&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA530-R-99-034
November 1999
www. e pa. gov/osw
National Source Reduction
Characterization Report
For Municipal Solid Waste
in the United States
Waste Prevention
> i
Sustainable
-------
-------
Contents
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Why Characterize Source Reduction? 1
1.2 How Was Source Reduction Calculated? 2
1.3 Summary of Results 3
1.4 Report Organization 4
CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Overview of the Measurement Approach 6
2.3 Selecting the Factor Driving Waste Generation 7
2.4 Calculating Source Reduction for MSW Using Consumer Spending (PCE) as the
Driving Factor 8
CHAPTER 3 RESULTS 11
3.1 Introduction 11
3.2 Findings 11
3.3 Analysis of Products and Materials Contributing Significantly to Source Reduction 16
3.4 Source Reduction Values for the Individual Components of MSW 20
CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDIES 23
4.1 Reducing Organic Waste 23
4.1.1 Implementing Comprehensive Source Reduction 25
Montgomery County, Maryland
4.1.2 Grasscycling 28
Pinellas County, Florida
4.1.3 Backyard Composting 28
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
4.1.4 Food Scraps Recovery 29
New York State Department of Correctional Services, Frost Valley YMCA,
Del Mar Fairgrounds, New College/University of South Florida at Sarasota, 3M
4.2 Reducing Wood and Transport Packaging 31
4.2.1 Remanufacturing or Repairing Wooden Pallets 32
Pallet Repair, Inc., Pallet Resource of North Carolina, Inc.,
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Inc.
4.2.2 Substituting Materials for Transport Packaging 35
Alpine Windows, Home Depot, Schlegel Systems, Inc.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report i
-------
Contents
4.3 Reducing Primary Packaging 37
4.3.1 Lightweighting and/or Redesigning Primary Packaging 39
The Clorox Company, The Coca-Cola Company, Federal Express Corporation,
The Procter & Gamble Corporation
4.3.2 Eliminating Unnecessary Packaging 42
Warner-Lambert Company
4.3.3 Switching to Reusable Packaging 43
Dunn County, Wisconsin
4.4 Working With Suppliers 43
4.4.1 Eliminating Unnecessary Packaging From Suppliers 44
Target Stores
4.4.2 Switching to Reusable and Returnable Packaging With Suppliers 46
Maytag Corporation, Herman Miller, Inc., Royal Crest Dairy
4.4.3 Streamlining Purchasing Practices 49
Silicon Graphics, Commonwealth Edison
4.5 Working With Customers 51
4.5.1 Product Take-Back and Remanufacturing Programs 52
Xerox Corporation, Eastman Kodak Company, The Laser Link, Inc.
4.5.2 Leasing Programs 56
Monsanto and Dell Computer Corporation, The City of San Diego and Interface, Inc.
4.5.3 Packaging Reuse by Customers 58
Wakefern Food Corporation
GLOSSARY 59
APPENDIX 63
A. 1 Overview of the Appendix 63
A.2 Definition of Source Reduction 63
A.3 Empirical Analysis of Waste Generation From 1960 to 1996 64
A.4 Statistical Analysis Approach to Measuring Source Reduction 66
A.5 Support for Selection of Consumer Spending as the Driving Factor 67
A.6 Additional Analysis of Source Reduction and Source Expansion 71
ADDITIONAL SOURCE REDUCTION RESOURCES 76
ii National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Contents
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
Figures
Table 2-1: Calculation of Source Reduction in 1996 9
Table 3-1: Source Reduction for Years Prior to 1996 11
Table 3-2: 1996 Source Reduction by Major Material Categories 12
Table 3-3: 1996 Source Reduction and Source Expansion Values for Subcategories of MSW 13
Table 3-4: Significant Source Reduction and Source Expansion Within MSW—1996 14
Table 3-5: Source Reduction/(Expansion) for Functional Categories—1996 15
Table 3-6: Significant Source Reduction Within MSW—1996 16
Table 3-7: Newspaper Lightweighting—1995 17
Table 3-8: Soft Drink Packaging Materials Substitution—1996 18
Table 3-9: Source Reduction/(Expansion) Values for Individual Components of MSW—1996 ... .21
Table A-l: Possible Drivers of Waste Generation Rates for MSW 68
Table A-2: R2 Values for MSW-Related Regressions for 1960 to 1994 69
Table A-3: Source Reduction Values for MSW 70
Table A-4: Source Reduction Values for MSW, MEW, and OW 71
Table A-5: Source Reduction Values for the Individual Components of MSW 72-75
Figure 2-1: Actual vs. Projected MSW Generation 6
Figure 2-2: Average Annual Percent Change in MSW Generation 7
Figure 2-3: Calculation of Source Reduction in 1996 8
Figure 4-1: Xerox Product "Closed Loop" Lifecycle Management 54
Figure A-l: The Structure of MSW and its Components 64
Figure A-2: Average Annual Percent Change in MSW, MFW, and OW Generation 65
National Source Reduction Characterization Report iii
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
source
\ 'sors, 'sors \ n. A point of origin.
reduction
\ri-'dek-shen \ n. The amount by which
something is lessened or diminished.
1.1 Why Characterize Source
Reduction?
In February 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Agenda for Action called for "a new solid waste management ethic" reflect-
ed in what has come to be referred to as the "solid waste management
hierarchy." While acknowledging variations in local conditions, the hierarchy
established a preferred order to municipal solid waste (MSW) management:
1. Source reduction (including reuse of products, grasscycling, and
onsite composting).
2. Recycling (including offsite composting).
3. Waste combustion (preferably with energy recovery) and landfilling.
In its Agenda for Action, EPA emphasized a clear preference for source reduc-
tion over all other waste management practices. The best way to manage
waste is to simply not generate it in the first place, so that it doesn't need to
be collected, treated, or disposed of. Furthermore, source reduction's benefits
greatly outweigh those of recycling, incineration, and landfilling in terms of
reducing energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and other environmental
impacts. Source reduction makes sense—both environmentally and economi-
cally.
One of the big challenges with source reduction involves trying to quantify
the results of waste prevention efforts. While recycling tonnages and landfill
or combustion input can be weighed on a scale, it is very difficult to measure
something that has not been generated in the first place.
That is why EPA developed this report. For the first time, a nationwide effort
has been made to capture the amount of waste that was not created over a cer-
tain time period. This report not only estimates the quantity of source reduc-
tion nationwide, but also looks at factors that drive waste prevention activities
such as changes in design practices, operational changes, policy trends, and
new technologies. Source reduction is addressed in terms of the MSW stream
as a whole and in major material categories (i.e., paper and paperboard, food
scraps and yard trimmings, plastics, metals, wood, glass).
definitions
Source Reduction activities reduce the
amount or toxicity of wastes before they
enter the municipal solid waste man-
agement system. Source reduction,
also known as waste prevention, occurs
before waste generation is measured.
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, such as refillable glass bot-
tles, reusable plastic food storage con-
tainers, or refurbished wood pallets.
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, institution-
al, and industrial sources. MSW does
not include sewage, hazardous wastes,
nonhazardous industrial waste, con-
struction and demolition debris, or auto-
mobile bodies.
Generation refers to the amount
(weight or volume) of materials and
products that enter the waste stream
before recycling (including offsite com-
posting), landfilling, or combustion takes
place.
Discards refer to the MSW that has not
been recycled or composted. These
discards are usually combusted or dis-
posed of in landfills, although some
MSW is littered, stored, or disposed on
site, particularly in rural areas.
Additional terms and definitions can be
found in the Glossary of this report.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 1
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.2 How Was
Source Reduction
Calculated?
What Is
Source Reduction?
Source reduction encompasses a
broad range of activities undertak-
en by private citizens, communities,
commercial establishments, institu-
tional agencies, and manufacturers
and distributors. In general, source
reduction activities include:
» Redesigning products or pack-
ages to reduce the quantity or
toxicity of the materials used, or
substituting lighter materials for
heavier ones.
» Lengthening the life of products
to postpone their disposal.
» Using packaging that reduces
product damage or spoilage.
» Reducing the amount of prod-
ucts or packages used by busi-
nesses or consumers.
» Reusing products or packages.
» Managing organic wastes such
as food scraps and yard trim-
mings through grasscycling,
backyard composting, or other
onsite alternatives to disposal.
In order to quantify and examine source reduction across the country, EPA
built this report using MSW data that the Agency has compiled and reported to
the public since 1990. For the last decade, EPA has produced a report,
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, to give overall cal-
culations of MSW generation, recycling, and disposal for all years from 1960 to
1997. MSW generation, recycling, and disposal data are given by material cate-
gories (i.e., paper, plastic, metal, wood, glass, food, and yard trimmings), as well
as by product categories (i.e., durable goods, nondurable goods, containers and
packaging, food scraps, and yard trimmings). This information has proven
invaluable for supporting MSW policy decisions and solid waste management
practices in the United States.
In order to characterize the waste that was not generated, EPA has developed a
methodology for calculating the amount of MSW source reduction occurring
in the United States on an annual basis since 1990. This base year coincides
with major source reduction policy initiatives embodied in the 1989 Agenda for
Action, as well as the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act.
This report's basic approach to measuring source reduction involves looking at
changes in waste generation, by estimating what the waste generation rate
would have been had source reduction not taken place. To do this, the method-
ology focuses on waste generation rates. EPAs methodology takes an important
departure from traditional per capita, per day units of measure, by using eco-
nomic data to understand MSW generation rates. Personal Consumption
Expenditures (PCE) are used to evaluate the reduction of waste generation rela-
tive to the real growth in consumer spending. PCE, a component of the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), is an economic measure of consumer spending. This
approach was chosen because consumer spending data correlates with historical
MSW generation. In other words, the more people spend, the more waste they
generate. PCE, therefore, can be used to predict what waste generation would
have been, had source reduction not occurred. In some cases, individual materi-
al waste streams may grow faster than the PCE rate. This is referred to as
"source expansion" and is further explained in Chapter 2 of this report.
To further clarify areas where material substitution (e.g., aluminum for glass,
paper for plastic, or vice versa) has led to source reduction or expansion, EPA
introduced the concept of "functional product groupings." This report exam-
ines products in functional categories (e.g., beverage containers used to deliver
soft drinks to consumers) so that source reduction may be considered relative to
a specific market activity, rather than on a material-specific basis.
Using this overall methodology, which quantifies source reduction by weight,
EPA is now able to characterize waste prevention both in the aggregate and by
product and material categories. Later efforts may also address material toxicity
and volume, which is important when considering the amount of landfill space
this waste would have required.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Introduction
Chapter 1
This report is based directly on tonnage data for MSW provided in the
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1991 Update (hereafter referred to as
"1997 Update") contains waste generation data for 1996; therefore source
reduction was calculated for 1996 (relative to the 1990 base year) as this was
the most recent data available.
In 1996, a total of more than 23 million tons of MSW were source reduced in
the United States. That same year, according to the 1997 Update, 209.7 mil-
lion tons of MSW were generated. Had source reduction not taken place, an
additional 11 percent of MS W generation would have required recycling,
landfilling, or combustion.
By applying the methodology mentioned above, EPA examined which com-
ponents of MSW were responsible for the 23.3 million tons of source reduc-
tion in 1996. Durable goods (e.g., appliances, furniture, tires) represented
nearly 2.2 million tons; nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers, clothing) repre-
sented nearly 3.6 million tons; containers and packaging represented 4 million
tons; and other MSW (e.g., yard trimmings, food scraps) represented 13.5
million tons.
The figures above do not mean that waste generation rates decreased for
every product within these broad categories; in fact, within each category
some items had increased waste generation rates, while the rates for other cat-
egories were less. The result was a net value of source reduction in the overall
category. Chapter 3 provides additional detail regarding areas of source
reduction and expansion in various product categories.
EPA also examined source reduction for the years covered in the 1997 Update
(1992, 1994, and 1995), relative to the base year 1990. In 1992, approximately
630,000 tons of MSW were source reduced; in 1994, more than 7.9 million
tons of MSW were source reduced; and in 1995, more than 15.8 million tons
of MSW were source reduced.
Using this data, the benefits from source reduction can now be assessed more
reliably. Product level impacts of source reduction also can be better under-
stood as a critical element of solid waste management planning and policies.
This report should ultimately help emphasize the impact of source reduction
and capture the attention of policy makers at all levels of government.
This report is an integral part and a natural extension of EPAs ongoing
efforts to track and report national developments in MSW generation. EPA
intends to add source reduction data as a permanent feature to all future
updates of the Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States
report, to create a more accurate profile of the nation's efforts to reduce
MSW
1.3 Summary of
Results
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 3
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.4 Report
Organization
Three chapters follow this introduction. Chapter 2 explains the methodology
that was used to generate all of the source reduction estimates presented in
this report. Further detail on the chosen methodology, including an explana-
tion of the significance of PCE as a predictor of waste generation, is provided.
Chapter 3 contains the final data on source reduction for the MSW stream as
a whole, as well as for its component materials and product categories. It also
provides a closer look at several materials and activities that contribute signifi-
cantly to source reduction on a national level. Data are summarized in figures
and tables throughout.
Chapter 4 describes source reduction in action, through a number of case
studies. Profiling the source reduction activities of individual organizations
helps support the numerical data presented in Chapter 3 with real world
examples. The source reduction efforts highlighted include backyard com-
posting, elimination of unnecessary packaging, lightweighting, and material
reuse.
A Glossary defines terms used in this report, and the Appendix provides
extensive detail on the empirical and statistical analysis undertaken to support
the methodology described in Chapter 2.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY
waste
\'wast\ v. To use, consume, or expend carelessly
or thoughtlessly.
prevention
\pri-'ven(t)-shan\ n. The act of keeping from
happening.
2.1 Introduction
Tlis report represents the first attempt to quantify nationwide source
•eduction. In developing a methodology for quantifying source reduc-
:ion at the national level, EPA first began by examining the historical
pattern of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation in the United States. It is
often assumed that measuring source reduction involves measuring changes in
waste generation over a period of time. While changes in waste generation
are important indicators of source reduction, they do not take into account
the variety of socioeconomic and lifestyle changes that affect the quantity of
MSW generated (e.g., changes in packaging, increased consumption of food
away from home, changes in lawn and garden care). For this reason, EPA's
methodology assumes that, without source reduction, MSW generation
would have grown from 1990 to 1996 in proportion to a driving factor such
as population or economic activity. A change in the driving factor, thus, would
change the amount of waste generated.
The impact of driving factors on MSW generation is measured by analyzing
the amount of waste generated over time relative to the driving factor. The
rate of waste generation means the amount of waste generated per unit of the
driving factor, such as per capita or per dollars spent. Source reduction is then
calculated as the difference between the projected amount of MSW generated
in 1996, and the actual amount of MSW generated in 1996.
To understand which driving factor best explains waste generation, this report
examined several factors to determine which one followed the pattern of
waste generation most closely. The following three leading candidates were
selected:
• Population: waste generated per capita.
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP): waste generated per million dollars of
economic activity.
• Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE): waste generated per million
dollars spent by consumers.
The historical pattern of changes in waste generation was found to be more
closely related to changes in consumer spending (PCE) than to changes in
GDP or population (or to other possible factors that were tested but not
selected). In addition, consumer spending's impact on MSW generation
definitions
Driving Factor refers to macroeco-
nomic developments that cause, or
drive, changes in waste generation.
Examples include increases or
decreases in population, wages, and
gross domestic product.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
refers to the total annual market value
of all final goods, services, and struc-
tures produced by labor and property
located in the United States, regard-
less of who owns the resources.
Personal Consumption
Expenditures (PCE) refers to the
amount of spending by consumers on
goods and services within the GDP. It
is the largest single component of
GDP and accounts for two-thirds of its
total output. In this report, PCE also is
often referred to more generically as
"consumer spending."
Additional terms and definitions can
be found in the Glossary of this
report.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 5
-------
Chapter 2 * Methodology
makes intuitive sense, since the products and packaging purchased by con-
sumers are ultimately discarded as MSW
Source reduction, therefore, was measured as the difference between the
amount of waste that would have been generated in 1996, if the relationship
between waste generation and consumer spending had remained the same as
it was in 1990, and the actual amount of waste generated in 1996.
Source Reduction in 1996 = Projected 1996 Waste Generation (Using 1990 Generation Rate) - Actual 1996 Waste Generation
2.2 Overview of
the Measurement
Approach
Figure 2-1: Actual vs. Projected MSW Generation
(relative to consumer spending)
260,000
240,000
220,000
LU o
w | 200,000
180,000
160,000
}1996
Source
Reduction
Figure 2-1 illustrates the approach to source reduction measurement used in
this report. The solid line represents actual waste generation over time, with
the values for 1980, 1990, and 1996. The dotted line shows the waste that
would have been generated if, beginning in 1990, the rate of waste generation
relative to consumer spending remained constant at the 1990 level while
consumer spending continued to grow. The waste generation projection for
1996 is greater than the actual amount of waste generated in 1996, reflecting
source reduction. If the waste generation rate in 1996 (relative to consumer
spending) was greater than the rate in 1990, this would reflect source
expansion.
The first step in measuring source reduction at the national level is to exam-
ine the historical pattern of MSW generation. Figure 2-2 provides a picture
of the percent changes in MSW generation from 1960 to 1996 using data
from the Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1997
Update (1997 Update). In the 1997 Update, information is only available for
certain years during the period 1960 through 1996. Data for these years are
used to develop average annual changes
in the generation of MSW. The data
show that MSW generation grew steadi-
ly from 1960 to 1994. In 1994, however,
there was a decisive downturn. It is
believed that source reduction is respon-
sible for this downturn. But how much
of an impact does source reduction make
on MSW generation?
Projected 1996 Waste Generation
Using 1990 Generation Rate
1998
2002
To quantify the amount of waste pre-
vented in a given year (i.e., source
reduction), it is necessary to consider the
amount of waste that would have been
generated if there had been no change in
the generation rate. In other words, if
people had not practiced source reduc-
tion, how much waste would have been
generated? Such an approach requires
that source reduction in a given year be
National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Methodology
Chapter 2
measured relative to a base year (1990)
and a specified driver (such as PCE).
Source reduction is calculated as the dif-
ference between the amount of waste
that would have been generated in 1996,
if the rate of generation (relative to the
driving factor) remained the same as it
was in 1990, and the actual amount of
waste generated in 1996.
It is difficult to measure what would have
happened without source reduction,
because waste generation is constantly
changing as the population and economy
change. Modifications in packaging,
increased consumption of food away
from home, changes in lawn and garden
care, and countless other socioeconomic
and lifestyle changes impact the quantity
of MSW generated. The method used in
this report to compute source reduction
captures the effects of such changes.
Figure 2-2: Average Annual Percent Change in MSW Generation
1960-1970 1970-1980
1990-1992 1992-1994
Period
To understand which driving factor impacted waste generation the most, EPA
closely examined the top three key driving factors to determine which one
followed the pattern of waste generation most closely. The key drivers are:
population (waste generated per capita), GDP (waste generated per million
dollars of economic activity), and consumer spending or PCE (waste generat-
ed per million dollars spent at the retail level).
Using population as the driving factor, a common choice in past studies,
assumes that waste generation per capita is relatively stable or predictable. In
other words, the number of people drives MSW generation and the actions of
those people are generally consistent during the period of time considered.
Using GDP, in contrast, assumes that waste generation is proportional to
overall economic activity. Similarly, the choice of consumer spending (PCE)
assumes that waste generation is driven by the activities and expenditures of
consumers. On theoretical grounds, it seems reasonable to expect that one of
the two economic measures, rather than population, represents the appropri-
ate driving factor for MSW generation. Per capita generation of MSW is not
constant over time; most waste is generated as a result of some type of eco-
nomic activity.
The link between consumer spending and MSW generation also makes intu-
itive sense, since consumer spending reflects the goods and products,
including food, and their packaging that are purchased, used, and ultimately
2.3 Selecting the
Factor Driving
Waste Generation
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 7
-------
Chapter 2
Methodology
discarded as MSW. Consumer spending has generally grown from year to
year, reflecting the increasing material well-being of the American popula-
tion. Consumer spending also is generally linked to yard trimmings waste
generation, though not as directly. Material well-being may also be reflected
in the purchase of plants, seeds, fertilizer, and water, which ultimately con-
tribute to the generation of yard waste.
For the reasons discussed, EPA's analysis determined that consumer spending
(PCE) was the factor that most accurately predicts, or drives, MSW genera-
tion. Statistical support for selecting consumer spending as the most appro-
priate driving factor also is strong. The supporting analysis for this choice can
be found in the Appendix.
This report, therefore, measured source reduction as the difference between
the projected amount of MSW generated in 1996 and the actual amount of
MSW generated in 1996. The projected amount was determined using the
1990 relationship between MSW generation and consumer spending. A com-
plete description of the measurement method used to quantify national source
reduction, including a detailed discussion of the statistical analyses undertak-
en, can be found in the Appendix.
2.4 Calculating
Source Reduction
for MSW Using
Consumer
Spending (PCE) as
the Driving Factor
With the selection of consumer spending as the driving factor, Figure 2-1 can
now be revised to show actual data from the 1997 Update on MSW genera-
tion as well as data on projected waste generation using the 1990 generation
rate. Figure 2-3 includes these data and illustrates source reduction in 1996
relative to 1990.
