5%
0.8%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.9%
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
8.3%
10.5%
11.3%
12.2%
12.2%
12.6%
13.0%
13.4%
13.8%
Milk Cartons**
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Folding Cartons**
2.5%
2.2%
2.3%
2.3%
2.4%
2.5%
2.6%
Other Paperboard Packaging
4.4%
4.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Bags and Sacks**
2.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.0%
Wrapping Papers**
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Other Paper Packaging
3.3%
3.1%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
Total Paper & Board Pkg
16.0%
17.7%
17.4%
16.6%
16.7%
16.9%
17.3%
17.9%
18.3%
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Milk Bottles**
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Other Containers
0.1%
0.8%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.8%
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
Bags and Sacks**
0.3%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
Wraps**
0.6%
0.8%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
Other Plastics Packaging
0.1%
1.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.0%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
Total Plastics Packaging
0.1%
1.7%
2.2%
3.5%
3.6%
3.7%
3.8%
3.8%
3.7%
Wood Packaging
2.3%
1.7%
2.6%
4.0%
4.0%
4.4%
4.5%
4.9%
5.1%
Other Misc. Packaging
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Total Containers & Pkg
31.1%
36.0%
34.7%
32.5%
32.7%
33.4%
34.2%
34.9%
35.0%
Total Product Wastesf
62.0%
68.8%
71.8%
74.1%
73.8%
74.5%
75.6%
76.9%
77.4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
13.8%
10.6%
8.6%
6.7%
6.9%
6.7%
6.7%
6.6%
6.7%
Yard Trimmings
22.7%
19.2%
18.1%
17.7%
17.8%
17.3%
16.2%
15.0%
14.3%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
Total Other Wastes
38.0%
31.2%
28.2%
25.9%
26.2%
25.5%
24.4%
23.1%
22.6%
Total MSW Generated - %
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
f Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
71
-------
Table 20
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1995
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons)
Thousands of Tons
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
350
940
1,360
3,810
3,980
4,150
4,460
5,230
5,320
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
2,390
3,730
4,670
8,800
10,390
11,070
11,080
12,610
13,520
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaqinq
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
90
140
730
1,890
1,360
1,530
1,600
1,650
1,670
Wine and Liquor Bottles
10
10
20
210
380
430
450
470
470
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
520
820
930
960
990
1,000
Total Glass Packaging
100
150
750
2,620
2,560
2,890
3,010
3,110
3,140
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
10
20
50
40
40
40
40
Neg.
Neg.
Food and Other Cans
20
60
150
590
930
1,090
1,300
1,550
1,500
Other Steel Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
60
50
50
50
60
50
Total Steel Packaging
30
80
200
690
1,020
1,180
1,390
1,610
1,550
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Neg.
10
310
990
990
1,080
1,010
1,120
990
Other Cans
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Foil and Closures
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
20
20
30
30
30
30
Total Aluminum Pkg
Neg.
10
310
1,010
1,010
1,110
1,040
1,150
1,020
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
2,520
2,760
6,390
11,530
12,110
13,310
13,970
16,210
18,480
Milk Cartons**
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Folding Cartons**
Neg.
340
450
460
770
1,010
1,070
Other Paperboard Packaging
520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Bags and Sacks**
Neg.
200
250
340
400
420
340
Wrapping Papers**
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Other Paper Packaging
220
350
310
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Total Paper & Board Pkg
2,740
3,110
7,220
12,070
12,810
14,110
15,140
17,640
19,890
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
10
140
160
210
230
320
300
Milk Bottles**
Neg.
20
70
110
130
170
190
Other Containers
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
20
70
80
90
140
160
Bags and Sacks**
Neg.
30
10
20
20
30
40
Wraps**
Neg.
30
10
20
30
30
40
Other Plastics Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
20
10
10
10
20
20
Total Plastics Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
10
260
330
450
510
710
750
Wood Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
390
790
1,060
1,310
1,430
1,430
Other Misc. Packaaina
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Nea.
Total Containers & Pkg
2,870
3,350
8,490
17,040
18,520
20,800
22,400
25,650
27,780
Total Product Wastesf
5,610
8,020
14,520
29,650
32,890
36,020
37,940
43,490
46,620
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
480
570
Yard Trimmings
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
4,200
4,800
5,400
6,900
8,000
9,000
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Total Other Wastes
Nea.
Neq.
Nea.
4.200
4.800
5.400
6.900
8.480
9.570
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
5,610
8,020
14,520
33,850
37,690
41,420
44,840
51,970
56,190
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
f 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.
72
-------
Table 21
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1995
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In percent of generation of each product)
Percent of Generation of Each Product
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
3.5%
6.4%
6.2%
12.8%
13.1%
13.6%
14.7%
16.8%
17.0%
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
13.8%
14.9%
13.6%
16.9%
20.5%
21.0%
20.2%
22.2%
23.7%
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
6.4%
2.5%
10.8%
33.5%
25.8%
27.9%
29.2%
31.4%
32.6%
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
10.3%
21.0%
22.3%
23.0%
26.1%
26.3%
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
12.5%
20.0%
21.4%
19.9%
19.8%
21.6%
Total Glass Packaging
1.6%
1.3%
5.4%
22.1%
22.9%
24.6%
24.5%
25.8%
27.2%
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
1.6%
1.3%
9.6%
26.7%
44.4%
50.0%
57.1%
Neg.
Neg.
Food and Other Cans
Neg.
1.7%
5.3%
23.2%
31.1%
39.9%
48.0%
51.8%
56.8%
Other Steel Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
30.0%
26.3%
29.4%
23.8%
27.3%
23.8%
Total Steel Packaging
Neg.
1.5%
5.5%
23.9%
31.2%
39.6%
46.5%
50.0%
54.4%
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Neg.
10.0%
36.5%
63.9%
62.7%
68.4%
62.7%
65.5%
62.7%
Other Cans
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Foil and Closures
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.1%
6.3%
9.1%
8.6%
8.8%
8.6%
Total Aluminum Pkg
Neg.
1.8%
24.4%
53.2%
52.3%
57.2%
52.3%
55.0%
51.8%
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
34.4%
21.6%
37.4%
48.0%
50.2%
52.4%
52.4%
57.6%
64.2%
Milk Cartons**
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Folding Cartons**
Neg.
Neg.
9.8%
10.0%
15.8%
19.6%
20.2%
Other Paperboard Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Bags and Sacks**
Neg.
Neg.
11.0%
14.7%
18.3%
18.3%
17.1%
Wrapping Papers**
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Other Paper Packaging
7.5%
9.2%
36.5%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Total Paper & Board Pkg
19.4%
14.5%
27.4%
36.9%
39.0%
41.2%
42.5%
47.0%
52.3%
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
3.8%
32.6%
35.6%
41.2%
41.1%
53.3%
45.5%
Milk Bottles**
Neg.
3.8%
14.3%
21.2%
24.1%
29.3%
30.2%
Other Containers
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1.4%
4.9%
5.2%
5.6%
10.1%
12.8%
Bags and Sacks**
Neg.
3.2%
1.1%
2.1%
1.9%
2.3%
3.4%
Wraps**
Neg.
2.0%
0.6%
1.1%
1.6%
1.7%
2.3%
Other Plastics Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.9%
0.9%
Total Plastics Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
3.8%
4.7%
6.0%
6.5%
9.0%
9.7%
Wood Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
4.9%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
14.0%
13.5%
Other Misc. Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Total Containers & Pkg
10.5%
7.7%
16.1%
26.5%
28.8%
30.8%
31.9%
35.0%
38.1%
Total Product Wastesf
10.3%
9.6%
13.3%
20.3%
22.6%
23.9%
24.4%
27.0%
28.9%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
3.5%
4.1%
Yard Trimmings
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
12.0%
13.7%
15.4%
20.8%
25.4%
30.3%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Total Other Wastes
Neq.
Neq.
Neq.
8.2%
9.3%
10.5%
13.8%
17.5%
20.4%
Total MSW Recovered - %
6.4%
6.6%
9.6%
17.2%
19.1%
20.5%
21.8%
24.8%
27.0%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
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.
73
-------
Table 22
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1995
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons)
Thousands of Tons
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
9,570
13,720
20,440
26,000
26,380
26,280
25,800
25,890
25,910
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
14,940
21,330
29,750
43,370
40,180
41,710
43,820
44,240
43,520
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaqinq
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
1,310
5,440
6,010
3,750
3,910
3,950
3,880
3,600
3,450
Wine and Liquor Bottles
1,080
1,900
2,450
1,820
1,430
1,500
1,510
1,330
1,320
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
3,710
4,440
4,780
3,640
3,290
3,420
3,870
4,010
3,620
Total Glass Packaging
6,090
11,770
13,220
9,210
8,630
8,870
9,260
8,940
8,390
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
640
1,570
520
110
50
40
30
10
Neg.
Food and Other Cans
3,760
3,480
2,700
1,950
2,060
1,640
1,410
1,440
1,140
Other Steel Packaging
260
270
240
140
140
120
160
160
160
Total Steel Packaging
4,660
5,300
3,410
2,200
2,250
1,800
1,600
1,610
1,300
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Neg.
100
540
560
590
500
600
590
590
Other Cans
Neg.
60
40
20
30
30
30
40
40
Foil and Closures
170
410
380
310
300
300
320
310
320
Total Aluminum Pkg
170
560
960
890
920
830
950
940
950
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
4,810
10,000
10,690
12,480
11,990
12,090
12,680
11,930
10,320
Milk Cartons**
790
500
500
480
470
520
510
Folding Cartons**
3,820
3,960
4,140
4,130
4,110
4,140
4,240
Other Paperboard Packaging
3,840
4,830
230
290
270
280
300
300
260
Bags and Sacks**
3,380
2,240
2,030
1,980
1,780
1,880
1,650
Wrapping Papers**
200
110
80
80
90
80
70
Other Paper Packaging
2,720
3,460
850
1,020
1,050
1,120
1,040
1,070
1,120
Total Paper & Board Pkg
11,370
18,290
19,130
20,600
20,060
20,160
20,470
19,920
18,170
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
250
290
290
300
330
280
360
Milk Bottles**
230
510
420
410
410
410
440
Other Containers
60
910
890
1,410
1,370
1,460
1,520
1,240
1,090
Bags and Sacks**
390
910
920
950
1,030
1,290
1,130
Wraps**
840
1,500
1,690
1,800
1,790
1,740
1,680
Other Plastics Packaging
60
1,180
790
2,020
2,010
2,150
2,270
2,230
2,250
Total Plastics Packaging
120
2,090
3,390
6,640
6,700
7,070
7,350
7,190
6,950
Wood Packaging
2,000
2,070
3,940
7,490
7,110
7,750
8,030
8,780
9,160
Other Misc. Packaging
120
130
130
150
150
160
160
160
160
Total Containers & Pkg
24,500
40,210
44,180
47,180
45,820
46,640
47,820
47,540
45,080
Total Product Wastesf
49,010
75,260
94,370
116,550
112,380
114,630
117,440
117,670
114,510
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
12,200
12,800
13,000
13,200
13,660
13,560
13,720
13,390
13,450
Yard Trimmings
20,000
23,200
27,500
30,800
30,200
29,600
26,350
23,500
20,750
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1,300
1,780
2,250
2,900
2,950
3,000
3,050
3,100
3,150
Total Other Wastes
33,500
37,780
42,750
46,900
46,810
46,160
43,120
39,990
37,350
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
82,510
113,040
137,120
163,450
159,190
160,790
160,560
157,660
151,860
* 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.
f Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
74
-------
Table 23
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1995
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In percent of total discards)
Percent of Total Discards
Products
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Durable Goods
11.6%
12.1%
14.9%
15.9%
16.6%
16.3%
16.1%
16.4%
17.1%
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
18.1%
18.9%
21.7%
26.5%
25.2%
25.9%
27.3%
28.1%
28.7%
(Detail in Table 171
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
1.6%
4.8%
4.4%
2.3%
2.5%
2.5%
2.4%
2.3%
2.3%
Wine and Liquor Bottles
1.3%
1.7%
1.8%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.9%
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
4.5%
3.9%
3.5%
2.2%
2.1%
2.1%
2.4%
2.5%
2.4%
Total Glass Packaging
7.4%
10.4%
9.6%
5.6%
5.4%
5.5%
5.8%
5.7%
5.5%
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
0.8%
1.4%
0.4%
0.1%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Food and Other Cans
4.6%
3.1%
2.0%
1.2%
1.3%
1.0%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
Other Steel Packaging
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Total Steel Packaging
5.6%
4.7%
2.5%
1.3%
1.4%
1.1%
1.0%
1.0%
0.9%
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Neg.
0.1%
0.4%
0.3%
0.4%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
Other Cans
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Foil and Closures
0.2%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Total Aluminum Pkg
0.2%
0.5%
0.7%
0.5%
0.6%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
5.8%
8.8%
7.8%
7.6%
7.5%
7.5%
7.9%
7.6%
6.8%
Milk Cartons**
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Folding Cartons**
2.8%
2.4%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.8%
Other Paperboard Packaging
4.7%
4.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Bags and Sacks**
2.5%
1.4%
1.3%
1.2%
1.1%
1.2%
1.1%
Wrapping Papers**
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
Other Paper Packaging
3.3%
3.1%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
Total Paper & Board Pkg
13.8%
16.2%
14.0%
12.6%
12.6%
12.5%
12.7%
12.6%
12.0%
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Milk Bottles**
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Other Containers
0.1%
0.8%
0.6%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
Bags and Sacks**
0.3%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.8%
0.7%
Wraps**
0.6%
0.9%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
Other Plastics Packaging
0.1%
1.0%
0.6%
1.2%
1.3%
1.3%
1.4%
1.4%
1.5%
Total Plastics Packaging
0.1%
1.8%
2.5%
4.1%
4.2%
4.4%
4.6%
4.6%
4.6%
Wood Packaging
2.4%
1.8%
2.9%
4.6%
4.5%
4.8%
5.0%
5.6%
6.0%
Other Misc. Packaaina
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Total Containers & Pkg
29.7%
35.6%
32.2%
28.9%
28.8%
29.0%
29.8%
30.2%
29.7%
Total Product Wastesf
59.4%
66.6%
68.8%
71.3%
70.6%
71.3%
73.1%
74.6%
75.4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
14.8%
11.3%
9.5%
8.1%
8.6%
8.4%
8.5%
8.5%
8.9%
Yard Trimmings
24.2%
20.5%
20.1%
18.8%
19.0%
18.4%
16.4%
14.9%
13.7%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.8%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
2.0%
2.1%
Total Other Wastes
40.6%
33.4%
31.2%
28.7%
29.4%
28.7%
26.9%
25.4%
24.6%
Total MSW Discarded - %
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
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.
f Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
75
-------
Summary of Products in Municipal Solid Waste
Changing quantities and composition of municipal solid waste generation
by product category are 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 1995 is shown in
Figure 15. Paper and paperboard made up 76.2 percent of nondurables in MSW
generation, with plastics contributing 8.9 percent, and textiles 8.7 percent. Other
materials contributed lesser percentages. After recovery for recycling, paper and
paperboard were 70.7 percent of nondurable discards, with plastics being 11.6
percent, and textiles 9.7 percent.
The materials composition of containers and packaging in MSW in 1995 is
shown in Figure 16. By weight, paper and paperboard products made up 52.2
percent of containers and packaging generation, with glass second at 15.8 percent
of containers and packaging generation. Wooden pallets accounted for 14.5
percent of containers and packaging generation, while plastics were 10.6 percent.
Recovery for recycling makes a significant change, with paper and
paperboard being 40.3 percent of containers and packaging discards after recovery
takes place. Wood accounted for 20.4 percent of discards of containers and
packaging, glass containers was 18.6 percent, and plastics comprised 15.4 percent.
Some additional perspectives on products in municipal solid waste are
included in other chapters of this report.
Figure 14. Generation of products in MSW, 1960 to 1995
225,000
Other Wastes
200,000
175,000
» 150,000
c
o
-I—I
-o 125,000
c
| 100,000
o
jE 75,000
50,000
25,000
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
76
-------
Figure 15. Nondurable goods generated and discarded
in municipal solid waste, 1995
(in percent of total generation and discards)
Metals 0.3%
Paper &
Paperboard
76.2%
Plastics 8.9%
Rubber & Leather 1.4%
Textiles 8.7%
Other 4.5%
Generation
Metals 0.4%
Paper &
Paperboard
70.7%
Plastics 11.6%
Rubber & Leather 1.7%
Textiles 9.7%
Other 5.9%
Discards
77
-------
Figure 16. Containers and packaging generated and discarded
in municipal solid waste, 1995
(in percent of total generation and discards)
Paper &
Paperboard
52.2%
Gass 15
Other 14
Metals 6.6%
Plastics 10.6%
Generation
Glass 18.6%
Paper &
Paperboard
40.3%
Metals 5.0%
Plastics 15.4%
Other 20.7%
Discards
78
-------
SUMMARY
The data presented in this chapter can be summarized by the following
observations:
MSW Generation
• Total generation of municipal solid waste in 1995 was 208.1 million
tons, which was less than MSW generation of 209.6 million tons in
1994.
• Paper and paperboard products made up the largest percentage of all
the materials in MSW—81.5 million tons, or 39.2 percent of total
generation.
• Yard trimmings comprised the second largest material category, at 29.8
million tons, or 14.3 percent of total generation, in 1995. This compared
to 31.5 million tons (15.0 percent of generation) in 1994.
• Total materials in products declined by 30,000 tons from 1994 to 1995.
The only materials in products that increased in tonnage were paper
and paperboard, textiles, and wood.
• Other materials (yard trimmings, food wastes, and miscellaneous
inorganic wastes) declined by 1.6 million tons from 1994 to 1995. Yard
trimmings accounted for all of this decline, due to source reduction
measures such as backyard composting and leaving grass trimmings on
the yard.
• Between 1994 and 1995, generation of durable goods and nondurable
goods increased in tonnage, while generation of containers and
packaging decreased in tonnage. Each major product category increased
in percentage of MSW generated, while generation of yard trimmings
was declining in percentage.
