EPA/530/SW-147
MAY 1975 c.i
-------
An environmental protection publication in the solid waste management
series (SW-147). Mention of commercial products does not constitute
endorsement by the U.S. Government. Lditing and technical content of
this report were accomplished by the Resource Recovery Division of the
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
Single copies of the publication are available from Solid Waste
Management Information Materials Distribution, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
U
-------
A SOLID WASTE ESTT'ATION PROCEDURE:
MATERIAL FLOWS APPROACH
by Fred L. Smith, Jr.*
Introduction and Background
Those who formulate policy for managing the Nation's solid waste
need to know how much of it there is and what it consists of. This
paper will estimate the quantity of household and commercial solid waste
for 1971 by material and product source. The methodology for achieving
this estimate is based on production and marketing statistics for both
products and materials. The data and assumptions used to obtain these
results are shown in appendices.
There are two ways to estimate waste quantities and compositions.
The first, an output approach, is to examine or measure the solid waste
(discard stream). The second, an input approach, iL to analyze the flow
of materials and products produced and consumed. Most existing estimates
of solid waste quantities and composition were obtained through the
former approach: by weighing and separating refuse at the disposal
site. Estimates based on production and marketing data are less common.+
*Mr. Smith is an operations research analyst with the Resource
Recovery Division, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs (OSWMP),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
+This is not the first such effort. The Midwest Research Institute
(MRI) pioneered in estimating waste from material flow data in a series
of OSWMP funded reports: The Role of Packaging in Solid Waste Management:
(1969); The Role of Nonpackaging Paper in Solid Waste Management,^
(1971); Salvage Markets for Materials in Solid Wastes,^ (1972). Resource
Planning Associates, Inc. used an approach similar to that presented in
this paper in their report, Potential Economic Value of the Municipal
Solid Waste Stream,4 (1972), prepared for the National Center for
Resource Recovery. Two contracts performed for EPA by the URS Research
Company conceptualized perhaps the most sophisticated production-oriented
estimation approach: Methods of Predicting Solid Waste Characteristics,5
(1971); A Plapning Model for the Prediction of Residential and Commercial
Solid Wastes.6 (1972).
-------
The results of a sampling approach are generally specific to the
time and place of the sample and, thus, cannot readily be extrapolated.
Also, since solid waste is generated by numerous household and commercial
sources (apartment buildings, single family homes, drug stores, super-
markets, etc.), a representative sample of all such sources would have
to be very large. Most sampling has been restricted to residential
waste and provides little information on non-residential municipal
waste.
In principle, a material flow approach, based on production and
marketing statistics, avoids many of these problems. Attention is given
to the material and product categories involved in solid waste rather
than to the sources of solid waste. Since production and marketing
statistics are regularly collected and published, subsequent estimates
require far less effort once the initial methodology has been developed.
A disadvantage of a material flow approach is that you may leave
out or incorrectly estimate a waste category, such as lawn waste, that
does not pass through the production sector. The two approaches applied
in tandem can be used to cross-check each other and should yield a more
accurate representation of the waste stream.
Definition and Scope
"Solid waste" refers to everything from the tailings of mine
operations to discarded cans. Indeed, solid waste can be defined as:
all non-gaseous, non-liquid by-products of production and consumption
that, at the time and place of discard, have no economic value. Solid
waste thus includes agricultural and forestry residue, animal manure, as
well as fly ash, rejected output, slag, and sludge generated in refining,
production, and converting operations. Solid waste also includes the
dredging spoils generated in waterway maintenance, the debris from
construction and demolition operations, and the sludge produced in water
and waste treatment operations. Many of these wastes are thought to be
large, but data are very limited and widely scattered.
The paper estimates the fraction of solid waste that is most
noticeable to the public and that poses the most immediate problem to
municipalities: the household and commercial fraction. (The commercial
fraction here refers to the waste generated by institutions, business
establishments, and other offices.) The following categories are excluded
from this discussion: (1) industrial processing waste; (2) construction
or demolition waste; (3) street sweepings (except littered product-type
waste); (4) heavy or bulky tree and landscape waste (other than lawn-
trimming waste accepted in ordinary collection); (5) automobile waste
(except tires); (6) sewage sludge.
-------
Since our concern here is with the waste generated by the household
and commercial fraction, we will consider the following product end-use
categories: newspapers, books, and magazines; containers and packaging;
major household appliances; furniture and furnishings; clothing and
footwear; other household and commercial products. All materials used
in one or more of these product categories will be examined. These
include paper, glass, aluminum, iron and steel, other nonferrous metals,
plastics, rubber and leather, textiles, and wood. The waste generation
estimates are cross-classified by both material and product category.
Additional categoriesfood waste, yard waste, and miscellaneous inorganics-
are also included in the household/commercial waste stream and will be
discussed later.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in making these waste generation estimates is
a hybrid one in which the production, or material, flow approach is used
to estimate the non-food product solid waste. Food, yard, and miscel-
laneous non-product wastes are estimated from these results, as well as
from data on waste composition. A final adjustment to these estimates
is needed to account for the variability introduced by moisture.
Product Haste Categories
The material flow approach requires one to first consider the total
production of each raw material and then to systematically trace each
material through the production system to its final use in one or more
of the product categories, which appear in residential or commercial
solid waste. The precise steps in this process differ according to the
particular material and product category under consideration.* However,
in general, an attempt was made to carry out the following steps:
(1) Production data were obtained for each selected material
and were adjusted for imports and exports in order to obtain
estimates of apparent domestic "consumption". These statistics
are generally reported as apparent bulk consumption e.g.,
millions of tons of steel, thousands of board feet of lumber,
etc;
(2) Apparent consumption of each material was then allotted to
each product category e.g., steel consumed in major appliances
and wood consumed in packaging;
*A complete treatment of each basic material is presented in the
Appendices.
-------
(3) The raw material quantities for each product category were
reduced to include processing losses, and the resulting
estimates were adjusted for imports and exports to obtain
estimates of the apparent consumption of the finished products;
(4) The estimated quantities of materials consumed in each product
category were then adjusted to include any losses in use or
diversions from the solid waste stream to obtain an estimate
of potential solid waste;*
(5) A time-lag between consumption and discard was introduced
where appropriate to account for the durability of various
finished products (e.g. furniture and appliances);
(6) For each product material category, potential solid waste was
adjusted to account for the quantity of material recovered
through recycling;
(7) The resulting final waste disposal estimates for each material
and product category were then summed to obtain net product-
related solid waste generation.
In order to use this methodology for any specific material, such as
paper or aluminum, extensive data must be available from either govern-
mental or industrial sources. Moreover, the estimator must be familiar
with the reporting conventions and production stages of that industry.
For most materials, there are several processing and distribution steps
between bulk raw material production and final goods consumption. Even
when data are available for each stage of production, only a fraction of
the tonnage involved at any stage of processing may be reported, or the
level of detail may make it difficult to distinguish consumption by
product category. Moreover, the units of measurement and categories
used at one stage are often difficult to reconcile with those used at
the next. For example, to trace the amount of wood consumed in making
plywood boxes, one finds the data reported successively in board feet of
timber, square feet of plywood, and finally, thousands of boxes. Given
such problems, tracing material flows requires that the estimator be
familiar with both the materials and the products involved.
Our lack of detailed working knowledge of some of the materials
under consideration (e.g. nonferrous metals and plastics) and our
inability to locate a comprehensive set of production and material flow
statistics for some commodities (e.g. glass and leather) forced us
sometimes to stray from our methodology. Indeed, for certain materials,
our actual estimation procedure resembled the assembly of a jigsaw or
crossword puzzle more than the logical tracing-out of material flows,
*Examples of such adjustments are the exclusion of toilet tissue
which is discarded as sewage and of cigarette paper which is dissipated
in use.
-------
as described above. The details of our actual calculations for each
material are described in the appropriate Appendix.
The upper portion of Table 1 ("as generated" column) summarizes the
results of these material flow calculations and provides a breakdown by
material and product end-use. Non-food product waste was estimated at
77.1 million tons in 1971. These results will be discussed in a subsequent
section of this paper.
Food, Yard, and Other Miscellaneous Inorganic Waste
As mentioned earlier, the household and commercial waste stream is
not restricted to product-type waste. Food waste, yard waste, and
miscellaneous inorganics (largely dirt and stones) also constitute
important waste fractions. This waste is not readily estimated by means
of a material flow analysis , and, thus, necessitates an indirect
estimation approach: the compositions of collected solid waste samples.
Such an approach poses difficulties. We must rely on physical samples
of the solid waste stream, which are limited in terms of the number of
sources included. Moreover, such samples vary widely in their results.
Interpreting and comparing the samples is difficult due to the failure
of most sampling studies to report whose waste was sampled (e.g. residential,
commercial/ manufacturing, commercial/retail ing) and what the moisture
content of each waste component was. Also, the material or product
categories used for reporting the waste composition vary from study to
study.. Finally, most samples fail to account for major compositional
differences by region and season.