Figure 2-3: Calculation of Source Reduction in 1996
260,000
240,000
£ 220,000
£
LU 'o
% -D 200,000
jE 180,000
160,000
Projected 1996 Waste Generation
Using 1990 Generation Rate
232,94^3'
}
140,000
Source
Reduction
1996=
23,286
Actual
1996
Waste
Generation
Actual 1980 Waste Generation
151,640
1978
1982
1986
1990
YEAR
1994
1998
2002
8 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Methodology
Chapter 2
Table 2-1 at right explains the previous figure in more detail, including the
main steps involved in calculating source reduction in 1996.
1. The first row of the table contains
actual waste generation numbers
reported in EPA's annual MSW
characterization reports.
2. The second row is the value of real
(adjusted for inflation) consumer
spending. The data on consumer
spending (PCE) was obtained from
the 1997 Statistical Abstract of the
United States.
Table 2-1: Calculation of Source Reduction in 1996
Source Reduction
Equation Components
1990
1996
Waste Stream: Actual 205,210
Waste Generation (Thousands of Tons)
Driving Factor: Consumer Spending 4,132,200
(PCE in Millions of Dollars)
Rate: Waste Generation Rate 49.66
(Tons per Million Dollars)
Projected 1996 Waste Generation
Using 1990 Generation Rate
(Thousands of Tons)
Source Reduction in 1996
(Thousands of Tons)
3. The figures shown in the third row
are the result of dividing the values
for waste generation (the first row)
by the values for consumer spending
(second row). Specifically, for the
1990 data, 205,210 thousand tons
divided by $4,132,200 million yields
a waste generation rate of 49.66 tons per million dollars.
4. In the fourth row, using the 1990 waste generation rate obtained in step 3,
the amount of waste generated in 1996 (assuming no change in behavior
since 1990) can be projected. This value—232,946 thousand tons—is sim-
ply consumer spending in 1996 ($4,690,700 million) multiplied by the
1990 waste generation rate (49.66 tons per million dollars).
5. Row five subtracts the "Actual 1996 Waste Generation" (209,660 thou-
sand tons) from the "Projected 1996 Waste Generation Using 1990
Generation Rate" (232,946 thousand tons) to compute "Source Reduction
in 1996" (23,286 thousand tons). In words, the above calculation can be
summarized as follows:
Not Applicable
209,660
4,690,700
44.70
232,946
Not Applicable
23,286
Source Reduction in 1996 = Projected 1996 Waste Generation (Using 1990 Generation Rate) - Actual 1996 Waste Generation
= (232,946 thousand tons) - (209,660 thousand tons)
= 23,286 thousand tons
= 23 million tons
In addition to the calculation of source reduction described in Table 2-1,
which EPA preferred because of its simplicity, there is another way to
calculate MSW source reduction using the same basic method. This
alternative uses statistical rather than nonstatistical analysis. A description
of this calculation is outlined in the Appendix.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 9
-------
Chapter 2 * Methodology
To isolate which components of MSW were responsible for the 2 3 million
tons of source reduction witnessed in 1996, the average annual changes in the
waste generation rate for each product and material included in MSW were
examined. Source reduction for each was then calculated using the same
method outlined in Table 2-1. Specifically, source reduction for components
of MSW was calculated as follows:
Component Source Reduction in 1996 = Projected 1996 Component Waste Generation — Actual 1996 Component Waste
In order to determine "Projected 1996 Component Waste Generation," the
following formula was used:
Projected 1996 Component Waste Generation = 1990 Component Waste Generation •*• 1990 PCE X 1996 PCE
Chapter 3 describes the analysis applied to various product and material
categories.
10 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Chapter 3
RESULTS
sustainable
\se-'sta-ne-bel\adj. Able to be kept in existence or maintained.
resource
\ 're-,s6rs\n. Something that a country, state, etc. has and can use to
its advantage.
3.1 Introduction
Measuring of source reduction at the national level provides a use-
ful framework for setting municipal solid waste (MSW) manage-
ment goals, tracking progress toward those goals, and highlight-
ing opportunities for increased waste prevention.
This report represents the first comprehensive analysis of source reduction at
the national level. It provides an estimate of the amount of source reduction
that occurred in the United States in 1996, relative to a base year of 1990, the
first full year after EPA's adoption of the waste management hierarchy and its
emphasis to reduce, reuse, and recycle.
In this chapter, the methodology discussed in Chapter 2 will be applied to
various aspects of the waste stream, going from the general to the specific. To
recap, the first step is to look at source reduction for the overall annual waste
stream and calculate the source reduction for years previous to 1996. The
next step is to look at several major categories of products and materials
including areas of significant source reduction or source expansion. The con-
clusion of this chapter includes a list of individual components of MSW that
combine to make up the overall waste stream.
3.2 Findings
In 1996, a total of 23 million tons of MSW were source reduced. This is
equivalent to 11 percent of the 209.7 million tons of MSW generated that year.
Using the methodology shown in Table 2.1 of Chapter 2, source reduction
achievements in years previous to 1996 (Table 3-1) can now be calculated to
provide a "picture" of the year-to-year changes in source reduction over time.
Table 3-1: Source Reduction for Years Prior to 1996
Year
1992
1994
1995
1996
Source Reduction (thousand tons)
630
7,974
15,879
23,286
definitions
Source Reduction (also known
as Waste Prevention) refers to any
change in the design, manufactur-
ing, purchase, or use of materials
or products (including packaging) to
reduce their amount or toxicity
before they become MSW. Source
reduction also refers to the reuse of
products or materials.
Source Expansion refers to
increases in the rate of generation
of MSW. Source expansion is the
opposite of source reduction.
Durable Goods refers to longer
lasting goods such as major and
small appliances, furniture and fur-
nishings, carpets and rugs, and
consumer electronics.
Nondurable Goods refers to
items having a lifetime of less than
3 years, such as newspapers,
magazines, office paper, tele-
phone directories, paper towels
and tissues, paperboard, paper
plates and cups, plastic plates and
cups, and textiles.
Additional terms and definitions
can be found in the Glossary of
this report.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 11
-------
Chapter 3 * Results
Table 3-2: 1996 Source Reduction by
Major Material Categories
Waste Stream
Tons Source Reduced
in Thousands
(Based on consumer spending
and change in waste generation rate)
Durable Goods
(e.g., appliances, furniture, tires)
2,179
Nondurable Goods
(e.g., newspapers and clothing)
3,571
Containers & Packaging
(e.g., bottles and boxes)
4,002
Other MSW
(e.g., yard trimmings and food scraps)
13,534
Total Source Reduction
23,286
Applying the same methodology, the components of MSW that are responsi-
ble for the 23 million tons of source reduction in 1996 can be examined. The
results are detailed in Table 3 -2.
Within the broad categories that make up the MSW stream, some of the
individual materials experienced source reduction in 1996, while others expe-
rienced source expansion. Source expansion is the opposite of source reduc-
tion. As mentioned in Chapter 2, we use this term when there is an increase
in the rate of MSW generation rather than a decrease. Table 3-3 provides a
summary of the source reduction and source expansion values obtained for
the following subcategories of MSW: durable goods, nondurable goods, con-
tainers and packaging, and other MSW
12 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Table 3-3: 1996 Source Reduction and Source Expansion Values for
Subcategories of MSW (Thousands of Tons)
Waste Stream
Source Percent of
Reduction/ Overall MSW
(Source Source
Expansion)* Reduction
Durable Goods
Source Reduction
Source Expansion
Net Value
2,179
9.4%
Nondurable Goods
Source Reduction
Source Expansion
Net Value
3,571
15.3%
Containers and Packaging
Source Reduction
Source Expansion
Net Value
7,161
(3.159)
4,002
17.2%
Other MSW
(i.e., yard trimmings, food scraps, miscellaneous inorganics)
Source Reduction 13,534
Source Expansion
Net Value
13,534
58.1%
Total Source Reduction
Total Source Expansion
Total Net Value
29,967
(6.681)
23,286
100%
Parentheses denote negative numbers, or source expansion. Positive numbers
indicate source reduction.
As shown in Table 3-4 on page 14, 10 specific components of MSWcon-
tributed significantly to overall source reduction and expansion. Yard trim-
mings, newspapers, magazines, wood packaging, glass containers, miscella-
neous durable goods, and food scraps are each responsible for 1 million tons
or more of the total source reduction in the United States in 1996. Yard trim-
mings represent the largest individual contributor to source reduction, with
more than 11.7 million tons being source reduced in 1996.
The source reduction values for the seven significant contributors in Table
3-4 are impacted by the following factors: 1) the amount of yard trimmings in
MSW is decreasing due to the use of backyard composting, landfill bans, and
mulching lawnmowers for grasscycling; 2) newspaper use has been reduced
due to various forms of lightweighting (reductions in the weight of a
Results * Chapter 3
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 13
-------
Chapter 3 * Results
Table 3-4: Significant Source Reduction and Source Expansion Within
MSW— 1996 (Thousands of Tons)
Waste Stream
Showing Significant
Source Reduction or
Expansion
Significant Source Reduction
Yard Trimmings
Newspapers
Wood Packaging
Glass Containers
Miscellaneous Durable Goods
Food Scraps
Magazines
Total
Significant Source Expansion
Corrugated Boxes
Other Commercial Printing
Clothing and Footwear
Total
Source Reduction/
(Source Expansion)*
(Based on consumer spending and
change in waste generation rate)
11,731
2,955
2,806
2,389
2,145
1,711
1,242
24,979 **
(3,481)
(1,816)
(1 ,075)
(6,371)***
Parentheses denote negative numbers, or source expansion. Positive numbers indicate
source reduction.
The total source reduction contributed by these six materials is higher than the total net
source reduction of 23 million tons due to the offsetting effects of the source expansion
experienced by some materials. As shown in Table 3-3, net source reduction is deter-
mined by subtracting total source expansion (7 million tons) from total source reduction
(30 million tons).
* Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.
particular product); 3) source reduction of wood packaging is due to the
increasing reuse of wooden pallets in recent years; 4) glass bottles and jars are
experiencing significant source reduction as glass is being replaced with plas-
tic and other, lighter packaging materials, particularly in the soft drink indus-
try; 5) the growth of the electronics reuse market during the 1990s and the
replacement of larger, heavier computers and telephones with smaller, lighter
versions are responsible for the source reduction seen in the miscellaneous
durable goods category; and 6) food scraps have experienced source reduction
as a result of a variety of activities including backyard composting, donations
of edible food, and institutional onsite composting.
Analysis also shows that many products and materials are experiencing source
expansion, including several that are experiencing significant source expan-
14 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Table 3-5: Source Reduction/(Expansion) for
Functional Categories—1996
Product Source
Reduction/(Expansion)*
(Based on consumer spending
and change in waste generation rate)
Durable Goods
Miscellaneous Durables
Furniture/Furnishings
Major Appliances
Tires
Batteries, Lead Acid
Small Appliances
Carpets/Rugs
Subtotal
Nondurable Goods
Publications
Office Paper
Tissue Paper/Towels
Miscellaneous Nondurables
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Towels, Sheets, Pillowcases
Trash Bags
Disposable Diapers
Third Class Mail
Plates and Cups
Clothing/Footwear
Other Commercial Printing
Subtotal
Containers & Packaging
Wood Packaging
Beverage Containers
Food Containers
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping
Miscellaneous Packaging
Paper Boxes
Subtotal
Other MSW
Yard Trimmings
Food Scraps
Miscellaneous Inorganics
Subtotal
Grand Total
2,145
388
237
188
(96)
(258)
(426)
2,179**
4,581
616
380
351
289
56
25
15
(174)
(284)
(788)
(1,497)
3,571'
2,806
1,785
878
497
(34)
244
(2,174)
4,002
11,731
1,711
92
13,534**
23,286 **
Parentheses denote negative numbers, or source expansion. Positive numbers indicate
source reduction.
Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.
Results * Chapter 3
sion, such as corrugated cardboard.
This does not necessarily mean that
these materials and products are
becoming heavier, but, rather, the
use of these materials is increasing.
Corrugated cardboard boxes, for
example, have been and continue to
be lightweighted. It is probable,
however, that the explosion of cata-
log, electronic, and Internet com-
merce has greatly increased the use
of corrugated cardboard boxes for
transportation packaging to homes
and businesses. As a result, the use of
those materials or products is outpac-
ing the effects of lightweighting. It
also should be noted that in some
areas of waste management, the vol-
ume of material can be considered as,
or more, important than the weight
of the material.
Calculating source reduction based
on consumer spending and changes
in the waste generation rate also can
be applied to individual elements of
the waste stream. Care must be
taken, however, not to focus on a sin-
gle product or material whose use
might be impacted by other products
or materials. It might be more
instructive, for example, to look at
the amount of waste generated from
the delivery of soft drinks to con-
sumers via beverage containers,
rather than looking at waste from
glass, plastic, and aluminum contain-
ers individually. EPA refers to the
result of looking at multiple related
segments of the waste stream as
"functional categories." Table 3-5
shows source reduction (or expan-
sion) for these functional categories.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 15
-------
Chapter 3 * Results
3.3 Analysis of
Products and
Materials
Contributing
Significantly to
Source Reduction
Grasscycling and
Backyard Composting
Montgomery County,
Maryland. After imposing a
1994 ban on the disposal of yard
trimmings, Montgomery County,
Maryland, undertook an aggres-
sive source reduction program
targeting grasscycling, backyard
composting, and mulching. The
initiative resulted in the diversion
of 51,000 and 53,000 tons in
1994 and 1995, respectively—
nearly 50 percent of the project-
ed total yard trimmings genera-
tion. In so doing, the county
avoided a $2.5 million expansion
of its composting facilities and
averted $1 million in annual
composting costs.
For more details on this case
study and additional case stud-
ies on grasscycling and back-
yard composting see Chapter 4.
Table 3-6 below identifies the specific products and materials in MSW which
contribute significant source reduction—1 million tons or more. For each
of the specific products and materials identified, additional evidence support-
ing the prevalence of source reduction is presented below. This includes
measurements of source reduction that take into account lightweighting and
materials substitution. Lightweighting refers to reductions in the weight of a
particular product or material. Aluminum beverage cans, for example, have
become significantly lighter over time. Materials substitution refers to the
replacement of a heavier material with a lighter material. Glass soft drink bot-
tles, for instance, are being more frequently replaced by plastic. The impact
of lightweighting and materials substitution on source reduction can be cap-
tured through the use of carefully chosen driving factors. The following dis-
cussion illustrates those techniques. For selected materials, source reduction
values were obtained using driving factors more directly related to the materi-
al than consumer spending. In these cases, the alternate driving factors pre-
dicted the material's waste generation rate better than consumer spending.
As shown in Table 3-6, yard trimmings contribute significantly to overall
source reduction. Indeed, yard trimmings are by far the largest individual
contributor to source reduction. As explained in the 1997 Update, the tonnage
of yard trimmings in MSW has fallen because the number of states that have
banned yard trimmings from landfills has grown, as has the use of backyard
composting and mulching lawnmowers.
Table 3-6: Significant Source Reduction Within MSW—1996
(Thousands of Tons)
Waste Stream
Source Reduction
(Based on consumer spending
and change in waste generation rate)
Significant Source Reduction
Yard Trimmings
Newspapers
Wood Packaging
Glass Containers
Miscellaneous Durable Goods
Food Scraps
Magazines
11,731
2,955
2,806
2,389
2,145
1,711
1,242
Total
24,979*
The total source reduction contributed by these six products and materials is higher than the
total net source reduction of 23 million tons due to the offsetting effects of the source expan-
sion experienced by some materials. As shown previously in Table 3-3, net source reduction
is determined by subtracting total source expansion (7 million tons) from total source reduc-
tion (30 million tons). Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.
16 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Results * Chapter 3
Lightweighting of
Newspapers
The 1996 Update presents direct evi-
dence of lightweighting of newspa-
pers. According to the 1996 Update,
although activities influencing
newsprint source reduction vary, for
several decades there has been a trend
to reduce the "basis weight" of news-
papers (the typical thickness of the
newsprint, excluding inserts). Prior to
1974, the standard basis weight of
newspapers was 32 pounds per 3,000
square feet. In 1995, the standard basis
weight was closer to 30 pounds per
3,000 square feet. Other basis weights
of 24 pounds per 3,000 square feet or
lower were used as well. In addition to
this direct evidence, performing a prod-
uct-specific analysis on newspapers using
data on waste generated per page of
newspapers read also indicates source reduction. The number of pages read is
used as the driving factor rather than consumer spending because this factor
is a better indicator of the waste generation rate for newspapers. Table 3-7
mirrors the computation shown in Table 2-1 (page 9) determining overall
source reduction, except that the calculation of source reduction is performed
using waste generated per million pages read rather than per million dollars
spent. While the tonnage reflected is for all newspapers nationwide, the
analysis was based on data on "pages per pound" for four large regional news-
papers. The table shows a reduction in the waste generation rate (waste gen-
erated per million pages) through 1995, revealing significant source reduction
between 1990 and 1995. (The 1996 Update only provides data through 1995;
the 1991 Update does not include data on newspaper lightweighting.)
Table 3-7: Newspaper Lightweighting — 1995*
Source Reduction 1990
Equation Components
Waste Stream: Actual Newspaper 13,430
Waste Generation (Thousands of Tons)
Driving Factor: Number of Pages 2,605,420
(Millions of Pages)
Rate: Waste Generation Rate 5.2
(Tons per Million Pages)
Projected 1995 Waste Generation Not Applicable
Using 1990 Generation Rate
(Thousands of Tons)
Source Reduction in 1995 Not Applicable
(Thousands of Tons)
1995
13,140
3,101,040
4.2
15,985
2,845
* Data on newspapers is from the Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 1996 Update.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 17
-------
Chapter 3 * Results
Wooden Pallet Reuse
Pallet Repair, Inc. Pallet Repair,
Inc., of Baltimore, Maryland,
remanufactures between 8,000
and 10,000 pallets per week for
reuse. The company provides
services to repair old pallets,
manufacture pallets from used
pallets, and take apart unusable
pallets to grind up for reuse as
mulch. At a minimum, Pallet
Repair restores approximately
416,000 pallets annually, saving
5.4 million board feet of wood
and conserving nearly 60,000
cubic yards of landfill space.
Pallet Resource of North
Carolina, Inc. Pallet Resource
of North Carolina, Inc., handles
a large volume of pallets, man-
aging the collection, repair, and
reuse of more than 1.25 million
pallets per year. Pallet Resource
estimates that by diverting bro-
ken pallets from landfills, it saves
16.25 million board feet per year
and conserves more than
179,000 cubic yards of landfill
space annually.
For more details on these case
studies and other examples of
wood packaging reduction see
Chapter 4.
Wood Packaging Repair and Reuse
Wood packaging is another material that experienced significant source
reduction in 1996. This waste consists primarily of wooden pallets, which
form a large portion of transportation packaging waste. In the 1997 Update,
the analysis of waste generation for wood packaging was revised to incorpo-
rate additional information, reflecting the increasing reuse of wooden pallets.
According to the 1997 Update, this reuse caused the decline in wood waste
generation evidenced in 1997. As reuse is a form of source reduction, the
increased reuse supports the source reduction found in this report's analysis.
Materials Substitution and Lightweighting of Glass,
Plastic, and Aluminum Containers
Materials substitution has played a significant role in the source reduction of
glass bottles and jars. Glass is being replaced with plastic and other packag-
ing materials that are, on average, much lighter than glass. The result is a sig-
nificant decline in the packaging weight per unit of product manufactured.
This trend is not new; its origins predate the 1980s. Consider, for example,
soft drink containers. Using data from the 1997 Update, Table 3-8 shows that,
with a base year of 1980, the tonnage of soft drink containers source reduced
is greater than the actual tonnage of soft drink-related waste generated in
1996. Similar to previous tables, this mirrors the same method of computa-
tion except that the driving factor for the waste generation rate is more
directly related to the product. In this case, beverage consumption is used as
the driving factor in place of overall consumer spending.
Table 3-8: Soft Drink Packaging Materials Substitution
Source Reduction
Equation Components
1980
1996
Waste Stream: Actual Beverage 2,162 1,722
Packaging Waste Generation
(Thousands of Tons)
Driving Factor: Beverage Consumption 6,315,000 10,295,000
(Thousands of Gallons)
Rate: Waste Generation Rate 0.34 0.17
(Tons per Thousand Gallons)
Projected 1996 Waste Generation Not Applicable 3,524
Using 1980 Generation Rate
(Thousand of Tons)
Source Reduction in 1996
(Thousands of Tons)
Not Applicable
1,803*
" Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.
18 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Results * Chapter 3
Table 3-8 focuses on 1980 and 1996 because these are the only 2 years for
which the data required to develop the table are available. Because of the dif-
ference in base year (1980 in Table 3-8 as opposed to 1990 in Tables 3-5 and
3-9) the source reduction values in Table 3-8 are not directly comparable to
those presented in other tables. Data presented in the 1991 Update, however,
do show that glass beverage packaging per person declined nationally between
1990 and 1996. This confirms the source reduction for glass packaging found
in this report's analysis.