MSW Recovery
• Recovery of materials in MSW increased from 52.0 million tons in
1994 (24.8 percent of total generation) to 56.2 million tons in 1995 (27.0
percent of generation).
• Recovery of most materials in MSW increased in both tonnage and
percent of total generation.
• Recovery of products in MSW increased by over 3 million tons, from
27 percent to 29 percent of generation. Recovery of other wastes (yard
trimmings and food wastes) increased by over one million tons, from
17.5 percent to 20.4 percent of generation.
79
-------
• Containers and packaging led the major product categories in tonnage
and percentage recovery, increasing from 25.7 million tons (35.0
percent of generation) in 1994 to 27.8 million tons (38.1 percent of
generation). Nondurable goods had the second highest recovery in
1995—13.5 million tons, or 23.7 percent of generation.
• Measured by tonnage, the most-recovered products in 1995 were
corrugated boxes (18.5 million tons), yard trimmings (9.0 million tons),
newspapers (7.0 million tons), glass containers (3.1 million tons), and
office papers (3.0 million tons).
• Measured by percentage of generation, products with the highest
recovery rates in 1995 were lead-acid batteries (95.8 percent), corrugated
boxes (64.2 percent), aluminum beverage cans (62.7 percent), major
appliances (60.5 percent), steel cans (56.8 percent), and newspapers (53.0
percent).
Long Term Trends
• Generation of MSW has increased steadily (except in recession years),
from 88.1 million tons in 1960 to 208.1 million tons in 1995.
• Generation of paper and paperboard, the largest material component of
MSW, has increased in almost every year. Yard trimmings, the second
largest component, have been declining recently due to source
reduction measures at residences. Generation of other materials is
generally on an upward trend, although generation of glass in 1995 was
lower than in 1980, and generation of metals in 1995 was about the
same as in 1980.
• In percentage of total MSW generation, recovery for recycling
(including composting) did not exceed 20 percent until 1992. The
increase reflects a rapid increase in the infrastructure for recovery
starting in the late 1980s (see Chapter 3).
• Recovery (as a percent of generation) of most materials in MSW has
increased dramatically over the 35 years for which statistics have been
tabulated. Some examples:
1980
1995
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Yard trimmings
21%
5%
8%
2%
40%
25%
39%
5%
30%
80
-------
Chapter 2
REFERENCES
GENERAL
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.
Can Manufacturers Institute. Can Shipments Report. Various years.
Resource Recycling's Bottle/Can Recycling Update. Various issues.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Closures for Containers." MQ34H. Various years.
CARPETS AND RUGS
The Carpet and Rug Institute. Carpet & Rug Industry Review. Various years.
Personal communication with a representative of the Carpet and Rug Institute.
February 14, 1992.
Rauch Associates, Inc. The Rauch Guide to the U.S. Adhesives and Sealants
Industry. ISBN O-932157-05-X.
81
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Carpets and Rugs." MA22Q. Various years.
FERROUS METAL CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING
American Iron and Steel Institute. Annual Statistical Report. Various years.
Can Manufacturers Institute. Can Shipments Report. Various years.
Personal communication with a representative of the Association of Container
Reconditioning. June 1994.
Personal communication with a representative of the Steel Recycling Institute.
April 1996.
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.
FOOD WASTE
Food Manufacturers Institute. Composting Workbook. "Reducing Waste
Disposal Costs: How to Evaluate the Benefits of Composting in the Supermarket
Industry." Food Marketing Institute. 1994.
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.
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.
82
-------
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 Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Combined Annual and
Revised Monthly Retail Trade." Current Business Reports. BR/94-RV.
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.
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.
November 1977.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Office Furniture." MA-25H. Various years.
GLASS CONTAINERS
Brewers Almanac. Various years.
Resource Recycling. Bottle/Can Recycling Update. Various issues.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Glass Containers." M32G. Various years.
83
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Exports, Schedule B Commodity by Country
- Domestic Merchandise. FT 447.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports for Consumption. FT 247.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports of Merchandise for Consumption.
FT 110 and FT 125.
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.
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.
84
-------
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 April
1996.
Sears, Roebuck and Co. Spring and Fall Retail Catalogs. Various years.
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. 1996 Annual
Statistical Summary Waste Paper Utilization. April 1996.
American Forest & Paper Association. 1996 Statistics of Paper, Paperboard &
Wood Pulp. November 1996.
American Forest & Paper Association. Paper, Paperboard, Pulp Capacity and Fiber
Consumption, 1995-1999. December 1996.
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: Fiscal Year 1995.
Yellow Pages Publishers Association. Yellow Pages Publishers Environmental
Network: Progress Report for the Year 1995. March 1996.
PLASTICS
Modern Plastics. Resin Statistics. January issue, various years.
85
-------
R.W. Beck and Associates. "Postconsumer Plastics Recycling Rate Study for the
American Plastics Council." Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1994 U.S. Industrial Outlook.
RUBBER
American Automobile Manufacturers Association. AAMA Motor Vehicle Facts
and Figures. Various years.
International Tire and Rubber Association, Inc. formerly American Retreader's
Association, Inc. Louisville, Kentucky.
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.
Retreaders Journal. April 1987.
Scrap Tire Management Council. "1994 Scrap Tire Use/Disposal Study". Results
published in Scrap Tire News. March 1995.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures.
Industry series 30A-30. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Rubber Mechanical Goods." MA30C. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Rubber: Production, Shipments, and Stocks." MA30A. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States. Various editions.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. U.S. Imports for
Consumption. FT 247. Table 1. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook. "Plastics and Rubber."
Also earlier editions. Various years.
86
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Markets for Scrap Tires. EPA/530-SW-90-
074A. October 1991.
TEXTILES AND FOOTWEAR
Council for Textile Recycling. Textile Recycling Fact Sheet.
J.C. Penney's Catalog. 1990.
National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers. Fact Sheets. 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. MA31A, MA23E, MA23G, and MA23A. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States. Various years.
WOOD PACKAGING
Eshbach, Ovid, Ed. Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals. Second Edition.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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, WV. December 1991.
Personal communication with representative of U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. December 1991.
Personal communication with representative of Virginia Polytechnical Institute.
December 1991.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.
Wood Used in U.S. Manufacturing Industries, 1977. December 1983.
87
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook . "Wood Products."
Various year.
YARD TRIMMINGS
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Survey of Selected State Officials. October 1996.
Raymond Communications. "State Recycling Laws Update." 1994.
Raymond Communications. "State Recycling Laws Update." Year-end Edition
1996.
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.
The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the Year 2000.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Appendix J and Appendix K. Keep America Beautiful,
Inc. September 1994.
"Yard Waste Legislation: Disposal Bans and Similar Bills as of July, 1993."
Composting Council. Fact Sheet. July 1993.
88
-------
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.
Characterization of historical municipal solid waste (MSW) management
is a component of this report (overview in Figure 17). Estimates of historical
recovery of materials for recycling, including yard trimmings for composting,
are presented in Chapter 2. Estimates of MSW combustion are presented in this
chapter, and quantities of waste landfilled are estimated by subtracting
combustion and recovery for recycling (including composting) from total MSW
generation.
A new feature of this report 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.
While source reduction is not quantified as a line item in this report, a
discussion of source reduction activities is included in this chapter. Source
reduction activities have the effect of reducing MSW generation, while the
other management alternatives deal with MSW once it is generated.
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 the 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 disposal or other
management alternative.
89
-------
Figure 17. Diagram of Solid Waste Management
Generation
of waste for
management
Changes in
package
design
A
Changes in
purchasing
habits
~
Changes in
industrial
practices
t
Backyard
composting,
grasscycling
Increased
reuse
~
Other
changes in
use patterns
Recovery for
recycling (including
composting)
~
Landfill
Disposal
Combustion
& Disposal
SOURCE REDUCTION
WASTE REDUCTION
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd. based on EPA hierarchy.
Source reduction measures encompass a very broad range of activities
by private citizens, communities, commercial establishments, institutional
agencies, and manufacturers and distributors. In general, source reduction
activities 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.
• Reducing amounts of products or packages used through
modification of current practices by processors and consumers.
Reusing products or packages already manufactured.
90
-------
Table 24
SELECTED EXAMPLES OF SOURCE REDUCTION PRACTICES
Source Reduction Practice
MSW Product Categories
Durable
Goods
Nondurable
Goods
Containers &
Packaging
Organics
Redesign
Material reduction
• Downgauge metal in
appliances
• Paperless purchase
orders
• Concentrates
• Xeriscaping
Material substitution
• Use of composites
in appliances and
electronic circuitry
• Cereal in bags
• Coffee brick
• Multi-use products
Lengthen life
• High mileage tire
• Electronic components
reduce moving parts
• Regular servicing
• Look at warranties
• Extend warranties
• Design for secondary
uses
Consumer Practices
• Purchase
• Repair
• Duplexing
• Sharing
• Reduce unwanted
third class mail
• Purchasing:
products in bulk,
concentrates
Reuse
By design
• Magnetic paint
mask
• Envelopes
• Pallets
• Returnable secondary
packaging
Secondary
• Borrow or rent for
temporary use
• Give to charity
• Buy or sell at
garage sale
• Clothing
• Waste paper
scratch pads
• 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
Reduce Organics
Food wastes
• Backyard composting
• Vermi-composting
Yard trimmings
• Backyard composting
• Grasscycling
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
• Managing non-product organic wastes (food wastes, yard
trimmings) through backyard composting or other on-site
alternatives to disposal.
Example source reduction actions in these areas are shown in Table 24.
These principles are further discussed in this chapter and are portrayed in case
studies. There is a case study for each of the major product categories—
durables, nondurables, and containers and packaging—as well as several case
studies for reuse and source reduction industries. Although not all-inclusive,
these case studies demonstrate the broad spectrum of ongoing activities that
can result in measurable reductions in materials usage and disposal of MSW.
91
-------
Source Reduction Through Redesign
Since source reduction of products and packages can save money through
reducing materials and energy costs, manufacturers and packaging designers
have been pursuing these activities for many years. 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 may also 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 products enter the
municipal waste stream. The responsibility for lengthening product life lies
partly with manufacturers and partly with consumers. Products can be designed
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 must also be willing to care for and repair products.
Combined with other source reduction measures, redesign can have a
significant effect on material use and eventual discards. The following case study,
Refrigerators, exemplifies source reduction for a durable good through redesign
over a 30 year period.
SOURCE REDUCTION CASE STUDY: REFRIGERATORS
Over a period of 30 years, refrigerators have increased in size, but their weight per unit of
usable space has decreased. This decrease in weight per cubic foot is a form of source reduction.
Using department store catalogs from 1965, 1975, and 1985, we identified refrigerators of similar
size and use. Data for 1995 were available from computer on-line sources. Shipping weights, inside
dimensions, outside dimensions, and energy usage were collected for a 12 cubic foot storage space
refrigerator in each year.
I I
Many more sizes of refrigerators were available for purchase as we approach 1995. The
largest size available, as well as the average size sold each year, increased from 1965 to 1995. The
weight per cubic foot of usable space for a 12 cubic foot refrigerator, however, decreased from 24
pounds per cubic foot to 11.9 pounds per cubic foot during the same period, as shown in Table 25. The
outer dimensions of 12 cubic foot refrigerators also decreased from 30.6 cubic feet to 24.8 cubic feet.
A 50 percent reduction in the weight per cubic foot from 1965 to 1995 exemplifies how some
durable products, specifically appliances, have been source reduced. This source reduction came
about primarily as an effort to reduce material costs. However, some changes not only reduced the
overall weight of the refrigerator, but increased the energy efficiency and convenience.
92
-------
SOURCE REDUCTION CASE STUDY: REFRIGERATORS
(continued)
Table 25
REFRIGERATOR SOURCE REDUCTION, 1965 TO 1995
(Based on 12 cubic foot size refrigerator)
Weight per
Outer
Energy
Weight
Unit Size (1)
Dimensions
Consumption
(lbs)
(lb/cu ft)
(cu ft)
(kwh/mo)
1965
295
24.0
30.6
N/A
1975
188
15.7
24.5
136.0
1985
167
13.9
24.5
97.2
1995
144
11.9
24.8
45.0
(1) Refrigerators varied from 11.9 cu. ft. to 12.4 cu. ft.
Reference: Sears, Roebuck & Co. catalogs and other sales information.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Certain plastics allowed refrigerators to become lighter and more energy efficient. Early
refrigerators used rock wool and later fiberglass to insulate the inner liner (food compartment) and
the freezer compartment. Urethane foam, which has a R9 insulating value per inch, replaced
fiberglass insulation. The foam insulates better due to its greater R-value per inch and also because
it fills corners and tiny crevices, even further sealing off air flow. A 1975 refrigerator required
approximately 136 kwh per month to operate. A 1985 model required approximately 97 kwh per
month, whereas the 1995 12 cubic foot model required 45 kwh per month. Energy data were not
available for 1965.
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), high impact polystyrene (HIPS) and polycarbonate
replaced porcelain enameled steel in many interior applications, including inner doors, pans, and
covers. These plastics allowed for more functional shapes, see-through compartments, and lighter
refrigerators. Stronger steel has been used for the outer cabinet, reducing the thickness and the
weight required to maintain the structural integrity of the refrigerator.
Figure 18. Refrigerator Source Reduction, 1965 To 1995
(In lbs. per cu. ft. of usable space for 12 cu. ft. refrigerator)
25.0
, 20.0
53 15.0
CL
I 10.0
o
CL
5.0
0.0
1—
1965
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
1975
1985
1995
93
-------
Modifying Practices to Reduce Materials Use
Businesses and individuals can often 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).
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 can also reduce packaging requirements;
some of these products, such as fabric softeners and powdered detergent, are
designed to be used with refillable containers.
Modifying practices can be combined with other source reduction
measures to reduce generation and limit material use. Two additional case
studies, Plastic Bags and Newspapers, explore different ways that modifying
practices, combined with redesign efforts, will produce marked source reduction
in a nondurable product and a packaging product.
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, clothing, etc.). 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. Other goods are resold by individuals at garage sales, flea
markets, and the like. Borrowing and sharing items like tools can also reduce the
number of products to be discarded ultimately. 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. In this section, case studies on
electronics reuse, textiles reuse, etc., demonstrate the breadth of the reuse
infrastructure in the U.S.
94
-------
SOURCE REDUCTION CASE STUDY: PLASTIC GROCERY SACKS
Plastic grocery sacks were introduced in the early 1970s and began to have measurable
market share in the early 1980s. Now, in most grocery stores, both paper and plastic grocery sacks
are available. Grocery sacks are made from high density, low density, and linear low density
polyethylene resins (HDPE, LDPE, and LLDPE). LDPE was the dominant resin for grocery sacks in
the 1980s. However, HDPE has become the resin most used in the 1990s. The typical grocery sack is
1/6 barrel, or approximately seven gallons in size. In 1985, typical grocery sacks weighed
approximately 9.2 grams, as shown in Table 26. Their weight was reduced to 7.5 grams in 1990 by
downgauging the film thickness. Further downgauging or source reduction allowed typical bags to
weigh only 5.8 grams in 1995. This is a 37 percent reduction over a 10-year period. Figure 19 shows
the weight reduction from 1985 to 1995.
Table 26
PLASTIC SACK SOURCE REDUCTION, 1985 TO 1995 (1)
Weight
Weight
(grams)
Gauge
Reduction
(from 1985)
1985
9.2
0.86
1990
7.5
0.71
18%
1995
5.8
0.55
37%
(1) Includes HDPE, LDPE, and LLDPE
1/6 barrel size grocery sacks.
References: Private industry contacts
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Figure 19. Plastic Sack Source Reduction, 1985 to 1995
(In grams per grocery sack)
10
2 ¦ __
0 -I 1 1 1
1985 1990 1995
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd. based on sampled weights.
In 1985, an estimated 132 million pounds of polyethylene were used in the U.S. in the
fabrication of grocery sacks. That amount grew dramatically, to 461 million pounds in 1990 and to
686 million pounds in 1995. In 1990, the source reduction of 18 percent allowed the industry to keep
101 million pounds of resin from being used in grocery bag fabrication. In 1995, using 1985 as the base
year, 396 million pounds of resin were source reduced.
95
-------
SOURCE REDUCTION CASE STUDY: NEWSPAPERS
In the past several decades, newspapers across the U.S. have tried to minimize resource
requirements, including newsprint. Before 1974, the standard basis weight for newspapers (the
typical thickness of the newsprint, excluding inserts, measured in weight per unit area) was 32
pounds per 3,000 square feet. Now, 30 pounds per 3,000 square is the standard basis weight for
newsprint. Other basis weights are as low as 24 pounds, and there appears to be a trend towards
lower basis weight production. Reduced basis weight and other activities have enabled
newspapers to reduce material consumption, referred to as newsprint conservation in the industry.
Newsprint conservation varies from newspaper to newspaper because of local competition,
local newsprint prices, and the size of the operation. Two competing newspapers in a metropolitan
area will view newsprint conservation differently than a newspaper without competition, or a
newspaper in a smaller town.
To analyze newsprint source reduction, data on several individual newspapers were
compiled from Editor & Publisher YearBook. Circulation, newsprint consumption, number of pages
printed, and page width were collected for four large newspapers across the U.S. for 1985, 1990, and
1995. The average number of pages per pound over the 10-year period provided documentation to
support the assertion of source reduction, as shown in Table 27.
From 1985 to 1995, the average number of news pages per pound increased from
approximately 93 to 118, as shown in Figure 20. This is nearly a 27 percent increase in the number of
pages printed per pound of newsprint. The results calculated from data in Editor & Publisher
YearBook correspond with actual newspapers counted and weighed. The actual page size also
decreased more than a half inch over the same period. Several actions responsible for the source
reduction are discussed below.