A composition study prepared by Niessen and Chansky was judged to
suffer least from the limitations described above.'' Their work compared
a large number of composition studies and attempted to aggregate them in
order to represent the "average municipal solid waste composition" for a
number of representative situations. Their figures were the basis for
calculations of food and yard waste (Table 2). As shown, food, yard,
and miscellaneous inorganics are estimated to represent respectively
18.7, 20.4, and 1.6 percent of the residential and commercial municipal
post-consumer solid waste stream.
Our product waste estimate of 77.1 million tons includes major
appliances, furniture, and tires. However, it is likely that the Niessen
and Chansky results excluded such bulky waste. No precise information
exists on the product content of the waste streams they considered, and
a sofa or a refrigerator would introduce a large element of variability
into any reasonably size sampling efforts. Therefore, before proceeding
to estimate the remaining fraction of municipal post-consumer waste, we
reduced the 77.1-million-ton estimate to exclude bulky waste. Bulky
-------
3
>-
O EC
i-« O
_1 CD
O LJJ
OO I
»_4 LlJ
o o
a; ct
UJ =3
s: o
s; oo
CJ I
O h-
Z t-J
< ^D
O
_1 O
<. ex
<-< a.
So
LJ-I -C.
O <
UJ ~
O CQ
Oi <
UJ OL
on
ro
0
|
_
ro
CU
ra
s:
c
o
h-
"r-
01 1^
CU
S~ Ul
O !-
en on
CO ro
ro
0 4->
CU cn
U !-
S- CU
00 =
-O
4-} CU
3 ro
a s-
2m
E
Q_ D
CJ3
CO
s
b
cu
O on
O.-I-
01 O1
i- ro
O CO
01
=
=
T3
CO
ro
S- 01
C 01
CO ro
CD CQ
01
i 4J
s- c
CU CU
a. u
^^
a. .
10 >>
-1
on
10 c
0 O
i I
1 4->
i- C
at cu
O- O
O- *f-
ro >,
CJ ra
_J
UD C
O O
1
sjonpcuj
aaq+'o
SUBMIOOJ
S 6u.LU.40L3
s5uLUSLUwin.j
$ aaniiuunj
saoueiLddv
D 1 OU9S HOH
JO/CBU
*
RII l fipN'ip j
SJ9U?B1UOT
S3ULZB6BU1
pus ' s>)ooq
'SU3dBdSM3N
I/I
i CM co p~ r~ LD
OO i CO COOO i CM O O
«J-
oo
'
i i o i CM ur> in .
!- 1 S- 1 O 1 S_
*-> 1 4-> 1 O 1 O O O 4->
CM
.1 ...i >vnco
i-i- .L-L.1. .&_ » .
4-> 4J O +J4->+-> O 4-> O CM
CM
CO
1 * O*> r^ t~~ r | |
1 S- . II
1 4J r r- O O II
.
CM
«*-' ^-VOi IT) -CO
S- S~
o i 10 moo CM 4-> 4-*
CM i
1 4-» 1
CO
d
"
en
"io
o
1
3 U
£ -§
J- 0) O
4) f~ ^_
M- 4-> a.
§O CU TJ
z i o eu
3 C 0 4J
O'i S-01o2Jul U_01
S- E CU O CU 1 ro
S- oil CUi 4-*4J CU-r- O
CU O1 rOU_T3Z"D
CXrO+J lOjQXO O
rOi CO i 3CUO O
CL
CO
I 0)
CO CO «3- O ;
cn en i o
r-^ i o
(
|
)
CO CO OO CO
CM CO - Z
~
01
E
(O
S-
Dl
O
i.
a.
+j
IT
1 ?
&
OT
T5
(Q
^."
-r^>
t/l
! «1
T?
O
CO
'+-
o
a>
u
t*-
'*-
CJ
c
o
(/)
>
c:>
>1
(U
>
1 0
u
CJ
eg o
(_> -r
S- t-
O ^
Ul E
CO
o
4JO,
E
OO C.
o
1 -r-
ro
U- 33
O.
- O
a.
CO
i ra
OO CO
X +
-------
* r-
z. en
O r-
Q 1I
UJ I -Z.
| Ii II
r- .
CO
CM
co
LO
1-^
CO
"=!
O
CM
IO
O
O
o
0)
-p
to
«0
I
o
S-
(U i
CO
3 «
o: «c
eC UJ
_J CO
M
O
O UJ
I-H co
a:
o
s-
o
CT
OJ
at
0)
o:
s_
OJ
Q-
(O
s-
CD
JO
^3
3
S-
S-
0)
j:
-p
03
OJ
-a
o
s-
Q-
-a
O
o
to
CO
OJ
X
cu
T3
O
O
-------
waste is assumed to include: major household appliances (2.1 million
tons); furniture and furnishings (3.2 million tons); rubber tires (1.7
million tons) (Table 1). These exclusions amount to 7.0 million tons
and result in an estimate of-70.1 million tons for "non-bulky" product
waste, which represents 59.3 percent of the total municipal post-consumer
waste stream according to the Niessen and Chansky study.
Using this procedure, we estimate 22.0 million tons of food waste, 24.1
million tons of yard waste, and 1.8 million tons of miscellaneous inorganic
waste. (These statistics are shown in the lower portion of Table 1.)
Moisture Adjustments
An additional refinement was the adjustment of the moisture levels
in the various waste stream components to reflect the moisture transfer
occurring during storage and collection. For example, paper is discarded
on an air-dry basis of about 7 percent moisture, but will generally be
measured in composition surveys after it has become a part of mixed
refuse and has gained moisture. Niessen and Chansky have estimated both
'the "as-discarded" and "as-disposed" moisture content of each category
(Table 3). Using these figures, the "as-disposed" results shown in the
right-hand columns of Table 1 were calculated. These composition percentages
correspond more closely to those typically reported in the literature.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The total annual waste generation estimate of 125 million tons
per year in 1971 amounts to 3.3 pounds per person per day, assuming a
1971 population of 207 million. This per capita rate is significantly
lower than the widely-quoted 190 million tons per year or 5.3 pounds per
person per day result that was assumed to hold in 1967. This result was
estimated from the 1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices.
Almost two-thirds of this difference is directly explained by the fact
that the National Survey included some industrial, demolition, construction,
and municipal waste types which are excluded from tne present estimates.
The National Survey may also have overestimated the household and commercial
components of the National solid waste stream. In this regard, it
should be noted that, instead of using systematic measurements, the
National Survey results were principally based on the estimates of
collected tonnage which were prepared by local solid waste agencies.*
*The difference between various waste generation estimates has been
analyzed and discussed in the following report: Smith, F.A. Comparative
estimates of post-consumer solid waste. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-148. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 18 p.
-------
TABLE 3
ASSUMED PERCENTAGES MOISTURE CONTENT OF MATERIALS
IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE*
"As Discarded"
"As Disposed"
Paper
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Rubber and
Leather
Textiles
Wood
Food
Yard
Miscellaneous
7.0
0
0
2.0
2.0
7.0
15.0
70.0
50.0
2.0
23.1
3.0
5.5
13.0
13.0
,20.0
15.0
63.0
34.0
4.0
Weighted Average
0.27
0.27
*Niessen, W. R., and S. H. Chansky. The nature of refuse.
In Proceedings; 1970 National Incinerator Conference, Cincinnati,
Ray 17-20, 1970. New York, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, p.14.
-------
Based on the "as-generated" estimates presented in Table 1, several
pertinent characteristics of post-consumer solid waste can be inferred.
First, 80 percent of the waste stream is organic (including synthetics),
and 20 percent inorganic (9.7 percent glass, 9.5 percent metals, 1.4 percent
miscellaneous inorganics). Second, of the material fractions recoverable
as materials (recyclable), only the paper, glass, and ferrous fractions
comprise more than 8 percent of the total municipal post-consumer waste
stream. The other individual recyclable materials, taken together,
comprise less than 4 percent of the total. Third, about 25 percent of
the total weight of municipal post-consumer solid waste is moisture,
which originates principally in the food and yard waste fractions.
According to present estimates based on percentage composition
studies, about 80 percent of "as-generated" solid waste is derived from
market-product sources (as opposed to yard-and garden-type waste). If
we exclude food waste, product waste still accounts for about 60 percent
of the waste generation. Also, roughly 80 percent of the weight of
typical raw municipal refuse is composed of combustible materials.
Container and packaging materials currently contribute about one-
third of total post-consumer waste, 42 percent of total product-derived
waste, and 54 percent of non-food product waste. The container and
packaging fraction currently accounts for about 72 percent of the total
mineral (combined glass and metals) fraction. In terms of individual
materials, this source category contributes well over 90 percent of the
glass, 75 percent of the aluminum, and at least 45 to 55 percent of each
of the ferrous metal, paper, and plastic fractions of the municipal
post-consumer waste stream. Consumer durable goods, including household
appliances, furniture, recreational equipment and the like, account for
about 10 to 12 percent of total waste. Newspapers, books and magazines
account for about 8 percent.
10
-------
REFERENCES
1. Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. The role of packaging in solid
management, 1966 to 1976. Public Health Service Publication
No. 1855. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 205 p.
2. Franklin, W. E., and A. Darnay. The role of nonpackaging paper in
solid waste management, 1966 to 1976. Public Health Service
Publication No. 2040. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1971. 76 p.
3. Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials in
solid wastes. Environmental Protection Publication SW-29c.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 187 p.
4. Resource Planning Associates, Inc. Potential economic value of
the municipal solid waste stream. Washington, National Center
for Resource Recovery, Inc., September 1972. 19 p.
5. Boyd, G. B., and M. B. Hawkins. Methods of predicting solid waste
characteristics. Environmental Protection Publication,SW-23c.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 28 p.
6. Black, R. H., R. R. Fiedler, M. B. Hawkins, and P. 0. Strom.
A planning model for the prediction of residential and commercial
solid wastes; final report. San Mateo, California, Urs Research
Company, 1972. 46 p., app.
7. Niessen, W. R. and S. H. Chansky. The nature of refuse. Jn_
Proceedings; 1970 National Incinerator Conference, Cincinnati,
May 17-20, 1970. New York, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, p. 1-24.
8. Black, R. J., A. J. Muhich, A. J. Klee, H. L. Hickman, Jr., and
R. D. Vaughan. The national solid wastes survey; an interim report.
[Cincinnati], U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1968. 53 p.
11
-------
APPENDICES A-I
These appendices present detailed calculations for
the waste generation estimates for each material category.
12
-------
APPENDIX A
Aluminum
Since aluminum discards by product category had already been esti-
mated in a previous report for EPAj material flow tracing for aluminum
from production through product end-use was not conducted by EPA (except
for containers).
The end-use data obtained from this report are summarized in
Table A-l along with EPA extrapolations. Separate data on aluminum
consumed in the container and packaging area were obtained from the
Aluminum Association (Table A-2).
In total, .8 million tons of aluminum are in the household and
commercial waste stream. The quantities of aluminum discarded from each
end-use are as follows: packaging and containers, .6 million tons;
major appliances, .2 million tons. These are the results reported in
Tables A-l and A-2.
13
-------
o t-.'
I 01
o. «-
x o
LU J->
u
ro
o
<*- o
-
uj
to
Jjj
tn-n,
T &>
< S
3 s
CO u
OJ ,_
j_ ^
E:
^
"ZZ.
3.
-H-
O)
C !->
i- in
(O
c 3
0 ° °
O !- £
u o
IO O
L.
-, "- Z
in =>=
c:
O
X, 0)
£. +J
in
(O
3 01 CM
CJ Co ^O
^-- ~o o%
^ ^~
0
+
>^O1
i- Ol
4J i
C 1
"H (O "O Ol
CQ 3d)
^ * ro* f
o
in d)
1 1 1 r»*
0)
in 4->
y3
'^ d O Ol i
3 Ol*""
O- c c
'B'"~
-> o
M U
UI HI
CQ
C
O
£>
oS U
3
>, 01 S-
LO CM CO
O CM i
01 f^ t^* r ID ro
CM Ol LD CO CO
n r- tj-
c
o
+J e« 4-> oQ Ol
10 10 i C C
4-* OJ (O >> OJ t- -i-
s- i-i o i-E o)cn
O Q)-Q - Q>Q- C(O
Q. E (O S- C <- -r- -^
in 3S- )-> -r-3 rOU 1-
C V>3 U'jrO" 4J«O <1J
to CO OJ OLU Cd. ^=
S- O
1 O LU El O O
C C O N
3 IU CO T-
if C '^~
O O CXI -4->
£-»- S- i 3
O.T- CM
O > 1 "O
r_ C3 03
>>LU OL. in
<*- <0
r- in OJ
<->CO ro i-
C 0
O 13 » C
^3 4^-
r- (O
O CM O
*-* * l*-
-o -o
>>o *" in
TJ ^ CJ (U
3 1 T- -r-
01 +J~ M- +J
LO in l/l Ol'*~
1 d C
" < C >- 3
i O. i-
+J l/> O
IO ro O.
Q) 0 - 0-
r~ -r- 0) O
i- (^ O
O JD -r- >>
4^ 3 > li-
ra 0. S- -r-
S_ CJ -4->
O C CO C
JD 0 Q)
rcj -r- C "O
LO t t-> O *r-
fx (i .,
i VI (U +J O
3 -M IO -M
JD O E
3 d. O -C?
r t- 3
O C 4->
O ro > t CO
» C r -
<1> U ro Cil
4-> E U +-*
3 C -i- 3
+J O E -M
r- t- -C 1-
4^ -r- CJ 4->
in > (U in
C C r C
<^> i 15 r
<*> ro c to
^ 4-> 0 -r-
S- i- T- S-
O O !-> O in
BO.
0) E -d tt) T-
r c -a i in
4-> 3 3 >-> <
r0 r ^3 lO O.
CQ e£ !- DQ LU
* ^3 "*""**"
in
CM -
Q
ra
4J
0
1
14
-------
TABLE A-2
ALUMINUM CONTAINER AND PACKAGING WASTE - 1971
(000 Tons)
Shipments to Container 758
and Packaging Market*
Converting losses @ 0.15+ 114
Net consumer purchases 664
and discards
*Aluminum statistical review, 1971. New York,
Aluminum Association.
+EPA estimate.
15
-------
REFERENCE FOR APPENDIX A
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to
identify opportunities for increased solid waste utilization.
v.2. Aluminum report, v.3. Copper report, v.4. Lead report.
v.5. Zinc report, v.6. Nickel and stainless steel report.
v.7. Precious metals report. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-40d.2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. 608 p.
(Distributed by National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Va., as PB-212 730.)
16
-------
APPENDIX B
Glass
Glass consumption is divided into the major categories shown in
Table B-l. The categories likely to enter the household and municipal
solid waste stream include containers, table and houseware glass, and
electronic glassware. A fraction of flat glass also enters through
normal breakage.
Statistics on glass consumed for containers are generally measured
after fabrication. Thus, the only loss would be from breakage in transit,
and this is assumed to be negligible. Time series for container glass
consumption are presented in the Glass Container Manufacturer's Institute
(GCMI) Annual Reports. No production series for flat and pressed/blown
glass categories were found.
Consumption and discards of container glass is estimated at 11.1 million
tons for 1971.' Although no source of data for the flat and pressed/
blown glass categories was available, a previous EPA report estimated that
glass waste from these categories in 1967 was 1.0 million tons.2>-P- 71~^
For lack of better data, this figure was used as a base. No expansion for
.growth was considered, although the actual 1971 waste is probably somewhat
higher. Total glass waste is estimated at 12.1 million tons, of which
container and packaging consume 11.1 million tons with other products
consuming the remaining 1.0 million tons.
17
-------
TABLE B-l
GLASS CONSUMPTION CATEGORIES
Category
Uses
Containers
Pressed and Blown
Table & Houseware, Decorative
Electronic Glassware
Insulation Glass
Flat Glass
Window Glass
Float Glass
Laminated Glass
Soft drinks, beer, food
Dishes
Light bulbs
Appliance & House Insulation
Windows
Windows
Automobile Glass
18
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX B
1.
2.
Glass containers; 1972/73.
Institute, 1973.
Washington, Glass Container Manufacturers
Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials in
solid wastes. Environmental Protection Publication SW-29c.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. Figure 21.
Approximate glass industry material flows, 1967.
19
-------
APPENDIX C
Iron and Steel Products
Since most iron and steel products have long lifetimes, the used
production statistics to estimate the amount of ferrous material that
will be discarded annually poses a major problem. Therefore, an esti-
mate of waste for any one year requires that the lifetime of each major
product category using ferrous material be estimated and that production
data for past years corresponding to that lifetime be obtained.
Another chronic problem is that production statistics are collected
at the bulk commodity shipment point. Thus, consumption of iron and
steel has to be adjusted to account for the loss of scrap from fabricating
and conversion operations. One special problem, unique in the steel
industry, is that much bulk production is reported as "consumed" by
distribution centers which receive steel in various shapes and forms and
then retail it to miscellaneous small metal-working establishments. The
end-use as well as the nature of the waste problem cannot be determined
without a detailed study of the markets served. To our knowledge,
no such study has been performed.
For these reasons, the waste estimates in our analysis are not
based on the extensive annual series reported by the American Iron and
Steel Institute in their Annual Statistical Report. Rather, we relied
on a Battelle Memorial Institute report prepared for EPA, which attempted
to estimate the quantity of ferrous materials that entered the waste
stream in 1970.'
Portions of this data are reproduced in Table C-l. It is assumed
that the steel categories most likely to be found in the residential and
commercial solid waste stream are consumer durables and containers. For
lack of better data, it is also assumed that 1.9 million tons of miscel-
laneous ferrous waste finds its way into this solid waste stream (Table
C-l). Thus, a rough estimate of total residential and commercial ferrous
solid waste from non-automotive sources in 1971 is 11.4 million tons
(Table C-l). It is assumed that no iron and steel castings are included
in household and commercial solid waste.
More complete data were available for the packaging waste category,
and an improved waste estimate for this category was possible. Using
shipments by steel mills as an approximation for consumption by the con-
tainer industry, the situation is shown in Table C-2. It is assumed
that only a small portion of packaging materials other than cans and
closures enters the household and commercial waste stream. (These
adjustments are shown in the table.) The resulting 5.4 million tons is
our packaging waste figure.