Reducing Miscellaneous Durable Goods
Miscellaneous durable goods is a heterogeneous category within MSW
that includes various types of consumer electronics and a number of other
items such as sports equipment. Small appliances, such as toasters and mixers,
were included in this category in the past, but since 1990 they have been
accounted for separately. In the area of consumer electronics, growth since
1990 has been dominated by personal computers and telephones. Both have
experienced weight reductions as a result of portable computers replacing
larger desktop models and cellular phones replacing larger and heavier wired
units. Perhaps more importantly, during the 1990s, the reuse market for elec-
tronics has grown, resulting in significant reuse of these valuable items.
Together, these developments confirm the source reduction found in this
report's analysis.
Reducing Durable Goods
Monsanto. In March 1997, Monsanto's production facility in Luling,
Louisiana, began leasing computer equipment from Dell Computer
Corporation in an arrangement that reduces waste for Monsanto and con-
sistently provides them with high-quality personal computer workstations.
The leasing program frees Monsanto from having to purchase replacement
electronics and provides Dell with a number of remarketing avenues, includ-
ing spare parts reclamation, sales abroad, and re-leasing to organizations
that do not need the latest technology. The waste prevented from this pro-
gram could be more than 16.5 tons annually, with computers averaging 56
pounds of materials per unit. For more details on this case study and other
examples of reducing miscellaneous durable goods see Chapter 4.
Lightweighting Packaging
Clorox Company. Recently, the
Clorox Company decided to switch
from glass to plastic bottles for both its
18-ounce barbeque sauce and its 16-
ounce salad dressing. By redesigning
and lightweighting its packaging,
Clorox eliminated nearly 15,000 tons
of glass waste annually. Clorox also
cut its shipping costs by using smaller
shipping containers and, consequent-
ly, eliminated 1,000 tons of corrugated
cardboard annually.
Procter & Gamble Corporation. The
Procter & Gamble Corporation (P&G)
redesigned the plastic bottles used for
its 32- and 48-ounce vegetable oil
containers to cut down on the amount
of plastic used. P&G changed the
containers' geometry to allow a thin-
ner layer of plastic to be used to con-
tain the same amount of oil. The
resulting bottles use 30 percent less
plastic than before, eliminating about
1,250 tons of plastic per year. In addi-
tion, by reducing storage space, the
new design requires smaller shipping
containers for transportation. This has
helped P&G cut its use of corrugated
cardboard by about 650 tons annually.
Coca-Cola Company. The Coca-Cola
Company has made significant
progress in lightweighting its alu-
minum beverage cans by reducing the
amount of raw materials used to man-
ufacture the cans. Coca-Cola has
reduced its aluminum usage in the
United States by an estimated 20,000
tons per year, primarily by shaving the
diameter of the neck on the cans.
Furthermore, the total weight of the
can itself has been reduced by 41
percent since 1963.
For more details on these case stud-
ies and other examples of materials
substitution and lightweighting see
Chapter 4.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 19
-------
Chapter 3 * Results
Food Scraps Recovery
Food scraps, including food preparation wastes and uneaten food from
households, commercial establishments, institutions, and industries, have
experienced source reduction as a result of several types of recovery activities
currently occurring across the country. Food scraps recovery methods include
donating edible food; processing discards into animal feed; rendering liquid
fats and solid meat products into cosmetics, soap, animal food, and other
products; and onsite composting, using either aerated windrows or piles,
enclosed vessels, or worms (called "vermicomposting").
Food Scraps Recovery
New York State Department of Correctional Services. A 1989 survey found
that food scraps comprised 30 percent by weight of the New York State
Department of Correctional Services' (DOCS) waste stream. In order to
reduce disposal costs, as well as comply with state waste reduction legisla-
tion, DOCS initiated a new composting program. Forty-seven of DOCS' 70
correctional facilities collected food preparation discards, leftovers, and scraps
for onsite composting in 1997. DOCS' 30 composting facilities accept from 0.5
to 4 tons of food daily, or 6,200 tons annually. Coupled with an additional 700
tons of other organic waste, this represents a 90 percent recovery rate for
food and other organic discards, which nets an annual savings of $564,200
for the state in avoided disposal costs.
For more details on this case study and other examples of food scraps recov-
ery see Chapter 4.
3.4 Source
Reduction Values
for the Individual
Components of MSW
The same methodology outlined in Chapter 2 also can be applied to individ-
ual elements of the waste stream. Table 3-9 provides a detailed breakdown of
source reduction or expansion for individual components of the waste stream.
For ease of reference and comparison, these categories mirror the categories
established in the Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States
report published by EPA. Care must be taken not to draw conclusions about a
single product or material whose use might be impacted by other products or
materials.
20 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Results * Chapter 3
Table 3-9 : Source Reduction/(Expansion) Values for Individual Components of MSW—1996
Waste Stream
by Commodity
Source Reduction/(Expansion)*
(Based on consumer
spending and change in
waste generation rate)
Waste Stream
by Commodity
Source Reduction/(Expansion)*
(Based on consumer
spending and change in
waste generation rate)
Durable Goods
Miscellaneous Durables 2,145
Furniture/Furnishings 388
Major Appliances 237
Tires 188
Batteries, Lead Acid (96)
Small Appliances (258)
Carpets/Rugs (426)
Source Reduction Subtotal for Durable Goods 2,958**
Source Expansion Subtotal for Durable Goods (779)**
Net Value Subtotal for Durable Goods 2,179**
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers 2,955
Magazines 1,242
Office Paper 616
Tissue Paper/Towels 380
Miscellaneous Nondurables 351
Other Nonpackaging Paper 289
Telephone Directories 222
Books 161
Towels, Sheets, Pillowcases 56
Trash Bags 25
Disposable Diapers 15
Plastic Plates/Cups (72)
Third-Class Mail (174)
Paper Plates/Cups (212)
Clothing/Footwear (788)
Other Commercial Printing (1,497)
Source Reduction Subtotal for Nondurable Goods 6,314 **
Source Expansion Subtotal for
Nondurable Goods (2,743)
Net Value Subtotal for Nondurable Goods 3,571
Containers and Packaging
Wood Packaging
Glass Beer/Soft Drink Bottles
Glass Food/Other Bottles & Jars
Paper Bags/Sacks
Glass Wine/Liquor Bottles
Plastic-Other Containers
Aluminum Beer/Soft Drink Cans
Steel Beer/Soft Drink Cans
Milk Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Wrapping Papers
Steel Food/Other Cans
Steel-Other Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Plastics-Other Packaging
Aluminum-Foils/Closure
Aluminum-Other Cans
Plastic Milk Bottles
Plastic Wraps
Other Paper Packaging
Plastic Soft Drink Bottles
Plastic Bags/Sacks
Folding Cartons
Corrugated Boxes
2,806
1,192
832
790
364
343
199
170
119
99
75
63
57
20
16
15
(17)
(48)
(123)
(192)
(212)
(293)
(509)
(1,765)
Source Reduction Subtotal for
Containers and Packaging 7,161 **
Source Expansion Subtotal for Packaging (3,159)
Net Value Subtotal for Containers and Packaging 4,002"
Other Components of MSW
Yard Trimmings 11,731
Food Scraps 1,711
Miscellaneous Inorganics 92
Source Reduction Subtotal for
Other MSW Components 13,534
Source Expansion Subtotal for
Other MSW Components 0
Net Value Subtotal for Other MSW Components 13,534
Source Reduction Total for MSW 29,967
Source Expansion Total for MSW (6,681)
Net Value Total for MSW 23,286
Parentheses denote negative numbers, or source expansion. Positive numbers indicate source reduction.
* Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 21
-------
-------
Chapter 4
CASE STUDIES
efficiency
\e-'fish-en-se\ n. The ability to produce the
desired effect, product, etc. with a minimum of
effort, expense, or waste.
This chapter illustrates source reduction in action. Results achieved by
the featured source reduction programs support and complement the
source reduction values presented in the previous chapter. Case studies
profiling the source reduction efforts of businesses and communities across
the country are organized into the following sections:
• Reducing Organic Waste
• Reducing Wood and Transport Packaging
• Reducing Primary Packaging
• Working With Suppliers
• Working With Customers
Each section begins with a general introduction and summary of the featured
case studies. Following the introduction, the section is divided into sub-
sections focusing on specific source reduction activities. Within each of these
subsections, several case studies are then presented. The case studies contain
information on the background, goals, implementation, and quantitative
results of the source reduction program spotlighted. Many of the companies
profiled in this report are participants in the EPA's voluntary WasteWise pro-
gram, which provides assistance to organizations in reducing their solid waste.
Additional information on this program and others can be found at the back
of this report. The information presented in each case study in this report is
current and accurate as of the fall of 1998.
4.1 Reducing Organic Waste
In 1996, organic waste comprised 85.5 percent of the nation's MSW stream,
accounting for a total of 179 million tons of the waste generated.1 A signifi-
cant portion of the national organic waste stream (e.g., newspaper, office
paper, and corrugated cardboard) is already being recovered for recycling.
One-quarter of the organic waste stream, however, can be source reduced by
one of the methods described below. The source reduction activities
described in the following case studies—grasscycling, backyard composting,
and food scraps recovery—target yard trimmings and food scraps, which
1 U.S. EPA. 1998. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 1997
Update. EPA530-R-98-007. Washington, DC. p. 163.1
terminology
Primary Packaging has direct
contact with the product it holds.
Examples include glass and plas-
tic bottles that contain beverages,
steel and aluminum cans that con-
tain food or beverages, bags that
hold chips, and paperboard that
packages food or consumer goods
such as toys.
Secondary packaging allows
products to be unitized for han-
dling and distribution, but does not
come into direct contact with the
product. Examples include a cor-
rugated paperboard tray that holds
cans of vegetables, a plastic ring
or paperboard box that unitizes
beverages cans, and a sealed
plastic bag that holds small boxes
of candies.
Transport or tertiary packaging
unitizes products (usually already
in primary and secondary packag-
ing) for shipping or distribution.
Examples include external pack-
aging materials including crates,
pallets, cartons, skids, wraps, and
totes that help contain and protect
products during shipping and
handling.
Additional terms and definitions
can be found in the Glossary of
this report.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 23
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
respectively accounted for 28 million tons and 22 million tons of waste gener-
ation in 1996. Nationally, such activities as these contribute to the source
reduction of 12.5 million tons of yard trimmings and 1.7 million tons of food
scraps each year.
The portion of the national organic waste stream available for grasscycling is
14 million tons, or 50 percent of total yard trimmings generation.2
Grasscycling is a source reduction strategy that encourages residents and
commercial and institutional establishments to leave grass clippings on the
lawn after cutting rather than bagging and setting them out for curbside col-
lection.3 Most grasscycling programs rely heavily on public education efforts
such as press releases, brochures, newspaper advertisements, and radio and
television spots. Occasionally, financial incentives also are used to either
reduce the cost of mulching lawnmowers or the equipment required to retro-
fit nonmulching mowers or, at times, to discourage the bagging of clippings
by charging a per-bag pickup fee.
Backyard composting targets a total of 19 million tons of organic waste—8
million tons of food scraps and 11 million tons of yard trimmings—generated
solely by the residential sector.4 This source reduction activity encourages res-
idents to separate specific organic materials and create their own compost
piles using backyard composting bins. Public outreach, bin subsidization, edu-
cation, and training are the key elements in creating a successful backyard
composting program.
The portion of the organic waste stream comprised of commercial and insti-
tutional food scraps—11 million tons (50 percent of total food scraps genera-
tion)—can be source-reduced via one of several food scraps recovery options.
Food discards include food preparation wastes and uneaten food from house-
holds, commercial establishments, institutions, and industries. They com-
prised 10.4 percent by weight of the total 1996 MSW stream, yet only 2.4
percent of discards were recovered that year. According to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, if just 5 percent of
the nation's consumer, retail, and food service discards were recovered, sav-
ings from reduced landfill costs alone would be about $50 million annually.5
Food scraps recovery methods include donating edible food; processing dis-
cards into animal feed; rendering liquid fats and solid meat products into cos-
metics, soap, animal food, and other products; and composting.
While composting can be done either on site or off site, there is an important
distinction. Onsite composting is a type of source reduction, through the use
of either aerated windrows or piles, enclosed vessels, or worms (called "vermi-
2 Ibid., p. 44.
3 U.S. EPA. 1998. Organic Materials Management Strategies. EPA530-R-97-003. Washington,
DC. p. 13.
4 Ibid., pp.15, 17.
5 U.S. EPA. 1998. Don't Throw Away That Food. Strategies for Record-Setting Waste
Reduction. EPA530-F-98-002. Washington, DC. p. 1.
24 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Case Studies * Chapter 4
composting"). This method enables the business or institution to take advan-
tage of the final, nutrient-rich compost. Offsite composting is considered
recycling, not source reduction, since it does not prevent organic material
from entering the municipal waste collection system. Typically it involves a
contracted hauler who transports the materials to a public or private compost-
ing facility, from where the final product is ultimately sold for profit to other
end users.
The following case studies describe a wide range of source reduction pro-
grams for grass clippings, yard trimmings, and food scraps. The programs
highlighted vary in scale, materials of focus, and people and behaviors target-
ed for change. Montgomery County, Maryland, represents a model program
for the comprehensive reduction of all three types of materials. The case
study on Pinellas County, Florida, illustrates its success in source reducing
many tons by simply leaving grass clippings on the lawn. The Commonwealth
of Massachusetts provides an example of a backyard composting program
endeavoring to reach residents statewide. Finally, food scraps recovery opera-
tions are profiled at sites ranging from state facilities to local fairgrounds to
private corporations. Recovery methods span onsite composting, donation,
and conversion to animal feed.
Montgomery County, Maryland's comprehensive source reduction program
for organics illustrates the benefits source reduction can render. In 1994,
waste composition analyses indicated that yard trimmings constituted approx-
imately 18 percent of the county's MSW stream. To conserve landfill space,
Montgomery County's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
imposed a ban on the disposal of yard trimmings and initiated weekly curb-
side collection to compost the material instead. The county's compost facility
can only handle 60,000 to 70,000 tons annually, however, which left a 35,000-
ton surplus. Having a clear need to cut the yard trimmings collected by one-
third, the county undertook an aggressive source reduction program targeting
grasscycling, backyard composting, and mulching. In so doing, Montgomery
County avoided a $2.5 million expansion of its composting facilities.
The Montgomery County DEP launched its yard trimmings source reduction
program over a 2-year period (1994 to 1995), during which it targeted
180,000 single family homes, 250 landscape and lawn service companies,
30,000 multifamily and commercial property managers, conservation groups,
homeowner associations, garden clubs, nature centers, public gardens, and
nurseries. Startup costs for the county's grasscycling campaign were $360,000
for the program's first year, when there was an intensive push to produce out-
reach materials, videos, public service announcements (PSAs), and six direct
mail pieces. (Each mailing cost the county $30,000 in postage alone!) In its
6 Personal communication with Joseph Keyser, environmental specialist, Montgomery County
Department of Environmental Protection. July 28, 1998. Eastern Research Group. Arlington,
VA.
4.1.1
Implementing
Comprehensive
Source Reduction
Montgomery County, Maryland6
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 25
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
second year, the composting and mulching initiative cost just $230,000. This
36 percent cost reduction was due to the outreach portion of the campaign
becoming relatively self-sufficient by the second year. In addition, followup
surveys at the end of the first year indicated the county already made great
progress toward its reduction goals, relieving some pressure in the second
year.
As an affluent community, Montgomery County faced an added challenge in
convincing residents to grasscycle. Seventeen percent of households hire
some form of lawncare service rather than doing their own mowing. Aware
that this could be an obstacle, the county disseminated information to regis-
tered lawncare operations to make them aware of the potential for saving 40
percent of their time by not bagging, while simultaneously eliminating their
tipping fees and allowing them to take on more clients with no added costs.
The Montgomery County DEP also provided materials for the lawncare serv-
ices to give their clients to educate them about the benefits of mulching in
terms of the health of the lawn and the reduced need for fertilizer.
In total, Montgomery County's grasscycling campaign diverts approximately
27,000 tons of grass clippings per year. This figure is even more impressive
when coupled with the 72,000 tons of carboniferous bulking materials, such
as brush, the county would have to compost along with the grass in order to
maintain a 2:1 ratio of carbon to nitrogen. Having eliminated the need to
compost yard brush, the county instead is able to collect brush separately,
grind it up, and give it away at local shopping center depots as a crude ground
cover for landscaping. According to an environmental specialist with the
Montgomery County DEP, "Residents loved the program! They couldn't get
enough of the mulch." As a result of this highly successful brush diversion
program, approximately 12,000 tons of mulch ended up in garden beds
around the community rather than filling up the county's facility in 1995.
The major thrust of the backyard composting campaign was to educate and
train residents in proper composting methods for yard trimmings via regular-
ly scheduled workshops held at locations across the county. In partnership
with the Audubon Naturalist Society, regional government service centers,
libraries, and numerous garden centers and home improvement centers,
Montgomery County sponsored more than 350 workshops, attended by
14,000 county residents, between 1994 and 1995. A strong indication of the
success of the workshops is that more than 7,000 compost bins (more than
one bin for every two participants) were sold at workshops that year. Two
years later, more than 90 percent of those bins were still in use. In fact,
Montgomery County won the National Association of Counties' 1998
Composting Award for having sold 24,000 compost bins to residents, indicat-
ing that more than 1 in 10 households have changed their behavior to adopt
backyard composting as a home source reduction measure. Overall, docu-
mented waste diversion indicates that as many as 60 percent of people in the
county participate in backyard composting.
26 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Case Studies * Chapter 4
In addition to yard trimmings diversion, the composting campaign also sepa-
rately targeted food scraps recovery. VermiLab, the county's school vermi-
composting program, encouraged the use of worms for onsite composting of
cafeteria scraps. VermiLab provided worm boxes, which were set up in the
central courtyards of 12 schools and more than 100 public and private ele-
mentary, middle, and high schools; trained faculty in more than 150 class-
rooms; developed a composting curriculum for grades K through 12; and cre-
ated the Digger the Worm cartoon character and 7-foot-tall mascot to appeal
to the interests of young students. Volunteer students recorded the weight of
food scraps collected each day before adding them to the worm boxes. In
total, students recorded 3 tons of vermicomposted cafeteria scraps across the
county. Additionally, by educating 10,000 students per year about vermicom-
posting, the VermiLab program has inspired 1,000 households in the county
to set up worm boxes for their own food scraps.
Montgomery County's combined outreach efforts to promote grasscycling,
mulching, backyard composting, and vermicomposting amounted to impres-
sive source reduction results. Quarterly waste composition samplings con-
ducted before, during, and after program implementation indicated that
51,000 tons and 53,000 tons—nearly 50 percent of the projected total yard
trimmings generation—were grasscycled or backyard composted in 1994 and
1995, respectively. By source reducing approximately 50,000 tons of com-
postable materials annually, Montgomery County saves almost Si million in
processing costs. Pre- and postsurvey data also indicated program success,
with an increase from 59 percent to 70 percent in the grasscycling rate and
from 43 percent to 60 percent in the residential composting of yard trim-
mings.
By reducing yard trimmings and food scraps at the source, Montgomery
County's grasscycling and composting initiatives successfully eliminated the
need to expand the county composting facility as a result of the landfill ban.
This accomplishment saved $2.5 million in building expenses and Si million
in averted annual composting costs. The source reduction program also had a
dramatically lower dollars-per-ton cost than that of recycling or disposal.
Montgomery County's environmental specialist in charge of source reduction
shared his recommendations for implementing a successful source reduction
program. First, he emphasized it is extremely useful to conduct a baseline sur-
vey to find out what people's current practices and motivations are in order to
hone your message appropriately as you develop your campaign strategy.
Followup surveys both during and after the campaign also are helpful in
determining how effective different outreach tactics are and have been.
Finally, he advised building partnerships with local nonprofit organizations,
utility companies, newspapers, garden and retail centers, and other interested
factions. In doing so, you can disseminate your message to more people and
can greatly reduce the costs of outreach efforts.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 27
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
4.1.2
Grasscycling
Pinellas County, Florida
In a study conducted from 1990 to 1993, Pinellas County, Florida's Depart-
ment of Solid Waste Management documented the benefits and waste diver-
sion capacity of grasscycling based on the participation of 200 volunteer resi-
dents each year. In return, participants received T-shirts and free fertilizer.