Higher prices for newsprint have influenced source reduction efforts in the newspaper
publishing industry. Based on information from the Newspaper Association of America,
newspapers publishers have reduced material requirements by addressing conservation in five
areas: management, marketing and advertising, news and editorial, production, and circulation.
Newsprint waste management essentially is managing the newsprint in ways that
minimize wastes by getting more out of each roll and the most out of each newspaper. Many of the
actions newspaper publishers have taken or are taking to conserve newsprint are shown in Table 28.
Table 27
NEWSPAPER SOURCE REDUCTION, 1985 TO 1995 (1)
1985 1990 1995
Average Circulation (papers/day) 593,861 615,079 688,924
Newsprint Consumption (tons) 206,445 211,198 196,861
Number of Pages per Pound 93 97 118
(1) Average of four newspapers (Los Angeles Times, Rocky Mountain News, Boston
Globe, Dallas Morning News) across the U.S.
Reference: Editor & Publisher YearBook, 1985, 1990, 1995.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
96
-------
120
§100
o
Cl
t 80
Cl
-------
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 are often 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
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, etc. 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, reconditioned printer cartridges, etc.
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 these have largely been replaced by single-use glass bottles,
plastic bottles, and aluminum cans. 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. The National Wooden Pallet & Container Association
estimates that over 50 percent of wood pallets produced are reusable.
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.
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.
98
-------
Reuse Infrastructure
Many new industries are incorporating reuse concepts as a business
practice. The next four case studies, Durable Goods Reuse, Electronics Reuse,
Textiles Reuse, and Pallet Repair and Reuse, summarize a few industries that
emphasize reuse. Reuse and repair of computers, durables, textiles, and pallets
extend the life of products, delaying their disposal, and may curtail the
production of new products, reducing material consumption.
REUSE CASE STUDY: DURABLE GOODS
For decades, reuse of some type has been practiced by many individuals and
organizations. Reuse has routinely occurred through shops that repair, recondition, rent,
remanufacture, and then resell or give away the surplus or used goods. Similarly operations
include garage sales, flea markets, and auctions. Large operations are well-known and have
a national presence, such as Goodwill Industries and the Salvation Army. Others are smaller
and operate locally. Despite the efforts of these organizations, most of the durable goods
generated in the U.S. are disposed in landfills.
Table 29 profiles several reuse operations and collection programs across America.
The items and materials they collect, refurbish, and resell vary widely. Some operations
collected anything from magazines and records to lawnmowers and bathtubs. Replicating
the reuse programs now in operation will help expand the reuse infrastructure in the U.S.
Operations of this type benefit the community in many ways. They reduce waste
management costs, divert discards to their highest and best use, reclaim high-value
materials, often for the poor and needy, support many individuals and enterprises, and
create decent jobs. In addition, sale of refurbished items helps support community
rehabilitation and job training programs.
Table 29
SELECTED COLLECTION AND REUSE PROGRAMS FOR DURABLE GOODS
Tons
Percent
Start
Community/Operation
Location
Operation Type
Customer
Per Year
Reused
Date
Calaveres Co. Salv. Army CA
Salv. Army trailer at landfill
Sal. Army
48
90%
1992
Chatham Co Swap Shops
NC
Co.-run Swap Shops at drop-off
Public
na
90%
1993
Int'l Furniture & Bedding
Bait. MD
Mattress remanufacturing
Mattress retail
800
90%
1984
L.A. Shares
LA, CA
NP reuse operation
Nonprofits, schls
270
99%
1993
Materials for the Arts
NY, NY
Govt.-run reuse operation
Arts/cult, comm
428
95%
1979
Montgomery County
MD
Co. drop-off & retail reuse op.
Varies
368
100%
1990
Recycletown
Rio Nido, CA
NP drop-off and retail reuse op.
Public
273
11%
1992
ReStore
Montpelier, VT NP retail reuse op.
Public
35
97%
1990
St. Paul/Goodwill
MN
Curbside for text, and HH items
Goodwill Ind.
168
92%
1992
Surplus Exchange
KC, MO
NP reuse and repair op.
Nonprofits
1,030
70%
1984
Urban Ore, Inc.
Berkeley, CA
For-profit reuse/recycle retail op.
Public
3,500
73%
1980
Wooden Artifacts Cons.
Stone Co., AR
NP furniture repair workshop
Needy
5
100%
1989
HH=Household NP=Nonprofit text.=textiles Co.=county op.=operation
Salv.=Salvation cult.=cultural comm.=community Ind.industries.
Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1996.
99
-------
REUSE CASE STUDY: ELECTRONICS
Due to innovative technology and mass manufacturing, electronics quickly become
obsolete. They often are discarded with many or all working components. According to
several research studies and electronic recycling experts, approximately 6 to 13 million
computers are taken out of service each year in the United States. Only 10 percent are
reused or recycled, about 15 percent are landfilled, and the remaining 75 percent are
stockpiled. An estimated 10 million more sit in storage. A tremendous amount of other
electronics (such as audio equipment, televisions, telecommunications equipment, and
electronic appliances) are discarded too; figures not available.
In the past few years individuals and organizations have begun to realize the
enormous potential for discarded electronics. Many items are in good working order and can
be adapted for owners whose capacity needs are different than the previous owners. Other
items need repair and still others have valuable parts which can be used to rebuild other
electronic items or other lower tech products, like video games.
Aside from the usable components of an unusable computer (e.g., printed circuit
boards, disc drives, print heads, chips, keyboards) there are valuable materials that can be
recycled. Printed circuit boards have lead, copper, platinum, palladium, and gold. There is a
demand for these precious metals and the market for used circuit boards is strong. Also,
lead can be recovered from the cathode ray tube, copper from the wires, and thermoplastics,
steel, and aluminum from the housings.
Electronic reuse operations can create good jobs, enhance technical skills, make
technology available to the low income sector, equip schools and other not-for-profit
agencies with computer technology, and are a low-overhead alternative for economic
development. Table 30 shows several companies that specialize in electronics reuse.
Table 30
SELECTED ELECTRONICS REUSE OPERATIONS
Percent of
Incoming Amount of Electronics Handled
Organization
Location
Type
Reused
items per year tons per year
Computers 4 Kids
Middletown, CT
not-for-profit
70%
2,000
22
Detwiler Computers for Schools
La Jolla, CA
not-for-profit
70%
15,000
188
DRAGnet
Mnneapolis, MN
not-for-profit
60%
6,800
85
East West Foundation
Boston, MA
not-for-profit
90%
7,000
88
Electronic Recovery Inc.
Mnneapolis, MN
for-profit
40%
136,000
1,700
Goodwill Computer Recycling Ctr.
Pittsburgh, PA
not-for-profit
60%
9,750
122
Materials for the Arts
New York, NY
public
95%
na
na
National Cristina Foundation
Greenwich, CN
not-for-profit
95%
40,000
500
The Surplus Echange
Kansas City, MO
not-for-profit
35%
104,000
1,300
Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1996.
Nonprofit reuse operations handle primarily computers and related equipment. They
are generally small scale and community based. For-profit operations usually add the
recycling dimension to their business, and by nature, are larger scale and regional.
Electronics other than computer equipment (stereos, TVs, etc.) are typically not handled by
most of these operations due to their lack of value. The supply generally comes from
businesses, who are constantly updating their equipment. Some also come from households
and universities.
100
-------
REUSE/RECYCLING CASE STUDY: TEXTILES
The use and reclamation of products made from textile fibers is an old and well
established industry. Textile products are diverted from the waste stream by more than 350
recycling companies in the U.S. Less than half of the textiles recovered are reclaimed for
clothing reuse. About 20 percent becomes wiping and polishing cloths; the remainder is
converted into fiber for new products.
Local thrift stores, churches, charities, and consignment stores are the backbone of
the recovery system. Most textile recovery is collected at or by one of these facilities, which
use, give away, or sell what they can and sell what's left to "rag graders" or textile MRFs
(material recovery facilities).
Table 31
SELECTED COMMUNITIES WITH MUNICIPAL TEXTILE RECYCLING PROGRAMS
Program
Tons per
Start-up
Textiles
Community
Population
Type
Year
Date
Source
Calvert Co., MD
63,000
drop-off, weekly curbside
93
1995
Residents and charities
Carroll Co., IA
21,430
weekly curbside
60
1990
Residents in 6 counties
Chatham Co., NC
42,000
drop-off
na
1993
Residents
City of LA, CA
10,700
pilot weekly curbside
40
1994
West Valley residents
Cobb Co., GA
509,400
drop-off/pilot curbside
9
1996
Residents
Montgomery Co. MD
750,000
drop-off, weekly curbside
156
1993
Residents and charities
New Threads, Phil.,
PA na
drop-off, scheduled pickup
100
1995
Residents
San Jose, CA
840,000
weekly curbside
150
1993
Residents
Somerset Co., N]
265,000
biweekly curbside
170
1992
Residents
St. Paul, MN
272,000
biweekly curbside
168
1992
Residents
Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1996.
As shown in Table 31, the scope and breadth of the programs are wide. Every textile
recovery program is different. The programs are enjoying relatively stable end user prices,
ranging from $80 to $160 per ton. Capital investments in textile recycling are very low if
some recycling infrastructure already exists. Existing equipment, such as trucks, sheds, and
sorting conveyors, can be used in textile recycling.
Actual tonnages of collected textiles, however, appear to be much less than expected
for many new programs. Residents may not participate in public sector programs for fear of
diverting materials from local charities. Many programs, however, work with and can
complement charities. Additionally, a textile recycling program can help create sustainable
employment opportunities, get more clothing to the needy, and divert materials from waste
disposal.
Textile programs include both curbside and drop-off programs. A critical element of
collection programs is keeping textiles dry and free of mildew. Most programs ask that
textiles be placed in secured bags. Drop-off programs are perhaps the easiest way to
integrate textiles into existing recycling infrastructures. One county, for example, operates a
"swap shop" where both textiles and household items can be left and other residents can
take what they want.
101
-------
REUSE/REPAIR CASE STUDY: WOODEN PALLETS
Most industries and businesses that handle commodities use pallets for storage and
transportation. Over 400 million pallets are produced in the U.S. each year. About 50
percent of the U.S. hardwood timber harvested each year goes into new pallet
manufacturing. In the past, new pallets in the industry were preferred and manufactured in
some 2,000 designs. Tipping fees were low, so there was little reason to refurbish the pallets.
Today, disposal costs are higher and lumber is more expensive. The Grocery
Manufacturers of America, Inc. instituted a standard 48 inch by 40 inch pallet. This pallet
size now represents about 70 percent of the pallet market. These factors have influenced the
increase in pallet repair, reuse, and recycling.
Businesses accept pallets, sort them for reuse and repairability, repair them, then sell
the refurbished pallets back to the user or another buyer. Workers dismantle those pallets
that cannot be repaired and cut to size salvageable parts for reuse. In many plants,
remaining wooden pieces are ground into wood fiber or mulch.
A 1993 survey by the Center for Forest Products Marketing found that 90 percent of
all pallets that arrive at a repair operation are either reused, rebuilt, or reclaimed for repair.
Chipping and burning are the favored utilization methods for handling the remaining 10
percent. Table 32 profiles several pallet repair operations throughout the U.S.
Table 32
SELECTED PALLET REUSE OPERATIONS
Percent
Pallets Handled
Organization
Location
Reused
Number
TPY
AAA Pallet & Lumber Co.
Phoenix AZ
70%
1,600,000
32,000
Allegheny Recycled Products
Pittsburgh PA
85%
52,300
1,046
Big City Forest Inc.
Bronx NY
Majority
180,000
3,600
Clymer Bag Co., Inc.
Clymer NY
90%
125,000
2,500
Continental Pallet Co.
Lubbock TX
95%
360,000
7,200
Direct Wood Products
West Point VA
100%
1,250,000
25,000
Madison Co. Wood Products
St. Louis MO
90%
500,000
10,000
Michigan Pallet Recycling, Inc.
Charlotte MI
99%
1,500,000
30,000
Pallet Pallet Chicago
Chicago IL
95%
1,000,000
20,000
Pallet Resource of NC. Inc.
Lexington NC
85%
1,250,000
25,000
Quality Pallet, Inc.
Seymour WI
100%
600,000
12,000
Rainier Pallet Corp.
Auburn WA
90%
356,100
7,122
Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1996.
Other pallet waste reduction includes diverting pallets for other uses, such as
compost bins, fences, furniture, flooring, etc. Source reduction is yet another alternative.
Pallets can be eliminated with lighter loads, replacing them with plastic slip sheets,
corrugated cardboard pallets, or some other conveyance system.
102
-------
Management of Organic Materials
Food wastes and yard trimmings combined made up 21.0 percent of MSW
generation in 1995, 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
composting activities are included in this Chapter 3.
Composting or other reduction management measures that take place at
the point of generation (e.g., the yard of a home or business) is source reduction.
Backyard composting of yard trimmings and some food discards is not a new
practice, but in recent years publicity and education programs have encouraged
more people to participate. There also is a trend toward leaving grass clippings
on lawns, sometimes through the use of mulching mowers. Other actions that
will complement the increase in yard trimmings management include
establishment of variable rates, improved technology (mulching mowers), and
legislative regulations.
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 report that in 1992, 12
states (amounting to over 28 percent of the nation's population) had in effect
legislation affecting management of yard trimmings. By 1997, nearly two dozen
states (amounting to approximately 50 percent of the nation's population) were
to have in effect legislation affecting disposal of yard trimmings. While data on
amounts of yard trimmings received at disposal facilities is limited, there is
considerable anecdotal evidence indicating that when these bans go into effect,
people find ways to source reduce. This is discussed in more depth in Chapter 4.
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. Most collection of commercial recyclables includes corrugated
boxes and office-type papers. The collection programs available across the U.S.
can be described and quantified into the four geographical regions used by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census (i.e., North, South, Midwest, and West).
Curbside Recyclables Collection. In 1995, there were over 7,000 curbside
recyclables collection programs in the U.S., as shown in Table 33 and Figure 21.
103
-------
Table 33
NUMBER AND POPULATION SERVED BY CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAMS, 1995
Number of
Population
Population Served (1)
Region
Programs
(in millions)
(in thousands)
(%)
NORTHEAST
2,210
51,466
37,256
72%
SOUTH
1,281
91,890
31,521
34%
MIDWEST
2,985
61,804
25,487
41%
WEST
899
55,806
27,071
49%
Total
7,375
260,965
121,335
46%
(1) Percent of population served by curbslde programs was calculated using population
of states reporting data.
References: Statistical Abstract 1995; Bureau of Census 1995, Steuteville 1996.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Most of the programs (40 percent) were in the Midwest region. However
the Northeast region had the largest population served, 37 million persons.
Approximately 47 percent of the U.S. population, or 121 million persons, had
access to curbside recyclables collection. In the Northeast 72 percent of the
population had access to curbside recyclables collection, while in the South only
34 percent of the population had access to curbside recycling.
Figure 21. Population Served in Curbside Programs, 1995
(In thousands)
40,000 ,
1/T
"O
§ 30,000 I . .
(/)
o I
"g 20,000
>
0
(/)
o 10,000 —
jo
£ 0 J I 1 1 1
Northeast South Midwest West
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
104
-------
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 U.S. It is estimated that
there were 8,773 in 35 states reporting in 1995, according to the BioCycle survey
(Steuteville 1996). In some areas, particularly those with sparse population, drop-
off centers may be the only option for collection of recyclable materials. In other
areas, they supplement other collection methods.
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. 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 no deposit.
It is estimated that about 35 percent of all recovery of beverage containers
comes from the 9 traditional deposit states mentioned above, as shown in Figure
22. An estimated additional 20 percent of beverage containers recovered come
from California. However, there are deposit containers that flow through
curbside and drop-off recycling programs that eventually make it back to the
distributor and are counted towards the redemption rate. 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.
Commercial Recyclables Collection. The greatest 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 is often baled at
the retail outlet and picked up by a paper dealer.
Office paper (e.g., white, mixed color, computer, 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
105
-------
Figure 22. States With Deposit/Redemption Legislation
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 is usually handled as a
commercial account by waste haulers. It is also the same waste hauler that makes
recycling available to multi-family dwellings (typically 5 or more units), which
could resemble a drop-off center.
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 streams at the curb, such as a paper stream and a container stream,
with additional sorting at a facility (MRF). Mixed waste can also be processed to
pull out recyclable and compostable materials.
Materials Recovery Facilities. Materials recovery facilities vary widely
across the U.S., depending on the incoming materials and the technology and
labor used to sort the materials. There were 310 MRFs in the U.S in 1995. Like
curbside programs, they were not heavily concentrated in any one part of the
U.S., as shown in Figure 23.
In 1995, most MRFs (196) were low technology, meaning the materials are
predominantly sorted manually, as shown in Table 34. About 114 MRFs were
106
-------
100
)
= 80
5
j
: 60
£ 40
z
20
0
10,400 ¦
X
Figure 23. Existing and Planned MRFs, 1995
(MRF capacity in tons per day indicated above bars)
1,600"
1
D Existing Q Planned
7,700
X
1,400 '
Northeast South
Source: Governmental Advisory Associates.
6,200
8,200
Midwest
900
1
1,000
West
high technology, with eddy currents, magnetic pulleys, optical sensors, and air
classifiers doing most of the sorting. As MRFs change and grow, many low
technology MRFs add high tech features and high technology MRFs include
manual sorting, making the difference between high and low technology MRFs
less definitive.
Table 34
MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITIES, 1995 (1)
1995 Facilities Planned Facilities
Technology
Ownership
Operation
Capacity
Number
Capacity
Region
Low
High
Public Private
Public Private
(tpd)
(tpd)
NORTHEAST
37
52
37
52
25
64
10,373
8
1,597
SOUTH
64
18
16
66
9
73
7,721
7
1,361
MIDWEST
50
29
24
55
12
67
6,159
5
903
WEST
45
15
4
56
2
58
8,244
2
1,005
U.S. Total
196
114
81
229
48
262
32,497
22
4,866
(1) Includes operational MRFs and those in shakedown.