20
-------
ca
UJ
H-
co
^^
3
Q
CO HH
<: o
I-H CO
UJ _I
H- 3
O O
S- 0
S- O
CO -
U.
E
O
r~ t-
O
E 4->
fO O
Q. 0}
X U.
UJ
0)
-U
in- -
03 t/J
3 E
0 0
OT 3
r- 00
S- O
S- O
<1) -^-^
u_
^^ ^"""^
0-H-
- V) E
l/> O CD
E _l O
o o
o -
t^~*
V)
O) E
E O> O
O 10 H-
r- E
4J E O
Q O O
EI-0
3 "* *
(/)
E -O
O O
O i-
S-
-V (U
r Q-
3
03 (U
E
r~
H-
O
O
OO
00
oo
o
*
r
o
o
CM
OO
0
O
00
O
o
0
IO
LO
CT>
1
«*
cr>
i
in
(U
^
^T>
^O
S-
3
O
S-
01
F^
3
U)
E
O
o
o
o
CM
VO
LO
O
r
o
CD
CT>
LO
O
O
LO
^-»
O
o
f*"*^
0
cr>
|
O^
^.o
o^
^-*
(/)
s-
01
c
r
E
0
o
o
o
cr>
00
o
1
o
o
00
o
o
^j-
0
CD
CM
CM
fm
LO
CT>
1
O^
^~
CT>
^«
^.
(/)
3
O
O)
C
res
!
r *
QJ
O
l/>
r-
S
cn
C ^^
r- S-
O
0 Q.
>>r
r~ _^"
0 «-» 4->
(U res
trt "Z. M-
fO O
>
s- ja 10
O CM
E -a i
r- OJ >
4-> I 1
S- 3
O J3 >
4-> CM S-
S- 0. 1 0
O > CD
CLr- i-< O -I-1
(O "f^ O
o >^rv. i 3
i- o LO r -a
4- E «=C O
i- CO 00 = S-
4-> CJ)r Q.
E O
i i O Q-
^ l^« 40
<-> tn o E
o res co
V. 0) +J O
C S-
0) O CO 0)
_1 S- i-
2: CO CD
i " O.CM
to -a
-o *-> c CD a»
E O) i r>
O *r~
I E <*- cn O
E CT> C !->
o o c -
E S- -r- -ii£ T3
n3 !- S- «a CO
> O-4-> E
> E CO 3
i/> UJ >> in
a> «ja in
E a> to
ro co o t3
1-73 »r- E S-
S- -r- 05
3 0) E
co E- to
O D d
D: 4J E -i-> (/>
in o a) in
« to ! "O O
3 to in
a e -r- c
- s- o
3 r- 0 S -r-
O M- O I/)
> U) E S_ S-
C i « tt>
in >
Cn 3 r - E
0) O to JCZ O
ac: i. u t o
* s- *- + -H-
O) E
«*- JC
o
M (1)
OH-
21
-------
TABLE C-2
FERROUS PACKAGING WASTE - 1971
(000 Tons)
Cans and Closures
Barrels* Drums and
Shipments*
5808
732
Less Converting
LOSS+
5111
644
Less Diverting
Fraction^
5111
129
Shipping Pails
All Other 672 591 118
TOTALS 7212 6346 5358
*Annual statistical report, 1971. Washington, American Iron and Steel
Institute, 1972. p.26.
+Converting losses are assumed to be 12 percent of bulk consumption.
$A11 cans and closures are assumed to enter the designated waste stream;
however, only 20 percent of the other categories are assumed to do so.
22
-------
Ferrous waste, attributable to major household appliances (1.7
million tons), was calculated from data presented in a National Industrial
Pollution Control Council report.2 (This figure is reported separately
in the body of this report.)
A residual category of ferrous waste, referred to as "other"
waste, was calculated by subtracting the 1.7 million tons of waste of
major household appliances from the consumer durables category in Table
C-l and then adding this figure to the miscellaneous category in this
table.
To conclude, the residential and commercial ferrous waste figures
are as follows: total ferrous waste equals 10.6 million tons, which can
be broken down into containers and packaging (5.4 million tons); major
household appliances (1.7 million tons); other products (3.5 million
tons).
23
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
1. Regan, W. J., R. W. James, and T. J. McLeer. Identification
of opportunities for increased recycling of ferrous solid waste.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. 391 p. (Distributed by
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as
PB-213 577.)
2. 'National Industrial Pollution Control Council. The disposal of
major appliances. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
June 1971. 22 p.
24
-------
APPENDIX D
Nonferrous Metals
Nonferrous metals represent a broad range of materials used in our
economy. However, with the exception of aluminum, most of these metals
are found in only trace quantities in the household and commercial waste
stream. Since aluminum is reported separately, the nonferrous category
represents our estimates of the remaining material. Copper and lead are
assumed to represent the bulk of these materials.
Instead of tracing material flows, we obtained data on copper from
a previous report for EPA by the Battelle Memorial Institute.1 (The
resulting data are shown in Table D-l.) Total copper waste is estimated
at 200 thousand tons, of which approximately 100 thousand tons are dis-
carded in major appliances/
Direct estimates were available for the tin and lead consumed in
tin can manufacture (containers and packaging), which resulted in a .1-
million-ton contribution. The total nonferrous estimate was then
arbitrarily increased by .1 million tons in order to reflect other
nonferrous metals likely to be found in solid waste.
These figures are reported in the body of this report as follows:
Total Nonferrous Haste 400 Thousand Tons
Containers and Packaging 100 thousand tons
Major Household Appliances 100 thousand tons
Other Products 200 thousand tons
25
-------
1
t
o
UJ
3
t
V
5
LJ
CU
fe
LU
1
tjla cu
id »-*->
i. 4-* V)
LL. c id
f~
in * oo
Wl
ut
w
CO >
*^~
CU J= i-
XI en -a
3 3 *U
t O ,
c cu ^. o
Id &. 4-* i
t Vt I
CU 3 id 1- «t
3 CU t- 01 H-
c cu o. o
a> -c a. t
uj s: o o
o
M- C
a
01 +J -O
r- Id Id i~ nl
r- ( O "~ 3
3 JD 4-J CU Irt
+-* 3 id E re*
k* O_ ^ 3
O CO I/I
O. C >, C t-
CL O -Q O 1
O <- U 1
4-> TJ tn
>, U 0) S- CJ
c- +J 3 a. o
+^ O t~i f~^ n
C 1- -r- O
Q (1» "O
> e cu s-
-a c +->
3 O < 4-> -r-
+J S- i « id
«/> -r- o OQ i-
> O PI
«C c i r^ >»"O
UJ J3 J3 C
Id CM Id
i < ~a
(O CM CU *
0) +> 1 00 to
1- 1- OJ 3 S- £=
1- O CM Cl- O <3
O Q-T^x CU 4-* Q>
4~> cu ot v> ui id S-
irt t. ^1 O "
i- .C xi in
O S- - 4-> id
ja ai >> s-
i a. c: > o cu v>
O CO r IU
00 CJ CJ) - 4-> -i- i.
3 *I "O 0> f^
£ t; cu J3 E ra
3 m c T- 3 o >-
i -i- >*- M +-> U
O > -M CJ1 3 i-
O U C IO IO CO
CO -i- E
- . +. s. ai . E:
CU C O Q- 1- O i- 1/1 IO V) O
3 »- a. 10
f- Id r- CU S- J3 C
4-> N ro (J 0) ID
UI -r- *->!- .C O>
i: c > cn-a
i-^ -i- CU S- XJ T3 i
4-> E O) UJ 1. XT
ia o 3 +> co
r- CU i- C i- I/I
S- 4-> !- O CU (d 3
§1/1 > T- CU - i .c
3: ui id s- i
2: E O oo CO
a E en cu -c
CU *l~ UO O O *r ^-^
f 1 **- 4-> i-
i C O c n» o i-
CU v) i i (_> en CO
+J 0) 4->
-tJ -a O) 4J c:
IO CU CM Id JC Id 0)
CQ oo u 1 U
K ia -a -i- + o
CU O £= Ol -M
S- *d" «~ CO
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX D
1. Battelle Memorial Institute. Columbus Laboratories. A study to
identify opportunities for increased solid waste utilization.
v.2. Aluminum report, v.3. Copper report, v.4. Lead report.
v.5. Zinc report, v.6. Nickel and stainless steel report.
v.7. Precious metals report. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-40d.2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. 608 p.
(Distributed by National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Va., as PB-212 730.)
2. National ludustrial Pollution Control Council. The disposal of
major appliances. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
June 1971. 22 p.
3. Hill, G. A. Steel can study; an interim report on resource recovery
and conservation opportunities for the ferrous fraction of the
municipal solid waste stream. [Washington], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
Resource Recovery Division, June 1973. 83 p., app. (Unpublished
report.)
27
-------
APPENDIX E
Table E-l summarizes the calculations used to estimate paper waste.