Surveys completed after the project's close indicated that residents who grass-
cycled felt their lawns looked healthier, spent less time mowing, and actually
used less fertilizer.7 To promote grasscycling in the community, Pinellas
County gave out bumper stickers and lawn signs to establishments that left
grass clippings on their lawns. In addition, the county distributed brochures
to nurseries and landscaping companies and produced two 30-minute video
programs that aired on the University of Florida's public access channel.8 An
annual telephone survey, which polls 500 randomly selected households that
have resided in the county for at least 1 year, revealed in 1993 that 61 percent
of residents engaged in grasscycling—a 41 percent increase from 1990. Based
on an average yard size of 5,000 square feet and an average generation of
roughly 1,500 pounds of grass clippings per yard per year, the 1997 telephone
survey found that 51,227 tons of clippings were diverted through grasscycling
that year by approximately 70,000 participating households.9
4.1.3 Backyard
Composting
Commonwealth of Massachusetts10
Massachusetts imposed landfill disposal bans on yard trimmings and grass
clippings in addition to the municipal leaf and grass composting programs it
already had in place. To encourage residents to source reduce by using back-
yard composting, rather than send yard trimmings for offsite composting at a
municipal facility, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MADEP) has conducted home composting coordinator training
programs since 1991. Workshops are held each year in the spring and fall to
educate the general public and to enlist volunteer home composting coordi-
nators. A core of more than 300 trained coordinators present workshops in
their communities, set up demonstration sites with materials supplied by
MADEP, distribute compost bins, and serve as local sources of composting
information.
MADEP has provided home composting bins and educational materials to
225 communities since 1994 through a state-subsidized grant program. An
estimated 78,000 bins were distributed by 1997, reducing disposal by approxi-
mately 30,000 tons per year. MADEP also sponsors the "Don't Trash Grass"
program that encourages residents to grasscycle. The program is supported
Center for Policy Alternatives. 1996. Source Reduction Roundtable II. Tools for State and
Local Programs. Washington, DC. pp. 32-33.
! U.S. EPA. 1998. Organic Materials Management Strategies. EPA530-R-97-003. Washington,
DC. p. 13.
' Personal communication with Rebecca Stone, recycling coordinator, Pinellas County
Department of Solid Waste Management. August 10, 1998. Eastern Research Group.
Arlington, VA.
10 U.S. EPA. 1998. State Source Reduction Report. Appendix C: State Source Reduction Fact
Sheets. Washington, DC.
28 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
by workshops and the dissemination of printed materials, videos, and print
and radio PSAs.
Case Studies * Chapter 4
A 1989 survey found that food scraps comprised 30 percent by weight of the
New York State Department of Correctional Services' (DOCS) waste stream.
In order to reduce disposal costs, as well as comply with state waste reduction
legislation, the department initiated a new composting program. Forty-seven
of DOCS' 70 correctional facilities collected food scraps for onsite compost-
ing in 1997. These participating facilities prepare approximately 125,000
meals a day for an average of 1,000 inmates per facility. Kitchen workers put
food preparation discards in unlined plastic containers and inmates deposit
leftovers in collection containers in dining halls. Full containers are refriger-
ated until inmates transport them to DOCS' onsite composting facilities three
or four times a week. At the composting sites, the food scraps are mixed with
bulking material and composted in windrows. Staff at each site train inmates
in composting procedures; well-trained staff and inmates who are invested in
the program keep contamination to a minimum. DOCS' 30 composting facil-
ities accept from 0.5 to 4 tons of food daily, or 6,200 tons annually. Coupled
with an additional 700 tons of other organic waste, this represents a 90 per-
cent recovery rate for food and other organic discards, which nets an annual
savings of $564,200 for the state in avoided disposal costs. In addition,
kitchen staff separately collect large bones and liquid fat in 30- to 50-gallon
barrels provided by a rendering company that retrieves them every 2 weeks
free of charge and then processes the materials for manufacture into cosmet-
ics and soaps.
4.1.4 Food Scraps
Recovery11
New York State Department of
Correctional Services
The Frost Valley YMCA, a 6,000-acre residential educational and recreational
facility in the Catskill Mountains (Claryville, New York), has achieved total
onsite composting of the food discards from its kitchen and dining room.
When a waste assessment in the late 1980s found food to be the greatest
component of the waste stream, Frost Valley began to take steps to imple-
ment a static aerobic composting system. Since 1990, the camp's kitchen staff
have been collecting all of their food preparation scraps, meat, bones, and
paper towels, while guests deposit their leftovers in an unlined can in the din-
ing room. Staff stationed in the dining room during meals educate guests and
assist them with proper food recovery procedures. Eventually, the collected
food discards are added to a standard feed mixer along with Frost Valley's
other organic waste (including yard trimmings and horse manure), mixed with
an equal amount of wood chips (which act as a bulking agent), and finally
windrow-composted on site after the materials have begun to break down.
Frost Valley uses the finished compost in landscaping and gardening projects
Frost Valley YMCA
U.S. EPA. 1998. Don't Throw Away That Food. Strategies for Record-Setting Waste
Reduction. EPA530-F-98-002. Washington, DC.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 29
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
and in its onsite greenhouse, which demonstrates the benefits of composting
to the thousands of visitors that participate in the YMCA's waste reduction
education program every year. In 1997, the facility recovered an estimated 80
tons of food and other organic discards—100 percent of its estimated genera-
tion! Frost Valley realizes a net savings of $5,200 annually as a result.
Del Mar Fairgrounds
Since January 1997, this California fairgrounds has vermicomposted fruit and
vegetable scraps from the facility's kitchen on site. When scraps are a few days
old, staff feed the partially decayed food to worms in a framed wooden box.
The finished worm compost, or castings, is used as fertilizer on Del Mar
Fairgrounds. In total, the worms processed more than 6 tons of food discards
in 1997. Every ton composted saves the fairgrounds $40 to $47 in avoided
disposal costs. Startup costs were under $500, including the cost of purchas-
ing 25 pounds of worms. In 1998, Del Mar Fairgrounds expanded the scale of
its vermicomposting operation with the purchase of two more worm boxes.
New College/University of South
Florida at Sarasota
New College reported composting more than 2 tons of food scraps on site in
1997. While conducting a cafeteria waste audit prior to implementation of
the composting program, the college's resource conservation coordinator "was
amazed to see how much perfectly good food [was thrown] away each day"12
Since then, the college has forged a partnership with the Salvation Army
whose food service director collects roughly 10 gallons of prepared food every
afternoon, feeding approximately 100 people. This amounts to 10 tons of
food donated instead of disposed of every year.13
This St. Paul, Minnesota, diversified manufacturing company prepares thou-
sands of meals daily for 12,000 employees at its headquarters' food services
operation. Disposal of the food preparation waste was a messy and costly
endeavor, however, so the company began to explore creative disposal solu-
tions. An environmental consultant helped 3M locate a family farming opera-
tion experienced in collecting and converting reclaimed food to animal feed.
To increase understanding between the groups, farm employees toured 3M's
food services operation, and 3M employees visited the farm. This exchange
proved key in preventing contamination because food service employees rec-
ognized the importance of keeping paper, glass, and metal from mixing with
the food scraps. In the program's first 2 years, 3M diverted 45 tons of food
scraps and edible oils and saved more than $30,000.
" U.S. EPA. 1997. WasteWise Update: Donation Programs—Turning Trash into Treasure.
EPA530-N-97-005. Washington, DC. p. 8.
' U.S. EPA. 1993. Business Guide for Reducing Solid Waste. Appendix D. EPA530-K-92-004.
Washington, DC. p. 36.
'U.S. EPA WasteWise. 1996. Managing Food Scraps as Animal Feed. Washington, DC. p. 4.
30 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Single-use wooden pallets and other transport packaging can contribute sig-
nificantly to the amount of waste businesses generate. Transport packaging
includes cartons, crates, pallets, skids, wraps, and totes used to ship products
and materials to the marketplace, customers, and between facilities.
Businesses can reduce costs, improve efficiency, conserve resources, and elimi-
nate waste by implementing programs to reduce or reuse their transport
packaging. Specific strategies to preserve wooden pallets and other transport
packaging include remanufacture and repair of wooden pallets or switching to
reusable transport packaging.
In 1996, wood packaging was source reduced by more than 3.3 million tons,
making it one of the major components of MSW experiencing source reduc-
tion. Wood transport packaging includes both wooden crates and pallets,
although pallets represent the majority of this category. In 1997, it is estimat-
ed that 18.87 million tons of wood pallets and other wood packaging were
generated, or 9 percent of total MSW generation. Pallet reuse and pallet and
container retrieval and recovery systems are the fastest growing segment of
the transport packaging industry. According to a 1995 Virginia Tech study,
nearly 171.1 million pallets—representing more than 3 million tons of wood
packaging—were estimated to be refurbished and returned to service.15 The
study estimates that, annually, fewer than 1.5 million (less than 1 percent of
the total) of the pallets recovered by the pallet remanufacturing industry are
sent to landfills.
The 1997 Modern Materials Handling Pallet User Survey conducted by the
National Wooden Pallet and Container Association (NWPCA) indicates that
1 out of every 5 pallet users took advantage of reuse and recovery systems
compared to only 1 out of every 14 pallet users just 2 years earlier. The sur-
vey also indicates that nearly 80 percent of pallet users reuse their pallets
more than one time, and 25 percent might use pallets more than 20 times.
Switching to reusable transport packaging is another excellent source reduc-
tion strategy that results in significant cost savings. By reusing a durable con-
tainer or pallet, businesses avoid the cost of purchasing single-use transport
packaging.
The following case studies represent a range of source reduction programs
focusing on wood and transport packaging reductions. The first set of case
studies on Pallet Repair, Inc., Pallet Resource of North Carolina, and
Pennsylvania Power and Light highlight examples of pallet remanufacturing
or repair operations and partnerships. The second set of case studies demon-
strate how three companies, Alpine Windows, Home Depot, and Schlegel
Systems, Inc., successfully reduced significant amounts of transport packaging
waste by switching to reusable packaging.
Case Studies * Chapter 4
4.2 Reducing
Wood and
Transport
Packaging
Virginia Tech. 1995. Recycling in the U.S. Pallet Industry: 1995. Blacksburg, VA.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 31
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
4.2.1
Remanufacturing or
Repairing Wooden
Pallets
Pallet Repair, Inc."
Pallet Repair, Inc., is a medium-sized wooden pallet repair company located
in Baltimore, Maryland, that provides approximately 2 5 jobs. The business
remanufactures between 8,000 and 10,000 pallets per week for reuse. At a
minimum, Pallet Repair repairs approximately 416,000 pallets annually, sav-
ing 5.4 million board feet of wood and conserving nearly 60,000 cubic yards
of landfill space.17 The company provides services to repair old pallets, manu-
facture pallets from used pallets, and takes apart unusable pallets to grind up
for reuse as mulch. Pallet Repair strives to be a "closed-loop" business by sell-
ing many of its rebuilt pallets to customers that supply it with used pallets. In
addition, Pallet Repair does not landfill any of the used pallets it purchases on
the open market or receives from its customers.
Pallet Repair believes the voluntary programs to encourage waste reduction
and the cost savings attributed to the reuse of pallets helped its business flour-
ish. In 1989, Pallet Repair operated out of a 15,000-square-foot warehouse
equipped with only two loading docks. Pallet Repair relocated several times
to expand its storage and operations both internally and externally. The com-
pany currently occupies 5 acres with a 25,000-square-foot warehouse, enough
storage space for more than 100,000 pallets at one time. The expansion
helped sales increase by approximately 30 percent annually.
Pallet Repair initiated a closed-loop business after building up a strong cus-
tomer base of large companies with needs for both a supplier of large volumes
of pallets and a reclamation method once they were used. Pallet Repair
encouraged its customers to participate in its closed-loop process by offering
to pick up used pallets free of charge if the customer committed to purchas-
ing the remanufactured pallets from the company. Pallet Repair also guaran-
teed that no pallets would ever be sent to the landfill; pallets that cannot be
remanufactured, or approximately 15 percent of all used pallets, are sent to a
contractor for mulching. Pallet Repair contracts primarily with large manu-
facturers including companies such as Lever Brothers, McCormick Spice,
Beverage Capital, and Chesapeake Fiber, Inc. For these customers, Pallet
Repair provides onsite trailers to load and store wooden pallets until they can
be picked up for remanufacturing. Pallet Repair acknowledges it must still
purchase some pallets from the open market to support business demand, but
the services it provides to major customers help contribute to the success of
its closed-loop business. In addition, Pallet Repair believes its guarantee of
high-quality service to its customers and entering the market at a time when
remanufactured pallets were becoming increasingly popular helped the busi-
ness expand throughout the region.
' Personal communication with a Pallet Repair representative. June 30, 1998. Eastern
Research Group. Arlington, VA.
Calculations obtained from Mr. Phil Araman, U.S. Forest Service.
1 pallet = 13 board feet; 416,000 pallets x 13 board feet/pallet = 5,408,000 board feet
7 pallets = 1 yd3; 416,000 pallets/ 7 pallets/yd3 = 59,428 yd3
32 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Case Studies * Chapter 4
A major barrier to the success of pallet remanufacturing is the perception that
remanufactured pallets are not as good as new ones. Used pallets appear gray
and some customers perceive that they are of lower quality. Other companies
demand pallets that meet specific quality standards in order to be capable of
transporting products. Pallet Repair affiliates with NWPCA, which constantly
strives to resolve these issues by setting quality standards that help increase
the reliability and success of the pallet remanufacturing industry. Pallet Repair
strongly believes that through the influence of NWPCA, pallet reuse will
continue to grow and significantly contribute to the source reduction of wood
waste and keep pallets completely out of the landfill.
Pallet Resource of North Carolina is a major operation serving more than
250 industrial customers and bringing in annual revenues of more than $6
million. Pallet Resource handles a large volume of pallets, managing the col-
lection, repair, and reuse of more than 1.25 million pallets per year. The rea-
son it is able to manage such a large volume is because it accommodates virtu-
ally any need the customer might have for managing their used pallets and
will accept all pallet sizes and types. Pallet Resource accepts all broken or
used wooden pallets, with nearly 65 percent of the pallets received able to be
repaired for reuse. The remaining unusable pallets are either disassembled for
reusable components or pulverized into wood fiber for end use as animal bed-
ding, mulch, or playground cushion materials. No pallets are sent to landfills
for disposal. Pallet Resource estimates that by diverting broken pallets from
landfills, it saves 16.25 million board feet of wood per year and conserves
more than 179,000 cubic yards of landfill space.19
Pallet Resource started its operation in 1985 and its facilities occupy 21 acres
of land, including six buildings with more than 50,000 square feet of storage
and operation space. Its incoming pallets are manually sorted by size and con-
dition. Repairable pallets are fixed and returned to the customer. Pallets that
cannot be repaired are disassembled to obtain reusable components. Salvaged
boards are cut to acceptable lengths and later utilized to create customized
pallets that are not readily available in other markets. Customized pallets have
a twofold benefit—they reduce costs for buyers and save virgin resources.
Pallets that cannot be reused are pulverized in a hammermill to produce
wood fiber that is reused as a different commodity such as animal bedding or
mulch.
Depending upon their quality, Pallet Resource might purchase used pallets
from businesses for repair and remanufacturing purposes. If pallets are in
18 Institute for Local Self-Reliance. 1997. Sustaining Businesses & Jobs Through Pallet
Repair & Reuse. Washington, DC.
19
Calculations obtained from Mr. Phil Araman, U.S. Forest Service.
1 pallet = 13 board feet; 1,250,000 pallets x 13 board feet/pallet = 16,250,000 board feet
7 pallets = 1 yd3; 1,250,000 pallets/ 7 pallets/yd3 = 178,570 yd3
Pallet Resource of
North Carolina, Inc.18
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 33
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
Pennsylvania Power and Light
Company, Inc. (PP&.L)
poor condition, however, Pallet Resource can charge a significant handling
fee, depending on the quantity of pallets it transports to its location. Pallet
Resource obtains its pallets from retail food and grocery distribution centers,
retail home improvement centers, and bulk mail and packaging distribution
centers, primarily located within central North Carolina. Pallet Resource's
fleet of 110 flat and van type trailers backhaul pallets, which are collected as
refurbished pallets are dropped off. Others are purchased from smaller busi-
nesses that deliver the pallets to Pallet Resource.
Pallet Resource's marketing strategy helps their business grow. By providing
full service pallet collection, repair, and reuse, they continue to obtain and
retain more customers every year. In addition, both the increased remanufac-
turing of pallets and the rising raw material prices to create new pallets help
guarantee a strong market. Pallet Resource noted that although more pallets
are currently remanufactured, the percentage of pallets that can be repaired
and resold has declined recently. Since pallets are repaired more times, the
pallets received are often in worse overall condition, making it more difficult
to remanufacture them for reuse. A greater percentage of pallets are disassem-
bled for components or sent for mulching. Pallet Resource views this as a
positive change, however, because it still continues to reduce the demand for
new lumber to be used in the pallet manufacturing industry.
PP&L, Inc. provides electrical delivery throughout a 10,000-square-mile area,
supplying electricity to more than 1.2 million customers. One of PP&L, Inc.'s
corporate objectives is to achieve at least Si million in savings annually
through waste prevention activities. To help achieve this goal, PP&L, Inc.
implemented initiatives to reduce pallet purchases by nearly 100 tons.
PP&L, Inc. achieved reductions in its use of wooden pallets by working with
vendors on the quality of their pallets to improve the potential for internally
reusing them. PP&L, Inc., for example, had not previously been purchasing
standard sizes that could be remanufactured easily. It began requesting stan-
dard sizes for purchase and also bought pallets made of hardwood materials to
increase their longevity. It discouraged its purchasing department from
acquiring specialty or one-time use pallets. PP&L, Inc. attempts to reuse pal-
lets wherever feasible and allows employees to take home excess pallets to
create compost bins and for other personal uses. It publishes a list of pallet
refurbishers and mulching facilities to avoid sending these materials to the
landfill.
PP&L, Inc.'s successful reuse program for wooden pallets can be attributed to
its strong commitment to the environment, both from management and the
effort of its employees. PP&L, Inc.'s Corporate Environmental Policy
Committee consists of management representatives that review their compa-
Power Industry. EPA530-R-97-017. Washington, DC.
34 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
ny's environmental direction and set policy. The committee's goal is to devel-
op a cultural attitude for environmental responsibility equivalent to that of
safety, quality, and productivity. PP&L, Inc. also has launched a "Taking Care
of the Future Today" campaign with the message that good corporate envi-
ronmental performance comes from the actions and decisions made each day
by employees.
Case Studies * Chapter 4
Established in 1973, Alpine Windows is located in Bothell, Washington, and
employs approximately 400 people, making it one of the largest window man-
ufacturers in the Northwest. Alpine manufactures vinyl windows for contrac-
tors, manufactured home builders, and home owners. To reduce its packaging
waste and improve packaging and handling efficiency, Alpine Windows modi-
fied its process for shipping window glass by switching from wood crates to
"glass packs," a process that uses only a special truck, slings, and tarps. The
switch to glass packs saves the company more than $265,000 annually and
eliminates the need for wooden crates.
The opportunity to eliminate crates became apparent when Alpine adopted
new technology for feeding individual sheets of glass into the glass cutter.
Previously, whole crates were removed from the flatbed truck by forklift and
placed on a cart for transport to the production area, where the crate was
opened and sheets were picked up one at a time by suction cups and placed
on the feeder.
The new feeder method permits the glass supplier to load uncrated packs of
glass against an A-frame structure on a flatbed truck, covering the packs with
tarps and securing the load with tie-downs. At Alpine, these uncrated packs
are unloaded by a forklift rigged with a boom and nylon web slings. Packs are
placed on a trolley rigged with an A-frame and moved to the production area,
where individual sheets of glass are peeled from the pack and fall onto the
feeder table. Under this "free-fall" system, air pressure slows the fall rate of
the glass, preventing it from breaking.
The slings for the new system cost $2 50 each, but are reusable for more than
a year. Alpine also invested about $400,000 in the new free-fall system, but it
has a service life of 20 years. Previously, Alpine purchased 12 to 24 wooden
crates daily at a cost of 50 dollars each. Now Alpine avoids their use and dis-
posal completely, eliminating the need for thousands of crates and saving
$230,000 annually. Since the company now receives uncrated packs of glass,
they are able to obtain 50 percent more sheets of glass than the same number
of crated packs. Restock time is thus cut by a very significant amount. Alpine
estimates the annual labor savings is an additional $35,000.
Both employees and customers responded enthusiastically to the switch to
glass packs for shipping. Employees noted the improvement in operational
21 Indiana Institute on Recycling. 1996. Case Study 9606. Indiana University, Terre Haute, IN.
4.2.2 Substituting
Materials for
Transport Packaging
Alpine Windows"
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 35
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
Home Depot"
efficiency because loading glass onto the cutting tables was much easier with
the new method and made the cutting process about 10 to 15 percent faster.
Customers responded to Alpine's competitive prices, which are a reflection of
the reduced costs and increased efficiency of the packaging and handling
changes. Clearly, Alpine's strategic switch has been beneficial not only for the
competitiveness of the company, but also to conserve precious raw materials
and protect the environment.
Home Depot opened its doors for business in 1978. Now, with more than
700 stores, the company is the largest home improvement retailer in the
United States. In early 1995, Home Depot sent letters to its vendors intro-
ducing the option to ship products to their stores using slip sheets weighing 3
pounds instead of wooden pallets weighing 40 pounds. A slip sheet is a solid
sheet of fiberboard, corrugated board, or high-density plastic upon which
freight is placed and stabilized with stretch wrap, glue, or tape. Slip sheets
have short panels extending beyond one or more sides that are used for han-
dling and moving the freight.