(2) Co-owned MRFs are counted with private MRFs.
Reference: Governmental Advisory Associates 1995.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
107
-------
Mixed Waste Processing. Mixed waste processing facilities are less
common than conventional MRFs, but there are several facilities in operation in
the U.S., as shown in Figure 24. 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 1995, there were 34 mixed waste
processing facilities in the U.S., handling about 20,000 tons of waste per day
(Governmental 1995).
Figure 24. Mixed Waste Processing Capacity, 1995
(In tons per day)
14,000
12,000 ¦
>,10,000 ¦ —
^ 8,000 ¦
a>
w 6,000 ¦ —
£ 4,000 1^——
2,000 1^——
0 1 1 1 1^—I 1 1^—I 1 1^—I 1
Northeast South Midwest West
Source: Governmental Advisory Associates.
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 biologically organic components of MSW, such as paper, food
wastes and yard trimmings, wood, and other materials. In 1995, there were 18
mixed waste composting facilities, predominantly in the Midwest, as shown in
Figure 25. These facilities handle about 900 tons per day in total.
Yard Trimmings Composting. Yard trimmings composting is much more
prevalent than mixed waste composting. On-site management of yard trimmings
is not included in this section, but is discussed in the source reduction section.
There were over 3,300 yard trimmings programs in 1995. More than half of these
programs are in the Northeast region, as shown in Figure 26. Yard trimmings
composting facilities handled approximately 25,000 tons per day.
108
-------
Figure 25. MSW Composting Capacity, 1995
(In tons per day)
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Source: The Composting Council, 1995.
Figure 26. Yard Trimmings Composting Programs, 1995
(In number of programs)
1,400 -i
w
| 1,200
O)
2 1,000
CL
¦5 800
-Q 600
E
^ 400
200 —
0 -I 1 1 1
Northeast South Midwest West
Source: Steuteville 1996.
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.
109
-------
Table 35
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS 1995 (1) (2)
WTE (2) RDF Processing (3) Incinerator (4)
Design
Design
Design
Design
No.
Capacity
No. planned &
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Region
existing
(tpd)
under construction
(tpd)
No.
(tpd)
No.
(tpd)
NORTHEAST
43
45,836
4
6,740
1
450
12
434
SOUTH
39
35,818
3
1,025
4
1,575
2
95
MIDWEST
22
12,369
2
3,400
6
3,463
3
2,000
WEST
8
4,710
2
145
1
500
2
222
U.S. Total
112
98,733
11
11,310
12
5,988
19
2,751
(1) WTE projects on hold or inactive were not included.
(2) WTE includes mass burn, modular, refuse-derived fuel, RDF-Combustion.
(3) RDF processing = waste processing facility generating a prepared fuel for off-site combustion.
Includes existing and planned sites.
(4) Facilities without energy recovery.
References: Integrated Waste Services Association, 1996.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Total U.S. MSW combustion with energy recovery, referred to as waste-to-
energy (WTE) combustion, had a 1995 design capacity of 99,000 tons per day.
There were 112 WTE facilities in 1995 (Table 35). The Northeastern and Southern
regions had most of the MSW combustion capacity in 1995 (Figure 27). In
addition to WTE combustion, 6,000 tons per day of refuse-derived fuel (RDF)
were prepared, and there was an additional 3,500 daily tons of capacity for
incineration without energy recovery.
Figure 27. Municipal Waste Combustion Capacity, 1995
50,000 ¦
40,000
TO
~G
© 30,000
(/)
c
!- 20,000
10,000
0 1^—I 1 1^—I 1 1^—I 1 1^—I 1
Northeast South Midwest West
Source: Integrated Waste Services Association, 1996.
110
-------
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 1.9 million tons of MSW were combusted in this manner in 1995,
with tires contributing a majority of the total.
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 85 percent of rated capacity.
While this is a conservative assumption, it has proven to be reasonably accurate
over the years. (While new facilities are reporting operation at very high
utilization rates, other facilities do not meet the same standards for annual
throughput as compared to rated capacity.)
The total throughput of MSW through all combustion facilities was an
estimated 33.5 million tons, or 16 percent of MSW generation, in 1995.
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.
Materials processing facilities (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.
When municipal solid waste is combusted, a residue (usually called ash) is
left behind. Years ago this ash was commonly disposed of along with municipal
solid waste, but combustor 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.
ill
-------
LANDFILL
Although the number of landfills is decreasing, the capacity has remained
relatively constant. In 1995, there were about 2,500 landfills in the U.S. New
landfills are now much larger than in the past.
Table 36 and Figure 28 show the number of landfills in each region. The
Southeast and West had the greatest number of landfills. Thirty-seven states had
more than 10 years of capacity left, while only two had less than 5 years of
capacity remaining.
Table 36
LANDFILLS IN THE UNITED STATES BY REGION, 1995
Number of States with
Number of Years Capacity Remaining
Landfills > 10 10—5 < 5
Region
NORTHEAST 280 4 3 2
SOUTHEAST 856 13 3 0
MIDWEST 529 9 3 0
WEST 870 11 0 0_
U.S. Total * 2,535 37 9 2
* Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.
References: Waste Age, May 1996.
Figure 28. Landfill Capacity in the U.S., 1995
(In number of landfills)
1,000
M 800 ¦ ——
IP
T3
£ 600 ¦ ——
o
0)
E 400 ¦ ——
z
200 ¦ — ——
0 1 1 1 1
Northeast South Midwest West
Source: Waste Age, May 1996.
112
-------
SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MSW MANAGEMENT
Municipal solid waste generation has grown steadily (except for occasional
decreases during recession years) from 88.1 million tons in 1960 to 208 million
tons in 1995. The data presented in this chapter and Chapter 2 provide a
perspective on the historical management of municipal solid waste. The study
results are summarized in Table 37 and Figure 29.
This summary provides some historical perspective on municipal solid
waste management practices in the U.S. In the 1960s and early 1970s a large
percentage of MSW was burned. The remainder was not usually landfilled as we
define landfill in the 1990s; that is, it was not compacted and buried in cells with
cover material added daily. In fact, much of this waste was "dumped" and often
it was burned at the dump to reduce its volume.
Table 37
GENERATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING, COMBUSTION,
AND DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1995
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of Tons
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Generation
88,120
121,060
151,640
197,300
196,880
202,210
205,400
209,630
208,050
Recovery for recycling
5,610
8,020
14,520
29,650
32,890
36,020
37,940
43,490
46,620
Recovery for composting*
Neg-
Neg.
Neg.
4,200
4,800
5,400
6,900
8,480
9,570
Total Materials Recovery
5,610
8,020
14,520
33,850
37,690
41,420
44,840
51,970
56,190
Discards after recovery
82,510
113,040
137,120
163,450
159,190
160,790
160,560
157,660
151,860
Combustion**
27,000
25,100
13,700
31,900
33,330
32,690
32,920
32,490
33,470
Discards to landfill,
other disposal!
55,510
87,940
123,420
131,550
125,860
128,100
127,640
125,170
118,390
Percent of Total Generation
1960
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Generation
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Recovery for recycling
6.4%
6.6%
9.6%
15.0%
16.7%
17.8%
18.5%
20.7%
22.4%
Recovery for composting*
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
2.1%
2.4%
2.7%
3.4%
4.0%
4.6%
Total Materials Recovery
6.4%
6.6%
9.6%
17.2%
19.1%
20.5%
21.8%
24.8%
27.0%
Discards after recovery
93.6%
93.4%
90.4%
82.8%
80.9%
79.5%
78.2%
75.2%
73.0%
Combustion**
30.6%
20.7%
9.0%
16.2%
16.9%
16.2%
16.0%
15.5%
16.1%
Discards to landfill,
other disposal!
63.0%
72.6%
81.4%
66.7%
63.9%
63.3%
62.1%
59.7%
56.9%
* Composting of yard trimmings and food wastes. Does not include mixed MSW composting or backyard composting.
MSW composting estimated to be less than 500 thousand tons per year.
** Includes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse-derived fuel form, incineration without energy recovery, and
combustion with energy recovery of source separated materials in MSW.
t Discards after recovery minus combustion.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
113
-------
Figure 29. Municipal Solid Waste Management, 1960 to 1995
225,000
Recovery for the
Component of Recyclir
200,000
175,000
150,000
c
o
^ 125,000
C
ra
o
100,000
-C
H
75,000
50,000
25,000
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Historically, through the mid-1980s, incineration declined considerably
and landfills became difficult to site, and 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 29 graphically
shows, discards of MSW to landfill or other disposal apparently peaked in the
1986-1987 period, then began to decline as materials recovery and combustion
increased.
Generation of MSW declined in 1991 (a recession year), but then
continued to increase until 1995, when it decreased again slightly. Recovery of
products and yard trimmings increased steadily, while combustion stayed nearly
constant. As a result, discards to landfills were lower each year from 1992 to 1995.
Landfilling accounted for 118.4 million tons, or 56.9 percent of total generation in
1995. As a percent of total generation, landfilling has consistently decreased—
from 83.2 percent of generation in 1986 to 56.9 percent in 1995.
114
-------
Chapter 3
REFERENCES
GENERAL
Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Future of Solid Waste Management and Recycling.
Multi-client study. November 1996. Draft.
Governmental Advisory Associates, The Materials Recycling and Processing
Industry in the United States: 1995-96 Yearbook, Atlas, and Directory. 1995.
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.
SOURCE REDUCTION
American Plastics Council. Plastics: Key Materials for Innovation and
Productivity in Major Appliances. Prepared by Ralph Hagan, Technology
Laboratories Manager, G.E. Appliances, Ret., et al. February 1994.
Brown, Kenneth. Source Reduction Now. Minnesota Office of Waste
Management. February 1993.
Christopher, C. "Waste Not, Need Not." TechNews. January/February 1995.
Compost Council. "Yard Waste Legislation: Disposal Bans and Similar Passed
Bills as of July, 1993." Fact Sheet. July 1993.
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. Green Products
by Design: Choices for a Cleaner Environment. OTA-E-541. October 1992.
115
-------
Council on Packaging in the Environment. "COPE Backgrounder: Source
Reduction." March 1995.
Fishbein, Bette K., and Caroline Gelb. Making Less Garbage: A Planning Guide
for Communities. INFORM. 1992.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste
Management to the Year 2000. Keep America Beautiful, Inc. 1994.
Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Creating Wealth from Everyday Household
Items. June 1996.
Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Plug Into Electronics Reuse. June 1996.
Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Sustaining Businesses & Jobs Through Pallet
Repair & Reuse. June 1996.
Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Weaving Textile Reuse into Waste Reduction.
June 1996.
Miller, C. "Source Reduction: Less of More." Waste Age. February 1995.
Miller, C. "The Business of Source Reduction." Waste Age's Recycling Times.
October 29, 1996.
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. "Source Reduction Now"
February 1993.
Newspaper Association of America. Newsprint Conservation. June 1995.
Personal communication between Franklin Associates, Ltd. and Bob
Householder, Sonoco Products. November 1996.
Personal Communication between Franklin Associates, Ltd. and Larry Forrsberg,
Association of Household Appliance Manufacturers. November 1996.
Rattray, Tom. "Source Reduction—An Endangered Species?" Resource
Recycling. November 1990.
Raymond Communications. State Recycling Laws Update. 1994.
Sears, Roebuck & Co. Spring and fall catalogs. 1985 and earlier years.
Selke, Susan E. "Evaluating a Source Reduction Opportunity." Solid Waste &
Power. June 1991.
116
-------
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America. Part II." BioCycle. May
1995.
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 Prevention Pays Off: Companies
Cut Waste in the Workplace. EPA/530-K-92-005. November 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Wise: Second Year Progress
Report. EPA/530-R-96-016. September 1996.
RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING AND COMPOSING
Governmental Advisory Associates. The Materials Recycling and Processing
Industry in the United States: 1995-1996 Yearbook. 1996.
Kreith, Frank. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1994.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. May 1996.
The Composting Council. "MSW Composting Facilities." Fall 1995.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States. 1996.
COMBUSTION
"1991-1992 Energy-from-Waste Report." Solid Waste & Power. HCI Publications.
October 1991, December 1990.
Integrated Waste Services Association. "High Court Rules Ash Not Exempt from
Subtitle C Regulation." Update. Summer 1994.
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.
117
-------
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.
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. November 1991.
LANDFILL
Franklin Associates, Ltd. unpublished data and estimates, 1996.
Repa, Edward and Allen Blakey. "Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Trends: 1996
Update." Waste Age. May 1996.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. May 1996.
118
-------
Chapter 4
PROJECTIONS OF MSW GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT
AND ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter includes projections of municipal solid waste generation and
management for the years 2000 and 2010. It should be emphasized that these
projections are not predictions. Recent efforts at source reduction are difficult to
measure at a national level, but almost certainly are affecting MSW generation.
No one can foresee with accuracy changes in the economy (e.g., booms and
recessions), which also affect the municipal waste stream. In addition, it is
difficult to predict which innovations and new products will affect the amounts
and types of MSW discards.
In spite of the limitations, it is useful to look at projections characterizing
MSW based on past trends, since it is clear that the composition of the waste
stream does change over time. New products (e.g., disposable products) are
introduced, and materials are used in new ways (e.g., composite materials replace
simpler products). Planners thus may choose to use different projections than
those presented here, but anyone assuming that the current mix of materials in
the waste stream will remain constant is disregarding the experience of the past.
OVERVIEW OF THIS CHAPTER
This chapter includes projections of municipal solid waste generation,
recovery for recycling (including composting), combustion, and landfill through
the year 2010. Projections of total MSW recovery for recycling (including
composting) are presented as scenarios—30 percent, and 35 percent for the year
2000; and 30 percent, 35 percent, and 40 percent for the year 2010. In making these
projections, it was assumed that overall, products in MSW would continue to
grow at a rate higher than population growth and lower than growth of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). (See Chapter 5 of EPA report 530-R-94-042,
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update, for
an explanation of the correlation of MSW generation with these demographic
and economic factors.)
It should be noted that some trend projections in this report, particularly
MSW generation for the year 2010, are notably different than previously
projected. The relatively flat growth in the generation of many products from
1994 to 1995 had the effect of decreasing trend projections of MSW generation
previously reported.
119
-------
It is also important to note that the projections in this series of tables are
also based on the assumption that there will continue to be a reduction in the
generation of yard trimmings that enter the solid waste management system.
These assumptions are explained later in this chapter. One result of this
assumption is that the percentages of other products and materials in MSW are
higher in future years than they would be if yard trimmings generation stayed
constant or increased.
A summary table showing projected MSW generation, recovery at the
mid-range scenario, and discards of MSW to combustion and landfill in 2000 and
2010 is included at the end of the chapter.
MATERIALS GENERATION IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Projections of materials generated in MSW (by weight) are summarized in
Figure 30 and Table 38, and a discussion of each material category follows.
Paper and Paperboard
Previous projections of paper and paperboard generation were revised
using the following information: revised data for 1994 and new data for 1995
from the American Forest & Paper Association, historical and projected per
capita consumption of paper and paperboard products, and the ratio of total
paper and paperboard to real Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Figure 30. Materials generated in MSW: 1995, 2000, and 2010
(In percent of total MSW generation*)
1995 = 14.3% 2000= 12.2% 2010=10.)
Yard Trimmings
Food Wastes
1995 = 6.7% 2000 = 6.1
2010 = 6.4%
Other
1995 = 9.)
2000 = 10.0% 2010= 10.5%
1995
Wood
1995 = 7/
2000 = 7.5% 2010 = IX
~ 2000
Plastics
1995 = 9/
2000 = 9.!
2010 = 9.7%
~ 2010
Metals
1995 = 7.6% 2000 = 7.1
2010 = 7.3%
Glass
1995 = 6.2% 2000= 6.'
2010 = 5.7%
1995 = 39.2% 2000 = 40.1
2010 = 41.1
Paper and Paperboard
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percent of Total MSW Generation *
'Total MSW generation (in thousand tons) for 1995 = 208,050 2000 = 221,670 2010 = 253,000.
120
-------
Table 38
PROJECTIONS OF MATERIALS GENERATED*
IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM: 1995, 2000, AND 2010
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of tons
% of total
Materials
1995
2000
2010
1995
2000
2010
Paper and Paperboard
81,540
89,740
105,690
39.2%
40.5%
41.8%
Glass
12,830
13,510
14,540
6.2%
6.1%
5.7%
Metals
Ferrous
11,590
12,250
13,330
5.6%
5.5%
5.3%
Aluminum
2,950
3,170
3,570
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
Other Nonferrous
1,310
1,430
1,580
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
Total Metals
15,850
16,850
18,480
7.6%
7.6%
7.3%
Plastics
18,990
20,960
24,660
9.1%
9.5%
9.7%
Rubber and Leather
6,030
6,640
7,860
2.9%
3.0%
3.1%
Textiles
7,400
8,420
10,720
3.6%
3.8%
4.2%
Wood
14,860
16,550
19,610
7.1%
7.5%
7.8%
Other
3,630
3,900
4,340
1.7%
1.8%
1.7%
Total Materials in Products
161,130
176,570
205,900
77.4%
79.7%
81.4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
14,020
14,700
16,100
6.7%
6.6%
6.4%
Yard Trimmings**
29,750
27,100
27,400
14.3%
12.2%
10.8%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
3,150
3,300
3,600
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
Total Other Wastes
46,920
45,100
47,100
22.6%
20.3%
18.6%
Total MSW Generated
208,050
221,670
253,000
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
** Yard trimmings based on source reduction scenario #2 described in Table 44.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Several factors contributed to a lowering of previous projections of
paper and paperboard. New supply (consumption) of paper and paperboard
increased by less than one percent between 1994 and 1995, in contrast to
increases of 3 to 5 percent for the previous three years. (Consumption per
person actually declined slightly between 1994 and 1995.) Population growth
as projected by the Bureau of the Census was also lower than projections used
in the previous report. Finally, the ratio of new supply to GDP has been
generally declining, and this decline is projected to continue.