It is important to note that building paper and board are excluded from
these calculations.* Column 1 shows "Apparent Consumption," that is,
production adjusted for imports and exports. (These statistics are
reported by the American Paper InstituteJ)
The categories used in Table E-l are those conventionally used to
report bulk paper and board statistics. Containerboard+ is equal to the
sum of unbleached kraft linerboard, semi-chemical paperboard, and
combination shipping board. "Other virgin board" is a residual category
and equals total virgin board less linerboard, semi-chemical medium,
and bleached packaging and converting board. "Other Combination Board"
is also a residual category and equals combination board less combination
bending board and combination shipping board.
The scrap losses shown in Column 2 were obtained from estimates
made by the Midwest Research Institute as well as an industry spokesman
(Table E-2). These converting losses are deducted, and the resulting
final consumption is regrouped in Column 3.
Column 4 indicates the estimated fraction of each use category that
either: (1) is dissipated in use, such ais sand paper; (2) does not enter
the solid waste stream, such as toilet tissue; (3) is stored permanently,
such as archive material. The diversion estimates are based on a report
for EPA by Midwest Research Institute.2 (Since the MRI estimates include
both permanent and temporary diversions, the quantity diverted was revised
downward for this report diverted was revised downward for this report
to reflect only permanent diversions.) In principle, one should
account for the fact that some paper products are discarded several years
after production. However, since most paper products have relatively
short-use lives, this time-lag adjustment was neglected in this report.
Column 5 summarizes the amount of paper to be discarded. The data
is again regrouped to allow use of MRI estimates of the fraction of each
grade consumed in the household.3 (The figures used are shown in
Table E-3.)
*Their exclusion is based on the fact that these products rarely
enter the household/commercial waste stream.
+Containerboard is often referred to as corrugated board. The two
terms are used interchangeably in this report.
28
-------
0, O
4-> I
QJ
+J
__ (/)
fl3
t "Z
S- -*
o
<-> T-t
QJ ^
00 £
o2 S
^is
'S <"
t/) ^
3
0
=? -o
J. s-
S «
CnS 0
"^ in
o
2
CO i/l
. *
s«- .£
O
o-o
cu cu
CO S-
OJ
r*x >
0
-o <->
2 ^
0 =*
J=
1-3
§fe
CO^ 0
C/)
in
-p
Ln oj u
"Z. m
o
CD
cn
(Q
C
C
o o
QJ t
+->
*3- i,
QJ +J
r- QJ
Q CJ
i-
QJ
0_
c,
0
-M
CO CX.
E
ro cn
c c
r- O
u_ o
O)
CD
(/> ro
QJ C
t/) C
tn O
O I
_I
CM
0-4-*
fO C!
S- OJ
O CJ
CO S-
O)
Q_
C
o
-t-> +->
C 0.
QJ E
' S- 13
fO i/l
Q- C
O- O
QJ
-a
fQ
i-
CJ3
CO
cn
«3-
o
vo
cn
«3-
«=J-
CO
CTt
CO
*^
CO
CM
CM
CO
CM
cn
ro
o
r-*
cn
ro
O
r^
cn
cn
«tf-
LO
CM
m
r-»
cn
1 *~
CM LO
LO CO
cn r-
O CO
LO CD
CM CM
LO O
CM LO
CM i
0 P-.
o co
O r-
s_
CD CT
Q. c
fO -F-
Q. +J
C
"0 '"
4J 0^ !_
c o^J o_
r- S t?
i- T3 S T2
CL C 0 £
1/1 13 *"* XJ
2 0 C ^3
GJ S- ^^ O
2: cs o
CM
CM
ro
CM
o
o
1
CM
CM
«*
CO
CO
CM
CO
Ln
0
CD
CM
CO
in
CO
«3-
CM
cn
r-^
r- CO
CO <*
LO CO
r-<. cn
CO r
<3- CM
r^. co
§ s
s %
* ~v- <-^
r^^
co Ln P^ cn
CM in P-^ r->-
CM CM CM
i CO CO CO
co i -^ cn
^r «3- 1
O O O 0
LO LO LO O
cn i ro r>.
o r-. CM r^.
CM r*^ cn cn
CO CM CM
T3
QJ
4J -0 LO
03 CD i 4->
O 4-> O <+-
U O 4-> (V
cn c r LO s_
G ID CD - ^
- C^ S-
+j s- cri -o
S- QJ o3 CJ
CD c_ -a JT
> 03 CT1 GJ O
c D_ cr _c~ ro
O «- U QJ
CJ -1^ 4-> rB t
O - GJ -O
03 O S- r- C
co ^ cn Z3
CO
CO
LO
"
CM
<
r**
o
CO
CSJ
o
CO
CM
o
o
CO
CM
o
CM
CO
«3-
o
CM
CO
r
r^.
*~~
CO
0
CO
o
LO
r^
cn
LO
ro
='?
i->'r;
S-T1
01^7
> u
^ S
0 =
o o
o
c-3
oG
CD
cz cn
- c
cn-r-
rc Cn
^ us
O3
QJ to C CD
Q-"- O .
CO t CJ CC
CO
CO
«3-
i
P»s.
1
Is".
co
CO
CM
in
CO
LO
O
m
O
> > tl O
C C
o s- -.- i_
CJ> QJ .Q CU
^= E -c
oO »-> O J->
o o o
CO
-------
TABLE E-2
ESTIMATED LOSi. FACTORS BY PAPER GRADE
Paper Grade Estimated Converting
K Loss Factor
Newsprint*"
Printing & Converted
Writing & Related*
Bleached Bristol*
Packaging & Converting*
Special Industrial*
Tissue*
Containerboard
Folding Boxboard*
Other Boxboard>
.025
..150
.050
.100
.050
.100
.050
.120
.190
.150
*Personal communication. W. Franklin, Midwest
Research Institute, to F. L. Smith, Jr., Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs.
+Personal communication. W. Driscell, American
Paper Solid Waste Management Programs.
estimates.
30
-------
TABLE E-3
SOURCE OF DISCARDED PAPER*
Newsprint
Printing and Publishing
Converting and Packaging
Sanitary
Bags
Corrugated Containers
Other Board Packaging
Household
(Percent)
95
63
38
61
76
8
72
Non-Household
(Percent)
5
27
62
39
24
92
28
*Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials
in solid wastes. Environmental Protection Publication SW-29c.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 187 p.
Note: The categories used in Table E-3 differ slightly from
those used in Table E-l, column 5. In particular, "Converting
and Packaging" and "Bags" are combined in Table E-l; household and
non-household uses are each assumed to consume one-half of the
combined tonnage.
31
-------
To obtain the amount of paper recovered from this waste stream, it
was assumed that the recovery rate observed in 1970 (12,021 of 53.325
million tons or 22.4 percent) still holds in 1971. MRI estimates that
the split between industrial (i.e. converting) and post-consumer waste
is 39:61.4 Total consumption in 1971 was 53.18 million tons and, using
the assumption above, 22.4 percent, or 12.125 million tons, of this
paper is recovered. Using the 61:39 split, 4.729 million tons* is
assumed recovered from industrial waste and 7.396 million tons from
post-consumer waste.
The post-consumer recovery figure of 7.396 million tons is distributed
between the three major post-consumer wastepaper types, in the proportions
recorded in another report by MRI.° Post-consumer A-aste recovery is
broken down as follows: newsprint, 30.2 percent; pulp substitutes and
high grades, 9.0 percent; mixed paper, 25.6 percent. Applying these
percentages to the total post-consumer waste figure of 7.395 million
tons results in 2.603 million tons of recovered containerboard and 2.559
million tons of recovered mixed and high grades.
Recovered newi- is assumed to be recovered solely from household
sources (Column 4 of Table E-l). Recovered corrugated is assumed to be
recovered solely from non-household sources (Column 1C of Table E-l).
Both mixed arid high grades ctre also assumed to be recovered solely from
non-household sources. The paper categories from which the latter two
grades are recovered are assumed to be: printing and related; packaging
and converting; other' boxboard. Recovery from these categories is
assumed to be proportional to their production. Since mixed and high
grades together account for 34.6 percent of the 7.396 million tons of
post-consume1" waste recovered, a total of 2.559 million tons is assumed
recovered from these categories. The resulting allocations are shown in
Table E-4 ^nd are indicated in Columns 7 and 10 of Tab'le E-l. Columns 8
and 11 then indicate the residual waste by source.
To obtain a better understanding of the product categories under
which paper waste may be classified, paper was broken down into three
end-use categories: packaging; magazines and newspapers; other. Table
E-5 shows the resulting breakdown. The grade categories are those used
in Column 5 of Table E-l.
To obtain the amount of paper initially discarded from any one of
these end-use categories, the post-consumer waste that is recovered must
be added to these figures. Similarly, to obtain total bulk consumption
by end-use, converting waste must be included. For example, using the
information shown in Table E-l and using ratios where appropriate, one
finds that total discarded packaging paper equals 24.3 million tons and
apparent consumption of packaging paper was 27.7 million tons.
*Since total converting waste is estimated at 5.424 million tons in
Column 2, our estimate of the industrial waste recovery rate is 87
percent.
32
-------
TABLE E-4
ALLOCATED WASTEPAPER RECOVERY"
(000 Tons)
Printing & Related
Packaging &
Converting
Other Boxboard
TOTAL
Production
Tonnage
3422
2310
2183
7915
Percent
43
29
28
100
Allocated Recovery
1100
742
717
2559
*See text for source.