Before Home Depot began accepting shipments using slip sheets, more than
40 percent of the company's incoming shipments were delivered on wood pal-
lets. The Home Depot distribution network favored switching materials,
because the company does not have a system to return pallets to vendors. Slip
sheets did not work for all vendors because their products were too heavy or
awkward, but the company's logistics department estimated that about 55 per-
cent of Home Depot's shipments could be handled with slip sheets. Home
Depot saved an estimated $2 million and eliminated 36,000 tons of wood
from its waste stream during the first year the program was implemented.
Before implementing this new program, Home Depot conducted a cost
analysis of slip sheets versus pallets for an average vendor. Slip sheets aver-
aged $3.70 per unit compared to pallets at S6.00 per unit. By making the
switch, Home Depot eliminated the need for more than 1.8 million pallets
(36,000 tons) in retail operations, saving more than $660,000 in disposal and
handling costs for the wood. They also avoided freight costs of $2.4 million,
including savings to vendors that reduced the weight of their shipments or
had the ability to ship additional products on each trailer. In addition, Home
Depot either reuses the slip sheets internally or sends them back to be
reground and recycled into new slip sheets, so the disposal impact of the slip
sheets is negligible.
Home Depot leases about $2 million worth of equipment from Cascade, a
firm that manufactures push/pull attachments for slip sheet handling that fit
onto a forklift. This cost, however, is not entirely attributable to slip sheets;
the attachments can be used for handling wood pallets as well. Each distribu-
National Recycling Coalition. 1997. Case Studies in Source-Reduced and Reusable
Transport Packaging. Alexandria, VA.
36 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Case Studies * Chapter 4
tion center and Home Depot retail store needs at least one push/pull attach-
ment. Home Depot must also still manage a great number of wood pallets. At
most locations, the retailer has found a pallet reuse and repair business to
remove the pallets. The reduction in pallet storage requirements, however,
has helped Home Depot increase its warehouse product storage capacity by
10 percent. Home Depot's use of slip sheets has also led to improved trans-
port efficiency due to less weight and more efficient use of truck space.
Schlegel Systems, Inc. switched from corrugated and wooden gaylord ship-
ping containers to reusable plastic folding gaylord containers as part of a cost
savings project with one of its plastic resin suppliers. The switch eliminated
approximately 30,000 pounds of corrugated and wood packaging annually. In
addition, the supplier saved money on packaging and passed that savings
along to Schlegel in the form of a raw material price reduction. Since the
plastic containers fold for easy storage, Schlegel also conserves valuable ware-
house space.
Schlegel also uses folding returnable plastic containers as part of an ongoing
source reduction project with Xerox. The company had been using corrugat-
ed boxes to ship parts to Xerox. By switching to reusable containers, the
amount of corrugated used has been reduced by thousands of pounds.
Schlegel's changes have not only been beneficial for their company but also
for their supplier, their customers, and the environment.
Schlegel Systems, Inc.:
According to the 1997 Update, the many products made or packaged with
paper and paperboard comprise the largest component of MSW. Total gener-
ation of paper and paperboard in MSW has grown steadily from 30 million
tons in 1960 to 79.9 million tons in 1997. The percentage has varied over
time, but increased to 38.1 percent of total MSW generation in 1997. The
following case studies examine source reduction activities that focus on pri-
mary packaging, which includes all packaging that directly covers or protects
a product and is not specifically used for transporting the product. Primary
packaging, for example, includes cans, bottles, and boxes, but excludes corru-
gated boxes and wood packaging generally used to contain and transport
products already packaged. Approximately 3.1 million tons of packaging
materials (excluding corrugated boxes and wood packaging) were source
reduced in 1996.
Long-held production and marketing practices often specify the use of more
primary packaging than is actually needed to protect and preserve a product.
Recognizing this, many organizations are taking a second look at the product
packaging they generate. By establishing in-house teams and working with
educing
Primary Packaging
Schlegel Systems, Inc. WasteWise Awards Application. 1997.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 37
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
suppliers, organizations can eliminate unnecessary packaging, switch to
reusable packaging, or examine methods to lightweight, redesign, or substi-
tute packaging without sacrificing product safety or quality.
Plastics are a small but visible portion of the waste stream often used as pri-
mary packaging materials. As a percentage of MSW generation, plastics con-
stituted less than 1 percent by weight in 1960, increasing to 9.4 percent in
1997. A common materials substitution practice involves using plastic to
replace glass in beverage packaging. Plastic resins are now used for a variety
of beverage containers such as soft drink bottles and milk and water jugs.
This increased use of plastic bottles to replace glass bottles, however, is one of
the underlying factors behind the source expansion occurring for plastic soft
drink and milk bottles. The waste streams for plastic soft drink bottles and
plastic milk bottles increased by 209,000 and 56,000 tons, respectively, in
1996. Other types of plastic packaging, including bags, sacks, and wraps, also
experienced source expansion in 1996—309,000 tons for bags and sacks and
4,000 tons for wraps. The following case studies, however, provide evidence
of specific cases where source reduction is occurring for these materials.
Another common beverage container, the aluminum can, has undergone sig-
nificant redesign and lightweighting to reduce the amount of aluminum
required for packaging. According to the Can Manufacturers Institute, nearly
80 percent of all single-serving beverages are packaged in aluminum cans
today. In 1996, there were 99 billion cans sold to the beverage industry. The
Can Manufacturers Institute also reports that consumption per person of
these beverages has grown from 76 gallons per year to 96 gallons per year, or
28 percent, since 1980. Since consumers show a strong preference for alu-
minum cans, the beverage industry has continuously analyzed ways to light-
weight cans and reduce the cost of packaging its products. In fact, even
though consumption of beverages has increased, packaging of beverages on a
per person basis has actually decreased from 101 pounds per year to 93
pounds per year, or 7.5 percent since 1980.
The following case studies represent a range of source reduction programs
focusing on packaging reductions. Businesses and governments alike have suc-
cessfully reduced significant amounts of waste using these strategies. The
Clorox Company, the Coca-Cola Company, Federal Express Corporation,
and Procter & Gamble Corporation prevented waste by lightweighting or
redesigning packaging. Warner-Lambert Corporation eliminated unnecessary
packaging for its products. Dunn County, Wisconsin, switched to reusable
packaging in order to eliminate waste and save money.
38 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Case Studies * Chapter 4
While Clorox is most known for its laundry additives and cleaning products,
it also manufactures such merchandise as automotive protective products, cat
litter, dressings and sauces, and water filtration products. With such a large
and varied operation, Clorox continually seeks ways to eliminate extraneous
costs by cutting waste wherever possible. Recently, Clorox decided to switch
from glass to plastic bottles for both its 18-ounce barbeque sauce and its 16-
ounce salad dressing. By redesigning and lightweighting its packaging, Clorox
eliminated nearly 15,000 tons of glass waste annually. The new polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) bottles weigh 85 percent less than the old glass bottles.
Initially, Clorox began considering the switch from glass to plastic in order to
reduce production costs and increase resource efficiency. Clorox had already
converted its larger size barbeque sauce and salad dressing bottles to plastic
containers. Larger containers have less surface area in contact with the prod-
ucts so it is easier to use more permeable plastic material to package them and
still maintain product quality. Clorox needed to ensure that when plastic con-
tainers were used, they would still provide an acceptable shelf life for the
product. In addition, Clorox had to fine-tune its filling lines and make other
manufacturing changes for plastic containers to be used. Ultimately Clorox
modified its entire manufacturing and shipment process. The switch from
glass to plastic produced substantial cost savings including cutting shipping
costs by using smaller shipping containers and consequently eliminating 1,000
tons of corrugated cardboard annually.
Clorox discovered another immediate benefit of its switch—consumers
showed a stronger preference for the product when packaged in plastic rather
than glass. Clorox's products became a better value to the customer because
its source reduction initiative not only cut waste but also reduced the cost of
shipping, which ultimately avoids price increases to the customer. Although
sales figures are not released, Clorox notes that it significantly increased its
market share. Clorox is satisfied with the major switch made for its salad
dressings and barbeque sauces but also finds that there will be fewer opportu-
nities to reduce packaging in the future. Most packaging will be source
reduced 1 gram at a time, but Clorox considers it worthwhile because so
many products are sold that the amount of waste reduced is significant.
4.3.1 Lightweighting
and/or Redesigning
Primary Packaging
The Clorox Company2'
Through the years, the Coca-Cola Company has significantly reduced the
amount of raw materials needed to produce its packaging through light-
weighting and redesign initiatives. The glass bottles, aluminum cans, and
plastic bottles used by the company today have been reduced from their origi-
The Coca-Cola Company21
Personal communication with a Clorox Company representative. July 15, 1998. Eastern
Research Group. Arlington, VA.
' Personal communication with a Coca-Cola Company representative. July 17, 1998.
Eastern Research Group. Arlington, VA.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 39
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
Federal Express Corporation2'
nal weights by 43 percent, 41 percent, and 21 percent, respectively. This
means it takes fewer raw materials to make these packages and less energy to
transport them.
To better understand Coca-Cola's source reduction initiatives, it is helpful to
look at the company's experience with the aluminum can. Since the aluminum
can was first introduced for soft drink applications in 1963, the total weight of
the can has been reduced from approximately 55 pounds per 1,000 cans to
approximately 30 pounds per 1,000 cans—a 41 percent total source reduction.
This accomplishment has been achieved by reducing the body weight and
sidewall thickness of cans. In 1993, for example, the company shaved more
than 4 millimeters off the necks of its aluminum cans, reducing its aluminum
usage in the United States alone by an estimated 20,000 tons per year. The
weight of this narrower can end is more than 2 pounds lighter per 1,000 cans
than the previous can end used.
Along with these achievements, the Coca-Cola Company continues to search
for new ways to reduce its use of raw materials in packaging.
Since 1981, Federal Express has continuously reduced the thickness of the
paperboard used to manufacture its 9-1/2 by 12-1/2 FedEx Letter envelope.
The envelope has been lightweighted by 40 percent, and the combined sav-
ings from this source reduction activity and the redesign of other paper,
paperboard, and polyethylene shipping containers totals more than $20 mil-
lion annually for the company.
Federal Express picks up, sorts, and delivers more than 3 million letters and
packages every day. In volume alone, Federal Express is a world leader in
overnight express delivery, with 1997 sales of $15 billion. As part of its serv-
ice, Federal Express provides shipping envelopes and boxes to its customers.
Annual outlays for such supplies total approximately $200 million. To control
this significant cost of business, Federal Express continuously examines its
various containers and related shipping items to identify ways to reduce their
size and weight without compromising their integrity and appearance.
Federal Express supplies more than 300 million FedEx Letters to customers
every year, so the payback in supply costs is virtually immediate when a
lighter weight stock is adopted. Originally, the FedEx Letter was manufac-
tured from a 20-point stock, the lightest stock available to meet the compa-
ny's requirements for envelope strength and printability. The paper industry
currently produces an acceptable 12-point stock, reducing paper requirements
for the FedEx Letter.
Since 1986, Federal Express also has reduced the FedEx Pak from 26-pound
to 14-pound material. The FedEx Pak is made from DuPont Tyvek®, a spun-
Indiana Institute on Recycling. 1995. Case Study 9504. Indiana University, Terre Haute, IN.
40 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Case Studies * Chapter 4
bonded high-density polyethylene. Federal Express works closely with
DuPont to incorporate postconsumer material (plastic milk jugs and water
bottles) into the FedEx Pak. The Pak currently contains 2 5 percent postcon-
sumer material.
Federal Express continues to work closely with its suppliers to improve the
quality and cost of materials it purchases. Federal Express notes that if the
company can improve its supplier's internal costs, the supplier can pass the
savings on.
For companies that ship millions of products every year, even small design
changes can result in significant waste reductions. The Procter & Gamble
Corporation (P&G) wanted to redesign the plastic bottles used for its 32- and
48-ounce vegetable oil bottles to reduce the amount of plastic used. The
company also wanted to find a way to increase shipping capacity. It turned out
that both goals could be met by replacing the traditional cylindrical shape of
the oil bottle with a rectangular design. Changing the bottle's geometry
allowed a thinner layer of plastic to be used to provide the same strength as a
thicker bottle. The resulting bottle uses 30 percent less plastic than before,
eliminating about 1,250 tons of plastic per year. In addition, the bottle's new
design requires smaller shipping containers for transportation and increases
the number of products in each shipment. This has helped P&G cut its use of
corrugated cardboard by about 650 tons annually.
When P&G sought a design change in the 32- and 48-ounce bottles, it had to
meet certain quality standards including bottle strength, supplier's ability to
manufacture a new design, and customer appeal of the new package. P&G
also anticipated process changes and transport packaging changes that would
potentially occur with a new packaging design. During 4 years of develop-
ment, test marketing, and careful analysis of cost, P&G partnered with its
bottle supplier, Continental PET Technologies, to produce the new bottle
design. In addition to the source reduction already discussed, the new design
realized the following benefits:
• Better space utilization resulted with the rectangular bottom as compared
to the cylindrical bottom, as it reduced unused space from 22 percent to
12 percent.
• The rectangular design permitted more bottles to be shipped per cubic
foot and per truck, saving shipping space and energy.
• Faster label assembly occurred since one label replaced the two that were
previously used.28
The Procter ik. Gamble
Corporation"
U.S. EPA. 1995. WasteWise Update: A Fresh Look at Packaging. EPA530-N-95-004.
Washington, DC.
Indiana Institute on Recycling. 1996. Case Study 9632. Indiana University, Terre Haute, IN.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 41
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
P&G saw a 25 to 30 percent rate of return on its investment, and it complete-
ly recovered its costs in approximately 3 years. P&G notes that when the
competition copies you, you know you have a winner. P&G concluded that
this cost-effective reduction in packaging was integrated quite successfully
into product manufacturing and delivery systems. Subsequently, P&G applied
the same design to its 64- and 128-ounce vegetable oil bottles, manufactured
by Continental Plastic Container. This saves an additional 600 tons of plastic
and 800 tons of corrugated cardboard annually.
liminating
Unnecessary
Packaging
Warner-Lambert Company2'
Warner-Lambert, a manufacturer of health care and consumer products, has
focused on minimizing the amount of packaging used for its products.
Recently, the company removed the outer paperboard cartons on a line of
cold formula remedies, leaving only the shrink-wrapped bottle. This step
alone eliminates the generation of 3 3 tons of paperboard each year.
The old outer carton packaging prevented scuffing of the bottle, sufficiently
satisfied tamper resistance and safety concerns, provided ample space for
advertising, and held good shelf presence. In 1993, with less than a month of
paperboard carton inventory remaining, Warner-Lambert initiated a major
packaging change—elimination of the outer carton. By making the switch,
Warner-Lambert was able to increase the number of bottles displayed in the
same shelf space. To counter potential tampering problems, the dispensing
cup was tightly shrink-wrapped to the cap of the bottle, completely closing
the top. The decision was approached carefully by a multidisciplinary team
including technical packaging, product manufacturing, marketing, and envi-
ronmental staff. They considered the marketing, cost savings, consumer
acceptance, and waste reduction impacts of removing the paperboard carton
before finally deciding to eliminate it.
Consumer complaints to Warner-Lambert about unnecessary packaging led
the company to examine the feasibility of eliminating some of it. In response,
Warner-Lambert reduced the weight and amount of packaging for its mouth-
wash product line, switching from a glass bottle with corrugated and paper
overwrap to just a plastic bottle. This one change eliminated more than 9,500
tons of packaging per year, a 52 percent reduction. The company considered
various factors, including development of a child-resistant cap, shelf-life test-
ing, consumer acceptance, the safety of reduced packaging, the purchase of
new machinery to produce it, a strategy for distribution and transportation of
the products, and the overall cost savings resulting from this change. By ana-
lyzing every part of its manufacturing process, Warner-Lambert was able to
effectively identify methods to address these issues and sell the mouthwash in
a plastic bottle with no additional packaging. Both of these source reduction
Indiana Institute on Recycling. 1996. Case Study 9644 and 9645. Indiana University, Terre
Haute, IN.
42 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
initiatives allowed the company to successfully reduce waste, save money, and
increase consumer satisfaction with its products.
Case Studies * Chapter 4
Dunn County, a rural area located in west central Wisconsin, received a state
grant to implement a demonstration program designed to elevate awareness
of source reduction and motivate changes in behavior to reduce its waste gen-
eration rates. The county initiated an in-house source reduction pilot project
for all its offices and operations to establish a baseline and quantify the
decrease in waste generation by keeping track of source reduction initiatives
at its facilities. One of its participating facilities, the County Health Care
Center, made several minor packaging changes that saved significant
resources. The center switched to reusable steel food tray covers, saving
$3,000 per year on aluminum foil and plastic film wrap. The center prevented
1.5 tons of container waste annually by using a juice machine instead of pur-
chasing juices in disposable containers. The center also eliminated more than
5,460 milk containers by using returnable containers.
As a result of the efforts made by the center and other county offices, Dunn
County kicked off an extensive public education campaign to communicate
the benefits of source reduction, including quantifying local results, to the
rest of the county's waste generators. Positive coverage by the press helped
educate a broader audience and led other communities around the state to
establish similar programs. The program also helped set general operating
procedures to reduce waste in county facilities, which will encourage source
reduction activities in the future. Internally, the county designated employees
to take charge of source reduction ideas and activities, which helped guaran-
tee continued support and effort once the grant activities were completed. A
Dunn County representative noted that, "Implementing a program is only
half the challenge. In order to achieve success, you need to continue to moti-
vate people and develop new ideas. Repetition makes for a successful pro-
gram."
4.3.3 Switching to
Reusable Packaging
Dunn County, Wisconsin31
Businesses, institutions, and government agencies that implement source
reduction often focus on the waste produced by their own office buildings,
stores, and factories or on the packaging waste passed on to their customers.
Some innovative organizations also are reducing the waste entering their facil-
ities by forming cooperative relationships with their vendors and suppliers.
These organizations recognize they are paying their suppliers and waste dis-
posal contractors for every pound of excess packaging and every mile of
unnecessary transportation resulting from wasteful supply chains.
4.4 Working With
Suppliers
National Recycling Coalition. 1998. Making Source Reduction and Reuse Work in Your
Community. Alexandria, VA.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 43
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
Supplier relationships play a key role in reducing the waste generated from a
variety of products. Supplier relationships, for example, significantly con-
tribute to the 4.3 million tons of packaging material source reduction that
takes place each year in the United States. Supplier relationships impact sev-
eral specific products within packaging materials, including paper, corrugated,
plastic, and wood packaging. In addition, interactions with suppliers impact
office paper usage through invoices, purchase orders, and other forms. Efforts
to streamline purchasing practices contributed to the 655,000 tons of office
paper source reduced in 1996.
Not all of these individual materials, however, are experiencing source reduc-
tion on a national level. Wood packaging experienced significant source
reduction (3.3 million tons), while corrugated boxes experienced significant
source expansion (2.1 million tons). It is important to remember, however,
that these values reflect activity in the aggregate at the national level; for
many individual companies, supplier relationships have led to the source
reduction of significant quantities of corrugated boxes. Several case studies
included in this section illustrate this activity.
Organizations form supplier relationships by drafting procedural memoranda,
holding meetings, conducting plant tours, revising purchasing policies, and
stipulating waste reduction activity in vendor and supplier contracts. Source
reduction activities involving suppliers include product design changes, pack-
aging changes, new distribution systems, take-back programs targeted toward
reuse, and the purchase of more durable products.
The following case studies provide an overview of supplier relationships
formed by organizations to reduce municipal solid waste. A case study from
Target Stores illustrates source reduction through the elimination of unneces-
sary supplier packaging. Case studies from Maytag Corporation's Galesburg
Refrigeration Products facility and Herman Miller, Inc., profile how working
with suppliers to establish reusable and returnable packaging programs pro-
duces significant source reduction results. The final two case studies, from
Silicon Graphics and Commonwealth Edison, demonstrate the benefits of
working with suppliers to streamline purchasing practices.
liminating
Unnecessary
Packaging From
Suppliers
Target Stores is a national chain of more than 850 retail stores headquartered
in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Since 1993, the company has eliminated approxi-
mately 2,250 tons of waste per year (the majority of which was low-density
polyethylene) and saved an estimated $4.5 million by initiating a packaging
reduction program for its "softlines" merchandise, which includes such items
as clothing and shoes. In addition, its suppliers saved an estimated S3 million
by reducing the packaging material used in shipments.31
Tareet Stores
1 U.S. EPA. 1995. WasteWise Update: A Fresh Look at Packaging. EPA530-N-95-004.
Washington, DC.
44 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Case Studies * Chapter 4
By developing a team and carefully evaluating its packaging needs, Target
realized that much of the packaging used by its vendors was unnecessary and
costly. When the Target team approached vendors about reducing excess
packaging, it was surprised to learn that vendor packaging choices were based
upon the vendors' perceptions of Target's needs. This began a very construc-
tive dialogue in which Target and its vendors worked together to design spec-
ifications to eliminate excess packaging.