Projections of paper and paperboard generation were based on past trends,
with some slowing of growth projected for newsprint and paper packaging other
than corrugated boxes. These grades of paper are showing the effects of decreased
newspaper readership and some source reduction in packaging.
121
-------
Paper and paperboard is projected to continue to be the dominant material
in MSW, growing from a generation of 81.5 million tons in 1995 to 89.7 million
tons and 105.7 million tons in 2000 and 2010, respectively. This would be 40.5
percent of MSW generation in 2000.
Glass
Glass products were a declining percentage of municipal solid waste
during the 1970s and 1980s, with the 1990s showing a leveling off at 6.0 to 6.5
percent of MSW generation. This recent trend is projected to continue, with the
percentage of glass in MSW remaining fairly constant. Glass generation is
projected to grow from 12.8 million tons in 1995 to 13.5 million tons and 14.5
million tons in 2000 and 2010, respectively. For 2000 this represents 6.1 percent of
projected total MSW generation.
Ferrous Metals
Cans made of steel declined as a percentage of MSW in the 1970s and 1980s
due to material substitution and light-weighting practices of can manufacturers.
Since 1990, steel cans have been a relatively constant percent of MSW generation
(approximately 1.5 percent). On the other hand, more ferrous metals enter MSW
as a component of durable goods than as containers. Since durable goods are an
increasing component of MSW, total ferrous metals in MSW were projected to
increase from 11.6 million tons in 1995 to 12.3 million tons and 13.3 million tons
in 2000 and 2010, respectively. The percentage of ferrous metals in MSW is
projected to account for 5.5 percent of total generation in 2000 and 5.3 percent in
2010.
Aluminum
Containers and packaging represent the primary source of aluminum in
MSW, although some aluminum is present in durables and nondurables.
Aluminum in MSW has grown, and the growth is projected to continue, to 3.2
million tons and 3.6 million tons in 2000 and 2010, respectively. Because of its
light weight, aluminum represents a small percentage of MSW generation—1.4
percent in 1995, and a projected 1.4 percent in 2000 and 2010.
Other Nonferrous Metals
Other nonferrous metals (e.g., lead, copper, and zinc) are found in durable
goods like appliances, furniture, and batteries. Lead-acid (automotive) batteries
comprise the majority of this category. Generation of lead-acid batteries is
projected to continue to increase, along with small increases in other nonferrous
metals. Other nonferrous metals were estimated to be 1.3 million tons in 1995
and are projected to be 1.4 million tons and 1.6 million tons in 2000 and 2010,
122
-------
respectively. These metals are expected to continue to be less than one percent of
total MSW generation (0.6 percent).
Plastics
Generation of plastics in MSW has grown very rapidly, with average
annual growth rates of over 9 percent experienced during the 1970s and 1980s.
Growth in plastics generation has continued in the 1990s—however, the annual
growth rate has slowed to approximately 2 percent per year during this decade.
Based on this historical trend, plastics in MSW are expected to continue to
increase in tonnage, but at a projected rate closer to the 1990s. Plastics in MSW
are projected to continue to increase both in tonnage (from 19.0 million tons in
1995 to 20.9 million tons and 24.7 million tons in 2000 and 2010, respectively) and
in percentage of total MSW generation (from 9.1 percent of MSW in 1995 to 9.7
percent in 2010).
Wood Wastes
Wood wastes (in furniture and other durables and in pallets and other
packaging) have been increasing in MSW. The tonnage of wood wastes generated
is projected to grow from 14.9 million tons in 1995 to 16.6 million tons and 19.6
million tons in 2000 and 2010, respectively. The percentage of wood wastes is
projected to increase from 7.1 percent in 1995 to 7.8 percent of total MSW
generation in 2010.
Other Materials
Other materials in MSW—including rubber, leather, and textiles—are
projected to have modest growth in tonnage and percentages of total MSW
generation. Tonnage is projected to increase from 17.1 million tons in 1995 to
19.0 million tons and 22.9 million tons in 2000 and 2010, respectively. As a
percentage these materials collectively account for 8.2 percent of total MSW in
1995, increasing to 9.0 percent in 2010.
Food Wastes
Historical MSW sampling studies over a long period of time show food
wastes to be a declining percentage of the waste stream. Per capita discards of food
wastes have also been declining over time—due to the increased use of
preprocessed food in homes, institutions, and restaurants, eating away from
home, improved packaging, and the increased use of garbage disposals (which
put food wastes into wastewater systems rather than MSW). Therefore, the
generation of food wastes was projected to grow at a slightly lower rate than
population. The tonnage of food wastes is projected to increase from 14.0 million
tons in 1995 to 14.7 million tons and 16.1 million tons in 2000 and 2010,
123
-------
respectively. The percentage of food wastes in total MSW would decline slightly,
from 6.7 percent to 6.4 percent of total MSW generation.
However, as was noted in Chapter 2, recent residential food waste
sampling studies in Seattle, Washington and Crawford County, Illinois indicate
higher per capita residential food waste generation rates than are used in this
study. As additional sampling data become available, increasing future
projections of food waste generation may be warranted.
Yard Trimmings
In earlier versions of this report, generation of yard trimmings* was
estimated based on sampling studies, which showed a more or less constant
generation on a per capita basis. (The definition of generation used here is the
amount of yard trimmings that enter the solid waste management system, e.g.,
they are placed at the curb for collection or taken to a drop-off site.) Projections
were made on the same basis. This methodology has now been revised because
of changing trends in the management of yard trimmings in many parts of the
country.
Although not well documented, there is evidence that where
communities have charged separately for pickup of yard trimmings, or where
disposal of yard trimmings in landfills has been banned, or other
regulatory/educational measures have been taken, the amount of yard
trimmings entering the system has greatly declined. In other words, source
reduction at the site of generation (e.g., residences) has been accomplished
through backyard composting, grasscycling, and the like.
As indicated in Chapter 2, a tabulation of existing legislation shows that by
1996-97, over two dozen states—accounting for over 50 percent of the nation's
population—will have legislation requiring source separation or banning of yard
trimmings from landfills. Also, several additional states have passed solid waste
diversion and waste reduction legislation effective by the year 2000 and beyond.
Therefore, it was projected that 1996 yard trimmings generation (assuming
no source reduction) would be reduced by half in those states having legislation,
a 25 percent reduction overall (i.e., 50 percent reduction x 50 percent of U.S.
population = 25 percent total reduction). For the year 2000, it was assumed that
the additional legislation affecting yard trimmings generation would be
implemented and yard trimmings generation (assuming no source reduction)
would be reduced by half in those states having source reduction/diversion
Although there are limited data 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.
124
-------
legislation. Assuming these states account for 60 percent of the U.S. population,
this has the effect of reducing U.S. yard trimmings generation (assuming no
source reduction) by 30 percent (i.e., 50 percent reduction x 60 percent of U.S.
population = 30 percent total reduction). Finally, it was assumed that additional
source reduction efforts would reduce yard trimmings generation by 35 percent
in the year 2010. For 2000 and 2010 projections, yard trimmings generation was
adjusted to account for population growth rates (less than one percent annually)
projected by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
These assumptions yield a projection that generation of yard trimmings
would decline from 29.8 million tons in 1995 to 27.1 million tons in 2000, and
27.4 million tons in 2010. The slight increase in generation from 2000 to 2010 is
the result of the population growing more rapidly than the projected source
reduction efforts. In 1995 yard trimmings accounted for 14.3 percent of total
MSW generation. Based on projected generation, this will decline to 12.2 percent
and 10.8 percent of total MSW generation in 2000 and 2010, respectively.
Projected Growth Rates for Materials in MSW
Projected growth rates by decade for the various materials generated in
MSW are shown in Table 39. Projected population growth rates (from the
Bureau of the Census) are included as well; the Bureau of the Census forecasts an
approximate one percent annual growth of population from 1990 to 2000 with a
decline in the growth rate (0.81 percent annual growth rate) from 2000 to 2010.
Table 39
AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES OF INCREASE (OR DECREASE)*
OF GENERATION OF MATERIALS IN MSW
(In annual percent by weight)
1960-1970
1970-1980
1980-1990
1990-2000
2000-2010
Paper & Paperboard
4.0%
2.2%
2.8%
2.1%
1.6%
Glass
6.6%
1.7%
-1.4%
0.3%
0.7%
Metals
2.5%
1.2%
0.6%
0.2%
0.9%
Plastics
22.2%
8.9%
9.6%
2.0%
1.6%
Wood
2.1%
6.5%
5.4%
3.3%
1.7%
All Other Materials**
4.3%
4.3%
4.4%
2.3%
1.8%
Food Wastes
0.5%
0.2%
0.2%
1.1%
0.9%
Yard Trimmings
1.5%
1.7%
2.4%
-2.5%
0.1%
Total MSW
3.2%
2.3%
2.7%
1.2%
1.3%
Population!
1.3%
1.1%
0.9%
1.0%
0.8%
* Annual rates of increase or decrease calculated on 10-year end points.
** Rubber and leather, textiles, electrolytes in batteries, wood pulp and moisture
in disposable diapers, miscellaneous inorganics,
t Based on population estimates from U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
125
-------
Paper and paperboard, plastics, and wood are all projected to increase faster
than population, while glass, metals, and food wastes are projected to increase at
about the same rate as population. Yard trimmings are projected to decline
through 2000 due to source reduction efforts and landfill bans and then increase
slightly after 2000 due to population increases.
Overall, municipal solid waste generation is projected to increase at a rate
of 1.2 percent annually between 1990 and 2000. This rate would be higher if the
projected decline in yard trimmings does not occur. For the period 2000 through
2010, the annual growth rate for municipal solid waste is projected to be 1.3
percent annually.
PRODUCT GENERATION IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Projected generation of products in MSW (by weight) is summarized in
Figure 31 and Table 40. All categories (except for yard trimmings) are projected to
grow in tonnage. Containers and packaging are projected to remain the largest
single category at over 36 percent of total generation, with nondurables being the
second largest category, at 28 percent of total MSW generation. More detailed
observations on the projected growth in the individual product categories
follow.
Figure 31. Products generated in MSW: 1995, 2000, and 2010
(In percent of total MSW generation*)
Yard Trimmings
Food, Other
Durables
Nondurables
Containers & Packaging
0%
1995= 14.3% 2000= 12.2% 2010 = 10.8
.3% 2000 = 8.2% 2010=7.8
1995 = 15.0% 2000 = 15.3% 2010 = 15.2%
1995 = 27.4% 2000 = 28.0% 2010 = 28.7%
LI 1995
~ 2000
~ 2010
1995 = 35.0% 2000 = 36.3% 2010 = 37.5%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percent of Total MSW Generation *
* Total MSW generation (in thousand tons) for 1995 = 208,050 2000 = 221,670 2010 = 253,000.
126
-------
Table 40
PROJECTIONS OF CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS GENERATED*
IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM: 1995, 2000, AND 2010
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of tons
% of total
Products
1995
2000
2010
1995
2000
2010
Durable Goods
31,230
33,940
38,290
15.0%
15.3%
15.1%
(Detail in Table 41)
Nondurable Goods
57,040
62,140
72,720
27.4%
28.0%
28.7%
(Detail in Table 42)
Containers and Packaging
72,860
80,490
94,890
35.0%
36.3%
37.5%
(Detail in Table 43)
Total Product Wastes**
161,130
176,570
205,900
77.4%
79.7%
81.4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
14,020
14,700
16,100
6.7%
6.6%
6.4%
Yard TrimmingsA
29,750
27,100
27,400
14.3%
12.2%
10.8%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
3,150
3,300
3,600
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
Total Other Wastes
46,920
45,100
47,100
22.6%
20.3%
18.6%
Total MSW Generated
208,050
221,670
253,000
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
Other than food products.
Yard trimmings based on source reduction scenario #2 described in Table 44.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Durable Goods
Overall, durable goods are projected to increase in both tonnage and
percent of total MSW generation (Table 41). The trends in generation of major
appliances, carpet and rugs, and furniture and furnishings are well established by
production numbers, since lifetimes of up to 20 years are assumed. Generation of
rubber tires and lead-acid batteries is projected based on historical trends, which
are generally exhibiting average rates of growth. Durable goods are projected to
account for about 15 percent of MSW generation and are projected to increase to
33.9 million tons and 38.3 million tons in 2000 and 2010, respectively. This
represents a growth rate of about 1.4 percent annually for durable goods.
Nondurable Goods
Similar to durable goods, nondurable goods are projected to increase in
both tonnage and percent of total MSW generation (Table 42). Generation of
nondurable goods is projected to be 62.1 million tons and 72.7 million tons in
2000 and 2010, respectively. Generation of nondurable goods is projected to grow
approximately 1.6 percent annually, accounting for about 29 percent of total
MSW generation in 2010.
127
-------
Table 41
PROJECTIONS OF PRODUCTS GENERATED*
IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM: 1995, 2000, AND 2010
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of tons % of total
Products
1995
2000
2010
1995
2000
2010
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
3,420
3,450
3,600
1.6%
1.6%
1.4%
Small Appliances
710
860
1,100
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
Furniture and Furnishings
7,160
7,600
8,400
3.4%
3.4%
3.3%
Carpets and Rugs
2,230
2,830
4,040
1.1%
1.3%
1.6%
Rubber Tires
3,770
4,000
4,500
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
Batteries, Lead-Acid
1,910
2,100
2,350
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
Miscellaneous Durables
12,030
13,100
14,300
5.8%
5.9%
5.7%
Total Durable Goods
31,230
33,940
38,290
15.0%
15.3%
15.1%
Nondurable Goods
57,040
62,140
72,720
27.4%
28.0%
28.7%
(Detail in Table 42)
Containers and Packaging
72,860
80,490
94,890
35.0%
36.3%
37.5%
(Detail in Table 43)
Total Product Wastes**
161,130
176,570
205,900
77.4%
79.7%
81.4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
14,020
14,700
16,100
6.7%
6.6%
6.4%
Yard TrimmingsA
29,750
27,100
27,400
14.3%
12.2%
10.8%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
3,150
3,300
3,600
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
Total Other Wastes
46,920
45,100
47,100
22.6%
20.3%
18.6%
Total MSW Generated
208,050
221,670
253,000
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
** Other than food products.
A Yard trimmings based on source reduction scenario #2 described in Table 44.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Most of the nondurable paper products are projected to continue to grow
at rates higher than population growth. Strong growth rates are projected for
paper products such as office paper, paper used in commercial printing, and
other nonpackaging paper. Newspaper generation is projected to increase to over
13.9 million tons in 2010, although the growth rate is expected to be lower than
other paper products comprising nondurable goods—less than 0.5 percent
annually.
Clothing and footwear and other textiles also are projected to increase in
tonnage, to 8.5 million tons by 2010. Finally, other miscellaneous nondurables,
which include many items made of plastics, is expected to continue to increase,
although slower than historical rates of growth.
128
-------
Table 42
PROJECTIONS OF PRODUCTS GENERATED*
IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM: 1995, 2000, AND 2010
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of tons % of total
Products
1005
2000
2010
1005
2000
2010
Durable Goods
31,230
33,940
38,290
15.0%
15.3%
15.1%
(Detail in Table 41)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
13,130
13,350
13,860
6.3%
6.0%
5.5%
Books
1,170
1,300
1,560
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
Magazines
2,370
2,700
3,430
1.1%
1.2%
1.4%
Office Papers
6,800
7,510
8,900
3.3%
3.4%
3.5%
Telephone Directories
490
540
650
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
Third Class Mail
4,620
5,380
7,200
2.2%
2.4%
2.8%
Other Commercial Printing
7,110
7,550
8,370
3.4%
3.4%
3.3%
Tissue Paper and Towels
2,950
3,140
3,430
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
Paper Plates and Cups
970
1,170
1,650
0.5%
0.5%
0.7%
Plastic Plates and Cups
790
850
970
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
Trash Bags
750
900
1,200
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
Disposable Diapers
2,960
3,150
3,500
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
Other Nonpackaging Paper
3,800
4,500
5,600
1.8%
2.0%
2.2%
Clothing and Footwear
5,070
5,800
7,600
2.4%
2.6%
3.0%
Towels, Sheets, & Pillowcases
740
800
900
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
Other Misc. Nondurables
3,320
3,500
3,900
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
Total Nondurable Goods
57,040
62,140
72,720
27.4%
28.0%
28.7%
Containers and Packaging
72,860
80,490
94,890
35.0%
36.3%
37.5%
(Detail in Table 43)
Total Product Wastes**
161.130
176,570
205,000
77.4°/o
70.7°/o
ttl.4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
14,020
14,700
16,100
6.7%
6.6%
6.4%
Yard Trimmings A
29,750
27,100
27,400
14.3%
12.2%
10.8%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
3,150
3,300
3,600
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
Total Other Wastes
46,920
45,100
47,100
22.6%
20.3%
18.6%
Total MSW Generated
208,050
221,670
25^,000
100.0u/o
100.0u/o
100.0u/o
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
** Other than food products.
A Yard trimmings based on source reduction scenario #2 described in Table 44.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Containers and Packaging
Containers and packaging is the largest single category of MSW, and this is
projected to continue through 2010 (Table 43). Generation was 72.9 million tons
in 1995, with an increase to 80.5 million tons and 94.9 million tons in 2000 and
2010, respectively. In percentage of total MSW, containers and packaging were
35.0 percent in 1995, with a projected increase to 37.5 percent in 2010. The average
growth rate for containers and packaging through 2010 is projected to be 1.8
percent annually.
129
-------
Table 43
PROJECTIONS OF PRODUCTS GENERATED*
IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM: 1995, 2000, AND 2010
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of tons
% of total
Products
1995
2000
2010
1995
2000
2010
Durable Goods
31,230
33,940
38,290
15.0%
15.3%
15.1%
(Detail in Table 41)
Nondurable Goods
57,040
62,140
72,720
27.4%
28.0%
28.7%
(Detail in Table 42)
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
5,120
5,380
5,780
2.5%
2.4%
2.3%
Wine and Liquor Bottles
1,790
1,870
2,010
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
4,620
4,850
5,210
2.2%
2.2%
2.1%
Total Glass Packaging
11,530
12,100
13,000
5.5%
5.5%
5.1%
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Neg
Neg.
