Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste in
the United States, 1960-2000

Final Report

-------
PRC Engineering
Suite 600
3S3 East Waoer Dnve
Chicago. IL 60601
312-938-0300
TWX 910-2215112
Caoie CONTOWENG
I
Planning Research Corporation
                  ^CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL
                   SOLID WASTE? IN THE UNITED STATES
                                 I960 - 2000
                               FINAL REPORT
                                 Prepared for
               U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
                           Washington, D.C 20460
                        Work Assignment No.
                        EPA Region
                        Site No.
                        Date Prepared
                        Contract No.
                        PRC No.
                        Prepared By

                        Telephone No.
                        EPA Primary Contact
                        Telephone No.
         349
         Headquarters
         None (R)
         July 25, 1986
         68-01-7037
         15-3490-00
         Franklin Associates, Ltd.
         (Marjorie Franklin)
         (913) 649-2225
         Gerri Dorian
         (202) 3S2-468S

-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE


           IN THE UNITED STATES


                L960-2000
               FINAL REPORT


                July 1986
           Office of Solid Waste
   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
           Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
                                 PREFACE
          This report on characterization of municipal solid waste in the
United States was prepared by  Franklin Associates, Ltd. for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,  Office  of  Solid Waste and Energy Response,
Gerri Dorian was EPA's Project Manager.

          Franklin Associates' Project Manager was Marjorie A. Franklin.
The report's principal authors were Mrs. Franklin (Chapter 1), Nicholas S.
Artz, P.E. (Chapter 2 and the  energy  recovery section of Chapter 3), and
Robert G. Hunt (Chapter 3).  Staff support  for the Working Papers for this
report was provided by Jacob E. Beachey, Veronica R. Sellers, Nancy J.
Lappin, and Katherine L. Totten.

          This work was performed under  subcontract to PRC Engineering,
EPA Contract No.  68-01-7037, Work Assignment No. 349.  Harry Ellis was
PRC's Technical Monitor.
                                   ii
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                           TABLE  OF  CONTENTS
SUMMARY

     MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS  IN  THE MUNICIPAL WASTE  STREAM
     OTHER LANDFILL WASTES
     FACTORS AFFECTING MUNICIPAL  SOLID  WASTE GENERATION
       AND DISPOSAL

Chapter 1 - HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED  MUNICIPAL  SOLID
            WASTE DISPOSAL

     BACKGROUND
     OVERVIEW OF THIS CHAPTER
     METHODOLOGY
          General Description
          Materials and Products  Included  in These  Estimates
          Materials and Products  Not  Included in These
            Estimates
          Projections
     MATERIALS IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM
          Paper and Paperboard
          Glass
          Ferrous Metals
          Aluminum
          Other Nonferrous Metals
          Plastics
          Rubber and Leather
          Textiles
          Wood
          Food Wastes
          Yard Wastes
          Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
     PRODUCTS IN THE MUNICIPAL  WASTE  STREAM
          Durable Goods
          Nondurable Goods
          Containers and Packaging
               Glass
               Steel
               Aluminum
               Paper and Paperboard
               Plastics
               Wood
               Other Miscellaneous Packaging
     TRENDS- IN MUNICIPAL SOLID  WASTE  DISPOSAL
          Or ganics/Inorganics
S-3
1-1

1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-2

1-4
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-11
1-11
1-11
1-11
1-11
1-15
1-16
1-16
1-16
1-17
1-17
1-17
1-17
1-17
1-17
1-17
                                  iii
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
          Discards by  Individuals
     HOW  THIS DATA SERIES DIFFERS  FROM PREVIOUS ESTIMATES
     REFERENCES

Chapter 2 - OTHER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL WASTES                   2-1

     INTRODUCTION                                             2-1
     DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION WASTES                       2-1
     WATER/WASTEWATER  TREATMENT RESIDUES                      2-2
     TREES AND bRUSH                                          2-3
     STREET REFUSE                                            2-3
     CAR BODIES                                               2-4
     NONHAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL PROCESS WASTE                    2-4
     INCINERATOR RESIDUE                                      2-5
     BOILER RESIDUE                                           2-5
     HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES                               2-6
     SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTES                 2-6
     USED OIL                                                 2-7
     SUMMARY                                                  2-7
     REFERENCES                                               2-9

Chapter 3 - FACTORS AFFECTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
            GENERATION AND DISPOSAL                           3-1

     INTRODUCTION                                             3-1
     GENERAL STRUCTURAL FACTORS                               3-1
          Population                                          3-1
          Social Patterns                                     3-1
          Technological Changes                               3-2
          Trends in Product Packaging                         3-3
     CHANGES IN MATERIAL AND PRODUCT CATEGORIES                3-4
          Paper and Paperboard Products                       3-4
               Books and Magazines                            3-4
               Commercial Printers                            3-6
               Office Papers                                  3-6
               Declining Categories                           3-6
               Recovery                                       3-6
          Glass Containers                                    3-7
               Recovery                                       3-7
          Plastic Materials                                   3-9
               Recovery                                       3-9
          Steel Packaging                                     3-10
               Recovery                                       3-12
          Aluminum                                            3-12
               Recovery                                       3-14
          Rubber                                              3-14
               Recovery                                       3-15
                                   iv
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
      MATERIALS  RECOVERY
      ENERGY  RECOVERY
           Historical and Projected Waste-to-Energy Activity
           Factors  Having a Negative Effect on Energy Recovery
           Factors  Having a Positive Effect on Energy Recovery
      SOURCE  REDUCTION MEASURES
      REFERENCES
                            LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                          Page

1-1       Materials Discarded Into the Municipal Waste
             Stream, 1960 to 2000 (In millions of tons)         1-6
1-2       Materials Discarded Into che Municipal Waste
             Stream, 1960 to 2000 (In % of total discards)      1-8
1-3       Products Discarded Into the Municipal Waste
             Stream (In millions of tons)                       1-12
1-4       Products Discarded Into the Municipal Waste
             Stream (In % of total discards)                    1-13
1-5       Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Discards
             by Organic and Inorganic Fractions, 1960 to 2000   1-18
1-6       Discards of Municipal Solid Waste by Individuals,
             1960 to 2000                                       1-21
1-7       Comparison of 1977 Discards Estimated in 1979
             and in 1986                                        1-23

2-1       Other Wastes Potentially Landfilled                  2-8

3-1       Trends in Per Capita Discards of Containers and
             Packaging                                          3-4
3-2       Gross Discards of Paper and Paperboard Products,
             1980 and 1984                                      3-5
3-3       Gross Discards of Glass Containers, 1980 and 1984    3-8
3-4       Gross Discards of Plastic                            3-10
3-5       Gross Discards of Steel Packaging, 1980 and 1984     3-11
3-6       Gross Discards of Aluminum Containers and
            Packaging. 1980 and 1984                           3-13
3-7       Gross Discards of Rubber Products, 1980 and 1984     3-16
3-8       Discards and Recovery of Materials in the Municipal
            Waste Stream,  1984                                 3-19
3-9       Forecast U.S.  Waste-to-Energy Facility Throughput,
            1990,  1995,  and 2000                               3-20
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                             LIST OF  FIGURES

Figure                                                         Page

1-1       Generalized  material  flows for products in the
             municipal  waste  stream                            1-3
1-2       Net discards of  municipal  solid waste, 1960 to
             2000                                               1-7
1-3       Materials  discarded into the municipal waste
             stream,  by percent  of  total                        1-9
1-4       Products discarded into  the municipal waste
             stream,  by percent  of  total                        1-14
1-5       Composition  of municipal solid waste discards
             by organic  and inorganic fractions, 1960 to 2000    1-19
1-6       Discards of  municipal solid wastes after materials
             and energy  recovery, in pounds per capita per day   1-22

3-1       Materials  recovered in 1984 from municipal solid
             waste, in  percent of total recovery                3-18
3-2       Municipal  solid waste processed in energy recovery
             facilities, 1960 to 2000                           3-21
                                   vi
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                CHARACTERIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  SOLID WASTE
                   IN THE UNITED  STATES,  1960  TO 2000

                                 SUMMARY
           Knowledge of  the  quantities and composition of municipal
 solid waste (MSW)  is a  necessary  tool for many aspects of solid waste
 management.   This  report  presents a  summary of estimates of historical
 MSW quantities and composition from  1960 to 1984, with projections to
 the year 2000.

           The material  flows methodology developed by EFA in the early
 1970s,  with refinements that have been added in succeeding years, was
 used to make these estimates.  Complete descriptions and documentation
 of  the  methodology used for each MSW component are included in Working
 Papers  that accompany this report.

           In addition to  characterization of MSW, which is defined as
 residential,  commercial,  and institutional wastes, this report includes
 information on other wastes that are landfilled, and a discussion of the
 factors that  influence  MSW generation.

 MATERIALS  AND PRODUCTS  IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM

           The quantities  of the various materials that make up the munic-
 ipal  waste scream  do not  increase (or decrease) at the same rate.  The
 first table  on page  S-2 illustrates  the changing composition of MSW over
 time.   (MSW discards in this table are those remaining after materials
 recovery has  taken place.)  Paper and plastics materials have been in-
 creasing more rapidly than the other components of the waste stream.
 Glass,  ferrous metals,  rubber, and other materials have been increasing
 more  slowly or even  declining.