Suspecting that much of the merchandise shipped to Target included excess
packaging, senior management chartered a team of about 20 employees to
study the packaging of the softlines merchandise. The team came from sever-
al different areas within the company, including the Environmental, Quality
Assurance, Distribution, Operations, and Special Projects departments. Team
members spent many hours in the stockrooms of several stores in the
Minneapolis metropolitan area going through shipments to examine how the
merchandise was packaged. They observed both the amount of waste from
packaging and the time workers spent opening and unwrapping shipments.
The team found that a great deal of labor was expended tearing apart packag-
ing for the softlines merchandise. One typical clothing shipment, for example,
contained 24 individually wrapped sweaters. Each of the sweaters had to be
unwrapped before they could be displayed in the store. The team ultimately
determined that an entire shipment of 24 sweaters could be safely shipped
using just one outside wrapper.
"Old paradigms die hard," according to a quality assurance director at Target.
Many vendors and buyers doubted the packaging changes would be effective.
They felt that the clothing would arrive wrinkled because of the reduced
packaging and make the merchandise unpresentable. To see whether the mer-
chandise would arrive at the store in good condition, the Target team asked
its vendors to test its packaging reduction idea. After several shipments of
clothing arrived unwrinkled and presentable, the team decided to change
Target's vendor packaging specifications.
"We proved the skeptics wrong by doing several test runs. There has been no
loss of sales due to presentation," explains the director. The team had to con-
vince management these test runs were important, as management wanted to
implement the team's suggestions more quickly. "We wanted to make sure the
job was done right."
The resulting specifications, drawn up by Target and its vendors, exclude not
only individually wrapped items but also tissue paper, cardboard inserts, pins,
collar inserts, tape, and clips. Target initiated a series of noncompliance
penalties to be assessed if merchandise does not arrive according to the speci-
fications. "If these sweaters arrive individually wrapped, we will charge the
vendor for the additional labor it takes us to remove the excess packaging,"
explains a Target environmental manager.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 45
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
Target's current goal is "to ship floor-ready apparel and minimize excess pack-
aging." "Floor-ready" means that the merchandise requires minimal prepara-
tion before being displayed on the sales floor. Target chose this goal because
it would reduce labor and disposal costs for both Target and the manufacturer
while providing significant environmental benefits. Target's goal to become
"trashless" includes eliminating all unnecessary packaging as well as reusing
the necessary packaging.
Target's advice for other companies considering initiating this type of pro-
gram is to begin studying packaging needs immediately. Companies should
ask themselves two questions: Is each packaging component necessary for
shipping? Does each component help significantly in the presentation or pro-
tection of the product? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then
eliminate or reduce the packaging. Another hint on how companies can
reduce their packaging is to work collaboratively with vendors—communicate
precisely what kinds of packaging your company needs and does not need.
Vendors might think all the packaging they are delivering is required, even
though this might not be the case. Target found that having vendors as part-
ners was a key to its success.
4.4.2 Switching to
Reusable and
Returnable Packaging
With Suppliers
Maytag Corporation's Galesburg
Refrigeration Products Facility
Maytag Corporation's Galesburg Refrigeration Products facility produces
refrigerators for worldwide distribution. The Galesburg, Illinois, facility has
been working with suppliers to implement new returnable packaging systems
since 1989. At that time, only one or two of Galesburg's suppliers were using
returnable packaging to ship goods to the facility, and Galesburg was sending
virtually all of its waste to the landfill (9,711 tons in 1989). By 1995,
Galesburg was sending only 1,593 tons of waste to the landfill, nearly an 84
percent decrease since 1989. The reduction in part was a result of Galesburg's
returnable packaging and recycling programs. Currently, the company
reduces an estimated 900 tons of waste each year.32
Galesburg's early waste reduction efforts focused on finding markets for and
recycling wood skids and corrugated waste. These measures alone contributed
$600,000 to the company in the form of revenues generated from the sale of
the materials and cost savings from avoided disposal fees." The facility soon
began to look beyond recycling, however. Galesburg realized there were
opportunities for eliminating large amounts of packaging waste if the plant
was willing to work with its suppliers.
The Galesburg facility most often notified parts suppliers of its returnable
packaging proposals during contract renegotiations. Vendors were told that
the new packaging systems would have to submit to certain durability,
" Personal communication with a Maytag environmental specialist. June 11, 1998. Eastern
Research Group. Arlington, VA.
'ibid.
46 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Case Studies * Chapter 4
ergonomic, and safety tests and that the two companies would share any sav-
ings resulting from the packaging change. Most suppliers enthusiastically
embraced the proposals when they realized the packaging changes could ulti-
mately reduce their disposal costs. The timing of the packaging change pro-
posals, accompanied by an appeal to increased profit, were critical negotiation
tools.
The new packaging systems developed by Galesburg and its suppliers gener-
ally consisted of heavyweight corrugated and extruded plastic containers, both
of which generally replaced lightweight corrugated containers. On average,
these new materials extended the number of trips the containers could sustain
from 5 to 100. The changes also improved work processes. The facility began
using larger, "walk-in" boxes, for example, with side panels that unlock and
partially detach for easier packing.
Galesburg used the new reusable container systems to ship plastic refrigerator
components with cosmetic finishes, such as air deflectors and control covers.
These components must sustain a great deal of handling without damage. In
addition to reducing the facility's waste output, the durable returnable packag-
ing systems helped provide extra protection for these cosmetic components.
The number of damaged components arriving at the Galesburg facility
dropped considerably after the introduction of reusable packaging. One ven-
dor's switch to returnable packaging reduced the number of damaged compo-
nents arriving from the vendor by 18 percent.34 Furthermore, the new con-
tainer systems allowed Galesburg's suppliers to use truck trailer space more
efficiently. Returnable containers eliminated bulky excess packaging and
enabled double stacking. For shipments of refrigerator shelves, for example,
Galesburg introduced wire baskets that collapse from 40 to 6 inches in height
when emptied. These baskets allowed for easier unpacking and saved space
when they were shipped back to the supplier for reuse. Efficient use of truck
trailer space reduced the freight costs passed on to the Galesburg plant. One
packaging change that enabled double stacking, for instance, reduced ship-
ping costs for one refrigerator component by 50 percent.35
Galesburg has approximately 100 suppliers for its products. Twenty-eight per-
cent of Galesburg's suppliers have converted to returnable packaging, and the
plant's waste reduction team hopes to eventually create a 100 percent return-
able packaging delivery system. As Galesburg adjusts its fire protection system
to account for the handling and storage of new types of packaging, the
returnable container requirements will become mandatory for all "preferred"
Galesburg suppliers.
Personal communication with a Maytag environmental specialist. July 31, 1998. Eastern
Research Group. Arlington, VA.
35 Ibid.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 47
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
Herman Miller, Inc.
Herman Miller, Inc., also has implemented a variety of returnable and
reusable packaging systems with their suppliers. In 1990, Herman Miller's
Holland Chair Plant underwent a 6-month switchover from a waste-intensive
corrugated box and filler system for shipping shells for its Equa chairs to a
reusable plastic tray system.
Under the original packaging system, the company shipped about 300,000
shells per year in heavy corrugated boxes, which fit 28 shells each.36
Employees wrapped the shells in polyethylene bags and added polyethylene
fillers to the boxes for added protection. All packaging was recycled after each
30 mile, one-way trip. The new system replaced the corrugated carton and
polyethylene material with two plastic trays capped on top of each other and
wrapped in a corrugated sleeve. Under the new system, the materials are
reused after each trip. The corrugated sleeves can be used for 3 to 4 years
(approximately 50 to 100 round trips).
The new packaging system cost the company approximately $500,000 and
paid for itself in less than a year. The company has saved at least $1.4 million
since the packaging change. The change itself resulted in a 70 percent pack-
aging material reduction and a 94 percent decrease in damage claims." It also
resulted in substantial additional truck trailer and warehouse space.
Royal Crest Dairy
Royal Crest Dairy has served as a role model for the dairy industry through
its demonstrated commitment to waste reduction for more than 30 years. In
1965, this family-owned, independent, home-delivery dairy became one of the
first dairies in the country to offer reusable, recyclable, high-density polyeth-
ylene (HDPE) milk containers. Royal Crest collects, cleans, and reuses these
containers up to 100 times before recycling them. Today, the company pre-
vents more than 40 tons of waste per year through this reuse process.38
The milk bottle reuse program is extremely successful; however, the chemical
process of cleaning the bottles created a new waste stream for Royal Crest.
The cleaning chemicals came in large HDPE barrels that, once used, piled up
quickly and took up more storage space than Royal Crest had to spare.
According to a Royal Crest risk manager, company managers—finding them-
selves "waist deep in 55-gallon barrels"—provided the impetus to pursue a
less wasteful disposal method. The company first examined the possibility of
locating a recycler who was willing to pick up the chemical barrels.
Unfortunately, the awkward size of and the chemical residue in the barrels
made the drums difficult, if not impossible, to recycle.
D Indiana Institute on Recycling. 1995. Case Study 9627. Indiana University, Terre Haute, IN.
7 Ibid.
3 U.S. EPA. 1998. WasteWise Update: Building Supplier Partnerships. EPA530-N-98-003.
Washington, DC.
48 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Case Studies * Chapter 4
Royal Crest turned to its chemical supplier to see if the company would col-
lect the used barrels for reuse. The supplier responded with a flat rejection: it
did not have the resources to clean or recycle the barrels and one small cus-
tomer was not worth the investment. Not discouraged, plant managers began
arranging for a new supplier who would pick up the used barrels. One plant
manager knew of a company who provided pickup service, which expedited
the entire process. Even so, managers were pleasantly surprised to find they
were able to identify and arrange for a new supplier within 1 week.
Pleased to discover there is usually someone out there who is willing to
accommodate the special needs of even a small company, the Royal Crest risk
manager encourages other small companies to persevere. "Don't stop at your
first rejection," he recommends. Companies should keep switching vendors,
be they product suppliers or recyclable haulers, until they find one who will
meet their waste reduction needs.
By developing a Web-based purchasing system, Silicon Graphics, a leading
computer manufacturer, conserved more than 2.5 tons of paper forms in just
1 year. Now, the company's 11,000 employees order products and services
electronically without leaving a costly paper trail.
Early in 1994, Silicon Graphics began investigating opportunities to stream-
line its purchasing process and cut costs. The company, based in Mountain
View, California, noticed that during the previous 2 years the number of pur-
chasing transactions increased by 90 percent, reaching 19,000 transactions."
The purchasing manager realized he either needed to hire additional people
to handle the growing paperwork or reengineer the purchasing process to
become more efficient. He chose to research electronic commerce opportuni-
ties and put these technologies to work for the company.
By replacing the multipart paper forms with electronic forms, Silicon
Graphics conserved approximately 500,000 sheets of paper in just 1 year (60
to 70 percent of the paper is unrecyclable carbon paper). Using a Web-based
system, Silicon Graphics' Purchasing Group reduced the number of purchas-
ing steps from 15 to 3.40 "That's not all," the purchasing manager adds. "Now
employees can receive their purchases more quickly, too. Employee orders
can often be filled within 24 hours instead of 3 weeks."
Under Silicon Graphics' new purchasing system, employees browse supplier
catalogs electronically linked to the system and fill out an electronic form.
The system sends the form via e-mail to the appropriate manager for
approval. If the manager approves the request, the purchase order is transmit-
4.4.3
Streamlining
Purchasing Practices
Silicon Graphics
U.S. EPA. 1996. WasteWise Update: Going Paperless With Technology. EPA530-N-96-007.
Washington, DC.
'ibid.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 49
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
Commonwealth Edison
ted to the supplier via electronic data interchange (EDI). In the future, the
system will allow digital signatures to acknowledge receipt of materials and
electronic invoices and payments. Employees also will be able to track the sta-
tus of an order at any point throughout the process.
In the first year, the project saved an estimated $200,000 for Silicon Graphics.
Initial costs were high because they included all of the efforts to research,
design, develop, pilot, and implement the system as well as efforts to work
with and educate employees and suppliers.41 With the infrastructure in place,
however, Silicon Graphics could expand its use of the electronic forms into
other company groups.
Silicon Graphics' new system made life easier for everyone involved, includ-
ing suppliers. Managers are excited about the savings in time and money.
Employees receive their orders faster and do not get frustrated because the
order slip has been misplaced. Suppliers are paid promptly and now have the
infrastructure in place to work electronically with their other customers.
While bulk purchasing can help reduce waste for some organizations, others
receive more supplies than they can use on a regular basis. For generating sta-
tions at Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), an electric utility company in
northern Illinois, these problems created hefty disposal costs and increased
administrative burdens. ComEd established a "just-in-time" policy through a
single supplier that enabled the company to obtain supplies as needed and
reduce waste from materials that exceeded their shelf life. This policy, along
with other streamlining processes, has saved the company more than
$500,000 since the project began.42
Before ComEd adopted its just-in-time policy with a single laboratory suppli-
er, the company faced many difficulties in managing the supply chain.
Formerly, it ordered materials from six suppliers, each of which required a
separate invoice for every order. With ComEd's 16 facilities placing orders for
several items each day, the cost for processing the invoices and paper flow
alone became a significant expense. In addition, bulk orders produced waste
from leftover supplies whose shelf life had expired.
A pilot program with one of the suppliers was developed to alleviate ComEd's
burden. ComEd negotiated with the supplier to designate several new meth-
ods to order supplies by phone, fax, and the Internet. The supplier created a
Web site that contained an online catalog, a complete list of stock, and online
order forms. This system provided real-time data on the availability of partic-
ular items so ComEd employees could determine when they would receive
the supplies. The supplier also agreed to fill the orders for next-day delivery
as needed and send only one billing statement monthly to each facility.
42 U.S. EPA. 1998. WasteWise Update: Building Supplier Partnerships. EPA530-N-98-003.
Washington, DC.
50 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Case Studies * Chapter 4
The most important part of the contract, however, was establishing a third-
party buying system so ComEd need only order through a single supplier. By
establishing a third-party buying system, the supplier became responsible for
ordering materials and supplies from other companies and charging ComEd
for its services. This policy relieved ComEd from its dependence on six dif-
ferent suppliers with separate invoicing and delivery systems. The supplier
also agreed to adhere to a buy-back policy so surplus materials would not be
thrown away.
ComEd expanded the pilot study to all 15 generating stations and the central
lab facility. In order to make it a complete success, it was especially important
for the supplier to commit to a firm price for a long-term contract. ComEd
selected the supplier based on its willingness to meet ComEd's needs and its
strong performance on consistent pricing and delivery. ComEd's procurement
specialist states, "It's not only great for cutting waste and improving our bot-
tom line, it ultimately reduces the end cost for our customers too."
Manufacturers can reduce waste in the design and manufacturing of products,
but once those products are shipped out, source reduction is often up to the
customer. Companies can make it easier for customers to reduce waste by
facilitating the reuse, service, or repair of their products. Customers and man-
ufacturers often cooperate to reduce the waste generated by a range of prod-
ucts including durable goods (e.g., longer lasting goods such as computers,
appliances, furniture, and carpets), nondurable goods (e.g., office paper and
disposable plates), and containers and packaging.
Durable goods made up 15.1 percent of the 1996 U.S. MSW stream. This
component of the waste stream has been growing both in sheer tonnage and
as a percentage of the total waste stream for the last several decades.
Nondurable goods accounted for 26.5 percent of the waste generated in
1996.4' Source reduction for durable and nondurable goods, each currently at
2.4 million tons per year, slows the growth of product waste.
Product reuse is one important source reduction strategy for durable and
nondurable goods. Product manufacturers are often in the best position to
reuse or remanufacture their own goods due to design knowledge, materials
compatibility, and economies of scale. In order to ensure effective reuse and
remanufacturing, businesses develop efficient means of recovering used prod-
ucts from their customers. The remanufacturing industry has experienced sig-
nificant growth in recent years. Recent figures estimate sales from the indus-
try at $53 billion with nearly 500,000 people employed.44
4.5 Working With
Customers
U.S. EPA. 1998. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1997
Update. EPA530-R-98-007. Washington, DC.
Lund, Robert!. 1996.The Remanufacturing Industry: Hidden Giant. Boston, MA.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 51
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
Extending product life is an important source reduction strategy for durable
goods. Manufacturers can extend the usable life of their goods by signing
agreements with customers to provide product service and repair over many
years. When customers know they can have an expensive product repaired at
minimal cost, there is little motivation to discard the item and purchase a new
one. By delaying the end of a product's life, customers, manufacturers, and
service organizations reduce the amount of durable goods in the waste stream.
Opportunities for businesses to work with customers do not stop with durable
and nondurable goods, however. Companies can also work with their cus-
tomers to reduce waste from containers and packaging. One example is in-
store reuse programs for grocery bags. In 1996, Americans discarded approxi-
mately 2 million tons of bags and sacks (nearly 1 percent of the U.S. waste
stream).45 During that same time, nearly 515,000 tons of bags and sacks were
source reduced.
The following case studies represent a range of source reduction programs
involving a business-to-customer relationship or interaction. Case studies of
Xerox Corporation, Eastman Kodak Company, and The Laser Link, Inc. pro-
file product take-back and remanufacturing programs. Xerox's take-back pro-
gram is supported by product design policies that facilitate recovery, reuse,
and remanufacturing. Two case studies, Monsanto and the city of San Diego,
examine how lease agreements can prevent waste. Lease agreements facilitate
product recovery and, when they include service provisions, extend product
life. The final case study, an example of businesses working with customers to
reduce packaging waste, details a program that provides an incentive for cus-
tomers to return grocery bags to supermarkets for reuse.
Product
Take-Back and
Remanufacturing
Programs
Xerox Corporation
Many companies are beginning to recover their products from customers to
prevent these items from going to waste and to cut raw material costs by sub-
stituting recovered material for virgin material. Recovery is easier when engi-
neers build reusability and recyclability into the products they design. This is
one aspect of Design for the Environment (DfE)—identifying cost-effective
alternatives to existing products and processes that reduce risks to the envi-
ronment. Xerox Corporation's DfE program and product take-back opera-
tion, known as the Asset Recycle Management program, treats used products
as assets, rather than waste.
In 1997, Xerox remanufactured equipment from more than 30,000 tons of
returned machines. The programs also have saved Xerox a substantial amount
of money. Xerox estimates that annual savings in raw material, labor, and dis-
posal as a result of design changes and product take-back programs are on the
order of several hundred million dollars.46 These impressive cost savings justi-
U.S. EPA. 1998. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1997
Update. EPA530-R-98-007. Washington, DC.
' Personal communication with Xerox environmental specialist. July 22, 1998. Eastern
Research Group. Arlington, VA.
52 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Case Studies * Chapter 4
fy the programs internally. According to Xerox, the company's asset recycling
and DfE programs merge environmentalism with good business sense.
Xerox encourages customers to return machines to the company. Employees
log, disassemble, and sort parts from returned machines that meet internal
criteria for remanufacturing. Xerox incorporates reprocessed parts into new
products. Parts that do not meet remanufacturing criteria and cannot be
repaired are often ground, melted, or otherwise converted into basic raw
materials. The company integrates remanufacturing into the same assembly
lines that produce new products. The aim of the asset recycling program is to
prevent Xerox product assembly and disassembly from producing landfill
waste (see Figure 4-1 on page 54).
Although the asset recycling program saved Xerox approximately $50 million
in its first 12 months of operation, it was difficult to work with equipment not
initially designed to be remanufactured or recycled.47 With this in mind,
Xerox developed its DfE program to incorporate environmental considera-
tions, such as recycling and remanufacturing, into product design. Xerox's
DfE program includes the following criteria:
• Satisfaction of all regulatory requirements.
• Satisfaction of criteria defined by major environmental labeling programs
such as EPA's ENERGY STAR® and Germany's Blue Angel.48
• Satisfaction of customer environmental requirements.
• Satisfaction of internal requirements for remanufacturing and environ-
mental protection.
Xerox began training engineers in DfE principles in 1993. Soon afterward,
the company began producing removable copier cartridges designed specifi-
cally for parts reuse. Xerox later applied DfE principles to entire copiers and
printers. DfE requires product designers to develop an environmental plan
for each product, focusing on environmental impacts and incorporating fea-
tures to minimize the cost of recycling or reusing components.
DfE principles encourage Xerox designers to limit production materials to
recycled and recyclable plastics and metals. Xerox now uses fewer types of
plastics than it did before DfE was introduced. Xerox's ultimate goal is to use
only easily recyclable thermoplastics in the future. Paper labels, which con-
taminate recycled plastic, are avoided, and all components are marked with
recycling symbols to identify their materials.
DfE principles also led engineers to design products for easier maintenance,
disassembly, cleaning, and testing, which extended the life of product compo-
47 Murray, Fiona. 1994. Xerox: Design for the Environment. Harvard Business School. N9-
794-022. January 7. p. 9.
48 ENERGY STAR- is a U.S. registered trademark.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 53
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
Figure 4-1: Xerox Product "Closed Loop" Lifecycle Management
Recycled Materials
1
r
Third-Party Recycling
Source: Xerox Environment, Health and Safety Department Web site
nents. Engineers design many parts to
snap together, for example, facilitating
parts service and replacement.