Neg.
Neg
Neg
Neg
Food and Other Cans
2,640
2,780
3,060
1.3%
1.3%
1.2%
Other Steel Packaging
210
220
240
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Total Steel Packaging
2,850
3,000
3,300
1.4%
1.4%
1.3%
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
1,580
1,680
1,880
0.8%
0.8%
0.7%
Other Cans
40
40
50
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Foil and Closures
350
380
420
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Total Aluminum Pkg
1,970
2,100
2,350
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
28,800
32,300
39,280
13.8%
14.6%
15.5%
Milk Cartons
510
490
450
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Folding Cartons
5,310
6,160
7,450
2.6%
2.8%
2.9%
Other Paperboard Packaging
260
260
240
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Bags and Sacks
1,990
2,030
2,090
1.0%
0.9%
0.8%
Wrapping Papers
70
80
90
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Other Paper Packaging
1,120
1,200
1,360
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
Total Paper & Board Pkg
38,060
42,520
50,960
18.3%
19.2%
20.1%
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles
660
730
900
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
Milk Bottles
630
710
860
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Other Containers
1,250
1,390
1,700
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
Bags and Sacks
1,170
1,310
1,600
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
Wraps
1,720
1,920
2,340
0.8%
0.9%
0.9%
Other Plastics Packaging
2,270
2,540
3,100
1.1%
1.1%
1.2%
Total Plastics Packaging
7,700
8,600
10,500
3.7%
3.9%
4.2%
Wood Packaging
10,590
12,000
14,600
5.1%
5.4%
5.8%
Other Misc. Packaging
160
170
180
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Total Containers & Pkg
72,860
80,490
94.H90
35.0%
36.3%
37.5%
Total Product Wastes**
161,130
176,570
205,900
77.4%
79.7 %
SI. 4%
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
14,020
14,700
16,100
6.7%
6.6%
6.4%
Yard TrimmingsA
29,750
27,100
27,400
14.3%
12.2%
10.8%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
3,150
3,300
3,600
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
Total Other Wastes
46,920
45,100
47,100
22.6%
20.3%
18.6%
Total MSW Generated
20S.050
221,670
253,000
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
Other than food products.
Yard trimmings based on source reduction scenario #2 described in Table 44.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
130
-------
Tonnage of glass containers generated is projected to increase at a low
rate—less than one percent annually. Glass containers are projected to increase to
12.1 million tons and 13.0 million tons in 2000 and 2010, respectively. Glass
containers are projected to continue to be a declining percentage of MSW
generation (5.1 percent of total generation in 2010).
Since 1990, steel cans have been a relatively constant percentage of MSW
generation. Generation of steel containers and packaging is projected to increase
about one percent annually through 2010. Steel packaging generation is expected
to increase to 3.0 million tons and 3.3 million tons in 2000 and 2010, respectively.
As a percentage of MSW generation, steel packaging is projected to be constant at
about 1.4 percent of total generation.
Tonnage of aluminum packaging has been increasing steadily over the
historical period, and this trend is projected to continue. Aluminum packaging is
projected to increase to 2.1 million tons and 2.4 million tons in 2000 and 2010,
respectively. Tonnage of other materials also increases, however, so aluminum
stays at 0.9 percent of total generation in the projections.
Like other paper and paperboard products, overall generation of paper and
paperboard packaging has been increasing rapidly. The increase is mostly in
corrugated boxes, which are mainly used for shipping other products. Continued
increases in generation of corrugated boxes are projected; tonnage of these boxes
is projected to be 32.3 million tons in 2000, or 14.6 percent of total MSW
generation. Other paper packaging is also projected to increase in tonnage, but as
a percent of total MSW generation remain constant. All paper and paperboard
packaging is projected to be 51.0 million tons, or 20.1 percent of total generation
in 2010.
Plastics packaging has exhibited rapid historical growth from 1960 to 1980,
with a slower growth rate experienced during the 1990s. The slower growth rate
of the 1990s is projected to continue. Collectively—soft drink bottles, milk bottles,
other containers, bags and sacks, wraps, and other plastic packaging—are
projected to increase approximately 2.0 percent annually. Generation of all
plastics packaging is projected to be 8.6 million tons and 10.5 million tons in 2000
and 2010, respectively. This accounts for about four percent of total MSW
generation.
The Effects of Yard Trimmings Source Reduction
As discussed earlier in this chapter, the apparent trend toward lower
generation of yard trimmings (that is, a lower tonnage of yard trimmings
entering the waste management system to go to composting facilities, landfill, or
combustion facilities) has a marked effect on projections of total generation of
MSW. As discussed earlier, over half of the U.S. population will live in states
having regulations affecting disposal of yard trimmings by 1996-97. Also, several
131
-------
additional states have passed solid waste diversion and waste reduction
legislation effective by the year 2000 and beyond.
Since dramatic source reduction of yard trimmings is a comparatively new
phenomenon, data to support these projections are limited, although the data
that are available tend to support the assumptions used. Due to limited hard
data, three different scenarios for yard trimmings generation projections are
shown to present a range of possible outcomes for MSW generation (Table 44).
The mid-range scenario (Scenario 2) is used for projections in this report.
For Scenario 1, it was assumed that there would be no further reduction in
yard trimmings generation compared to generation in 1995 (i.e., yard trimmings
remain at 29.8 million tons for 2000 and 2010). Scenario 2 was developed using
the assumptions described earlier in this chapter. Assuming that generation of
all other products and materials would not change from scenario to scenario,
total projected MSW generation in 2000 would be 224.3 million tons under
Scenario 1 compared to 221.7 million tons under Scenario 2. Yard trimmings
would comprise 13.3 percent of total generation in Scenario 1, compared to 12.2
percent in Scenario 2. For 2010, total projected MSW generation would be 255.4
million tons under Scenario 1 compared to 253.0 million tons under Scenario 2.
Under Scenario 2 yard trimmings are projected to be 10.8 percent of total MSW
generation in 2010.
Table 44
COMPARISON OF THREE SCENARIOS FOR
SOURCE REDUCTION OF YARD TRIMMINGS: 2000 AND 2010
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
2000
2010
Scenario 1
Yard trimmings constant since 1995
Yard trimmings
Total MSW generation
Scenario 2
Yard trimmings reduced*
Yard trimmings
Total MSW generation
Scenario 3
Yard Trimmings reduced further**
Yard trimmings
Total MSW generation
Generation
(Thousand
Tons)
29,750
224,320
27,100
221,670
22,300
216,870
Avg. Annual
% of % Increase
Total in MSW
MSW Generation
Generation 1995 2000
13.3%
100.0%
12.2%
100.0%
10.3%
100.0%
1.52%
1.28%
0.83%
Generation
Avg. Annual
% of % Increase
Total in MSW
(Thousand MSW Generation
Tons)
29,750
255,350
27,400
253,000
22,300
247,900
Generation 1995 2010
11.7%
100.0%
10.:
100.1
9.1
100.1
1.38%
1.31%
1.18%
* Assumes 9 percent reduction in yard trimmings from 1995 generation for 2000, and 8 percent reduction in
yard trimmings from 1995 generation for 2010. (See previous text for assumptions.)
** Assumes a 25 percent reduction in yard trimmings from 1995 generation for 2000 and 2010.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
132
-------
For a more optimistic scenario for yard trimmings reduction, it was
assumed that yard trimmings generation could be reduced by 25 percent between
1995 and 2000 and remain at that level through 2010 (Scenario 3). Under this
assumption, yard trimmings generation would be 22.3 million tons in both 2000
and 2010. Yard trimmings would be 10.3 percent and 9.0 percent of total MSW
generation for 2000 and 2010, respectively.
For another perspective, Table 44 also shows the annual rates of increase
of MSW generation for the time periods 1995-2000 and 1995-2010 under the
various scenarios. If yard trimmings do not decrease (Scenario 1), MSW
generation would increase an average of 1.52 percent annually from 1995 to 2000
and 1.38 percent annually from 1995 to 2010. Under Scenario 2 for yard
trimmings reduction, the average annual rate of increase in MSW generation
would be 1.28 percent from 1995 to 2000 and 1.31 percent from 1995 to 2010.
Finally, under a 25 percent reduction in yard trimmings scenario, the increase in
MSW generation would be 0.83 percent annually for 1995 to 2000 and 1.18 percent
for 1995 to 2010. (Each scenario assumes that generation of other materials would
increase by the amount shown in Table 38.)
It should be noted that a marked reduction in yard trimmings causes the
percentages of all other products in the MSW stream to increase, even if their
tonnages remain constant or decrease modestly.
PROJECTIONS OF MSW RECOVERY
Prior to the 1980s, rates of recovery for recycling (including composting)
increased slowly and thus projections were relatively easy to make. At this time,
however, there is a high level of interest in municipal solid waste management
in general, and in recycling in particular. Government agencies at all levels are
seeking ways to stimulate materials recovery. Local communities are adding
materials recovery and recycling programs, but there is no accurate nationwide
accounting system. In response to the demand for more recovery and more
markets for recovered products, industry associations and individual companies
have invested large amounts of money and effort in developing new recycling
programs and products containing recovered materials.
Because of the rapidly changing situation and uncertainty in the available
data, projections of materials recovery were made in scenarios that could achieve
different rates of recovery in 2000 and 2010. Scenarios were developed for 30 and
35 percent recovery rates in 2000, and 30, 35, and 40 percent recovery rates in 2010
(see Appendix B). These scenarios are based on recovery of postconsumer MSW
and do not include industrial scrap. Also, composting of only food wastes and
yard trimmings is included in these scenarios; estimates of composting of mixed
MSW were not made for this report.
133
-------
The recovery scenarios developed for this report describe sets of conditions
that could achieve the selected range of recovery rates. The scenarios are not
intended to predict exact recovery rates for any particular material; there are
many ways in which a targeted overall recovery rate could be achieved.
Especially at the state and local levels, differing circumstances mean that
recovery rates of a particular material could be higher or lower than those used
to develop these scenarios.
Discussion of Assumptions
Some general assumptions and principles were used in making the
recovery estimates:
• Recovery for recycling includes composting. Recovered materials are
assumed to have been removed from the municipal waste stream.
• It was assumed that local, state, and federal agencies will continue to
emphasize recycling, including composting, as MSW management
alternatives.
• It was assumed that present state deposit laws will remain in place, but
that no additional deposit legislation for containers would be enacted.
• It was assumed that affected industries will continue to emphasize
recovery and recycling programs, and will make the necessary
investments to achieve higher recycling rates.
• It was assumed that the current trend toward diverting certain yard
trimmings in landfills will continue to 2000 and beyond, providing
stimulus for composting programs and for source reduction of yard
trimmings by citizens.
• Based on available data, it was assumed that, for most materials, there
will be adequate end-user capacity to utilize all recovered materials that
could reasonably be recovered. In the instance of paper and paperboard,
however, there is a "flattening" of projected capacity for recovered
material by the year 2000. Thus, recovery projections for paper and
paperboard are not as optimistic as those of previous years. Additional
new mill capacity, increased exports, or increased composting of
unrecycled paper and paperboard could result in higher than projected
recovery after 2000.
• Based on the preceding assumptions, most U.S. citizens will have access
to recovery options before 2000, which will often, in fact, be mandated.
These options will include curbside collection, drop-off and buy-back
centers, and, in some instances, mixed waste processing facilities.
Recovery will continue to increase as more recovery systems come on-
line.
134
-------
• In spite of the factors encouraging more recovery as enumerated above,
many areas of the U.S. are thinly populated and/or remote from ready
markets for recovered materials; many of these areas also have adequate
landfill capacity. Therefore, the overall recovery rate for the entire
country may not reflect the higher rates achieved in communities
where conditions are favorable for recycling, including composting.
Scenarios for 2000
The range of projected recovery rates for materials in MSW under the
recovery scenarios (30 and 35 percent) in the year 2000 is shown in Table 45.
(Details of the assumptions for individual products in MSW are in Appendix B.)
Table 45
PROJECTED GENERATION AND RANGES OF RECOVERY,* 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each material)
2000 MSW
Recovery
1995 MSW
Generation
Thousand tons
% of generation
Recovery
Materials
(thous tons)
30%
35%
30%
35%
(%***)
Paper and Paperboard
89,740
38,150
41,320
42.5%
46.0%
40.0%
Glass
13,510
3,620
4,880
26.8%
36.1%
24.5%
Metals
Ferrous
12,250
5,110
6,730
41.7%
54.9%
36.5%
Aluminum
3,170
1,450
1,510
45.7%
47.6%
34.6%
Other Nonferrous**
1,430
1,010
1,020
70.6%
71.3%
69.5%
Total Metals
16,850
7,570
9,260
44.9%
55.0%
38.9%
Plastics
20,960
1,460
2,140
7.0%
10.2%
5.3%
Rubber & Leather
6,640
800
1,000
12.0%
15.1%
8.8%
Clothing, Other Textiles
8,420
1,190
1,320
14.1%
15.7%
12.2%
Wood
16,550
2,150
3,000
13.0%
18.1%
9.6%
Yard Trimmingst
27,100
10,840
13,550
40.0%
50.0%
30.3%
Food Wastes
14,700
810
1,120
5.5%
7.6%
4.1%
Other Materials}
7,200
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Totals
221,670
66,590
77,590
30.0%
35.0%
27.0%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
Does not include recovery for mixed MSW composting.
** Includes some nonferrous metals other than battery lead,
t Yard trimmings generation based on source reduction scenario #2 described in Table 44.
t Miscellaneous inorganic wastes, electrolytes in batteries, other miscellaneous.
*** From Table 2.
Neg. = Negligible (less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent)
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
135
-------
Continued increases in recovery in every category will be required to reach
the scenarios shown. To reach a recovery rate of 30 percent nationwide in 2000,
43 percent of all paper and paperboard, 27 percent of all glass, 45 percent of
metals, and 7 percent of all plastics in MSW would be recovered under this
scenario. Forty percent of all yard trimmings would be recovered for composting
under this scenario (not including backyard composting and other source
reduction measures), and 6 percent of food wastes would be recovered for
composting.
To achieve a recovery rate of 35 percent nationwide in 2000, approximately
46 percent of all paper and paperboard, 36 percent of all glass, 55 percent of all
metals, and 50 percent of yard trimmings would need to be recovered. Recovery
of rubber, clothing and other textiles, and wood would each be at least 15 percent
of generation. Increased composting of food waste would also be required to
reach this level of recovery nationwide.
Scenarios for 2010
The range of projected recovery rates for materials in MSW under three
recovery scenarios (30, 35, and 40 percent) in the year 2010 is shown in Table 46.
(Details of the assumptions for individual products in MSW are in Appendix B.)
For the 35 percent recovery rate scenario, paper and paperboard would be
recovered at a 47 percent rate, glass at a 36 percent rate, metals at a 55 percent rate,
and rubber, textiles, and wood at rates of 14 to 19 percent. Yard trimmings would
be recovered at a 50 percent rate, and food wastes and plastics at an 8 percent rate.
To reach the 40 percent recovery scenario nationwide in 2010, 48 percent of
all paper and paperboard, 49 percent of all glass, 67 percent of metals, and 20
percent or more of rubber, textiles, and wood would be recovered. Yard
trimmings would be recovered at a 60 percent rate, and 19 percent of food wastes
would be recovered for composting.
PROJECTIONS OF MSW DISCARDS AFTER RECOVERY
Discards of municipal solid waste as defined for this report are those
wastes remaining after recovery of materials for recycling, including composting
of yard trimmings. The remaining discards must be managed by combustion,
landfilling, or some other means. The effects of projected recovery rates on the
amounts and characteristics of municipal solid waste discards are illustrated in
Table 47. (A 30 percent recovery scenario for 2000 and 35 percent recovery
scenario for 2010 are shown in this example.)
This projected scenario of discards, which is based on substantial source
reduction of yard trimmings and a 30 percent recovery rate for materials and
products generated in 2000, shows a 2 percent increase in MSW discards in 2000
136
-------
Table 46
PROJECTED GENERATION AND RANGES OF RECOVERY,* 2010
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each material)
2010 Recovery 1995 MSW
Generation Thousand tons % of generation Recovery
Materials
(thous tons)
30%
35%
40%
30%
35%
40%
(%***)
Paper and Paperboard
105,690
42,700
49,630
50,750
40.4%
47.0%
48.0%
40.0%
Glass
14,540
4,550
5,200
7,150
31.3%
35.8%
49.2%
24.5%
Metals
Ferrous
13,320
5,880
7,440
9,430
44.1%
55.9%
70.8%
36.5%
Aluminum
3,570
1,530
1,660
1,760
42.9%
46.5%
49.3%
34.6%
Other Nonferrous**
1,590
1,150
1,150
1,150
72.3%
72.3%
72.3%
69.5%
Total Metals
18,480
8,560
10,250
12,340
46.3%
55.5%
66.8%
38.9%
Plastics
24,660
1,570
1,970
2,630
6.4%
8.0%
10.7%
5.3%
Rubber & Leather
7,860
900
1,120
1,570
11.5%
14.2%
20.0%
8.8%
Clothing, Other Textiles
10,720
1,530
1,700
2,130
14.3%
15.9%
19.9%
12.2%
Wood
19,610
2,770
3,800
5,110
14.1%
19.4%
26.1%
9.6%
Yard Trimmings!
27,400
12,330
13,700
16,440
45.0%
50.0%
60.0%
30.3%
Food Wastes
16,100
920
1,260
3,060
5.7%
7.8%
19.0%
4.1%
Other Materials!
7,940
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Totals
253,000
75,830
88,630
101,180
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
27.0%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
Does not include recovery for mixed MSW composting.