33
-------
TABLE E-5
PAPER IN THE WASTE STREAM BY SOURCE
1971
(000 Tons)
Category
Newsprint
Printing & Writing
Packaging Paper
Special Industrial
Tissue Paper*
Containerboard
Other Board
TOTAL
Waste
Quanti ty*
7480
8148
3878
179
2398
9965
7081
39129
Packaging
« _
748+
3878
240
9965
5535
20412
Magazines &
Newspapers
7480
2815*
10295
Other
..
4549
179
2158
--
1:5465
8432
*This column is the sum of columns 8 and 11 from Table E-l.
+The figure is the 13.5 percent of the Printing Paper portion of
Printing and Writing. This percentage was derived from data shown in
Table 4, Role of Nonpackaging Paper.
*Th1s figure is 56 percent of all non-packaging printing paper.
The percent is derived from Table 10 of Role of Nonpackaging Paper.
*
All non-sanitary tissue is classified as packaging paper.
xThis figure is 9 percent of all board as indicated in Table 4,
Role of Nonpackaging Paper.
34
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX E
1. The statistics of paper. New York, American Paper Institute, 1972.
Table XXVII. (This is Bureau of Census-based data and is not
readily compatible with similar production, import, and export
data reported in Tables II, IV, and V in the main body of The
Statistics of Paper.)
2. Franklin, W. E., and A. Darnay. The role of nonpackaging paper in
solid waste management, 1966 to 1976. Public Health Service
Publication No. 2040. Washington, U.S Government Printing Office,
1971. 76 p.
3.. Midwest Research Institute. Unpublished data. More recent and
detailed results are shortly to be published as a result of present
contract work. The MRI data assigned each paper grade to a final
use area after the recovered fraction of that grade had been
deducted; however, the same data is used to allocate grade here
before recovery.
4. Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials
in solid wastes.' Environmental Protection Publication SW-29c.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 187 p.
5. Franklin, W. E. Paper recyclingthe art of the possible, 1970-1985.
New York, American Paper Institute, 1973. 181 p.
35
-------
APPENDIX F
Plastics
Plastics are one of the more difficult materials to trace since
numerous producers manufacture numerous grades of plastic resins, the
bulk form of plastics. Statistics are maintained for only the more
important resins: low density polyethylene, high density polyethylene,
polystryrene, polyvinyl chloride, and polypropylene. These "big-five"
polymers are estimated to comprise 67 percent of all plastics.1' P- III-5/
Estimates of the quantities of these polymers that are to be discarded
in various end-use categories are given in a report by Arthur D. Little
for EPA. Table F-l summarizes this information, excluding those end-use
categories not included in household and commercial solid waste. The
excluded categories include transportation, construction and agricultural
film, construction plastics, and wire and cable. Unfortunately, there
are no data on end-use consumption for these categories.
Estimating the breakdown by source of plastic household-commercial
waste allows the comparison of estimates with those reported in composition
studies. An illustration of such a cross-check is the finding by
Staudiqger that packaging comprised 76 percent of all household plastic
waste. The corresponding percentage shown in Table F-l is 60 percent.
Table F-l estimates were for the base year 1970; these were adjusted
for the year 1971. Moreover, the data were regrouped to show the product
categories used in the body of the report. These calculations are shown
in Table F-2. The results are that total plastic waste is 4.300 million
tons, of which containers and packaging are 2.500 million tons, major
appliances are 100 thousand tons, furniture and furnishings are 100 thousand
tons, clothing and footwear are 200 thousand tons, and other products are
1.500 million tons.
36
-------
TABLE F-l
"BIG-FIVE" PLASTICS IN THE WASTE STREAM - 1970
Product Groups
Estimated
Waste*
(000 tons)
Packaging*
Rigid
Flexible
Consumer Durables
Appliances
Furniture
Other*
Clothing
Apparel
Footwear
(1)
Biq~Five
1,963
1,079
883
528
50
30
448
68
23
45
(2)
Total
2,930
1,610
1,318
788
75
45
669
101
34
67
Estimated
Household
Percentage+
(3)
90
90
90
100
Household
Waste
(000 tons)
(4)
Big-Five
1,767
971
795
475
68
(5)
Total
2,637
1,449
1,187
709
101
Novelties, Disposables
50
75
60
30
45
TOTAL
2,609
3,894
2,340 3,493
, *Milgrom, J. Incentives for recycling and reuse of plastics. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1972. Tables 36, 39. (Distributed by National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-214 045.)
+EPA estimate.
^Milgrom, Incentives for recycling and reuse of plastics, Table 42.
*This category includes housewares, toys, sporting goods, luggage, and records.
Note: The total waste columns 2 and 5 are obtained by assuming that all other
plastics are consumed in the same proportion as are the "big-five." Thus, columns
2 and 5 are simply columns 1 and 4 divided by .67.
37
-------
TABLE F-2
TOTAL PLASTIC WASTES
(000 tons)
Product Groups
"Big-Five"
Thermo Plastics
(1970)
Expand for
Thermosets
and Coatings
Expand to 1971
Packaging
Major Appliances
Furniture
Apparel & Footwear
Other
TOTAL
TOTAL, Non-packaging
1,963
25
30
68
523
2,608
696
x 1.14*
x 2.59*
x 2.59*
x 2.59*
x 2.59*
x 1.49+
x 2.59+
= 2,224
65
78
= 176
= 1,355
= 3,897
= 1,670
1.12*
r
1.11*
1.19*
1.05*
1.10*
__
2,491
72
93
185
1,491
4,332
1,841
*Midwest Research Institute. Plastic packaging. (Unpublished note.) It stated
that the "big-five" represent 88 percent of all packaging plastics: If88=1.14.
+The "b$g-five" represent 67 percent of all plastic; 17.67=1.49 (Milgrom,
Incentives for recycling and reuse of plastics, p.III-57).
tThese factors were obtained by subtracting the packaging figure in column 3
(2,224) from the total-plastics-consumed figure of 3,897 and then calculating the
expansion factor required to balance the nonpackaging categories.
*EPA estimates.
38
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX F
1. Milgrom, J. Incentives for recycling and reuse of plastics.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-41c. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1972. 316 p. (Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-214 045.)
2. Staudinger, J. J. P. Disposal of plastics waste and litter. S.C.I
Monograph No. 35. London, Society of Chemical Industry, 1970.
100 p.
39
-------
APPENDIX G
Rubber
Two approaches were used to estimate the rubber fraction in the
household/commercial waste stream. The first relied on 1968 data
presented by Petti grew and Ronninger in a report, Rubber Reuse and
Recycling.' The details of their calculation are indicated in
Table G-l. The second approach relied on several additional data
sources and is detailed in Table G-2.
The first method yields a total post-consumer rubber waste estimate
of 3.75 million tons, while the second yields 2.70 million tons.
The methods are very close on tire rubber, assuming 80 percent by
weight of a tire is rubber. The main difference is in non-tire rubber
where the estimates are 1.04 and 2.15 million tons. Part of the
difference is the result of product category definitions; part is the
inclusion of non-rubber components in shoes and other goods.
In our judgement, the best compromise is a rubber figure of 3.3 mil-
lion tons, composed of 1.7 million tons tire rubber and 1.6 million tons
non-tire rubber (including tire tubes).
40
-------
TABLE 6-1
1968 RUBBER POST-CONSUMER WASTE*
(000 tons)
Tire production less wear allowance 3000
Tire tonnage diverted from waste + jjQOO_
Net tire discards 2000
Rubber discarded in tirest 1600
Other rubber waste 2^50_
Total waste 3750
*Pettigrew, R. J., F. H. Roninger, W. J. Markiewicz, and
M. J. Gransky. Rubber reuse and solid waste management. [Public
Health Service Publication No. 2124.] Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1971. pt.l.
+Most diversions are for retread purposes; minor portions
are used for reclaim, dock bumpers, etc.
^The exact rubber content of tires varies but is assumed here
at 80 percent.
41
-------
TABLE G-2
RUBBER POST-CO,JSl'/ER WASTE
(000 tons)
Tire and Tire Non-Tire
Products Products Total
U.S. Rubber Consumption, 1969
New plus reclaimed*
Converting losse: "*"
Tires, @ .03
Other products 0 .05
Diversions from Waste Stream*
Tire tread wear
Reclaimer use
Retreading *
Tire-Splitting
Diversion for other reuse
(@ 1% of tires)
Total Diversions
Post-Consumer Waste Rubber
2100
- 63
2037
215
135
13
21
384
7653"
1097
3197
-118
- 55
1042 3079
1042 2695
*Total consumption from Rubber Manufacturers Associc tier.,
Rubber Industry Facts, Table 18, p. 20. "Jet imports are neglected
although, in fact, tire imports substantially exceed experts.
Allocated between tires and non-tire products on basis of percentages
from Table 22, p. 20.
+Based on Gordian Associates unpublished data, and: Pettigrew
and Ronninger, Rubber Reuse and Solid V'aste Manancrer.t.