Xerox engineers use a variety of other
DfE concepts in product design and
manufacturing. One diagnostic tool,
known as signature analysis, uses a
sophisticated methodology to help
Xerox engineers determine the remain-
ing lifespan and performance potential
of recovered products. Additionally, a
financial model helps determine how
design changes that influence a product's
manufacturing cost also affect the lifecy-
cle cost of the product, which includes
remanufacturing return on investment
and disposal costs. Product designers can
then examine the tradeoffs between
product costs and lifecycle costs.
Xerox promotes the achievements of
these programs to shareholders and the
public. Besides providing information
for journal articles and case studies, such as one published by the Harvard
Business Review in 1994, Xerox produces an annual environmental, health, and
safety progress report and posts a copy on its corporate Web site. Xerox man-
agers also conduct lectures and programs at universities, including a 3-day
course for environmental executives at the University of Michigan.
Eastman Kodak Company
Kodak achieved an 85 percent reuse and recycling rate for its single-use
FunSaver Camera line through an innovative take-back program. In order to
reuse the parts, Kodak offers incentives to photo processors to ensure the
cameras are returned to the company. Since the start of the program, Kodak
has reused parts from more than 160 million returned cameras. This process
has prevented more than 7,500 tons of waste.49
Customers purchase one-time use cameras because of their cost and conven-
ience. They use the FunSaver camera just as they would any other camera,
except they take the entire camera, rather than just the film, to a photo
processor for developing. What many of these consumers do not realize is
that the photo processor sends the camera back to Kodak after removing and
developing the film. Initially, photo processors returned approximately 40
Personal communication with an Eastman Kodak Company environmental specialist.
February 27, 1998. Eastern Research Group. Arlington, VA.
54 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Case Studies * Chapter 4
percent of the cameras for disassembly and reuse or recycling. Kodak then
initiated an incentive program to the photo processors to increase the return
rate of the cameras. The incentive program includes offering deposits, free
collection and shipping containers, a list of preferred carriers, and recycling
signs and posters. This incentive program, along with a partnership agree-
ment with its competitor Fuji to exchange mistakenly delivered cameras,
boosted the return rate to 70 percent.
When the photo processor returns the FunSaver camera to Kodak, the valu-
able parts from the camera, such as the shutter, viewfinder, and circuit board
are removed from the camera. Kodak reuses these parts to manufacture "new"
cameras. Other parts that cannot be reused are then recycled.
The Laser Link, Inc., established in October 1992, is a seven-employee toner
cartridge remanufacturer located in Boyertown, Pennsylvania. The motto of
the company is "Renewing Our Resources With Quality Products." By
accepting, disassembling, cleaning, testing, refilling, and reselling printer,
copier, and fax machine toner cartridges, the cartridge remanufacturing
industry prevents more than 37,000 tons of empty toner cartridges (mostly
consisting of HDPE) from entering the U.S. waste stream each year. In
Pennsylvania alone, there are more than 200 cartridge remanufacturers pro-
ducing more than 68,900 cartridges per month.50
Laser Link remanufactures approximately 9,600 cartridges annually, diverting
more than 19 tons of waste from landfills and waste combustors. Of the car-
tridges sold to Laser Link's customers, 90 percent are exchanged for empty
toner cartridges.51 For each empty toner cartridge returned, customers receive
a $10 discount on each remanufactured toner cartridge they purchase. This
exchange program ensures Laser Link a steady stream of empty toner car-
tridges for remanufacturing.
Laser Link picks up empty toner cartridges from its customers while deliver-
ing new cartridges. The company also encourages customers to return all car-
tridge packing materials, which include corrugated, polystyrene, paper, and
aluminum. Laser Link either reuses or recycles these materials.
The Laser Link, Inc.
Judge, Tricia. 1998. Make My Day. Recharger Magazine. January. Vol. 9, No. 5. pp. 74-75.
Laser Link, Inc. internal company document.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 55
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
4.5.2 Leasing
Programs
Monsanto and Dell Computer
Corporation
Escaping the trap of computer obsolescence has preoccupied many informa-
tion technology (IT) professionals in recent years. Together, Monsanto and
Dell Computer Corporation found a way to do just that. In March 1997,
Monsanto's production facility in Luling, Louisiana, began leasing computer
equipment from Dell in an arrangement that reduces waste for Monsanto and
consistently provides them with high-quality personal computer (PC) work-
stations. Leased PCs are covered by a 3-year warranty, freeing Monsanto
from having to purchase replacement electronics and from having to find dis-
posal solutions for the unusable parts. The waste prevented from this pro-
gram could be more than 16.5 tons annually, with PCs averaging 56 pounds
of materials per unit.52
According to a Monsanto IT team leader, "An examination of Monsanto's
total cost of PC ownership showed there were some compelling business rea-
sons to move to a computer leasing model." When asked about some of the
practical benefits of a leasing program, the team leader noted that the new
program "eliminated a number of ongoing problems including PC disposal,
routine PC upgrades, and IT resource demands."
Problems began to mount as Monsanto's PC network grew older and seem-
ingly slower in a world where microprocessor speeds continually increased.
Monsanto noticed its PC network had become obsolete far ahead of its depre-
ciation schedule. Additionally, the age-old practice of PC hand-me-downs was
causing a torrent of IT service demands. As Monsanto purchased new systems
and transferred the old machines internally, IT team members scurried to
update and reconfigure systems for their new owners. "With more than 600
PCs at Luling alone, we had a major problem on our hands," the IT team
leader admitted.
To help solve this problem, Monsanto brainstormed and examined the
finances for a leasing program. In late 1994 and early 1995, Monsanto identi-
fied the leasing model as the most cost-effective solution to its growing prob-
lem. By 1997, the Luling facility was one of a few test sites where Monsanto
began leasing PCs.
Monsanto leases high-end computer workstations on a 24- or 36-month pro-
gram that ultimately returns the used systems to Dell for reuse. Returned PCs
often carry substantial value after the lease ends. According to a Dell leasing
division official, "For many years, Dell products have been designed for easy
serviceability, a key feature that helps the leasing program function effectively.
The Dell direct model (leased PC) provides the company with a number of
remarketing avenues including spare parts reclamation, sales abroad, and re-
leasing to organizations that don't need the latest technology."
" Personal communication with a Monsanto IT specialist. May 29, 1998. Eastern Research
Group. Arlington, VA.
56 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Dell does not design leased PCs differently than other units. All Dell PCs use
a modular chassis, which provides flexibility in product specification, and PC
component consistency. This design is beneficial for a leasing program
because the company does not have to guess what type of components come
back with each returned system.
Case Studies * Chapter 4
In 1996, the city of San Diego entered into an innovative carpeting lease
agreement with Interface, an Atlanta-based carpet manufacturer. By leasing
the carpet from Interface, San Diego will never have to dispose of massive
amounts of worn or damaged carpet. At 10 pounds per yard, the leasing proj-
ect will save San Diego from disposing of 125 tons of carpet waste.53
The leased Interface carpet is different from ordinary carpet. Interface carpet
is laid down in easily replaceable tiles or squares. The tiles are not individual-
ly glued to the floor. A porous, rubbery carpet backing grips the floor like a
suction cup, and glue strips are only necessary every 6 feet, reducing con-
sumption and exposure to potentially hazardous adhesives. As part of the
lease, Interface agreed to rotate the carpet squares to prevent excessive wear
in high traffic areas and replace the squares with new pieces in the case of
damage.
According to San Diego's sustainable building coordinator, "The quality and
durability, as well as the 12 percent recycled content, of the carpet were the
main reasons for going with Interface." There were no capital outlays for the
materials and, at the end of the carpet life, the manufacturer will remove the
carpet and recycle the fibers and backing into new product.
The carpet lease was an integral part of the San Diego Green Building
Project. In 1994, the city purchased a 3-story 73,000 square foot building and
spent the better part of 2 years on a "green renovation." The Environmental
Services Department moved in upon completion in April 1996. Leasing a car-
pet square system was one of the many environmental innovations San Diego
included in the Green Building Project so they could lead by example.
When asked about the carpet's performance 2 years after installation, the sus-
tainable building coordinator noted that it is holding up well. The carpet is
under a 5-year lease contract, but is backed by a 15-year warranty and San
Diego is pleased with the performance.
The City of San Diego and
Interface, Inc.
Personal communication with a San Diego environmental specialist. May 1, 1998. Eastern
Research Group. Arlington, VA.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 57
-------
Chapter 4 * Case Studies
4.5.3 Packaging
Reuse by Customers
Wakefern Food Corporation
Wakefern Food Corporation is the largest retailer-owned food wholesaler in
the United States. The company operates more than 190 ShopRite supermar-
kets in Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
In 1991, Wakefern instituted a $.05 customer rebate for each paper grocery
bag or plastic bag returned to ShopRite stores for reuse, regardless of whether
bags originated in a ShopRite store. To promote the program to customers,
Wakefern posted window signs, distributed point-of-purchase materials and
take-home brochures, and broadcasted store announcements. One of the pro-
motional brochures informed customers that "All bags should be reused if
possible." ShopRite stores also occasionally promoted the in-store sale of
reusable cloth bags. Cloth bags can be reused more than paper or plastic bags,
resulting in even greater waste reductions.
The rebate program and promotional materials helped conserve large quanti-
ties of paper and plastic and generated significant cost savings. In the first
year of the program, ShopRite stores reused more than 5.2 million bags. By
the fourth year of the program, ShopRite was reusing more than 8 million
bags annually. Approximately 53 million of the nearly 56 million bags reused
since the program's inception are paper grocery bags. These 53 million paper
bags translate into 3,430 tons of paper waste diverted from landfills and waste
combustion facilities.54
Through rebates, ShopRite stores passed along savings from avoided labor,
transportation, and purchasing costs to their customers. These savings
amounted to more than $100,000 in 1991 and nearly $200,000 in 1997.
Wakefern Food Corporation internal company document.
58 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Glossary
Backyard Composting refers to a method of source reduction whereby food
scraps and yard trimmings are diverted from the waste stream
through controlled decomposition in open piles, pits, windrows, or
bins. This is considered a form of source reduction since the waste
material is handled "onsite" and never enters the waste stream.
Dependent Variable refers to the variable on the left side of the equality sign
in an equation. Its value is determined by, or dependent on, the val-
ues of the independent variables on the right side.
Discards include the MSW remaining after recovery for recycling (including
offsite composting). These discards would presumably be combusted
or landfilled.
Drivers (also known as Driving Factors) refer to macroeconomic develop-
ments that cause, or drive, changes in waste generation. Examples
include population, wages, and gross domestic product.
Durable Goods refers to longer lasting goods (3 or more years) such as
major and small appliances, furniture and furnishings, carpets and
rugs, tires, lead-acid batteries, and consumer electronics.
Food Scraps Recovery refers to a method of source reduction whereby food
is kept out of the waste stream through donations to community
groups, onsite composting, processing discards into animal feed, or
rendering.
Grasscycling refers to a method of source reduction whereby grass clippings
are left on the lawn rather than bagged and set out for collection.
This is considered a form of source reduction since the waste materi-
al is handled "onsite" and never enters the waste stream.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) refers to the total annual market value of
all final goods, services, and structures produced by labor and proper-
ty located in the United States, regardless of who owns the resources.
Independent Variable refers to the variable on the right side of the equality
sign in an equation. Its value is determined independently of, or out-
side, the equation.
Lightweighting refers to reductions in the weight of material used to make
packaging (i.e., less plastic in a food container or less aluminum in a
beverage can) per unit of material contained in the package.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 59
-------
Glossary Glossary
Linear Regression refers to the study of quantitative relationships between
two measurable variables. Data are collected on a number of units or
cases within the variables and then analyzed to determine the rela-
tionship.
Materials Flow Waste (MFW) refers to waste from the 47 products and
packaging materials within the broader categories of durable goods,
nondurable goods, and containers and packaging.
Materials Substitution refers to a method of source reduction in which one
material is replaced with another. Shrink wrapping a bottle of cough
syrup previously packaged in a paperboard box is an example of
materials substitution as is replacing a metal appliance cover with a
lighter plastic one.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) refers to wastes such as durable goods, non-
durable goods, containers and packaging, food scraps, yard trim-
mings, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes from residential, commer-
cial, institutional, and industrial sources. MSW does not include
sewage, hazardous wastes, nonhazardous industrial wastes, construc-
tion and demolition debris, or automobile bodies.
Nominal refers to the measurement of an economic variable in current
prices. The opposite of nominal is real.
Nondurable Goods refers to items having a lifetime of less than 3 years,
such as newspaper, books, magazines, office paper, telephone directo-
ries, paper towels and tissues, paperboard, paper plates and cups,
plastic plates and cups, rubber, leather, and textiles.
Other Waste (OW) refers to waste from yard trimmings, food scraps, and
miscellaneous inorganic materials.
Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) refers to the amount of
spending by consumers on goods and services. It is the largest single
component of the GDP and accounts for two-thirds of its magnitude.
Primary Packaging refers to all packaging that directly covers or protects a
product and is not specifically used for transporting the product.
Primary packaging also serves to promote products.
R-Squared (R2) Value refers to a standard measurement associated with lin-
ear regression that indicates how well the regression equation
explains the underlying data used for the regression. The higher the
R2 value, the better the equation explains the data.
Rate of Waste Generation refers to the amount of waste generated in a
given year (W) divided by the value of a particular driver (D), or R =
W/D.
60 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Glossary
Real refers to economic data that has been adjusted for inflation.
Remanufacturing refers to the restoration of durable products to serve their
original function by replacing worn or damaged parts.
Rendering refers to a type of food scraps recovery in which liquid fats and
solid meat products can be used as raw materials in an industrial
process, which converts them into animal food, cosmetics, soap, and
other products.
Reuse refers to a type of 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.
Source Expansion refers to the results of source reduction calculations in
which the rate of generation of municipal solid waste increases after
the base year. Source expansion is the opposite of source reduction,
in which the rate decreases.
Source Reduction (also known as Waste Prevention) refers to any change
in the design, manufacturing, purchase, or use of materials or prod-
ucts (including packaging) to reduce their amount or toxicity before
they become municipal solid waste. Source reduction also refers to
the reuse of products or materials.
Transport Packaging refers to external packaging materials, including crates,
pallets, cartons, skids, wraps, and totes, that help contain and protect
products during shipping and handling.
Vermicomposting refers to a type of composting in which worms (usually
red worms) break down organic materials into high-quality compost
(worm castings). Animal products or grease cannot be composted in
this manner.
Waste Generation refers to the amount (weight or volume) of materials and
products that enter the waste stream before recycling (including off-
site composting), landfilling, or combustion take place. Waste gener-
ation occurs after source reduction.
Yard Trimmings refers to leaves, branches, and other organic debris generat-
ed from yards, parks, and public places.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 61
-------
-------
Appendix
This appendix provides more detail on the statistical analysis undertaken to
support the results described in Chapters 2 and 3. It is not intended to be a
stand-alone section; it refers back to sections, figures, and tables from
Chapters 2 and 3 without repeating them explicitly.1
A.I Overview of
the Appendix
As shown in Figures 2-1 and 2-3 (see pages 6 and 8), source reduction quanti-
fied in this report reflects changes in waste generation from 1990 to 1996.
The year 1990 is referred to as the base year. The objective of the methodol-
ogy is to define source reduction for a specific waste stream (W) using data
on the tonnage in 1990 (W90) and in 1996 (W96). In addition to the waste
stream tonnage, source reduction measurement requires the introduction of
the concept of a driving factor (D) such as population or consumer spending.
The term "driving factor" captures the idea that D causes some of the
observed changes in W. Using the driving factor and the waste stream ton-
nage, the rate of waste generation (R) is defined as follows:
(1) R = W/D
Using the driving factor and the rate of waste generation, source reduction in
1996 relative to a 1990 base year (SR96) is defined by the following equation:
(2) SR96 = (R90 x D96) - W96
This equation corresponds to the definition of source reduction illustrated
earlier in Figures 2-1 and 2-3.
In equation (2), R90 is simply the rate of waste generation in 1990, measured
as W90 divided by D90. The term R90 x D96 is 1996 waste generation with-
out source reduction, or the waste one would expect if the rate of waste gen-
eration in 1996 remained the same as in 1990. W96 is actual 1996 waste gen-
eration.
Equation (2) can be rewritten in a simpler form. Using equation (1), W96 =
R96 x D96. Equation (2), therefore, can be rewritten as follows:
(3) SR96 = (R90 - R96) x D96
In other words, equation (3) states that the total source reduction in 1996
is the product of the reduction in the rate of waste generation between
1990 and 1996 and the level of a specified driving factor in 1996.
Equation (3) highlights a crucial aspect of source reduction. Source reduction
depends only on changes in the rate of waste generation. SR96 will be posi-
tive, indicating source reduction in 1996 relative to 1990, if, and only if,
waste generation in 1996 is less than waste generation in 1990.
1 The statistical and analytical methods described in this Appendix were conducted in coordi-
nation with the Tellus Institute and in accordance with similar research conducted by Tellus
on behalf of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
A.2 Definition of
Source Reduction
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 63
-------
Appendix
A.3 Empirical
Analysis of Waste
Generation From
1960 to 1996
Chapter 2 discussed source reduction results for the municipal solid waste
(MSW) stream as a whole. This report also examined individual component
streams within MSW. The most important of these component streams, for
the purposes of this report, are the following:
• Materials Flow Waste (MFW). This stream consists of waste from 47
specific products and packaging materials, which the Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1991 Update (1991 Update)
groups into durable goods, nondurable goods, and containers and pack-
aging. In the 1991 Update, waste from each of the specific products and
packaging materials is accounted for separately using a materials flow
methodology, which tracks each product or material from its introduc-
tion into the economy to the point at which it becomes part of the waste
stream.
• Other Waste (OW). This stream consists primarily of yard trimmings:
leaves, branches, and other organic debris generated from yards, parks,
and public places. In addition, OW includes food scraps and miscella-
neous inorganic waste. The components of OW are neither analyzed
using the materials flow methodology, nor subdivided into specific
products and materials.
Figure A-l below shows the relationships among the various components of
MSW discussed above, as well as the 1996 tonnage for each component. As
shown below, MSW is the sum of MFW and OW.
Figure A-l: The Structure of MSW and its Components (1996 Generation in Millions of Tons)
T
Durable
Goods
31.7
7 Products
1
'
Materials
Flow Waste
156.6
1
r
Nondurable
Goods
55.7
\
Municipal
Solid Waste
209.7
i
r
Packaging
69.2
' 1
16 Products
t
Other
Waste
53.1
f V
Yard Food
Trimmings Waste
21.9 28
r
24
Containers
and
Packaging
Materials
t
Misc.
Inorganic
Waste
3.2
64 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Appendix
Figure A-2 below expands on the information presented in Figure 2-2 (see
page 7)—in addition to MSW, data for selected years are used to develop
average annual percent changes in the generation of MFW and OW This
provides a picture of the growth that has taken place in these waste streams
since 1990. Notice that for MSW and MFW, growth occurred through 1994.
In 1994, there is a serious downturn leading to subsequent reductions. For
OW, there is a different pattern—growth was strong through 1990, at which
point a downturn began to occur.
Figure A-2: Average Annual Percent Change in MSW, MFW, and OW Generation
Average Annual Percent Change in MSW, MFW, and OW Generation
1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-1992 1992-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996
Period
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 65
-------
Appendix
IL A St«ltistiC«ll ^ described in Chapter 2, it is generally accepted that changes in driving fac-
tors, such as consumer spending, gross domestic product (GDP), or popula-
/\p|Jl OclC.Il tion, can cause changes in the MSW stream. It is less clear, however, which
factor most affects source reduction. Linear regression can help address this
t question. Further, linear regression allows the rate term in the formula for
jOUlCC IvCCllICtlOIl source reduction, R90 - R96 in equation (3) on page 63, to be replaced by a
formula that reflects all of the waste rate data for the period 1990 to 1996. To
address these points, a three-step statistical approach was applied:
Step 1: A range of driving factors were regressed against waste generation
to see which best explained the historical generation pattern.
Driving factors were tested individually, rather than in groups;
because the driving factors were sufficiently collinear, multilinear
analyses were problematic. Testing single driving factors also
allowed for a simple evaluation of the regression results: the best
driving factor was selected by comparing R2 values from the
regressions.
For each waste stream analyzed, two types of regression equations
were considered as part of the driving factor selection process.
Trend equations were developed by regressing waste generation
against driving factors. Change equations were developed by
regressing year-to-year changes in waste generation against year-
to-year changes in driving factors. For the best driving factor, both
the trend and change equations should have R2 values near 1.
Particular attention was paid to the R2 value for the change equa-
tion, since a driving factor's ability to explain year-to-year variation
in waste generation provides a strong argument that the driving
factor is, in fact, related directly to waste generation for the stream
under study.