           Products in the municipal waste stream were characterized in
 detail and grouped as durable goods,  nondurable goods, containers and
packaging, and  other wastes.  The second table on page S-2 illustrates
 trends  in product discards after materials recovery has taken place.

          Durable goods, which are increasing rather slowly in the waste
stream, include large appliances,  furniture, tires, and other miscellaneous
 items.  Rubber  tires are actually decreasing in tonnage.   Nondurable goods
are growing more rapidly in the waste stream.   Paper products in this
category, especially office paper and printing papers, have been growing
more rapidly  than most other products.
                                   S-l
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES. LTD

-------
          MATERIALS DISCARDED INTO THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM
Materials
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Rubber ai
Textiles
Wood
Other
Food Wastes
Yard Wastes
Miscell,
 Wastes

     TOTAL
(In millions of tons and percent)
1970 1984

Paperboard



, Leather



.s
s
ous Inorganic


tons
36.5
12.5
13.5
3.0
3.0
2.2
4.0
_
12.7
21.0

1.8
110.3
1
33.1
11.3
12.2
2.7
2.7
2.0
3.6
0.1
11.5
19.0

1.6
100.0
tons
49.4
12.9
12.8
9.6
3.3
2.8
5.1
0.1
10.8
23.8

2.4
133.0
Z_
37.1
9.7
9.6
7.2
2.5
2.1
3.8
0.1
8.1
17.9

1.8
100.0
2000
tons
65.1
12.1
14.3
15.5
3.8
3.5
6.1
0.1
10.8
24.4

3.1
158.8
1
41.0
7.6
9.0
9.8
2.4
2.2
3.8
0.1
6.8
15.3

2.0
100.0
Source:  Franklin Associates, Ltd.
          PRODUCTS DISCARDED INTO THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM
Products

Durable Goods
Nondurable G
Containers a;
Other Wastes

     TOTAL
(In millions
of tons and percent)
1970

ods
Goods
and Packaging
es
tons
13.9
21.6
39.3
35.5
_%
12.6
19.6
35.6
32.1
1984
tons
18.6
34.0
43.5
37.0
Z_
14.0
25.6
32.7
27.8
2000
tons
22.9
47.4
50.1
38.3
1
14.4
29.8
31.6
24.1
110.3  100.0    133.0  100.0   158.8  100.0
Source:  Franklin Associates,  Ltd.
                                   S-2
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
          Containers and packaging as a category of MSW have been showing
a declining trend in recent years.  This is caused by the relatively in-
creasing use of lightweight aluminum and plastics and decreasing use of
heavier steel and glass containers.

          The "Other Wastes" category includes food wastes,  yard wastes,
and other miscellaneous inorganic wastes.  A major revision  has been made
in previous estimates of food and yard wastes.  Based on a survey of samp-
ling studies, the estimated quantities of food and yard wastes have been
reduced by a sizeable amount.  Estimates of total discards have thus been
reduced approximately 10 percent.

          Other analyses show an increasing trend in the percentage of
organic materials in the waste stream.  Quantities of waste  discarded
by individuals each day (pounds per capita per day) would be increasing
if it were not for energy recovery activities.  With energy  recovery
accounted for, per capita discards are shown to be decreasing.

OTHER LANDFILL WASTES

          In addition to the characterization of municipal solid wastes,
other wastes that may be landfilled are described in this report and quan-
tified to a limited extent.  These wastes include:

            Demolition/construction wastes
            Water/wastewater treatment residues (sludge)
            Trees and brush
            Street refuse (sweepings, etc.)
            Car bodies
            Nonhazardous industrial process waste
            Incinerator residue
            Boiler residue (power plant ash, etc.)
            Household hazardous wastes
            Small quantity generator hazardous wastes
            Used oil

          Total generation of these wastes is much larger than the MSW
estimates, but the portion of these wastes going to municipal solid
waste*landfills is not documented.

FACTORS AFFECTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL

          A number of factors affect generation of MSW.  Increasing
population,  increasing affluence, and social changes all affect pur-
chases of goods and discards.  The effects of these factors  have not
been quantified, however.
                                   S-3
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
          Technological changes,  for example,  computers with  printers
that generate large amounts of paper, have an  effect on the waste
stream.  These changes are also evident in containers and packaging.
Lightweight aluminum and plastics are being substituted for heavier
steel and glass in beverage containers, for example.

          While many of the factors affecting  MSW disposal are difficult
to quantify, materials recovery for recycling  and energy recovery  from
MSW can be estimated with reasonable accuracy.  The figure below illu-
strates the effects of these activities.  Over time, gross discards  (the
top line) have grown steadily except for dips  during recessions in 1975
and 1982.  The combined effects of materials recovery and energy recovery
have, however, caused a "flattening" of net discards after materials  re-
covery and energy recovery have taken place.  The estimates  in this  report
indicate that the tonnage of municipal solid waste discards will decrease
slightly in the future.  These recovery estimates are conservative,  so net
discards could be even lower if recovery activities are increased  more
rapidly.
                                                 MATERIAL RECOVER£D«ilS
I960
            1965
197S
1980
                                            1985
                                                        1990
                                   1995
                                                                      2000
      Gross discards, materials recovery, energy recovery,  and net discards
      of municipal  solid waste, 1960 to 2000.
                                   S-4
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                                Chapter 1

         HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE  DISPOSAL
BACKGROUND

          Since the late 1960s there has been increasing concern about
the manner in which municipal solid wastes (MSV)  are  collected and dis-
posed.  As a corollary, there have been many attempts to quantify and
characterize the amounts of waste that must be dealt  with,  and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken the lead in many of these
efforts.

          There are two basic approaches to estimating quantities of
municipal solid waste, which is a heterogeneous and poorly-defined
aggregation of materials.  The first method, which is site-specific,
involves weighing, sampling, and sorting a waste stream into its spe-
cific components.  Some of these efforts involve a single sampling of a
waste stream; others include characterization of numerous samples over
a long period of time.  This method is useful, but wide variations in
local conditions and the range of wastes sampled make it difficult to
apply this method to obtain national average figures.

          The second approach to quantifying and characterizing the
municipal solid waste stream—the method used for this report—uses
a material flows approach.  This method is much more  general in appli-
cation and requires considerable manipulation of the  data.   In the late
1960s and early 1970s, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and its  predecessors
at the Public Health Service sponsored work that began to develop this
methodology (1)(2)(3)(4).  The material flows approach to solid waste
estimation was described in some detail in a 1975 EPA publication (5),
and estimates of MSW made using this methodology were published in
Reports to Congress in the mid-1970s (6)(7)(8).  Finally, the Resource
Conservation Committee used estimates of MSW generated using this method
in its 1979 Report to the President and Congress (9)(10) (11) .  Since
that time, very little information on MSW generation  and disposal has
been published by EPA, although some privately-sponsored work has been
done (12).

OVERVIEW OF THIS CHAPTER

          This chapter provides a summary of estimates of municipal solid
waste disposal for the historical period 1960 to 1984, with projections
to the year 2000.  Quantities and composition of MSW  by materials cate-
gory and by'product category are presented. Changing  trends in the mater-
ials and products disposed, and the amounts disposed  per person, are
discussed.
                                    1-1
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
METHODOLOGY

General Description

           The  methodology used  to generate the MSW disposal estimates  in
this report  is an extension  of  the previous work described above.   Work-
ing papers that accompany this  report detail the estimation procedure  for
each material  and product category.  Briefly described, the methodology
relies on  published  data series documenting historical production  (or
consumption) of materials and products that enter the municipal waste
stream.  U.S.  Department of  Commerce statistics are used for many  of
the data series,  with  trade  association data used in a few instances.
Deductions for converting losses of materials in manufacturing processes
are made.

           Imports and  exports significantly affect consumption of  many
products in  the U.S. waste  stream, and adjustments are made as appropri-
ate for each product.   An adjustment is also made for products that are
destroyed  in use (e.g., cigarette paper) or diverted  from the waste
stream for long periods of  time (e.g., books in libraries).

           After all  necessary adjustments are made, discards of each
product are  calculated.  Since  there is significant recovery of many
products in  the waste  stream, estimates of materials recovery (if  any)
for each product are made.   After all discards are totaled, a deduction
is made for  the materials Incinerated in energy recovery facilities.
(Incinerator ash, which is  discussed in Chapter 2, is not included in
these estimates.)  The final result, or "Net Discards," represents total
discards into  the municipal  waste stream.

           This procedure is  illustrated in Figure 1-1.

           The  methodology described above develops estimates of nonfood
product wastes based on available data series.  Other materials in the
municipal  waste stream—food wastes, yard wastes, and some miscellaneous
inorganic  wastes—cannot be  derived from any published data series.  These
estimates  are  based  on sampling data from as wide a range of sources as
possible.  These sources present food and yard wastes as percentages of
the total  waste stream, and  a composite of sampling data over a period of
years was  used, along  with  the  nonfood product waste data, to estimate the
food, yard,  and other  wastes.

Materials  and  Products Included in These Estimates

           The  municipal solid waste estimates provided by the methodology
described  above include residential, commercial, and institutional solid
wastes.  Since the estimates for each product are based on production
data, the  methodology  cannot determine whether a corrugated box, for
                                   1-2
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                     (•ports
 Domestic
Production
Diversion
(.rover-ting
  Losses
                   Discards
                    befoie
                   Recovery
 Discards
  after
HiterUls
Recovery
  Net
Discards
                                    C»ports
                    Material!
                    Recovery
  Energy
 Recovery
  Figure 1-1.   Generalized  material  flows for products  1n  the municipal  waste stream.