^Values in this list based on W. J. Markiewizc and '1. J. Grarsky,
"Waste Rubber and Its Reuse: iyt>y" 4.n Kuooer Keuse ana M;MU \.d±^
Management.
This assumes that retreading involves no net diversion since
retreading supplies a quantity of tires that were not counted as
part of consumption in the first line.
42
-------
REFERENCE FOR APPENDIX G
1. Pettigrew, R. J., F. H. Roninger, W. J. Markiewicz, and M. J. Gransky,
Rubber reuse and solid waste management, pt.1-2. [Public Health
Service Publication No. 2124.] Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1971. 120 p.
43
-------
APPENDIX H
Textiles
No general statistical series on textile use were found during
this study. However, two recycling studies contained data on textile
waste. '2 The report by Midwest Research Institute stated that total
end-use consumption of textiles in 1968 was 4.83 million tons while
bulk consumption was 5.67 million tons.3, Table 47, p.70-2; Table 48, p. 79-3
This implies a factor of 15 percent for converting loss and this
figure is used throughout Table H-l to convert bulk production into final
consumption statistics. Much discarded clothing is also recovered for
reuse in rags. Although no accurate data are available on this subject,
Midwest Research Institute did estimate that from .8 to 1.8 million tons
of old clothes are recovered annually.1' P- '5 In this report, one
million tons of old clothes are assumed to be recovered from the waste
stream.
Production data for three end-use categoriesapparel, home furnish-
ings, and miscellaneouswere obtained from a Battelle Memorial Institute
report. ' P- 24' The time-lag between production and discard for Apparel
and the Miscellaneous category is assumed to be five years. Home furnish-
ings are assumed to last ten years. It is estimated that only 80 percent
of the Miscellaneous category becomes household waste.
The waste estimates based on these assumptions are summarized in
Table H-l. The data sources permitted waste to be estimated for the
year 1970; these results are expanded to represent 1971 textile waste.
44
-------
*
U
r-
oo
LU
_1
<
c
o
o
o
o
CO
i !->
r-. to
-^
E
0 S-
r- 0
E U
tO to
O-LL.
X
LU
cu
0 »->
CT> _i
E
O
O
CD
tO
E E
O E
r- O
U
-a
o -o
S- O
Q- !-
S-
cu
n
CU >,
to s-
=) O
1 CD
-o cu
E +->
LU CO
O
CO O) CO
CM to tO
LO LO LO
CO CO OO
O O O
CO CM i
i LO LO
LO LO LO
O
O 1 1
O 1 1
" 1 1
CO CM i
i LO LO
LO LO LO
r-?
i oo r--
to o^ cr>
CM
O O 00
CO LO ^)"
r-~ to to
LO O LO
to to to
CT* CTl CTV
^
c
1- to
to O
r- CO
E E
s- to
CU Ll_ i
s- cu
to a> u
a. E to
a. o -
=C IE S
LO
to
to
1
!
CM
CM
to
O
CM
CO
1
O
-o j^
r- to S-
i tO CO
Or- >
to (a « o
+J O
-O E (O CO
CO CO > S-
fO E "CO
CO O -0 _E
S- S- i 1
O -i- CO
E > T-
r- E «f-
S- EX
O -r- CO
«t- CO S- -M
Q.
W ZD CO CO 10
CO -CO)
. -I-,- n i % i ^
j^y flj (O
*E !-- -r-
3 -0 > *->
»-> O S- T3 W)
$- ^i- cu co cu
O 1 OO Q.
0-3 0«C
O.OO E r- 0-
O O CU UJ
>, O »-> CO CO
«»- !- (O "O S-
i- -M E (O
4-> (0 i- S-
E O O O Irt
> O «r- Q) E
-O -r- E 0 O
3 4-> J= S- M-
*-> o o cu to
10 CO CO Q. E
4-> ( <0
ef O LO Q-
S- i X
Q- -P (
S- E tO CD
O CO 2T E
-»-> E -r-
(O E >> l/> 4J
J- 0 J3 3 X
OS- CO
_Q -r- -O TD 4J
co co
_J E 4-> -4-> CO
LU Z3 (O -E
tO J3 -!->
J3 S- 0 E
c [ ^ | i , .,_
3 S- to co co m
s- s- to
*> CO 13
CU CO 'SO
4-» i i J/l
4-> +J CM CO T3
r- X tO
+-> CO V) T3
to I O- O E
E CO
-
i 0> CM E CO
CT» »-> O
S- r- S- r
O CU CU
e " > >
CO E >> E CU
2: o u o -a
r- E (_>
CO *-> CO CO
^ N <:'-» co
CU -r- . ~£.
<-> r E i
-t-> -I O CO to
* r~~ cu
CQ 3 4-> +->
* o CM CM -r-
10 O 1 4->
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX H
Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. Salvage markets for materials in
solid wastes. Environmental Protection Publication SW-29c.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. Ch. VIII.
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories. A study to
identify opportunities for increased solid waste utilization.
v.9. Textile report. Environmental Protection Publication SW-40d.3.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. p. 241-339.
(Distributed by National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Va., as PB-212 731.)
46
-------
APPENDIX I
Wood
The Forest Service has developed an excellent time series for wood
consumed in a variety of end-use categories.' The 1970 consumption data
are shown in Table 1-1. Table 1-2 estimates the likelihood that each
category will enter several designated waste streams. It is important to
note that several wood-use categories (e.g. railroad ties) enter none of
these waste streams. In this report, wood waste entering the household
and commercial solid waste stream is estimated as that produced by the
following use categories: Household Furniture, Commercial and Industrial
Furniture, Consumer Goods, and all Shipping categories.
To estimate the waste tonnages for each of these categories,
production data from The Outlook for Timber were used. These data
seem to be available only for the years 1945, 1960, 1965, and 1970.
Considering the expected lifetimes of the products in each major category:
1960 production data were used for Furniture; 1970 data were used for
Shipping; 1965 data were used for Consumer Goods, and other categories.
These statistics are for bulk consumption rather than for wood
actually embodied in the finished product. The data were adjusted for
converting losses, using information shown in Table 1-3. To convert
wood use into weight terms, the factors shown in Table 1-4 were used.
Since the weights for hardwood and softWood products differ, the fraction
of hardwood and softwood lumber and plywood used in each category were
estimated. These are shown in Table 1-5. The resulting tonnages are
summarized in Table 1-6. Contributions by each wood type are reported
separately and then summarized in the right-hand column.
Wood used in the Shipping end-use category was handled somewhat
differently in order to reflect our belief that much wood packing and
shipping materials are used solely in industrial applications. The
work sheets used for the adjusted waste from the shipping category are
shown in Tables 1-7 and 1-8. These readjustments indicate our estimates
of the fraction of shipping materials likely to be discarded from industrial
rather than household/commercial uses. Table 1-9 finally summarizes the
wood estimates and adjusts them to the 1971 base year.
47
-------
4J .,-
s"1*: £
t<^'o 0-x»
i JS i/i
CO^M =
; *-£ v
1 «* « -r~ -^.
i oc?£co'
icfl11- *,;J.
i -rf" -
01
c
5
£
; 3
I
CD
"^"vT
T34J1-
$- <4- I/J
3^5
i/»
. =
S-r- CO
«JM- *-*.
31 3C
v»
VI
Xi
* S
* c
F *^-
a.
O"
V)
i.
4-*
Si
JL U?
D
i a
3 CO
-J
SE
OJ
v.
o
O»
Ol
M
5
CO CO CO.
£ W UJ
z z 2:
CO CO CO
UJ Ul LkJ
z z rr
8O OJCD O O O O
olr-. o co *o cn
ro ui i-^l^- cr> co
> !
^£) CM i 1
p*«- o% ^Hco r^ ^o P** co
CM ^o volro en LO CM co
CM ** CVJ
^ C4 «
C Q. C
M- 9 o
s S s ^
5 5- ^ *
«. u
r- ^- +Jr- £.
r- f- C 1- § V
* *J O U E -r- X
C C O t- O +J «S
-s -s ugy^iiii
f- -r- « E c -t~ o»^
V) M JE O O 4J -r- 4->
S c? §oz=.a:o
*..
, i . ' i
Oijr-» o> ^- ch
9^^:^^
^n^"^
C*l4O *-
tfj(CO PN. CO O»
cnlco rsi o r*.
Q r*» CM CM
»d CTi CM CO IC>
^CM
t
OJ
OJ C
L. H-
3 j
V U
+- to
c £
c
« ^^5
CTi 4J 'Ok
c C *> o *J
C5 g"" S
3- J5 t-g
*« C ^, OJ c
u t. s- s
« 3 0) 3
4-u. E on g
3 E C E
IQ X U O (_>
, S
^o
«M
) t/)
1111 t UJ
2E
0 ^
^ ' 1 1 i . UJ.
. yi
r*» Lr3 c\j CM ' ^
en '-fr-* o -ef m CD .
o crtco^-fr- CM co
^- inj*-.- co
en
r* crim o O o o
en cMim en CM co VD
r^ ^^^^^-CO CO
lAr CO CO*
vO
^_
4J
U
4J
Vt
C
-i- O 4->
so a cc o
(/)
OJ
I*
3
4J
"g
1
L.