** Includes some nonferrous metals other than battery lead,
t Yard trimmings generation based on source reduction scenario #2 described in Table 44.
t Miscellaneous inorganic wastes, electrolytes in batteries, other miscellaneous.
*** From Table 2.
Neg. = Negligible (less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent)
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
as compared to 1995. Assuming a 35 percent recovery rate for materials and
products generated in 2010, discards from 2000 to 2010 are projected to increase
another 2 percent.
This projected scenario of discards, which is based on substantial source
reduction of yard trimmings and a 30 percent recovery rate for materials and
products generated in 2000, shows a 2 percent increase in MSW discards in 2000
as compared to 1995. Assuming a 35 percent recovery rate for materials and
products generated in 2010, discards from 2000 to 2010 are projected to increase
another 2 percent.
The materials composition of MSW discards is quite different from the
materials composition of MSW generation (see Table 38), especially for materials
that are recovered at higher rates. For example, paper and paperboard are
137
-------
Table 47
PROJECTIONS OF MATERIALS DISCARDED* IN MSW: 1995, 2000, AND 2010
(RECOVERY SCENARIOS ASSUMED: 30% IN 2000, 35% IN 2010)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Thousand tons
% of discards
Materials
1995
2000**
2010A
1994
2000**
2010A
Paper and Paperboard
48,920
51,590
56,060
32.2%
33.3%
34.1%
Glass
9,690
9,890
9,340
6.4%
6.4%
5.7%
Metals
Ferrous
7,360
7,140
5,880
4.8%
4.6%
3.6%
Aluminum
1,930
1,720
1,910
1.3%
1.1%
1.2%
Other Nonferrous
400
420
440
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Total Metals
9,690
9,280
8,230
6.4%
6.0%
5.0%
Plastics
17,990
19,500
22,690
11.8%
12.6%
13.8%
Rubber & Leather
5,500
5,840
6,740
3.6%
3.8%
4.1%
Clothing, Other Textiles
6,500
7,230
9,020
4.3%
4.7%
5.5%
Wood
13,430
14,400
15,810
8.8%
9.3%
9.6%
Yard Trimmings!
20,750
16,260
13,700
13.7%
10.5%
8.3%
Food Wastes
13,450
13,890
14,840
8.9%
9.0%
9.0%
Other Materials!
5,940
7,200
7,940
3.9%
4.6%
4.8%
Totals
151,860
155,080
164,370
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
* Discards after recovery for recycling and composting of yard trimmings.
** 30 percent recovery scenario assumed for 2000 (Table 45).
A 35 percent recovery scenario assumed for 2010 (Table 46).
t Yard trimmings generation based on source reduction scenario #2 described in Table 44.
t Miscellaneous inorganic wastes, electrolytes in batteries, other miscellaneous.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
projected to comprise 40.5 percent of MSW generation, but 33.3 percent of MSW
discards, in 2000. Yard trimmings would decline from 12.2 percent of MSW
generation to 9.0 percent of discards under this scenario in 2000. The percentages
of other materials discards would likewise increase or decrease, depending upon
their projected recovery rates.
PROJECTIONS OF MSW COMBUSTION
Making projections of MSW combustion is somewhat difficult because of
the many uncertainties affecting the planning and construction of new facilities.
Several years are required to site and obtain permits for construction of new
MSW combustion facilities. Projections of future waste-to-energy combustion
capacity were based on facilities operating or reported under construction or in
planning. Conversely, estimates were made to account for capacity that will be
retired from service after 1995. Based on this analysis, MSW sent to waste-to-
energy combustion facilities was projected to be 33 million tons and 36 million
tons for the years 2000 and 2010, respectively.
138
-------
While substantial amounts of MSW were burned without energy recovery
in past years, most of these older facilities have been closed due to the costs of
implementing air pollution requirements. MSW destined for incinerators is
projected to continue to decrease through 2010. Less than one million tons of
MSW is projected to be managed through incinerators in 1995 and beyond.
Since there is increasing interest in combustion of certain source-separated
components of MSW—especially tires, but also wood pallets, paper, and
plastics—it was assumed that combustion of these materials would continue to
increase.
Accounting for waste-to-energy combustion, incinerators, and combustion
of source-separated components of MSW, combustion of MSW is projected to
increase from 33.5 million tons in 1995 to 36 million tons of MSW in 2000. By
2010 MSW combustion is projected to increase to 39 million tons.
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED MSW MANAGEMENT
A summary of the projections is presented, with similar figures for 1995
included for contrast (Table 48). For the summary, a mid-range recovery scenario
of 30 percent in 2000 and 35 percent in 2010 was used. A graphical illustration of
the long-term trends are shown in Figure 32 and Figure 33.
Table 48
GENERATION, RECOVERY, COMBUSTION, AND DISPOSAL
OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: 1995, 2000, AND 2010
(RECOVERY SCENARIOS ASSUMED: 30% IN 2000, 35% IN 2010)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of tons
% of generation
1995
2000
2010
1995
2000
2010
Generation
208,050
221,670
253,000
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Recovery for recycling
46,620
54,940
73,670
22.4%
24.8%
29.1%
Recovery for composting*
9,570
11,650
14,960
4.6%
5.3%
5.9%
Total materials recovery
56,190
66,590
88,630
27.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Discards after recovery
151,860
155,080
164,370
73.0%
70.0%
65.0%
Combustion**
33,470
36,000
39,000
16.1%
16.2%
15.4%
Landfill, other disposal
118,390
119,080
125,370
56.9%
53.7%
49.6%
* Composting of yard trimmings and food wastes. Does not include backyard composting.
** Combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse derived form, incineration without energy
recovery, and combustion with energy recovery of source separated materials in MSW.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
139
-------
Figure 32. Municipal Solid Waste Management, 1960 to 2010
(In thousand tons)
Recovery for the Composting
Component of Recycling*
250,000
200,000 -¦
150,000
2 100,000 -'
50,000
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
* Recovery scenarios assumed: 30% in 2000, 35% in 2010.
1995 2000 2005 2010
From 1995 to 2000, generation of MSW is projected to increase by 1.1
percent per year compared to 2.7 percent per year between 1980 and 1990. The
generation of MSW is projected to increase by 1.3 percent per year between 2000
and 2010. As described earlier, source reduction of yard trimmings accounts for
most of the decrease from 1995 to 2000 under the selected scenario.
Figure 33. Municipal Solid Waste Management, 1960 to 2010
(In percent of MSW generation)
Recovery for the Composting
Component of Recycling*
w 50%
| 40% -
I 30% - Landfill, other disposal
a> 20% -
CL
10% -
0% I I I I I I I I I I
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
* Recovery scenarios assumed: 30% in 2000, 35% in 2010.
140
-------
The effect of assuming the mid-range scenario for materials recovery for
recycling (including yard trimmings composting) causes discards—as a percent of
MSW generation—to decline to 70 percent of MSW generation in 2000 (i.e., 30
percent recovery rate), and 65 percent of MSW generation in 2010 (i.e., 35 percent
recovery rate. After deductions for combustion, discards to landfill and other
disposal were 118.4 million tons in 1995, with projections of 119.1 million tons
and 125.4 million tons in 2000 and 2010, respectively. Based on these projections,
the percent of MSW generation discarded to landfills and other disposal is 53.7
percent in 2000 and will fall below 50 percent of MSW generation for the first
time in 2010 (49.6 percent).
ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
In this section, the municipal solid waste (MSW) characterization data
summarized in previous sections of the report are presented again from different
perspectives. These are:
• Historical and projected MSW generation and management on a
pounds per person per day basis
• Historical and projected MSW generation by material on a pounds per
person per day basis
• A classification of 1995 MSW generation into residential and
commercial components
• Historical and projected discards of MSW classified into organic and
inorganic fractions
• A ranking of products and materials in 1995 MSW by tonnage
generated, recovered for recycling, and discarded.
Generation and Discards by Individuals
Municipal solid waste planners often think in terms of generation and
discards on a per capita (per person) basis. Data on historical and projected MSW
generation and management are presented on the basis of pounds per person per
day in Table 49. The top line shows a steady increase in per capita generation of
MSW, from 2.7 pounds per person per day in 1960 to 4.3 pounds per person per
day in 1995, with a projection of 4.4 and 4.7 pounds per person per day in 2000
and 2010, respectively. The primary reason for the projected decline in growth of
MSW generation is a decrease in yard trimmings entering the MSW
management system.
The per capita discards represent the amount remaining after recovery for
recycling (including composting). Discards after recovery for recycling grew from
141
-------
Table 49
PER CAPITA GENERATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMBUSTION,
AND DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2010
(In pounds per person per day; population in thousands)
1960
1970
1980
1990
1995
2000
2010
Generation
2.68
3.25
3.66
4.33
4.34
4.42
4.66
Recovery for recycling & composting
0.17
0.22
0.35
0.74
1.17
1.33
1.63
Discards after recovery
2.51
3.04
3.31
3.59
3.17
3.09
3.03
Combustion
0.82
0.67
0.33
0.70
0.70
0.72
0.72
Discards to landfill,
other disposal
1.69
2.36
2.98
2.89
2.47
2.38
2.31
Resident Population (thousands)
179,979
203,984
227,255
249,402
262,755
274,634
297,716
Projections assume a substantial reduction of yard trimmings generation from 1992 to 2000, a 30% recovery
scenario for 2000, a 35% recovery scenario for 2010, and a slight increase in net combustion of MSW.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Population figures from Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
2.5 pounds per person per day in 1960 to 3.6 pounds per person per day in 1990.
Between 1990 and 1995, discards declined to 3.2 pounds per person per day due to
increased recovery for recycling (including composting). Under a 30 percent
recovery scenario for 2000 and a 35 percent recovery scenario for 2010, this
decline is projected to continue, to 3.1 pounds per person per day in 2000 and 3.0
pounds per person per day in 2010.
In 1995, an estimated 0.7 pounds per person per day of discards were
managed through combustion, while the remainder—2.5 pounds per person per
day—went to landfill or other disposal. The projection for 2000 and 2010 is that
0.7 pounds per person per day would continue to be combusted, and MSW
destined for landfills would decrease to less than 2.4 pounds per person per day.
In Table 50, per capita generation of each material category characterized in
this study is shown. Paper, plastics, textiles, and wood in MSW have grown on a
per capita basis throughout the 35-year historical period, and this growth is
projected to continue. Glass generation grew on a per capita basis during the
earlier decades, but declined in the 1980s. Generation in the 1990s was lower on a
per capita basis, and is projected to remain constant. Generation of metals and
rubber and leather on a per capita basis also grew, then declined somewhat. Some
growth in the per capita generation of these materials is projected to 2010.
Generation of food wastes has declined on a per capita basis due to
improved packaging and increased processing of food before it enters the
residential or commercial waste streams. Per capita generation of food wastes is
projected to remain constant—approximately 0.3 pounds per person per day.
142
-------
Table 50
PER CAPITA GENERATION* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE,
BY MATERIAL, 1960 TO 2010
(In pounds per person per day)
Materials
1960
1970
1980
1990
1995
2000
2010
Paper and paperboard
0.91
1.19
1.33
1.60
1.70
1.79
1.95
Glass
0.20
0.34
0.36
0.29
0.27
0.27
0.27
Metals
0.33
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.33
0.34
0.34
Plastics
0.01
0.08
0.16
0.38
0.40
0.42
0.45
Rubber and leather
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
Textiles
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.20
Wood
0.09
0.10
0.17
0.26
0.31
0.33
0.36
Other
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
Total Nonfood Products
1.66
2.24
2.63
3.21
3.36
3.52
3.79
Food wastes
0.37
0.34
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.30
Yard trimmings
0.61
0.62
0.66
0.77
0.62
0.54
0.50
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
Total MSW Generated
2.68
3.25
3.66
4.33
4.34
4.42
4.66
Resident Population (thousands)
179,979
203,984
227,255
249,402
262,755
274,634
297,716
* Generation before materials or energy recovery.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Tables 1 and 38. Population figures from the Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports.
Generation of yard trimmings on a per capita basis increased over a 30-year
period, but has begun to decline for reasons discussed elsewhere in this report.
Generation of yard trimmings was 0.6 pounds per person per day in 1995 and—
because of expected source reduction efforts—is projected to decline to 0.5 pounds
per person per day by 2010.
Overall, per capita generation of MSW increased throughout the 35-year
study period. This increase is projected to continue, but at a much slower rate of
growth, primarily because of the projected source reduction of yard trimmings.
Residential and Commercial Generation of MSW
The sources of MSW generation are of considerable interest to
management planners. The material flows methodology does not lend itself well
to a distinction as to sources of the materials because the data used are national
in scope. However, a classification of products and materials by residential and
commercial sources was first made for the 1992 update of this series of reports.
For purposes of this classification, residential waste was considered to
come from both single family and multi-family residences. This is somewhat
143
-------
contrary to a common practice in MSW management to classify wastes collected
from apartment buildings as commercial. The rationale used for this report is
that the nature of residential waste is basically the same whether it is generated
in a single or multi-family residence. (Yard trimmings are probably the primary
exception, and this was taken into account.) Because of this approach, the
percentage of residential waste shown here is higher than that often reported by
waste haulers.
Commercial wastes for the purpose of this classification include MSW
from retail and wholesale establishments; hotels; office buildings; airports and
train stations; hospitals, schools, and other institutions; and similar sources. No
industrial process wastes are included, but normal MSW such as packaging,
cafeteria and washroom wastes, and office wastes from industrial sources are
included. As is the case for the data in Chapter 2, construction and demolition
wastes, sludges, ashes, automobile bodies, and other non-MSW wastes are not
included.
The classification of MSW generation into residential and commercial
fractions was made on a product-by-product basis (see Appendix C of EPA report
530-R-94-042, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:
1994 Update). The 1995 tonnage generation of each product was allocated to
residential or commercial sources on a "best judgment" basis; then the totals
were aggregated. These are estimates for the nation as a whole, and should not be
taken as representative of any particular region of the country.
A few revisions to the methodology were subsequently made based on
estimates made in a 1994 report for Keep America Beautiful, which was
extensively reviewed by public and private sector experts in municipal solid
waste management. Discards of major appliances and rubber tires were
reassigned to the commercial sector rather than the residential sector because,
while these products may be used in a residential setting, they tend to be collected
and managed through the commercial sector.
Table 51
CLASSIFICATION OF MSW GENERATION INTO
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL FRACTIONS, 1995
(In thousands of tons and percent of total)
Thousand tons Percent of total
Residential Wastes 114,430 - 135,230 55.0% - 65.0%
Commercial Wastes 72,820 - 93,620 35.0% -45.0%
Estimates are presented as a range because of wide variations across
the country.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
144
-------
Based on this analysis, a reasonable range for residential wastes would be
55 to 65 percent of total MSW generation, while commercial wastes probably
range between 35 to 45 percent of total generation (Table 51).
Organic/Inorganic Fractions of MSW Discards
The composition of MSW in terms of organic and inorganic fractions is of
interest to planners of waste management facilities and others working with
MSW. This characterization of MSW discards is shown in Table 52. (Discards
were used instead of generation because discards enter the solid waste
management system after recovery for recycling, including composting.) The
organic fraction of MSW has been increasing steadily since 1970, from 75 percent
organics in 1970 to 85 percent in 1995.
It is interesting to note, however, that the percentage of MSW that is
organics began to "level off" after 1990 because of the projected decline in yard
trimmings discarded. This trend is projected to continue through 2000, with
organics comprising 85 percent of total MSW discards in 2000. After 2000
projected increases in yard trimmings and other organic components of MSW,
such as paper, are expected to cause the organic fraction to increase to
approximately 87 percent of total MSW discards.
Table 52
COMPOSITION OF MSW DISCARDS*
BY ORGANIC AND INORGANIC FRACTIONS,
1960 TO 2010
(In percent of total discards)
Year
Organics**
InorganicsT
1960
77.3%
22.7%
1970
75.5%
24.5%
1980
77.5%
22.5%
1990
84.3%
15.7%
1995
85.2%
14.8%
2000
85.5%
14.5%
2010
87.1%
12.9%
* Discards after materials recovery has taken place,
and before combustion.
** Includes paper, plastics, rubber and leather,
textiles, wood, food wastes, and yard trimmings,
t Includes glass, metals, and miscellaneous inorganics.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Tables 3 and 47.
145
-------
Ranking of Products in MSW by Weight
About 50 categories of products and materials are characterized as line
items in the tables in Chapter 2. It is difficult when examining that set of tables to
see in perspective the relative tonnages generated or discarded by the different
items. Therefore, Tables 53, 54, and 55 were developed to illustrate this point.
In Table 53, the various MSW products and materials are arranged in
descending order by weight generated in 1995. Subtotals in the right-hand
column group components together for further illustration. For example, only
yard trimmings and corrugated boxes stand at the top of the list, with each
generating over 10 percent of total MSW. Together these two items totaled 28.1
percent of MSW generated in 1995. The next seven components, each comprising
3 to 10 percent of total MSW generation, accounted for 34.1 percent of generation.
Together these nine components accounted for over 62 percent of total MSW
generated. The 20 items at the bottom of the list each amounted to less than one
percent of generation in 1995; together they amounted to only 9.0 percent of total
MSW generation.
Table 54 ranks products in descending order by weight recovered in 1995.
Three products—corrugated boxes, yard trimmings, and newspapers—each
account for over 10 percent of total recovery, and collectively account for over 60
percent of MSW recovery. The next four components, each comprising 3 to 10
percent of total MSW recovery, accounted for 15.2 percent of generation. The
bottom 14 items each amounted to less than one percent of generation in 1995;
together they amounted to only 3.6 percent of total MSW recovery.
A different perspective is provided in Table 55, which ranks products in
MSW by weight discarded after recovery for recycling (including composting).
This table illustrates how recovery alters the products' generation rankings. For
example, corrugated boxes, which ranked second highest in generation, ranked
fourth in discards in 1995.
Yard trimmings accounted for 13.7 percent of total MSW discards in 1995.