-------
 example, was emptied and discarded in a home,  a retail  store, a school,
 or a factory; all corrugated boxes are counted.  For  estimates of total
 U.S. waste, it can be presumed that all corrugated boxes collected from
 any source are recycled, taken to a landfill,  incinerated, or otherwise
 disposed.  For localized estimates of MSW generation, however, it is
 very important to know the source of the waste stream.  Using the example
 above,  relatively few corrugated boxes come from residences, but many
 come from stores and factories.  A waste stream generated solely from
 residential wastes would thus be expected to have far less than the av-
 erage percentage of corrugated containers.

           The jr--
-------
          While Che material flows methodology accounts for net  imports  of
products, It does not account for the  packaging of  imported  goods.  Thus
the containers and packaging category  is  understated by an unknown amount.

Projections

          Historical estimates of MSW  discards were made  through  1984.
Projections to 2000 were made using a combination  of trend analysis,
knowledge of the Industries involved,  and government sources such as
Industrial Outlook (13).

MATERIALS IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM

          Historical and projected quantities of  materials  in the munic-
ipal waste stream are shown in Table 1-1  and Figure 1-2.  Percentage  of
total discards for each material is shown in Table  1-2.  In  these tables,
"Total Wastes Discarded" is discards after recovery of materials  has
taken place.  The total discards of materials are adjusted by subtracting
MSW processed for energy recovery to obtain "Net  Wastes Discarded."
These are the totals shown in Figure 1-2.

          The relative magnitude of the various materials in the  munic-
ipal waste stream is illustrated in Figure 1-3.   Comments on each of  the
materials In MSW follow below.  A more complete discussion  of the fac-
tors Influencing changes in the waste  stream is  included  in  Chapter 3.

Paper and Paperboard

          The paper and paperboard category is the  largest materials
category, ranging from 24.5 million tons  disposed in 1960 to almost
50 million tons disposed in 1984.  Discards of paper and  paperboard
are projected to be 65 million tons In 2000.  Paper's  share  of  the
municipal waste stream has ranged from 30 percent to 37 percent over
the past quarter-century; the trend has been generally upward and this
is projected to continue.  As will be  shown in Chapter 3, paper and
paperboard would comprise a much larger share of  the waste  stream if
materials recovery did not take place.

Glass

          The tonnage of glass (mostly containers)  in  the waste stream
increased steadily until the early 1980s, then began  to fall slowly.
As a percentage of the waste stream, glass comprised 8 percent  in I960,
rising to over 11 percent in the early 1980s, then falling  to under  10
percent in 1984.  The percentage of glass in the  waste stream is  pro-
jected to fall to under 8 percent by 2000.
                                    1-5
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                                                                     Table  1-1
                                    MATERIALS  DISCARDED  INTO THE MUNICIPAL  WASTE  STREAM.  1960  TO 2000
Materials

Paper and Ptperboard

Class

Heiala
  Ferrous
  AluDinuB
  Other Nonferrous

Plastics

Rubber and Leather

Textiles

Wood

Other

     TOTAL NONFOOD  PRODUCT WASTES

Food Wastes

Yard Wastes

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes

     TOTAL HASTES DISCARDED*

     ENERGY RECOVERY**

     NET WASTES DISCARDED
(In million!, of
1960
24.5
6.4
9.9
0.3
0.2
0.4
1.7
2.0
3.0
-
48.4
11.2
IS. 5
1.3
76.4
-
76.4
1965
32.2
8.5
10.0
0.5
0.2
1.4
2.2
2.2
3.5
-
60.7
12.1
17.7
1.6
92.1
0.2
91.9
1970
36.5
12.5
12.4
0.8
0.3
3.0
3.0
2.2
4 0
0.1
74.8
12.7
21.0
1.8
110.3
0.4
109.9
1975
34.5
13.2
12.0
1 0
0.)
4.4
3.7
2.5
4.3
0.1
76.0
13.4
22.1
2.0
113.5
0.7
112.8
mo
42.2
14.2
11.2
1.4
0.4
7.6
4.1
2.9
4.9
0.1
89.0
11.6
22.9
2.2
125.7
2.7
123.0
tons)
1981
43.9
U.3
11.1
1.3
0.4
7.6
4.1
3.6
4.4
0.1
91.0
11.3
23.1
2.3
127.7
2.3
125.4

1982
41.5
13.8
11.0
1 3
0.3
8.4
3.8
3.0
5.0
0.1
88.2
11.0
23.3
2.4
124.9
3.5
121.4

1983
45.9
13.5
11.1
1.5
0.3
9.1
3.4
3.0
5.2
0.1
93.1
11.1
23.5
2.4
130.1
5.0
125.1

1984
49 4
12.9
11.0
1.5
0.3
9.6
3.3
2.8
5.1
0.1
96.0
10.8
23.8
2.4
133.0
6.5
126.5

1990
54.2
12.4
11.0
2.0
0.3
11.8
3.5
3.1
5.3
0.1
103.7
10.9
24.1
2.7
141.4
13.3
128.1

1995
59.5
12.2
11.1
2.3
0.3
13.7
3.7
3.3
5.7
O.I
111.9
10.9
24.2
2.9
149. 9
22.5
127.4

2000
65.1
12.1
11.2
2.7
0.4
15.5
3.8
3.5
6.1
0.1
120.5
10 8
24.4
3.1
158.8
32.0
126 8
  * Wastes discarded after materials recovery has taken place.
 *• Municipal solid taste consumed Cor energy recovery.  Residues from these facilities  are discussed Jn Chapter 2.

 Details nay not add to totals due to rounding.

 Source.  Frank) in Associjtei. Lid.

-------
    140

    120

    100

I   60
c
£   60
r—
z   40

    20
                  *••
   l  I  I  i  |  I l l l  \  l  l  I t | « l  I  t | I > I  I  |  I I 
-------
                                                                         Table  1-2
                                         MATERIALS  DISCARDED INTO THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM.  I960 TO  2000
oo
Materials

Paper and Paperboard

Class

Metals
  Ferrous
  Aluminum
  Other Nonferrous

Plastics

Rubber and Leather

Textiles

Wood

Other

     TOTAL NONFOOD PRODUCT WASTES

Food Wastes

Yard Wastes

Hlscellaneous Inorganic Hastes

     TOTAL WASTES DISCARDED*

     ENERGY RECOVERY ••

     NET WASTES DISCARDED
(In percent of cocal discards)
1960
32.1
6.4
13.0
0.4
0.3
0.5
2.2
2.6
3.9
-
63.4
14.6
20.3
1.7
100.0
0.0
100.0
1965
3S.O
9.2
10.9
0.5
0.2
1.5
2.4
2.4
3.8
-
65.9
13.1
19.2
1.7
100.0
0.2
99.8
1970
13.1
11.3
11.2
0.7
0.3
Z.7
2.7
2.0
3.6
0.1
67. B
11.5
19.0
1.6
100.0
0.4
99.6
1975
30.4
11.6
10.6
0.9
0.3
3.9
3.3
2.2
3.8
0.1
67.0
11.8
19.5
1.8
100.0
0.6
99.4
1980
33.6
11.3
8.9
1.1
0.3
6.0
3.3
2.3
3.9
0.1
70.8
9.2
18.2
1.8
100.0
2.1
97.9
1981
34.5
11.3
8.7
1 0
0.3
6.1
3.2
2.4
3.5
0.1
71.1
8.9
18.2
1.8
100.0
l.B
98.2
1982
33.2
11.0
8.8
1.1
0.2
6.7
3.0
2.4
4.0
0.1
70.6
8.8
18.7
1.9
100.0
2.8
97.2
1983
35.3
10.4
8.5
1.2
0.2
7.0
2.6
2.3
4.0
0.1
71.6
8.5
18.1
1.8
100.0
3.8
96.2
1984
37.1
9.7
8.3
1.1
0.2
7.2
2.5
2.1
3.8
0.1
72.2
8.1
17.9
1.8
100.0
4.9
95.1
1990
38.3
8.8
7.8
1.4
0.2
8.3
2.5
2.2
3.7
0.1
73.3
7.7
17.0
1.9
100.0
9.4
90.6
1995
39.7
8.1
7.4
1.5
0.2
9.1
2.5
2.2
3.8
0.1
74.7
7.3
16.1
1.9
100.0
15.0
85.0
2000
41.0
7.6
7.1
1.7
0.2
9.8
2.4
2 2
3.8
0.1
75.9
6.8
15.3
2.0
100.0
20.2
79.8
          *  Wastes discarded after naterlals recovery has  taken place.
         •«  Municipal solid waste consumcJ for energy recovery.  Residues from these facilities are discussed in Chapter 2.

         DetjJls nay not add to totals due to rounding.

         Source.  Frdnklm Associates, Ltd.