V)
C
o
,
|Q
3
to
g
fa
4->
V)
4)
t/>
«0
4J
tJ
o
Vt
-C
1
oi
i
CO
QJ
ja
(d
f
t
in
0)
xi
10
h-
4-
4J
H
£.
tf_
4
-4->
(tt
"O
|Q
-M
c
«
OJ
of
*^
*
cfl
UJ
i
O.
o>
0>
0-
3
*«
4->
C
V
T3
M
OJ
&.
CM
t.
***
M
C
3:
Q
o
-M
flj
OJ
L.
ja
Q
t.
XI
D)
C
f2
3
XI
X)
c
ITS
1
5_
CL
w
^
1
<*i
i
LO
Q
1^
!
*+~
w>
4J
O
4-J
C
5
(j
,
5 5 a?
C XI >
S-
OJ OJ 3
S- r- ol
fO U
s-ti
O TJ C
O> O. A)
QJ U
+->-Q
(O C i
>
i QJ
tfl CX i-
>> OJ
OJ * 2
> t. *
3 XI VI
"11
5 H-
OJ
z -o
OJ
. -r- CM
>> ID
r-^4J-0
OJ O) C
> Ci iTJ
-M -0
o m CM
S.T .
v» LO en
OJ
t- QJ
^o ja cp
m^£-
t t
in v»
§OJ IT)
i CD
(O H TJ r
^"43^
i t
I 4-> i i *
m o QJ
^- cn-o >
r- C C J-
V) in t. D.CO
c
0
o
t-
0)
^
4~>
C3
CO
3 Q.
Wl +J < 4J
>,
Xt
T3
OJ
4.)
a
I
O
o
(/)
!Z
o
+J
o
M-
c
-d
-Q
0)
L.
3
Oi
m
4->
1/1
cu
u
3
o-
s
v»
"is*!
-Q
U
*" -a
mm QJ CM
-------
Residential Housing
Residential Upkeep
Other Construction
Commercial
Non-Commercial
Utilities
Highway
Other
Manufacturing
Household furniture
Commercial/Institutional
Furniture
Consumer Goods
Commercial, Industrial,
& Machinery
Other
Shipping
Containers
Pallets
Dunnage
Railroad Construction
Ties
Other
Other
TABLE 1-3
CONVERSION LOSS FACTOR*
Lumber Products
NE
NE
NE
.6
.6
.6
.3
.3
.25
NE
NE
Panel Products
HE
NE
NE
.10
.10
' NE
NE
NE - Not estimated.
T.f U.S. Forest Service.
+Not estimated separated.
Unpublished data.
50
-------
TABLE 1-4
HARDWOOD/SOFTWOOD RATIOS BY END-USE CATEGORY*
Sector
Manufacturing
Household Furniture
Comm/Ind Furniture
Consumer Goods
Commercial
Other
Shipping
Containers
Pallets
Dunnage
Lumber
Percentages
HW SW
+
82
82
49
55
51
+
40
58
53
+
18
18
51
45
49
+
60
42
47
Plywood
Percentages
HW SW
+ +
69 31
69 31
74 26
86 14
24 76
33 67
+ +
+ +
+
*Gill, T.t U.S. Forest Service, Unpublished data.
+Not separately estimated.
51
-------
TABLE 1-5
WEIGHT CONVERSION UNITS*
Lumber
One Softwood Board Foot-dressed = 1.92 pounds
One Hardwood Board Foot-rough = 3.34 pounds
Panel Products
Plywood (3/8" basis)
Softwood - One Square Foot =1.07 pounds
Hardwood - One Square Foot =1.31 pounds
Building Board
Hardboard (1/8" basis) - One Square Foot = .679 pounds.
Insulating board (1/2" basis) - One Square Foot = .766 pounds.
Particle board (3/4" basis) - One Square Foot = 2.95 pounds.
*Gill, T., and J. Micklewright, U.S. Forest Service,
Unpublished data.
52
-------
*
o
01
*~
^
<
i °e ^
OO o
Zj '_'-> '
CO 1 O
S |S
>~"'
z:
Q
8
3
eg
CU O)
+> (O
V) C
3 O
fc~
c
T-
CU O
Q 1
" Q-
+J T3
TJ "O
Q. S- O
E
C
o
^_
10
O
1-
§
J='C
"a!
S i ' i i
CO ' ' ' '
Oljjo r-
Sp
ID to
1 ID «* 1 1
P*. I*N
! 00 CO ! 1
CM
oijco co CO in
Ol CM LA
co|co
_ ~l
i oo r- i i
1 CO OJ 1 1
in in
1 CO O 1 1
i r*. UD i i
to i~- 1 oo
i i h-s co m
1 r- 00 CM
CM
0
r
Ll_
1 Ll?
cu y
3 O IJ^- '
M^^ O 0->
fc-M . ^^~ ' (O
3|£ 0. 0
^.sT "§
O HJ i
^ J- 1- J3 0
»_ 1 > DC 0.
5 : i r i
uJco ^
CTJCM
- r*-'^"^
or-.
i in in i i
i i i
1C in
i en in i i
1 CO i 1 1
r^lvo CM 0*0
in « i o- in
r^|«f CM
r* t «^»
i in o i i
1 r 1 1
r**i to
1 CO CO 1 1
1 O.TCM T 1
ot oj m 4*
i ojS***1
O
10
r
,
ft "
^ tr
, *<- CO
9* LL* ^ ^" TJ
«J 00 f*]*^"X fQ
*-"l £V 0
r*~£i rX> J3
c 08 i. qj
S- 10
3 I. L. Q O
1. j^ .,_
i~i= c ~Z . "S
cu 3 4) *0 id
-c _j 3- ac CL
S
CM
in
cS ,
r
Lu
Irt
2: ^^
- ^ i
u)'-*-' 5^ ^
^3 CO i^*^*' fM
J5. "0 J3
oo s. qj
t. J- I. 0*V
SQ) Qj _Q i^~
J3 O1TJ 3C OL
5
ir>
§
to
1
1 CT» 1
CM
i/>f oo
i CM 01 in
i Km
on
o
B
U- l
00
I
J2" ff
CO ^^^
^ a.
Z T3
' OB i-
IO
0) S- 1. 0
c cu cu J3
t- .a o) ^
&E C i-
ZJ Of fO
t
in
V) C
*"- O
4->
i- 4->
4) >
ID O
U
O
O (ti
«j
i'
jr OT
^0
-c
If! |
T. t-
LT
UO I
1
in A
r
r- (t
^1 h-
H-
nfT
Cvt I
r»* I-H
^ a,
Di-
vine
o h-
n £
-M e
tJ
fn
r *^
J-I ^
O K
jr: v
*' a
^ cu
VJ
8- W)
CJ O
«
L!
i- 0)
)-» C
I- 1
O OJ
(f- CL
-^ o!
0
o
+-> »
rs i
> QJ
CJ r
">£
-------
TABLE 1-7
WOOD USED IN SHIPPING APPLICATIONS, 1970*
Containers
Lumber (bd. ft.)
Veneer & Plywood (sq.
Hardboard (sq. ft.)
Pallets
Lumber (bd. ft.)
Plywood (sq. ft.)
Hardboard (sq. ft.)
.Dunnage
Lumber (bd. ft.)
Plywood (sq. ft.)
Hardboard (sq. ft.)
Total
Quantity
(Units as
Noted)
1755
ft.) 437
26
3150
140
28
820
14
4
Wood
Tonnage
,(000
tons)
2183
251
9
4321
80
9
1096
8
1
Hardwood Softwood
Quantity Tonnage Quantity Tonnage
(Units as (000 (Units as (000
Noted) tons) Noted) tons)
702 1172 1053 1011
144 94 293 157
1827 3051 1323 1270
46 30 94 50
435 726 385 370
53 9 .005
*The quantity data is from Table 1-1. Tonnages are calculated from Table 1-5,
54
-------
TABLE i_$
Adjusted Household/Commercial Wood Waste*
(000 tons)
Category Total
Wood
Consumed
Containers
Lumber 2183
Panel Products 260
Pallets
Lumber 4321
Panel Products 89
Dunnage
Lumber 1096
Panel Products 9
Pass-
Through
Factor
.75
.90
.75
.90
.75
.90
Total
Wood
Waste
1637
234
3241
81
822
8
Estimated Household/
Fraction Commercial
in Solid Waste Solid Waste
]
( .5 936
)
1
> .2 664
)
1
> .2 166
)
*Total wood consumed from Table 1-7. Pass-through factor from Table 1-3.
The fractions in the solid waste stream are EPA estimates.
55
-------
TABLE 1-9
FINAL WASTE*
(000 tons)
Containers & Packaging
Furniture & Furnishing
(Household & Other)
Other
(Consumer Goods)
1970
1766
2252
442
Expansion
Factor
1.03
1.05
1.03
1971
1819
2320
455
*1970 estimates from Table 1-8. Expansion factors estimated by EPA.
REFERENCE FOR APPENDIX I
1. U.S. Forest Service. The outlook for timber in the United States.
December 1972. (Draft report; now available as Forest Resource
Report No. 20. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
October 1973. 367 p.)
pall66
56
------- |