Seven components, each representing 3 to 10 percent of total MSW discards,
accounted for over 41 percent of discards. These components included; food
wastes, miscellaneous durables, corrugated boxes, wood packaging, furniture and
furnishings, newspapers, and other commercial printing. Together these eight
components made up 56 percent of MSW discards in 1995. Twenty-one categories
of discards were each less than one percent of the total; together these items
totaled 10.1 percent of 1995 discards.
146
-------
Table 53
GENERATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1995
ARRANGED IN DESCENDING ORDER BY WEIGHT
(In thousands of tons)
Thousand
tons
Percent
of total
Percent
subtotals
Components comprising > 10% of total MSW generation
Yard trimmings 29,750
Corrugated boxes 28,800
Components comprising 3-10% of total MSW generation
Food wastes 14,020
Newspapers 13,130
Miscellaneous durables 12,030
Wood packaging 10,590
Furniture and furnishings 7,160
Other commercial printing 7,110
Office-type papers 6,800
Components comprising 2-3% of total MSW generation
Paper folding cartons 5,310
Glass beer & soft drink bottles 5,120
Clothing and footwear 5,070
Glass food & other bottles 4,620
Third class mail 4,620
Components comprising 1-2% of total MSW generation
Other nonpackaging paper 3,800
Rubber tires 3,770
Major appliances 3,420
Miscellaneous nondurables 3,320
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes 3,150
Disposable diapers 2,960
Tissue paper and towels 2,950
Steel cans and other packaging 2,850
Magazines 2,370
Other plastic packaging 2,270
Carpets and rugs 2,230
Paper bags and sacks 1,990
Components comprising < 1% of total MSW generation
Aluminum cans and other packaging 1,970
Lead-acid batteries 1,910
Glass wine & liquor bottles 1,780
Plastic wraps 1,720
Plastic other containers 1,250
Plastic bags and sacks 1,170
Books 1,170
Other paper packaging 1,120
Paper plates and cups 970
Plastic plates and cups 790
Trash bags 750
Towels, sheets, and pillowcases 740
Small appliances 710
Plastic soft drink bottles 660
Plastic milk bottles 640
Paper milk cartons 510
Telephone directories 490
Other paperboard packaging 260
Other miscellaneous packaging 160
Paper wraps 70
14.3%
13.8%
6.7%
6.3%
5.8%
5.1%
3.4%
3.4%
3.3%
2.6%
2.5%
2.4%
2.2%
2.2%
6%
6%
1%
1%
1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
<0.1%
28.1%
34.1%
11.9%
16.9%
9.0%
Total MSW Generation
208,050
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Chapter 2.
147
-------
Table 54
RECOVERY OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1995
ARRANGED IN DESCENDING ORDER BY WEIGHT
(In thousands of tons)
Thousand
tons
Components comprising > 10% of total MSW recovery
Corrugated boxes 18,480
Y ard trimmings 9,000
Newspapers 6,960
Components comprising 3 10% of total MSW recovery
Office-type papers 3,010
Major appliances 2,070
Lead-acid batteries 1,830
Glass beer & soft drink bottles 1,660
Components comprising 2-3% of total MSW recovery
Steel cans and other packaging 1,560
Wood packaging 1,430
Components comprising 1-2% of total MSW recovery
Other commercial printing 1,090
Paper folding cartons 1,070
Aluminum cans and other packaging 1,020
Glass food & other bottles 1,010
Miscellaneous durables 720
Third class mail 710
Magazines 670
Rubber tires 660
Clothing and footwear 660
Food wastes 570
Components comprising < 1% of total MSW recovery
Glass wine & liquor bottles 470
Paper bags and sacks 350
Plastic soft drink bottles 300
Books 220
Plastic milk bottles 19 0
Plastic other containers 150
Towels, sheets, and pillowcases 130
Telephone directories 60
Plastic bags and sacks 40
Plastic wraps 40
Carpets and rugs 25
Other plastic packaging 21
Plastic plates and cups 13
Small appliances 11
Total MSW Recovery 56,200
Percent
of total
32.9%
16.0%
12.4%
5.4%
3.7%
3.3%
3.0%
9%
9%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
0.8%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
100.0%
Percent
subtotals
61.3%
15.2%
5.3%
14.6%
3.6%
100.0%
Source: Chapter 2.
148
-------
Table 55
DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1995
ARRANGED IN DESCENDING ORDER BY WEIGHT
(In thousands of tons)
Thousand
tons
Percent
of total
Percent
subtotals
Components comprising > 10% of total MSW discards
Yard trimmings 20,750
Components comprising 3-10% of total MSW discards
Food wastes 13,450
Miscellaneous durables 11,300
Corrugated boxes 10,320
Wood packaging 9,160
Furniture and furnishings 7,160
Newspapers 6,170
Other commercial printing 6,020
Components comprising 2-3% of total MSW discards
Clothing and footwear 4,410
Paper folding cartons 4,240
Third class mail 3,910
Other nonpackaging paper 3,800
Office-type papers 3,790
Glass food & other bottles 3,610
Glass beer & soft drink bottles 3,460
Miscellaneous nondurables 3,320
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes 3,150
Rubber tires 3,110
Components comprising 1-2% of total MSW discards
Disposable diapers 2,960
Tissue paper and towels 2,950
Other plastic packaging 2,250
Carpets and rugs 2,210
Magazines 1,690
Plastic wraps 1,680
Paper bags and sacks 1,640
Components comprising < 1% of total MSW discards
Major appliances 1,350
Glass wine & liquor bottles 1,310
Steel cans and other packaging 1,290
Plastic bags and sacks 1,130
Other paper packaging 1,120
Plastic other containers 1,090
Paper plates and cups 970
Books 960
Aluminum cans and other packaging 950
Plastic plates and cups 780
Trash bags 750
Small appliances 700
Towels, sheets, and pillowcases 610
Paper milk cartons 510
Plastic milk bottles 450
Telephone directories 440
Plastic soft drink bottles 360
Other paperboard packaging 260
Other miscellaneous packaging 160
Lead-acid batteries 90
Paper wraps 70
13.7%
8.9%
7.4%
6.8%
6.0%
4.7%
4.1%
4.0%
13.7%
9%
6%
3%
2%
1%
9%
9%
1%
1%
1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
<0.1%
41.9%
24.2%
10.1%
10.1%
Total MSW Discards
151,860
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Chapter 2.
149
-------
Chapter 4
REFERENCES
Composting Council. "Yard Waste Legislation: Disposal Bans and Similar Passed
Bills as of July, 1993." Fact Sheet. July 1993.
Composting Council. "MSW Composting Facilities." Fall 1995.
Conversation with a representative of a waste hauler. August 10, 1994.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste
Management to the Year 2000. Keep America Beautiful, Inc. September 1994.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Future of Solid Waste Management and Recycling.
Multi-client study. November 1996. Draft.
Harrison-Ferris, Pamela. "Letters to the Editor." BioCycle. July 1992.
Kiser, Jonathan V.L., and John Menapace. "The 1996 IWSA Municipal Waste
Combustion Directory Of United States Facilities." Integrated Waste Services
Association. March 1996. Also earlier editions of the same IWSA survey.
Monk, Randall. "After the Ban." MSW Management. September/October 1992.
Raymond Communications. "State Recycling Laws Update." 1994.
Raymond Communications. "State Recycling Laws Update." Year-end Edition
1996.
Repa, Edward and Allen Blakley. "Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Trends: 1996
Update." Waste Age. May 1996.
Sheehan, Kathleen. "Yard Waste Composting—A Legislative Update." Waste
Age. February 1994.
Steuteville, Robert. "Measuring the Impact of Disposal Bans." BioCycle.
September 1994.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. May 1996. Also
earlier editions of the same BioCycle survey.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1996 Statistical Abstract of the United States.
150
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population
Reports, National and State Population Estimates: 1990 to 1994. P25-1127. Issued
July 1995.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population
Reports, Population Projections of the U.S. by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic
Origin: 1993 to 2050. P25-1104. Issued November 1993.
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.
151
-------
152
-------
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.
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.
153
-------
Domestic Production
of
Materials/Products
Conversion/
fabricating
Scrap
Imports
Exports
Materials/Products
Materials/Products
Diversion
Materials/Products
Temporary
Diversion
Municipal
Solid Waste
Generation
Permanent
Diversion
Figure A-1. Material flows methodology for estimating
generation of products and materials in municipal solid waste.
154
-------
MSW
Generation
f
Recovery
for
Recycling
Recovery
for
Composting
1
Discards
after
Recycling
and
Composting
1
Recovery for
Combustion
without
Energy Recovery
Recovery for
Combustion
with
Energy
Recovery
t
Discards
to Landfill
and
Other
Disposal
Figure A-2. Material flows methodology for estimating
discards of products and materials in municipal solid waste.
155
-------
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.
156
-------
Appendix B
RECOVERY SCENARIOS FOR 2000 AND 2010
Because of the rapidly changing situation and uncertainty in the available
data, projections of materials recovery were made in scenarios that could achieve
different rates of recovery in 2000 and 2010. Scenarios were developed for total
MSW recovery rates of 30 and 35 percent recovery rates in 2000; and 30, 35, and 40
percent recovery rates in 2010. These scenarios are based on recovery of
postconsumer MSW and do not include industrial scrap. Also, estimates for
composting of food wastes and yard trimmings are including in these scenarios.
The recovery scenarios developed for this report describe sets of conditions
that could achieve the selected range of recovery rates. The scenarios are not
intended to predict exact recovery rates for any particular material; there are
many ways in which a selected overall recovery rate could be achieved.
Discussion of Assumptions
Some general assumptions and principles were used in making the
recovery estimates:
• Recovery for recycling includes composting. Recovered materials are
assumed to have been removed from the municipal waste stream.
• It was assumed that local, state, and federal agencies will continue to
emphasize recycling (including composting) as MSW management
alternatives.
• It was assumed that there will be no new deposit laws for beverage
containers, but that the present state deposit laws will remain in place.
• It was assumed that affected industries will continue to emphasize
recovery and recycling programs, and will make the necessary
investments to achieve higher recycling rates.
• It was assumed that the current trend toward banning certain yard
trimmings in landfills will continue, providing stimulus for
composting programs and for source reduction of yard trimmings by
citizens.
• Based on the preceding assumptions, most U.S. citizens will have access
to recovery options by 2000, which will often, in fact, be mandated.
These options will include curbside collection, drop-off and buy-back
157
-------
centers, and composting facilities. Recovery will continue to increase as
more recovery systems come on-line.
• In spite of the factors encouraging more recovery as enumerated above,
many areas of the U.S. are thinly populated and/or remote from ready
markets for recovered materials; many of these areas also have adequate
landfill capacity. Therefore, the overall recovery rate for the entire
country may not reflect the rates achieved in communities where
conditions are favorable for recycling, including composting.
The ranges of projected recovery assumptions for the various materials in
MSW are shown for 2000 and 2010 in Table B-l and Table B-2, respectively.
Assumed recovery rates were based on existing recovery rates in 1995, with
projected growth that seemed reasonably achievable nationwide for the period of
time under consideration. Projections for each product in MSW were made
separately, and the results were aggregated, with some minor adjustments to
achieve the three selected scenarios for each year. Assumptions as to the
projected recovery rates for specific products and materials were made in ranges.
It is certainly possible (indeed, probable) that any given material will be
recovered at higher or lower rates than those given here, but the scenarios
illustrate how the selected recovery rates could be reached.
158
-------
Table B-1
SCENARIOS FOR RECOVERY* OF MSW, 2000
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
30% Recovery
35% Recovery
Products
Generation
Tons
%
Tons
%
Durable Goods
Major Appliances (ferrous metals only)
2,620
1,965
75.0%
2,020
77.1%
Rubber Tires
4,000
800
20.0%
1,000
25.0%
Batteries, lead acid
Nonferrous metals
1,045
1,014
97.0%
1,024
98.0%
Plastics
90
86
95.0%
86
95.0%
Misc. Durables (ferrous metals only)
4,135
414
10.0%
620
15.0%
Other Durables
22,050
882
4.0%
2,000
9.1%
Total Durable Goods
33,940
5,160
15.2%
6,750
19.9%
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
13,350
7,210
54.0%
7,610
57.0%
Books
1,300
240
18.5%
298
22.9%
Magazines
2,700
760
28.1%
895
33.1%
Office- type Papers
7,510
3,290
43.8%
3,650
48.6%
Directories
540
65
12.0%
81
15.0%
Third Class Mail
5,380
840
15.6%
1,300
24.2%
Other Commercial Printing
7,550
1,160
30.0%
1,510
20.0%
Textiles, Footwear
6,600
1,188
18.0%
1,320
20.0%
Other Nondurables
17,210
172
1.0%
516
3.0%
Total Nondurable Goods
62,140
14,925
24.0%
17,180
27.6%
Containers and Packaging
Glass Containers
12,100
3,625
30.0%
4,880
40.3%
Steel Containers & Pkg
3,000
1,845
61.5%
2,091
68.0%
Aluminum Packaging
2,100
1,450
69.0%
1,512
72.0%
Paper & Paperboard Packaging
Corrugated Containers
32,300
22,960
71.1%
24,000
74.3%
Other Packaging
10.225
1.630
15.9%
1.972
19.3%
Total Paper & Board Pkg
42,525
24,590
57.8%
25,972
61.1%
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles
735
404
55.0%
441
60.0%
Milk Bottles
710
249
35.0%
284
40.0%
Other Containers
1,395
209
15.0%
349
25.0%
Other Plastics Packaging
5.760
346
6.0%
461
8.0%
Total Plastics Packaging
8,600
1,208
14.0%
1,535
17.8%
Wood Packaging
12,000
2,150
17.9%
3,000
25.0%
Other Misc. Packaging
165
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Total Containers & Packaging
80,490
34,868
43.3%
38,990
48.4%
Total Product Waste**
176,570
54,952
31.1%
62,920
35.6%
Other Wastes
Yard Trimmingsf
27,100
10,840
40.0%
13,550
50.0%
Food Wastes
14,700
809
5.5%
1,117
7.6%
Other Wastes
3,300
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
TOTAL MSW
221,670
66,601
30.0%
77,587
35.0%
* Does not include recovery for mixed waste composting.
** Other than food products.
f Yard trimmings substantially reduced in this scenario.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
159
-------
Table B-2
SCENARIOS FOR RECOVERY* OF MSW, 2010
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
30% Recovery
35% Recovery
Products
Generation
Tons
%
Tons
%
Durable Goods
Major Appliances (ferrous metals only)
2,736
2,052
75.0%
2,107
77.0%
Rubber Tires
4,500
900
20.0%
1,125
25.0%
Batteries, lead acid
Nonferrous metals
1,169
1,146
98.0%
1,146
98.0%
Plastics
100
95
95.0%
95
95.0%
Misc. Durables (ferrous metals only)
4,513
677
15.0%
812
18.0%
Other Durables
25,272
1,011
4.0%
2,274
9.0%
Total Durable Goods
38,290
5,880
15.4%
7,559
19.7%
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
13,860
8,316
60.0%
8,880
64.1%
Books
1,560
281
18.0%
320
20.5%
Magazines
3,430
858
25.0%
1,000
29.2%
Office- type Papers
8,900
4,005
45.0%
4,200
47.2%
Directories
645
65
10.0%
80
12.4%
Third Class Mail
7,200
1,080
15.0%
1,495
20.8%
Other Commercial Printing
8,375
1,256
15.0%
1,500
17.9%
Textiles, Footwear
8,500
1,530
18.0%
1,700
20.0%
Other nondurable paper
10,753
108
1.0%
350
3.3%
Other Nondurables
9.497
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Total Nondurable Goods
72,720
17,498
24.1%
19,525
26.8%
Containers and Packaging
Glass Containers
13,000
4,550
35.0%
5,200
40.0%
Steel Containers & Pkg
3,300
2,145
65.0%
2,244
68.0%
Aluminum Packaging
2,350
1,528
65.0%
1,669
71.0%
Paper & Paperboard Packaging
Corrugated Containers
39,280
24,746
63.0%
29,600
75.4%
Other Packaging
11.680
1.986
17.0%
2.205
18.9%
Total Paper & Board Pkg
50,960
26,732
52.5%
31,805
62.4%
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles
896
493
55.0%
538
60.0%
Milk Bottles
866
303
35.0%
346
40.0%
Other Containers
1,700
255
15.0%
425
25.0%
Other Plastics Packaging
7.038
422
6.0%
563
8.0%
Total Plastics Packaging
10,500
1,473
14.0%
1,872
17.8%
Wood Packaging
14,600
2,774
19.0%
3,800
26.0%
Other Misc. Packaging
180
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Total Containers & Packaging
94,890
39,202
41.3%
46,590
49.1%
Total Product Waste**
205,900
62,580
30.4%
73,674
35.8%
Other Wastes
Yard Trimmingsf
27,400
12,330
45.0%
13,700
50.0%
Food Wastes
16,100
918
5.7%
1,256
7.8%
Other Wastes
3,600
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
TOTAL MSW
253,000
75,827
30.0%
88,630
35.0%
* Does not include recovery for mixed waste composting.
** Other than food products.
t Yard trimmings substantially reduced in this scenario.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
40% Recovery
Tons %
2,161 79.0%
1,575 35.0%
1,146 98.0%
95 95.0%
1,354 30.0%
3,538 14.0%
9,869 25.8%
9,425 68.0%
390 25.0%
1,201 35.0%
4,628 52.0%
97 15.0%
1,800 25.0%
1,675 20.0%
2,125 25.0%
538 5.0%
0. 0.0%
21,878 30.1%
7,150 55.0%
2,376 72.0%
1,763 75.0%
27,496 70.0%
3.504 30.0%
31,000 60.8%
582 65.0%
390 45.0%
510 30.0%
1.056 15.0%
2,538 24.2%
5,110 35.0%
0. 0.0%
49,936 52.6%
81,683 39.7%
16,440 60.0%
3,059 19.0%
0 0.0%
101,182 40.0%
160
------- |