-------
               19.0%
           2.1%
              2.5%
                    7.2
    33. IX
                                                     1970
                                            11.3%
9.7%
                                                37.1%
                                                      1984
0 Pttxr and osoertoariJ
• olas?
Q n«uis
B Plastics
D Rubber and leiUier
§ Textiles
IU Wood
• OUter
13 Food Y.IJKS
3 Yird w«ui
0 nijcellantoua Inorganic wail»
                            9.6%
                15.3%
         0.1%
                   9.8%
                                    2.0%
                                            41.0%
                                                      2000
                          9.0%     7.6%
Figure 1-3.   Materials discarded  into  the municipal  waste  stream,  by
               percent of  total.
                                     1-9

-------
 Ferrous Metals

           Ferrous  metals  total about 11 million tons in the waste streai
 at present.   The ferrous  metals tonnage has remained fairly constant  over
 the years;  thus as a percent of the total, ferrous metals have decreased,
 from 13 percent in 1960 to 8 percent in 1984.  This trend is projected  to
 continue.

 Aluminum

           Aluminum in the municipal waste stream has increased steadily,
 but the tonnage of this light metal is still very small—only 1.5 million
 tons in 1984.  In  percentage, aluminum has grown from less than one-half
 of one percent in  1960 to just over one percent in 1984.   The increasing
 trend is expected  to continue.

 Other Nonferrous Metals

           These metals (e.g., copper,  brass) comprise a very small share
 of the municipal waste stream—about one-quarter of one percent.  Their
 tonnage has been about 300,000 tons in recent years,  and  this is  projected
 to increase to 400,000 tons in 2000.

 Plastics

           Plastics in the waste stream have increased steadily, from  about
 one-half million tons in 1960 to 9.6 million tons in  1984.   This  trend will
 continue,  to 15.5 million tons in 2000.  Plastics were less than  one per-
 cent  of  the waste stream in 1960,  were over 7 percent in  1984,  and are
 projected to rise to almost 10 percent in 2000.

 Rubber and  Leather

          This category,  which includes rubber tires,  grew in  tonnage from
 1.7 million  tons in 1960 to 4.1 million tons in  1981.   Tonnage  since then
has been  in  a  decline,  and any growth  is expected to  be very  slow.  Rubber
and leather  have ranged from 2.2 percent to 3.3  percent of  the waste stream,
and the percentage  is projected to remain under  3  percent.

Textiles

          Textiles  have stayed at  a fairly constant 2  to  3  percent of the
municipal waste  stream.   Tonnage has ranged between 2  million and 3.6
million tons,  and  this  is  not projected to change.

Wood

          Wood in the municipal  waste  stream is  estimated at 3 million
tons in 1960,  increasing  to  5 million  tons in  the  early 1980s, and
                                    1-10
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
 continuing to grow slowly,  to  6  million  tons  in  2000.  The percentage of
 wood has been about 4  percent  of the  total, or slightly less.

 Food Wastes

           Disposal of  food  wastes In  the U.S. is poorly documented com-
 pared to other product wastes.   Based on previous EPA work,  the increas-
 ing use of garbage disposers in  homes, and MSW sampling studies that show
 food wastes declining  as  a  percent of total,  food wastes are estimated to
 have increased from 11.2  million tons in 1960 to 13.4 million tons in 1975.
 Food wastes are estimated to show a slightly  decreasing tonnage thereafter,
 to 10.8 million tons in 2000.

           In terms of  percentage of the  waste stream, food wastes are es-
 timated to have fallen from nearly 15 percent in 1960, to just over 8 per-
 cent in 1984,  decreasing  to under  7 percent in 2000.

 Yard Wastes

           Like food wastes, yard wastes  are poorly documented, and they
 vary widely from region to  region.  Based on  previous work and sampling
 studies,  yard  wastes were estimated to be 15.5 million tons in 1960, in-
 creasing  to 23.8 million  tons  In 1984, and increasing to 24.4 million
 tons in 2000.   Percentage of total has decreased from about 20 percent
 in  1960 to about 18  percent in 1984.

 Miscellaneous  Inorganic Wastes

           This category,  mostly  stones and dirt,  is also poorly documented.
 Estimates were kept  similar^o those  that have been made before (5) (6) (7)
 (8).  The tonnage  increases'slowly from  1.3 million tons in 1960 to 2.5
 million tons in 1984,  with  a slow increase thereafter, to 3.1 million
 tons.   This category represents  less  than 2 percent of the municipal
 waste stream.

 PRODUCTS  IN THE  MUNICIPAL WASTE  STREAM

           With  the exception of food,  yard, and miscellaneous inorganic
wastes, the materials  in  the waste stream are present in manufactured
products.   These product categories are shown in Tables 1-3 and 1-4 and
Figure 1-4.  The product wastes are categorized as durable goods,  nondur-
able goods, and containers and packaging.  The products are discussed
below.

Durable Goods

          total durables discarded have increased from 9 million tons in
1960 to 18.6 million tons  in 1984.  They are projected to reach  22.9
                                 1-11
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                                                                    Table 1-3

                                       PRODUCTS DISCARDED INTO THE MUNICIPAL WASTE  STREAM
                                                          (In  millions of  cons)
 Product*

 Durable Cood*
   Major Appliance*
   Furniture  and  Furniahiaf*
   Rubber Tlrtt
   Mlaceilaneoui  Durlble*

      TOTAL DURAJLCS

 Nondurable Cood*
   Newspaper*
   Booki and  Kagaiiaee
   Office Paper*
   Coenercul Printing
   Tiacue Paoar and Towel*
   Other Xonpackaguig Paper
   Clothug and footwear
   Other .IlKellaneeua Sondurablea

      TOTAL NONDCJIABLIS

 Container* and packaging
   Claa*
     Beer and Soft Drink Bottle*
     Ulna and Llouor Bottle*
     Food and Other Botile* 4  Jar*
      Total Gla**

   Steel
     Bear and Soft Drink Can*
     Food and Otler Can*
     Ochir Steal Packaging
      Total Steel

   AloaUnua
     Beer and Sod Brick Can*
     Other Can*
     Foil and Cloaura*
      Total Aluauud

   Paper  and Paparaoard
     Corrugated Boxee
     Other Paparaoard
     Paper Packaging
      Total Paper

   Plaetici
     Plaicic Container*

     Total Plaitlc*

  Weed Packaging

  Ocher llaceilaneou*  Packaging

     TOTAL CON7-.XMHS  AND  PACKAGING

  Total nonfood  Product Uuta*

Oehar U*ata*
  Food Witci
  Yard '-Altai
  Hlacellaneou*  Inocgaole  Uaaua

     TOTAL OTHE* VASTZJ

     TOTAL WASTES BXSOuVZO*

     OlOtCY RECOVBtT**

     HIT HASTES  DISCAHDZa
1960
1.3
2.1
0 8
4.6
9 0
1 3
a
3
.1
.1
8
1 1
0.4
13.4
1 3
0 9
3 7
1.9
0 6
3.7
0 3
4 6
0 1
0 0
0.1
0.2
4 1
3 i
2.7
11 0
0.1
0 1
0.1
2.0
0.1
24.0
48.4
11.2
11.3
1.3
28.0
76.4
.
76.4
1961
1.0
1.7
1 0
1.4
10.0
6 3
2 1
1 8
1.6
1.3
4.1
1.7
0.1
19 6
2 1
1.4
4.2
8.0
0 9
3 6
0 3
4 7
0 1
0.0
0 2
0 3
7 7
4.1
3.1
14 9
0.3
0 7
1 0
2 1
0.1
31. 0
to. ;
12.1
17 7
1 6
31 4
92.1
0.2
91.9
1970
2 6
3.
1
6
13.
,
2
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
0.
21.6
5 4
1.9
4.4
11.7
1 3
3 5
0.3
1.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.6
9.7
4.3
3 4
17.4
0 9
1 2
2.1
2 1
0.1
39.3
74.1
12.?
21 0
1 B
33 i
110 3
0 4
109 9
1971
2.1
4 1
2 3
7.0
16.0
4
.0
.0
.8
.1
.7
2.1
1 0
21.1
5.9
2 0
4.4
12.3
1.2
] 3
0.2
4.7
0 4
0 0
0 3
0.7
9 1
3 9
3 0
16.4
1.3
1 4
2.1
2.0
0.1
38.9
76.0
13 4
2: 1
2 0
37 3
113.5
0 7
112.1
1980
2 7
3 1
2 3
7.7
17.1
1 1
3.1
3 1
2.7
2 *
4.6
2.6
2.4
28.9
6.0
2.4
4 a
13.2
0.5
2.7
0.2
1.4
0.6
0.0
0.3
0 9
10.1
4.3
3.7
18.2
2.1
2 1
4.2
2.1
0.2
42.2
89.0
11 6
22 9
2 2
36.7
121.7
2.7
123.0
1981
2 8
3 2
-2 3
7.8
18.1
8.4
3.2
3 1
2.7
2.1
4.7
2.7
2.4
29.7
6.0
2.4
4.9
13.3
0.3
2.6
0.3
3.2
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.8
11.2
4.3
3.8
19.3
2 1
2.2
4.3
2.1
0.2
43.2
91.0
11.3
23 1
1.3
16 7
127.7
2.1
121.4
1982
2 8
3 9
2 0
a 2
18.1
7 6
3 3
3 2
.1
4
.4
6
.3
28.3
1.8
2.2
4.8
12.8
0 2
2 1
0.2
2.9
0 i
0.0
0.3
0.8
9 9
4 3
1.8
18.0
2.0
2.2
4.2
2.0
0.2
40.9
88.2
11.0
23 3
2.3
36 6
124 9
3 1
121.4
1981
2.8
6.3
1.1
8 4
11 9
8 2
3 B
3 6
3 2
2 6
3.1
2.7
2.3
31 7
1.4
2 3
4.7
12.4
0.1
2 3
0 2
2.8
0 1
0 0
0 3
0.9
10 9
4.6
4 0
19 3
2.2
2 4
4.6
2.0
0.2
42.4
93.1
11 1
23 1
2 4
37 1
130.1
S 0
121.1
1984
2 6
6.0
I 1
1 7
18.6
9 0
t 2
9
1
•8
.3
6
.7
34.0
4 9
2 2
4 7
11.8
0 1
2 3
0 2
2 8
0 6
0.0
0.3
0.9
11 9
4.9
4 0
20 a
2 4
2 6
3.0
2 0
0.2
41.1
96.0
10 1
23.8
2 4
37.0
133.0
6 I
126.5
1990
2 4
6.4
1 6
9 6
20 0
9 7
4 9
4 6
4 3
3 I
3.6
2 8
3.1
38.1
4.1
2 2
4.6
11.1
0.1
2.4
0.2
2.7
0 7
0 0
0 4
1.1
i.3.0
4 1
4 1
22 0
2 9
3 2
4 I
2 0
o.:
43. i
103 J
10 9
2- 1
2 ;
3? 7
14! 4
13 3
128 1
1991
2 5
7 2
1 7
10 0
21 4
10 1
.1
3
0
2
0
3 1
3 6
42 1
4.4
Z 1
4 3
11.1
0 1
2.1
0 2
2.4
0 1
0 1
0 4
1 1
14 1
• 9
4 2
23 6
3 4
3 a
7 2
2 0
0 2
4?. 9
111 9
10 9
:- 2
2 9
)1 0
1.1 9
12 !
127 4
!00p
2 5
a o
1 7
10 J
22 9
11 4
7
.1
a
4
3
3
4 2
47.4
4 2
I 1
4 S
10 a
0.1
1 9
0 2
2.2
1.0
o :