Step 2: Based on the resulting R2 values, the preferred driving factor (D)
was then used to calculate the rate of waste generation (R) defined
in equation (1) as W divided by D. The resulting annual data for
R were then regressed against time (T), producing a rate equation
of the following form:
(4) R = aT + b
As a final step in the driving factor selection, the regression results
from equation (4) were examined. An R2 value near 1 provides
additional evidence, beyond the results from the trend and change
equations, that waste generation and the driving factor selected are
highly correlated.
Step 3: Using equation (4), the waste generation rates in 1990 and 1996,
R90 and R96, were then calculated. R90 was obtained by setting T
= 0 since 1990 is the base year. R96 was obtained by setting T = 6
since 1996 - 1990 equals 6 years. Next, R90 - R96 was calculated
66 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Appendix
(R90 - R96 = -6a). As shown in equation (2), SR96 = (R90 - R96) x
D96. Replacing R90 - R96 with -6a yielded the following
equation:
(5) SR96 = -6a x D96
-6a is one example of a regression-based formula for changes in
rate. A variety of such formulas were developed. A potential advan-
tage of such formulas is that they reflect the rate of waste genera-
tion for all years from 1990 to 1996, whereas R90 - R96 reflected
the rates for only 1990 and 1996.
This three-step approach was used to analyze the MSW stream as
a whole, its major component streams, and specific products and
materials within MSW, as described in the following section.
In measuring source reduction for MSW and its component waste streams,
the following driving factors were considered: population, wages, real and
nominal GDP, and real and nominal personal consumption expenditures
(PCE).2 Nominal data are the actual, annual values for GDP and PCE. Real
data are the nominal data adjusted to remove the effects of inflation. While
real data for GDP and PCE correspond better to the actual products and
materials that end up in the MSW stream, nominal data were included for
thoroughness. These driving factors were selected for the reasons discussed in
Chapter 2 and also based on the following observations:
• In the United States and elsewhere, MSW generation has traditionally
been analyzed on a per-capita basis. Both the 1991 Update and the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Towards
Sustainable Development: Environmental Indicators analyze MSW genera-
tion in this fashion.
• Wages and PCE are the components of GDP that correspond most
closely to the products and materials which, when purchased and dis-
carded, form the MSW stream.
Analysis began with data on the tonnage of MSW, MEW, and OW generated
for the period 1960 through 1996. Using each driving factor, the average
annual change in the rate of waste generation for both 1960 to 1990 and
1990 to 1996 was developed. The results of this analysis for MSW are shown
in Table A-l on page 68. The average annual changes in rate were computed
as indicated by the headings. In the column headed "1960 - 1990," for exam-
ple, the rate in 1990 was subtracted from the rate in 1960, and the result
divided by 30 years. The average annual change in rate was calculated in this
Note: Throughout this report, the term "consumer spending (PCE)" is used to refer to the
value of real or inflation-adjusted PCE. For this section on driving factor selection, howev-
er, where it is important to distinguish between the real and nominal values of PCE, the
terms real and nominal PCE are used. The values for "consumer spending (PCE)" used in
this report are non-product specific and an aggregate of overall consumer spending as
reported in the 1997 Statistical Abstract of the United States.
A.5 Support for
Selection of
Consumer
Spending as the
Driving Factor
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 67
-------
Appendix
fashion so the resulting data would conform with the source reduction equa-
tion. As shown in equation (3) on page 63, source reduction for the period
1990 to 1996 depends on the value of R90 - R96, the rate of waste generation
in 1990 minus the rate of waste generation in 1996.
In order for source reduction to occur, the rate of waste generation must
decline. In Table Al, positive entries in the columns headed "Average Annual
Change" indicate declines in rate, or source reduction. The results in Table
A-l show the following:
Table A-l: Possible Drivers of Waste Generation Rates for MSW
Driving Factor
Population (tons per capita)
Wages (tons per million dollars)
Nominal GDP (tons per million dollars)
Real GDP (tons per million dollars)
Nominal PCE (tons per million dollars)
Real PCE (tons per million dollars)
1960
0.49
323.02
167.34
38.94
265.26
61.51
Rate
1990
0.82
74.42
35.73
33.44
53.45
49.66
1996
0.79
57.76
27.67
30.36
40.70
44.70
Average
1960 - 1990
(0.01)*
8.29
4.39
0.18
7.06
0.39
Annual Change
1990 - 1996
0.01
2.78
1.34
0.51
2.13
0.83
* Throughout the tables in this report, parentheses denote negative numbers, or source expansion. Positive numbers indicate source reduction.
• For the 1990 to 1996 period, source reduction occurs for all of the driv-
ing factors considered.
• For the period 1960 to 1990, source reduction occurs for all driving fac-
tors except population.
• For the real economic driving factors, reductions in rate are greater in
the 1990 to 1996 period than in the 1960 to 1990 period; for wages and
the other nominal data, the opposite is true.
The first two points confirm that source reduction has occurred during the
specified time periods. The choice of driving factor, however, significantly
affects the magnitude of the reduction. The third point illuminates an issue in
the use of the nominal data as driving factors. From 1960 to 1990, nominal
GDP and its components, including PCE, increased greatly due to inflation.
From 1990 to 1996, inflation was very low. For the nominal data, it is infla-
tion that causes the waste generation rate to drop faster before, rather than
after, 1990. In order to avoid effects due to inflation, the use of real data is,
therefore, preferable when analyzing source reduction.
Analyses similar to those summarized in Table A-l were conducted for MFW,
OW, and their individual components. Results of these additional analyses
68 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Appendix
generally support the points made above for MSW. Selection of the best driv-
ing factor(s) for MFW, OW, and their components also was based on the use
of linear regression. The following analyses were undertaken:
• Data for the periods 1960 to 1990 and 1960 to 1994 were considered.
• For each time period, all six driving factors were used to analyze each
waste stream.
• For each time period and each driving factor, two regressions were per-
formed. The trend and change equations defined as part of the three-
step approach were produced, and their R2 values were recorded. (The
rate equation was used for another purpose as described later in this
appendix.)
The analyses required to develop all the necessary linear regressions were
data-intensive. Thousands of individual regressions needed to be performed
and analyzed. These regressions were not performed one equation at a time,
but processed in batches using a spreadsheet model. Batch processing allowed
all the linear regressions for each time period (e.g., 1960 to 1990, 1960 to
1994) to be performed in a single operation. Table A-2 presents the R2 values
for the three sets of regressions performed for MSW for the period 1960 to
1994.
As shown in Table A-2, for the trend equation, the R2 values for all six driving
factors were above 0.96, and it was difficult to distinguish which one was the
best driving factor. The change equation was then used as a second level of
analysis. The change equation, which explains year-to-year fluctuations, offers
a more refined method of capturing the underlying movement of MSW gen-
eration. Using the change equation, only R2 values for two of the six driving
factors—real PCE and real GDP—rose above 0.90, and real PCE produced a
higher R2 than real GDP. Real PCE, therefore, was selected as the most
appropriate driving factor to use when calculating source reduction.
Similar analyses were performed for MFW for the period 1960 to 1994 using
total PCE. OW was analyzed in a simi-
lar fashion, but using 1960 to 1990 data
rather than 1990 to 1994 data because,
as shown in Figure A-2 on page 65, the
break in OWs average annual growth
pattern is in 1990, not 1994. That is to
say that 1990 is the year in which
growth in OW generation began to
decrease. As with MSW, real PCE and
real GDP were the best driving factors
for MFW and OW based on R2 values.
For both, the R2 values also suggest real
PCE is a better driving factor than real
GDP. The major components of MFW
Table A-2: R2 Values for MSW-Related Regressions for I960 to 1994
Driving Factor
Population
Wages
Nominal GDP
Real GDP
Nominal PCE
Real PCE
R2 By Type of Equation
Trend
0.987
0.975
0.969
0.996
0.964
0.998
Change
0.769
0.708
0.657
0.938
0.632
0.969
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 69
-------
Appendix
Table A-3: Source Reduction Values for MSW (Thousands of Tons)
Driving Factor
Population
Wages
Nominal GDP
Real GDP
Nominal PCE
Real PCE
Source Reduction
Using Change in
Rate of Waste
Generation Method
8,621
60,488
61,013
21,317
65,682
23,286
Using 1990 to 1996
Regression Method
7,495
59,451
61,117
21 ,423
65,537
23,434
(i.e., durable goods, nondurable goods, and containers and packaging) and
OW (i.e., yard trimmings, food scraps, and miscellaneous inorganic waste)
also were analyzed, leading generally to the same conclusions.
In order to fully explore the impact of driving factor choice on the measure-
ment of source reduction, however, analyses were initially conducted using all
of the driving factors shown in Table A-2. Table A-3 below summarizes the
results obtained for MSW. For each driving factor, two values for source
reduction were computed: a value based on the change in the rate of waste
generation, as in equation (3), and a regression-based value developed using
equation (5) from Section A.4 above.
As shown in Table A-3, based on the choice of driving factor and measure-
ment technique, values for source reduction range from about 7.5 million
tons to 65.7 million tons. In addition to the analyses shown in Table A-3,
analyses of source reduction for MSW were made that took into account the
change in waste generation growth occurring in 1994. To do this, regressions
covering 1990 to 1994 and 1994 to 1996 were used. These methods obtained
essentially the same values for source reduction as those developed using the
regression covering 1990 to 1996 as a whole.
The range of source reduction values
discussed in Chapter 2 is taken from the
"Change in Rate of Waste Generation"
column of Table A-3, which shows a
range of 8.6 million tons to 65.7 million
tons. Since the results from both the
regression-based and nonregression-
based analyses yielded similar source
reduction values using real PCE,
Chapter 2 presents only the nonregres-
sion-based findings. The following sec-
tion presents the results from both the
regression-based and nonregression-
based approaches.
70 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Appendix
The bulk of the analyses of source reduction conducted for this report were
more specific than those presented in Table A-3. Source reduction was quan-
tified using the following techniques and assumptions:
• Waste Streams. The MSW stream, as well as its two major compo-
nents, MFW and OW, were considered in the aggregate. Each of the 47
products included in MFW, as well as the three components of OW
(i.e., yard trimmings, food scraps, miscellaneous inorganic waste) also
were considered individually. (Analyses also were conducted for the
material components of MSW—paper and paperboard, glass packaging,
etc. These did not, however, prove particularly useful.)
• Measurement Techniques. Source reduction was computed based on
the change in the waste generation rate between 1990 and 1996 and by
using linear regression.
The resulting source reduction values produced for MSW, MFW, and OW,
using consumer spending (real PCE) as the driving factor, are shown in Table
A-4 below.3
The results in Table A-4 reveal that source reduction "adds up" in a logical
fashion: source reduction for MSW is equal to source reduction for MFW
plus source reduction for OW. (Small
differences are due to rounding.) This is
true whenever the same driving factor is
used for all components of a waste
stream, even if some components experi-
ence source expansion.
A.6 Additional
Analysis of Source
Reduction and
Source Expansion
Table A-4: Source Reduction Values for MSW, MFW, and OW
(Thousands of Tons)
Waste generation data for the individual
products and materials in both MFW
and OW were then analyzed. Table A-5
on pages 12-1'5 presents the source
reduction values calculated for each
component of the MFW and OW
streams, using consumer spending as the
driving factor for the two types of analy-
ses performed: change in the rate of
waste generation and 1990 to 1996 regression. The values for "change in rate
of waste generation" correspond to those values found in Table 3-8 (see page
18) of Chapter 3.
Waste Stream
Materials Flow Waste (MFW)
Other Waste (OW)
Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW = MFW + OW)
Source Reduction Based
on Consumer Spending
Using Change in
Rate of Waste
Generation Method
9,752
13,534
23,286
Using 1990 to 1996
Regression Method
9,123
14,311
23,434
It should be noted that an annual value of PCE for total U.S. expenditures is used consis-
tently throughout all analyses in this report including the analysis of individual products and
materials. This is done so that the reduction and expansion effects can be counted from the
occurrence of both material specific lightweighting as well as material substitution of inter-
changeable materials within the same functional categories. Furthermore, while values of
PCE for specific consumer expenditures do exist, as in cases like food and clothing, such
expenditure-specific PCE values are not easily correlated with, or available for, all of the
materials found in MSW. Consequently, this report does not utilize expenditure-specific PCE
values when calculating source reduction (expansion) estimates for individual materials nor
for functional product categories.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 71
-------
Appendix
Table A-5: Source Reduction Values for the Individual Components of MSW*
(Thousands of Tons)
Waste Stream
Components of MFW
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances
Furniture/Furnishings
Carpets/Rugs
Tires
Lead-Acid Batteries
Miscellaneous Durable Goods
Source Reduction Subtotal for
Durable Goods
Source Expansion Subtotal for
Durable Goods
Net Value Subtotal for Durable
Goods
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books
Magazines
Office Paper
Telephone Directories
Third-Class Mail
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper/Towels
Paper Plates/Cups
Plastic Plates/Cups
Source Reduction Based on
Consumer Spending
Change in Rate
of Waste
Generation**
237
(258)
388
(426)
188
(96)
2,145
2,958
(779)
2,179
2,955
161
1,242
616
222
(174)
(1 ,497)
380
(212)
(72)
1990 to 1996
Regression**
273
(263)
473
(454)
165
(189)
2,441
3,352
(905)
2,447
2,447
31
1,015
655
282
(462)
(1 ,605)
333
(269)
(85)
' MFW + OW = MSW
'"Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.
72 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Appendix
Table A-5: Source Reduction Values for the Individual Components of MSW*
(Thousands of Tons) (continued)
Waste Stream
Trash Bags
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing/Footwear
Towels, Sheets, Pillowcases
Other Misc. Nondurables
Source Reduction Subtotal for
Nondurable Goods
Source Expansion Subtotal for
Nondurable Goods
Net Value Subtotal for
Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
Glass Beer/Soft Drink Bottles
Glass Wine/Liquor Bottles
Glass Food/Other Bottles & Jars
Steel Beer/Soft Drink Cans
Steel Food/Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Aluminum Beer/Soft Drink Cans
Other Aluminum Cans
Aluminum Foils/Closures
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Source Reduction Based on
Consumer Spending
Change in Rate
of Waste
Generation**
25
15
289
(788)
56
351
6,314
(2,743)
3,571
1,192
364
832
170
63
cy
•Ji
199
(17)
15
(1 ,765)
119
(509)
1990 to 1996
Regression**
55
38
217
(759)
58
425
5,557
(3,181)
2,376
1,307
447
515
180
111
9Q
£.3
186
(18)
16
(2,115)
92
(574)
88
' MFW + OW = MSW
'"Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 73
-------
Appendix
Table A-5: Source Reduction Values for the Individual Components of MSW*
(Thousands of Tons) (continued)
Waste Stream
Paper Bags/Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Plastic Soft Drink Bottles
Plastic Milk Bottles
Other Plastic Containers
Plastic Bags/Sacks
Plastic Wraps
Other Plastic Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Source Reduction Subtotal for
Containers and Packaging
Source Expansion Subtotal for
Packaging
Net Value Subtotal for Containers
and Packaging
Source Reduction Subtotal for MFW
Source Expansion Subtotal for MFW
Net Value Subtotal for MFW
Source Reduction Based on
Consumer Spending
Change in Rate
of Waste
Generation**
790
75
(192)
(212)
(48)
343
(293)
(123)
16
2,806
20
7,161
(3, 159)
4,002
16,434
(6,682)
9,752
1990 to 1996
Regression**
824
66
(101)
(209)
(56)
462
(309)
(4)
52
3,289
24
7,687
(3,387)
4,300
76,596
(7,473)
9,123
' MFW + OW = MSW
'"Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.
74 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Appendix
Table A-5: Source Reduction Values for the Individual Components of MSW*
(Thousands of Tons) (continued)
Waste Stream
Components of OW
Yard Trimmings
Food Scraps
Miscellaneous Inorganics
Source Reduction Subtotal for OW
Source Expansion Subtotal for OW
Net Value Subtotal for OW
Source Reduction Total for MSW
Source Expansion Total for MSW
Net Value Total for MSW
Source Reduction Based on
Consumer Spending
Change in Rate
of Waste
Generation**
11,731
1,711
92
13,534
0
13,534
29,967
(6,681)
23,286
1990 to 1996
Regression**
12,455
1,746
110
14,311
0
14,311
30,907
(7,473)
23,434
* MFW + OW = MSW
"Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.
As Table A-5 shows, both of the analyses using consumer spending as the driving
factor (i.e., change in the rate of waste generation and 1990 to 1996 regression)
support the computation of 2 3 million tons as the value for MSW source reduc-
tion in 1996, relative to the base year of 1990.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 75
-------
Additional Source Reduction Resources
EPA MSW Source Reduction Programs
EPA promotes source reduction through a variety of pro-
grams, including the following:
• Pay-As-You-Throw Programs. EPA provides techni-
cal and outreach assistance to encourage communities
to implement pay-as-you-throw programs for solid
waste. Under pay-as-you-throw, residents are charged
for MSW services based on the amount of trash they
discard, creating an incentive to generate less trash and
increase recycling. On average, communities with pay-
as-you-throw achieve waste reductions of 14 to 27
percent. For more information about these programs,
access EPA's Pay-As-You-Throw Web site at
or call 888 EPA-PAYT (372-
7298).
• Waste Wise. Waste Wise is a voluntary partnership
between EPA and U.S. businesses, institutions, non-
profit organizations, and government agencies to pre-
vent waste, recycle, and buy and manufacture recycled-
content products. By eliminating more than 1.8 million
tons of waste through source reduction in the first 4
years of the program, WasteWise partners prevented
the emission of 1.1 million metric tons of carbon equiv-
alent (the basic unit of measure for greenhouse gases)
into the atmosphere. More than 750 organizations par-
ticipated in the WasteWise program in 1998. For more
information about the program, access EPAs
WasteWise Web site at or
call 800 EPA-WISE (372-9473).
Information Available From
Other EPA Programs
The following publications are available on EPA's Public
Access Server at . They also
are available through the RCRA Hotline. To order a doc-
ument, call 800 424-9346 (or 800 553-7672 for the hear-
ing impaired) and request the document number listed
below in parentheses. In Washington, DC, the number is
703 412-9810 or TDD 703 412-3323. The RCRA
Hotline is open from Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to
6 p.m., e.s.t.
EPA's Climate Change and Waste Web Site
www.epa.gov/mswclimate
EPA's Office of Solid Waste
www.epa.gov/osw
www.epa.gov/compost
The Consumer's Handbook for Reducing Solid Waste
(EPA530-K-92-003)
Business Guide for Reducing Solid Waste
(EPA530-K-92-004)
Environmental Fact Sheet: Recycling Grass Clippings
(EPA530-F-92-012)
Environmental Fact Sheet: Yard Waste Composting
(EPA530-SW-91-009)
Enviro$en$e
www.epa.gov/envirosense
Pay-As-You-Throw: Throw Away Less and Save
(EPA530-F-96-028)
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting
Options: Lessons From 30 Communities
(EPA530-R-92-015)
76 National Source Reduction Characterization Report
-------
Other Selected Sources of Information Selected Internet Resources
Some of the publications listed below might require an
ordering fee.
Reuse It, Repair It, Rent It, Donate It—But Don't
Throw It Away!
To order, contact:
New York City Department of Sanitation
Phone:212219-8090
Making Source Reduction and Reuse Work in Your
Community
To order, contact:
National Recycling Coalition, Inc.
1727 King Street
Suite 105
Alexandria, VA 22314-2720
Phone: 703 683-9025
Making Less Garbage: A Planning Guide for
Communities
Making Less Garbage on Campus: A Hands-On
Guide
Reducing Office Paper Waste
To order, contact:
Inform, Inc.
120 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005-4001
Phone: 212 361-2400, Ext. 240
Source Reduction Now
How to implement a source reduction program at an
organization.
To order, contact:
Minnesota Office of
Environmental Assistance
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 651 215-0232
Weaving Textile Reuse into Waste Reduction
To order, contact:
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
2425 18th Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20009-2096
Phone:202232-4108
California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWMB)
www.ciwmb.ca.gov
Indiana Institute on Recycling (IIR)
web.indstate.edu:80/recycle
INFORM
www.informinc. org/
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable
www.p2.org
National Waste Prevention Coalition (NWPC)
www.metrokc.gov/nwpc
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse's Reducing Junk Mail
Fact Sheet
www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs4-junkhtm
The Solid Waste Association of North America
(SWANA)
www.swana. org
National Reuse Organizations
Reuse organizations are points of contact for organiza-
tions interested in buying, selling, or donating excess
material that would otherwise go to waste. Contact your
state recycling agency for information about local and
regional reuse organizations.
Reuse Development Organization, Inc.
P.O. Box 441363
Indianapolis, IN 46244
Phone: 317631-5396
E-mail: info@redo.org
Internet: www.redo.org
Chicago Board of Trade Recyclables Exchange
141 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-2994
Phone: 312 435-7223
Internet: www.cbot-recycle.com
National Association for the Exchange of Industrial
Resources
560 McClure Street
Galesburg, IL 61401
Phone: 800 562-0955
E-mail: donor.naier@misslink.net
Internet: www.freegoods.com/
-------
.euse
Efficiency
5 Printed on paper that contains at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber.
------- |