16 2
3 0
3.B
2! 1
3 9
4 3
a 2
2.0
0 3
30 1
120 3
!0 a
:> '-
3 1
18 3
i»a
12 0
1:6 1
 • Uaate* diicardad if cer aacerlali recover*  ha*  caktn alact
•* Municipal  loild uaate eor*ua*d for energy  reeaverv   Roaiduo* from the** laellltlei are dlKulMd in Oiiptar 2.

Detail* eay not  *dd to total* due to rounding

Source   franklin Aa*ocuce«. Led.
                                                                     1-12

-------
                                                                 Table  1-4

                                   PRODUCTS  DISCARDED  INTO THE MUNICIPAL  WASTE STREAM
                                                  (In  percent  of  total  discards)
 Produete                           196C
 Durable Coed*
   He jar Appliance*
   Furniture and Furnishings
   lubber Tires
   NlacsILuMoua Durables

     TOTAL DURABLES

 •endurable Coeds
   Newspapers
   look! and Magaiinae
   Offlca Pagers
   Coeoerclal Printing
   TIMu* Paper and Tom It
   Other senBaciuting ?sper
   Clothing and Teotuear
   Ocher Hlseellaaeouo Nondurable*

     TOTAL NOJ1DUMBUS

 Container* tad Pack*|Ui|
   Clan
    leer and Soft Drink Battles
    Ulna and Liquor loctlts
    Toed and Ocher loctlas and Jeri
     laul Cleat

   Steel
    leer end Safe Brink Case
    Food and Other Cant
    Otaer Sceel  Packaging
     Total Sceel
  Alualausi
    Beer and  Soft Drink,
    Other Can*
    foil and  Closure*
     Total Aluuaiw

  Paper and Paverboard
    Carrugateo lose*
    Other ?aperbaard
    Otner Packaging
     Total Paper

  Plastics
    Plastic Container*
    Other Packet )iif
     Total Plastics
  Uood Packaging

  Other JUscollanaoue Packaging

     TOTAL COMACiOS AND PAflUCWC 31.4

  TOTAL 10XFOOD PRODUCT -A SITS

Other Mattel
  rood 'Bastes
  Yard Siaetae
  HiMiilantous Inorganic Uastet

     TOTAL OWe* VUSTZS

     TOTAL VASTM DISCAJOCD*

     Bincr azcovtrr**

     m UASTZS Discuses
                                            1963
                                                     1970
                                                                        1980
                                                                                           19M      19BJ
                                                                                                                       1990
                                                                                                                                 1993
                                                                                                                                           2000
1.9
2.7
1.0
6.0
11.1
6 9
1 4
1 ?
1 *
1.4
3.7
2.0
0.3
20.1
1.7
1.2
1 4 1
7.)
0.6
4.8
0.4
6 0
O.I
0 0
0.1
0.2
6.2
4*6
3 3
14.4
0.1
0.1
0 2
2.6
0.1
31.4
63 4
14.7
20.3
1.7
36.6
100.0
.
100.0
1.1
2.9
1 I
3 9
10 9
6 t
i )
2 0
1.7
1 6
'.3
i a
0.3
2i.i
2 7
1 3
4 6
6.7
1 0
I 9
0 3
i.l
0.1
0 0
0.2
0 3
a.
4
3
16.
0
0
1.
2 3
O.I
33.7
6S 9
13 1
19.2
1.7
34.1
100 0
0.2
•9.8
2 4
3 1
1 4
3.7
12.6
• J
.0
.8
.6
.9
.3
.6
0.7
19.6
4.9
1.7
4.0
10.6
1 4
3.2
0.2
4 a
0.3
0.1
0 2
0.3
a. a
3.9
3 1
13.1
0.1
I 1
1.9
1.9
0.1
3). 6
67.9
11.3
19 0
1.6
32.1
100.0
0.4
99.6
2.2
3.6
2.1
6.2
14.1
3 6
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.9
3.3
1.1
0.9
1S.6
3.2
1.6
3 1
10.1
1.1
2.9
0.2
4.2
0.4
0.0
0 2
0.6
8.4
3.4
2.6
14 4
1.2
1.3
2.4
1.8
0.1
34.3
67.0
11.8
19 4
1.8
33.0
100.0
0.6
99.4
2.1
4 L
1 9
6.1
14.2
6.3
2.4
2.3
2 1
1.9
3.6
2.1
1.9
23.0
4.1
1.9
3.1
10.3
0.4
2.3
0.2
2.7
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.7
8.0
3.3
3.0
14.3
1.7
1.7
3.4
1.7
0.1
33.6
70.1
9.3
11.2
1.1
29.2
100.0
2.2
97.1
2.2
4.1
1.1
6.1
14.2
6.
2.

.
.

.

23.2
4.7
1.9
3.1
10.4
.2
.0
2
.3
.4
.0
.2
.6
.8
.3
.0
13.1
1.6
1.8
3.4
1.6
0.1
13.1
71.1
1.9
18 1
1.8
21 8
100.0
1.1
91.2
2.2
4.7
1.6
6.6
13.1
6 1
2 6
2 3
2 2
1 9
3 3
2.1
1 9
22.8
4.6
1.8
3.8
10.2
0.2
2.0
0.1
2 3
0.4
0 0
0 2
0 6
e.o
3.4
3.0
14 4
1.6
i a
3.1
1 6
0.1
32 7
70.6
8 8
18.7
1.9
29.4
100.0
2 9
97 1
2 1
4.8
1 2
6.4
14 3
6 1
2 9
2.7
2.4
2.0
1.9
2 1
1.9
24.2
4.J
1 1
1.6
9.3
0 1
1 9
0 1
2.1
0.4
0 0
0 2
0.7
a 3
3 3
3.1
14 »
I.I
1 9
3.:
1.3
0 1
32.3
71.6
8.5
11.0
1.8
2B '
100.0
3.8
96.2
2.0
4 4
1 0
6 3
14 0
7
2
9
.7
1
.0
0
.0
23.6
3.7
1.7
3.6
8.9
0.1
1 9
0.1
2.1
0.3
0.0
0 2
0.7
8.9
3.7
3 0
13 6
i a
I 9
3.7
1.3
0.1
32.7
72.2
8.1
IT 9
1.8
27.1
100 0
4.9
93.1
1.7
4 3
1 1
6 a
14 1
.7
I
; .2
0
1
9
0
2 2
26.9
3.2
1.6
3.2
8.0
0.1
1.7
0.1
1.9
0.3
0.0
a. 3
o a
9.0
3.4
2.9
13.3
2 1
2 2
4 3
1 4
0 1
32.2
73 3
7 6
16 a
1 9
26 1
100.0
9 4
90.6
1 7
4 7
1 1
6.3
13.8
7 0
3 9
3 3
3.3
2 1
3 9
2 1
2.4
21 4
2.9
I 4
3.0
7.4
0 1
1 4
0.1
1.6
0.3
0 1
0 3
0 9
» 1
3 3
2.8
13 7
2 )
2 3
4 8
1 3
0 1
32 0
V- 6
7 3
16 1.
'. t
21 -
100 o
13 0
83 0
1.7
3 a
i i
6 6
14 4
7.2
4.2
3 8
.7
.1
1
\
6
29.8
2.6
1.1
2 8
6.1
o.:
1.2
0.1
1.4
0.6
o :
0.3
0.9
10 t
3 1
* i
13.8
2 3
2 . ?
3 2
1 3
0.2
31 6
75 9
6 8
15 -
• »
i-- :
IOC 0
20.0
80 0
 • hastes diKsrded after eecerlali recovery has taken place
•• nauipal  to nd taate con tuned (or energy recovery   Resiouss (reel these facilities are d lac u teed In Chapter 2

DeuUt m not add to total*  due to rounding.

Source   FraaUin Associates,  Ltd.
                                                                   1-13

-------
                                  12.6%
           19.0%
         11.535
          8.1%
          32.7%
                                          19.6%
                                                 1970
            17.9%
                                    14.0%
                                          25.5%
1984
              52 TOTAL
              • TOTAL NOWURABLES
              El TOTAL CONTAINERS AND
                 PACKAGING
              D FOOO WASTES
              D YARD WASTES
              • niSCEUANEOIS INORGANIC
                 WASTES
            15.4%
         6.8%
          31.6%
                                   14.4%
                                          29.8%
2000
Figure  1-4.  Products discarded  into the municipal waste stream,
              by  percent  of total.
                                    1-14

-------
million  Cons  in 2000.  As a percentage of Che municipal waste scream,
durable  goods have increased only slightly, from 12 percent in 1960
Co  14 percent in 1984; this is projected to be about 14 percent in
2000 also.

          Discards of major appliances increased from 1.5 million tons
in  1960  to  2.6 million tons in 1970.  Discards have been nearly constant
since then, and are expected to remain so.  Appliances have been about 2
percent  of  total discards for Che entire period.

          Discards of furniture and furnishings increased from 2.1 million
tons in  1960  to 6.0 million tons in 1984.  They will continue to increase
to  2000.  Furniture and furnishings as a percentage of total discards  have
increased slowly from 3 percent in 1960 to 4 percent in 1984.  They are
projected to comprise 5 percent of total discards in 2000.

          Rubber tires are an exception to the usual increase in product
tonnage  discarded.  Tire discards were 800,000 tons in 1960, increased to
2.3 million tons, then began to decline in 1982.  There are two main rea-
sons for the decline in discards of rubber tires—tires are smaller than
they were in former years, and they last longer (13).  Tires have been one
to  2 percent of the waste stream historically, and this is not expected to
change.

          The products classified as miscellaneous durables are varied,
and not  well documented.  Small appliances and consumer electronics are
important constituents of the category.  Estimated discards have increased
from 4.6 million tons in 1960 to 8.7 million tons in 1984.  Discards in
2000 are projected to be 10.5 million tons.  These goods comprise 6 to 7
percent  of the waste stream.

Nondurable Goods

          The nondurable goods category has grown from 15.4 million tons
in 1960  to 34.0 million tons in 1984.  Nondurables are projected to con-
tribute 47.4 million tons to the waste stream in 2000.  In terms of per-
centage of the waste stream, nondurables were 20 percent in I960, in-
creased  to almost 26 percent in 1984, and are projected to be almost 30
percent  in 2000.

          Paper products comprise the majority of nondurable goods.  The
total paper nondurables were 17.5 percent of the waste stream in 1960,
increasing Co over 20 percent in 1984.  Newspapers are the largest single
nondurable category; they have been nearly 7 percent of total waste dis-
cards for the entire period.  The categories of books, magazines, office
papers,  and commercial printing have been increasing in percentage of
total during the 1980s,  and are expected co continue to do so.  Tissue
and other papers have maintained a more constant percentage in the waste
stream.
                                    1-15
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
           Cloching and footwear consistently  comprise about 2 percent of
 the waste stream.  These goods increased from 1.5 million tons in 1960
 to 2.6 million tons in 1984,  with discards  in 2000 projected at 3.3 mil-
 lion tons.

           Miscellaneous nondurables in the  waste stream are not well
 documented.   They are estimated to have increased from 400,000 tons in
 1960 to 2.7  million tons in 1984, with increases to 4.2 million tons in
 2000.   In percentage, this category has increased from one percent in
 1960 to 2 percent in 1984, with a projected increase to 2.6 percent in
 2000.

 Containers and Packaging

           Containers and packaging are a very important part of the munic-
 ipal waste stream,  increasing from 24 million tons in 1960 to 43.5 million
 tons in 1984.   They are projected to contribute 50 million tons to total
 wastes in 2000.   Containers and packaging were 31 percent of total dis-
 cards  in 1960,  36 percent in 1970, and 33 percent in 1984.  They are
 projected to be under 32 percent of total discards in 2000.  The decreas-
 ing percentage is apparently due to the partial replacement of relatively
 heavy  materials—glass and ferrous metals—with lighter materials such as
 aluminum and plastics.*

           Each material component of the containers and packaging category
 is  discussed briefly below.

           Glass.   Beer and soft drink bottles, wine and liquor bottles, and
 food bottles and Jars are the important glass container categories.  Total
 glass  containers increased from 5.9 million tons in 1960 to 13.3 million
 tons in 1981,  then  decreased to 11.8 million  tons in 1984.  In terms of
 percentage,  glass containers  were almost 8  percent of total discards in
 1965,  increased  to  almost 11  percent,  then  dropped to 9 percent in 1984.

           Tonnage of glass containers in the  waste stream is projected to
continue  to  decrease to under 11 million tons in 2000.  This would be less
 than 7  percent of total discards.

           Steel.  Steel containers include  beer and soft drink cans,  food
cans, and  some other miscellaneous packaging.  Tonnage was 4.6 million
tons in 1960,  increased to 5.3  million tons in 1970, and has dropped ever
since.  Steel containers were 6  percent of  total discards in 1960, decreasing
* As products decrease  in weight,  there may not be a corresponding decrease
  in volume.  An aluminum soft drink can and one made of steel are the same
  size, to cite one example.  Relationships between volume and weight of  the
  components of MSW have not been  well established, so far as is known.
                                    1-16
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
to 2 percent in 1984.  They are projected to be one to 2 percent of total
discards  in 2000.

          Aluminum.  Aluminum beer and soft drink cans comprise the majority
of this category of containers.  Aluminum containers have increased rapidly,
from 200,000 tons in 1960 to 900,000 tons in 1984.  Tonnage in 2000 is pro-
jected at 1.5 million tons.  In spite of the rapid increase,  aluminum repre-
sents only about one percent of total discards because of its light weight.

          Paper and Paperfaoard.  This category includes corrugated con-
tainers, boxboard containers (e.g., cereal boxes), and paper  packaging
such as grocery si.cks.  This is an important waste category,  increasing
from 11 million tons in 1960 to 20.8 million tons in 1984,  with a pro-
jected 25 million tons in 2000.  Paper and paperboard containers and
packaging were 14 percent of total discards in 1960, increasing to almost
16 percent in 1984 and 2000.

          Corrugated containers are the largest single component of this
category, increasing from 4.7 million tons in 1960 to 11.9  million tons
in 1984.  They are projected to reach 16.2 million tons in  2000.  Corru-
gated boxes were 9 percent of total discards in 1984.

          Plastics.  Plastic containers and packaging have  grown dramat-
ically, from a negligible percentage of total discards in 1960 to 4 per-
cent in 1984.  Tonnage was 100,000 tons in 1960 and 5 million tons in
1984; it is projected at 8.2 million tons in 2000.

          Wood.  Wood packaging Includes shipping pallets and boxes.
Although not well documented, this category is thought to have remained
about constant at 2 million tons.  As a percent of total, wood packaging
has decreased from 3 percent in 1960 to 2 percent in 1984,  and is pro-
jected to be one percent in 2000.

          Other Miscellaneous Packaging.  This category includes small
amounts of textiles, leather, etc., used in specialty packaging.  The
category represents a negligible percentage of total discards.

TRENDS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

          The tables and figures just presented show trends in tonnage
and percentage of materials and products discarded.   Two additional
ways to look at trends are presented here.

Organics/Inorganics

          The mix of organic and inorganic materials in the municipal
waste stream is of interest to persons dealing with waste disposal,
whether by sanitary landfill or by incineration with energy recovery.
                                  1-17
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
In  Che  former case,  organics decompose  into leachate and gases.  In Che
latcer  Instance,  the organics are  the fuel for combustion, while the in-
organics become residue to  be disposed.

           Table 1-5  and Figure 1-5 illustrate the percentage breakdown of
wastes  discarded afcer  materials recovery has taken place, but before en-
ergy  recovery.   There has been an  uneven but noticeable trend toward an
increased  percentage of organic materials in the waste stream, from 76.2
percent in 1960 to 81.3 percent in 2000.  This can be attributed to the
increasing percentages  of paper and plastics in the waste stream,  and is
occurring  in  spite of decreasing percentages of food and yard wastes in
discards.

                                Table 1-5

              COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISCARDS*
            BY  ORGANIC  AND  INORGANIC FRACTIONS. 1960 TO 2000
                           (In percent of total)

                                Organics            Inorganics

                                   76.2                 23.8

                                   77.5                 22.5

                                   74.8                 25.2

                                   74.9                 25.1

           1980                     76.5                 23.5
           1981                     76.8                 23.2
           1982                     77.0                 23.0
           1983                     77.8                 22.2
           1984                     78.9                 21.1

           1990                     79.8                 20.2

           1995                     80.7                 19.3

           2000                     81.3                 18.7
* Discards after materials  recovery has taken place, and before energy
  recovery.

Source:   Franklin Associates, Ltd.
                                     1-18
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD

-------
           ORGANICS
INORGANICS
        I960   1965   1970   I97S   I960   1981   1982   1983  1984  1990   I99S   2000
Figure 1-5.  Composition of municipal solid waste discards by  organic and  inorganic
             fractions,  1960 to 2000.

-------
           Paper has the highest tonnage of any organic constituent in the
waste  stream.   Yard wastes and food  wastes also contribute large tonnages.
Plastics come  next in order of tonnage contributed, with rubber, leather
textiles, and  wood also in this category.

Discards by Individuals

           Another trend of interest  to planners is the increase in dis-
cards  per person.  This is usually expressed as pounds per capita per
day  (pcd).   This trend is shown in Table 1-6 and Figure 1-6.  (Note
that these figures include residential, commercial, and institutional
wastes.   Per capita discards from residences alone would be lower.)

           Some interesting trends are  illustrated in Table 1-6.  With
the exception  of 1975 and 1982—recession years—per capita discards of
paper  and paperboard products have increased steadily.  Per capita dis-
cards  of plastics have increased in  every year tabulated.  Per capita
discards of glass, metals, rubber and  leather, textiles, and wood have
been declining or staying almost even.

           For  total nonfood product  wastes, per capita discards have
increased every year except for recession years.  This is not surprising,
since  paper comprises about 50 percent of the nonfood product wastes.

           Food wastes are shown to be  declining in per capita discards,
yard wastes to be declining slightly,  and miscellaneous organics increasing
very slightly.  (These estimates are explained more fully in the Working
Papers.)

           Overall, total municipal solid waste discarded (after materials
recovery)  is  estimated to have increased from 2.32 pcd in 1970 to 3.08
pcd in 1984. Discards are projected  to be 3.25 pcd in 2000.  After energy
recovery,  these discards are estimated to be 2.32 pcd in 1970, 2.93 pcd
in 1984,  and 2.59 pcd in 2000.  The  downward trend is due to increasing
projected energy recovery (discussed in Chapter 3).

HOW THIS DATA  SERIES DIFFERS FROM PREVIOUS ESTIMATES

           The  data series developed  for these estimates of MSW differ from
previous work  published by EPA and others (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) .  A comparison
of 1977  discards estimated by material flows methodology for EPA in 1979
(10) and those estimated for this report is shown in Table 1-7.

           The  estimates of total nonfood product waste discards for 1977
differ by less than one percent. There are differences in the estimates
for some of the materials categories.   These are caused by changes in the
source data series,  refinements in the methodology,* or both.
* Detailed descriptions of  the  methodology  for each material are included
  in the Working  Papers for this  report.
                                   1-20


                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                                                                                   Table  1-6
                                                     DISCARDS  OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BY INDIVIDUALS,  1960 TO  2000
 I
10
Haterial a


Paper and Paperboard


Class


Hetals


Plastics


Rubber and Leather


Textiles


Wood


     TOTAL NONFOOD PRODUCT WASTES


Food Wastes


Yard Wastes


Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes


     TOTAL WASTES DISCARDED*


     ENERGY RECOVERY**


     NET WASTES DISCARDED
(In pounds per capita per
1960
0.74
0.19
0.31
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.09
1.4?
0.34
0.47
0.04
2.JZ
0.00
2.32
196 5
0.91
0.24
0.30
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.10
1.71
0.34
0.50
0.04
2.60
0.01
2.59
1970
0.97
0.33
0.36
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.11
2.00
0.34
0.56
O.OS
2.95
0.01
2.94
1975
0.88
0.33
0.34
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.11
1.93
0.34
0.56
O.OS
2.88
0.02
2.86
1980
1.01
0.34
0.31
0.18
0.10
0.07
0.12
2.14
0.28
0.35
O.OS
3.02
0.06
2.96
1981
1.05
0.34
0.30
0.19
0.10
0.08
0.11
2.17
0.27
0.55
O.OS
3.04
0.05
2.99
day)
1982
0.98
0.32
0.30
0.20
0.09
0.07
0.12
2.08
0.26
0.55
0.06
2.95
0.08
2.86

1983
1.07
0.31
0.30
0.21
0.08
0.07
0.12
2.17
0.26
0.55
0.06
3.04
0.12
2.92

1984
1.14
0.30
0.30
0.22
0.08
0.06
0.12
2.22
0.25
O.&S
O.Ob
3.08
0.15
2.93

1990
1.19
0.27
0.30
0.26
0.08
0.07
0.12
2.28
0.24
0.53
0.06
3.10
0.29
2.81

1995
1.26
0.26
0.29
0.29
0,08
0.07
0.12
2.36
0.23
0.51
0.06
3.16
0.47
2.69

2000
1.33
0.25
0.30
0.32
0.08
0.07
0.12
2.46
0.22
0.50
0.06
3.25
0.65
2.59
         * Wastes discarded after materials  recovery has taken place.
        •• Municipal solid waste consumed  for energy recovery.  Residues from these facilities are discussed In  Chapter 2.


        Details may not add to totals  -lue  to rounding.


        Source.  Frank 1 In Associates,  Lid.

-------
1960      1965

  Figure  1-6.
  1970
1975
1980
1985
1995
2000
Discards of municipal  solid wastes  after materials and energy
recovery, in pounds per capita  per  day.
            The major  revision  that has been made for the current estimates
  is the dramatic  lowering  of estimates of food and yard wastes.   This re-
  vision causes the  1986 estimate of 1977 discards to be 10 percent lower
  than the estimate  made in 1979.

            The EPA  estimates of food and yard wastes published in 1975 (5)
  were based on a  study of  waste composition published in 1970.  The data
  series was kept  consistent after that.  For this 1986 report, waste samp-
  ling reports from  the 1970s and 1980s were analyzed, and a best estimate
  that food wastes were 10.7 percent of total MSW in the early 1970s and
  7.5 percent in the 1980s, was made.  The estimates for yard wastes were
  17.3 percent of  total MSW in the early 1970s and 16.2 percent in the
  1980s.   Based on this survey, new estimates of food and yard wastes  were
  made,  showing declining percentages of total MSW discards.   These esti-
  mates  are subject to scrutiny and revision if better data become available,
                                     1-22
                                                    FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                              Table 1-7

      COMPARISON OF 1977 DISCARDS* ESTIMATED IN 1979 AND IN 1986
(In millions of cons and percent)

1979
Materials Estimate
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Mecals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Ocher Nonferrous
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
TOTAL NONFOOD PRODUCT WASTE
Food Wastes
Yard Wastes
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
40.1
14.2

11.6
1.2
0.4
5.3
3.4
3.0
4.7
83.9
23.2
26.4
2.1
1986
Estimate
40.3
13.9

11.7
1.2
0.3
6.5
3.4
2.5
4.7
84.6
12.9
22.1
2.1
Z
Difference
+0.5
-2.1

+0.9
—
-25.0
+22.6
—
-16.7
-
+0.8
-44.4
-16.3
-
     TOTAL  WASTES DISCARDED*    135.6         121.7           -10.2
* Waste discarded after materials recovery has  taken place, and before
  energy recovery.

Source:   Franklin Associates, Ltd.
                                   1-23
                                                 FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                                Chapter 1

                               REFERENCES
  1.   Darnay,  A.,  and W. E.  Franklin.   The  Role of Packaging in Solid
      Waste Management, 1966 to 1976.   Public Health  Service Publica-
      tion No. 1855.  L'.S.  Government  Printing Office. 1969.

  2.   Franklin, W. E., and  A. Darnay.   The  Role of Nonpackaging Paper
      in Solid Wabte Management,  1966  to 1976.  Public Health Service
      Publication  No. 2040.   U.S. Government Printing Office. 1971.

  3.   Darnay,  A.,  and W. E.  Franklin.   Salvage Markets for Materials
      in Solid Wastes.  Environmental  Protection Publication SW-29c.
      U.S.  Government Printing Office.  1972.

  4.   Franklin, W. E., et al.  Base Line Forecasts of Resource Recovery,
      1972 to  1990.  Midwest Research  Institute for the U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency. March 1975.

  5.   Smith, F. L., Jr.  A  Solid  Waste Estimation Procedure:  Material
      Flows Approach.  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (SW-147).
      May  1975.

  6.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management
      Programs. Second Report to Congress;  Resource Recovery and Source
      Reduction  (SW-122).   1974.

  7.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management
      Programs. Third Report to  Congress:  Resource Recovery and Source
      Reduction  (SW-161).   1975.

  8.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
      Fourth Report to Congress:   Resource  Recovery and Waste Reduction
      (SW-600). 1977.

  9.   Franklin Associates,  Ltd.   Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource
      Recovery Baseline. Prepared for the  Resource Conservation Com-
      mittee.   April 6,  1979.

10.   Franklin Associates, Ltd.   Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource
      Recovery Baseline: Working Papers.   Prepared for the Resource
      Conservation Commie tee.  May 16,  1979.

11.   Resource Conservation  Committee.   Choices for Conservation; Final
      Report to the President and Congress   (SW-779).  July 1979.
                                    1-24
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD

-------
12.  Franklin,  W.  E,,  M.  A..  Franklin, and R. G. Hunt, Waste Paper:
     The Future of a Resource,  1980-2000.  Franklin Associates, Ltd.
     for the Solid Waste  Council of  the  Paper  Industry.  December
     1982.

13.  U.S. Department of Commerce.  1986  U.S. Industrial Outlook.
     January 1936.  Also  earlier years of the  same source.

14.  U.S. Bureau of the Census.  Current Population Reports. "Estimates
     of the Population of  the United States, by Age, Sex, and Race:
     1980 to 1984."  Series  P-25, No, 965.  Issued March 1985.  "Pro-
     jections of the Population of the United  States, by Age, Sex,
     and Race:   1983 to 2080."  Series P-25, No. 952.  Issued May 1984.
     Projections are from the middle series.
                                   1-25
                                                 FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                                 Chapter 2

                      OTHER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL WASTES
 INTRODUCTION

           The residential, commercial, and institutional municipal
 solid wastes quantified in Chapter 1 include well-defined product
 categories, plus food, yard, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes.
 These wastes generally are disposed of In municipal landfills  or
 another facility such as an incinerator with energy recovery.   In
 additio- to these municipal solid wastes, other wastes are frequently
 disposer of in municipal landfills.  Such wastes include:

             Demolition/construction wastes
             Water/wastewater treatment residues (sludge)
             Trees and brush
             Street refuse (sweepings, etc.)
             Car bodies
             Nonhazardous industrial process waste
             Incinerator residue
             Boiler residue (power plant ash,  etc.)
             Household hazardous wastes
             Small quantity generator hazardous wastes
             Used oil

           A discussion of  these wastes and their significance  in
municipal  landfills is presented in this chapter.   The information
provided represents an overview of these wastes,  and estimates of
quantities either generated or disposed of in municipal  landfills
are not  developed from a database comparable  to that used in Chapter
1.  Comparisons  with municipal solid waste disposal refer to the es-
timated  quantity of municipal  solid waste disposed  of  (before energy
recovery)  in the U.S.  in 1984  (Chapter  1).

DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION WASTES

          Construction and  demolition wastes  result from demolishing
existing structures and building new structures.  Solid wastes from
these accivities include mixed  lumber,  roofing  and sheeting scraps,
broken concrete,  asphalt, brick,  stone, plaster, wallboard, glass,
piping, and  other residential building  materials  (1).  The exact
nature of construction  and  demolition wastes  depends upon the type
of structures involved, which relates to  geographical location as
well as the  age  and  size of community.
                                2-1
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
           The quantities of demolition and construction wastes are
 also highly dependent upon the specifics of a community.  Values
 reported  in various locations across the U.S. range from 0 12 to 3 52
 pounds per capita per day (pcd) (1).  An urban average of 0 72 pcd
 is a figure reported from about 1970 (2).  A California study reported
   5 ,S«d  f°r coramunities und« 10,000 people, 0.68 pcd between 10.000
 and 100,000 people, and 1.37 pcd in communities of over 100,000 people
 (3).  A study of waste generation in the Kansas City area estimated
 quantities of demolition and construction wastes at about 0.6 pcd (4).

           At an average of 0.72 pcd,  the total quantity of construction
 and demolition wistes generated in the U.S.  is estimated at about 31.5
 million tons per year.   This is about 24 percent as much as the munici-
 pal  solid waste disposed of in 1984.

           The fraction  of generated demolition and construction wastes
 received at municipal landfills is unknown.   Since most of these wastes
 are generally viewed as requiring  less stringent disposal than typical
 residential and commercial solid wastes,  special landfills are often
 used.   Some demolition  and construction wastes may,  however,  pose
 health and environmental problems  without certain precautions.   Dust
 from asbestos  fiber and glass,  for example,  may pose hazards,  and un-
 covered demolition debris may harbor  rodents and be  considered an
 aesthetic  nuisance (1).   For these reasons and others,  some construction
 and  demolition wastes are disposed of  in  municipal landfills.   Disposal
 practices  for  construction and  demolition wastes vary considerably from
 area  to area and  even within the same metropolitan area.

 WATER/WASTEWATER  TREATMENT RESIDUES

           Residues  from the treatment of  both water  and wastewater
 (sewage) are generated  in metropolitan areas. These  residues are,
 typically, referred to as sludges, although  some  sewage sludges are
 burned, leaving a final  residue of ash.

           Water treatment sludges  (filter cake wastes, etc.), consist
 of a variety of organic and inorganic materials,  including inorganics
 from coagulation and softening  (5).  These sludges may be landfilled
 or subjected to chemical recovery techniques.  Water treatment sludges
 are much lower in quantity than sewage sludges.  The filter cake sludge
 is reportedly generated at the rate of 0.005 to 0.2 pcd.

          Sewage sludge is generated from wastewater treatment.  Bio-
 logical wastewater treatment is the predominant method and the sludge
 from biological treatment may consist primarily of organic matter
 If  aerobic  or anaerobic  digestion is used in  sludge conditioning to
 improve dewaterability,  the organic fraction  of the sludge solids
content may be reduced by approximately 50 percent (5).   Thus, total
                                 2-2
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
 solids in sewage sludge processed for disposal, based on factors
 reported in the literature (4) (5) (6), are estimated  to vary from about
 0.2 to 0.3 pcd in the U.S.  Assuming that the  sludge is dewatared to
 about 20 percent solids content, sewage sludge quantities requiring
 disposal in the U.S. are estimated at 1.0 to 1.5  pcd.  These figures
 assume Inclusion of industrial wastewater and  the use of garbage dis-
 posers.   They equate to a range of about 44  to 66 million tons per
 year,  which is 33 to 50 percent as much as municipal solid waste
 disposed.

           Sewage sludge is disposed in a variety  of  ways, including
 incineration, landspreading,  ocean disposal, composting, lagooning,
 and landfill ing.  Sewage sludges are often incinerated, which essen-
 tially eliminates the organic solids and removes  the moisture.  The
 residue  from incineration consists primarily of an inorganic ash.
 This residue may be landfilled.  It should be  no  more than a small
 fraction, by weight, of the original sludge quantity.

           The quantity of sludge landfilled  in the U.S. is unknown.
 While  quantity estimates are  not within the  scope-of this effort,
 municipal landfill ing is the  disposal method for  a large portion of
 the domestic and industrial sewage sludges generated in the U.S.

 TREES  AND BRUSH

           These wastes result from trimming  trees and bushes, cutting
 brush  and trees, and landscaping activities.   The municipal solid waste
 quantities presented in Chapter 1 include estimates  of yard wastes, in-
 cluding  trimmings, from residences and commercial establishments.  There
 are, however,  other sources of trees and brush such  as trimmings from
 public parks and from clearing rights-of-way along powerlines (1) , and
 other  clearing operations. Accurate estimates of generation of these
 wastes are not available.

           Quantities of tree  and brush wastes  received at municipal
 landfills are also unknown.  As with construction and demolition
 wastes,  tree and brush wastes may frequently be disposed in special
 sites at  less cost than municipal landfill ing.  Some fraction of tree
 and brush wastes are disposed in special sites, and  some receive on-
 site burial  or burning.   Restrictions on burning,  however, make this
no longer a  viable option in  many communities.  In summary, the quanti-
 ties and  impacts of  tree and  brush wastes in municipal landfills (in
addition  to  those estimated in Chapter 1) are  unknown, but believed to
be small.

 STREET REFUSE

           Street refuse,  as used here, includes material swept from urban
 streets,  alley-cleaning wastes,  and wastes resulting from periodic clean-
 ing of storm sewer catch basins.
                                     2-3
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES. LTD

-------
           Street sweeping waste is the most significant of these wastes,
 with average U.S. generation estimated at 0.25 pcd (1).  Adding wastes
 from alleys and catch basins results in a total street refuse estimate
 of between 0.35 and 0.40 pcd (1)(4).  This equates to over 15 million
 tons per year, which is roughly 11 percent as much as municipal solid
 waste  disposal in the U.S. in 1984.

           These wastes are typically collected by municipalities and
 disposed of in municipal landfills.

 CAR BODIES

           From 1972 through 1984, almost 10 million automobiles per
 year were  sold to U.S. consumers (8).  Another 3 million trucks and
 buses  per  year were sold during that period, resulting in a total of
 13 million motor vehicles sold annually in the U.S.

           The number of vehicles taken out of service each year may
 approach the number sold.  If it can be assumed that 10 million ve-
 hicles are retired in the U.S. each year, the total annual quantity
 is 20  million tons.  This is equivalent to about 15 percent as much
 as municipal solid waste disposal in 1984.

           While the quantity of vehicles removed from service each year
 is substantial, a very small fraction is estimated to be disposed of in
 municipal  landfills.  Some retired vehicles are stored in "junkyards"
 and used for parts, while others are shredded and baled to recover the
 metals.  No estimate is available on quantities placed in municipal
 landfills.

 NONHAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL PROCESS WASTE

           Manufacturing industries in the U.S. are estimated to have
 generated  over 100 million tons of solid wastes in 1982, or approxi-
 mately 2.3 pounds per capita per day (9).  These wastes may include
 everything from packaging materials and wastes from personnel activity
 to process wastes and wastewater treatment sludges.  Some of these
wastes, such as packaging, are included in the municipal solid waste
 estimates  in Chapter 1,  while others, including process wastes,  are
not.

           It is not possible within the scope of this report to ade-
quately estimate industrial process and other wastes that may be
received in municipal landfills.  Quantities of these process wastes
 received at municipal landfills are highly variable,  depending upon
 the type of industry(s)  and other factors.  However,  there is a poten-
 tial for large quantities of industrial solid wastes to have been dis-
posed of in municipal landfills in the past, with some disposal in
municipal landfills still occurring.
                                    2-4
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
 INCINERATOR RESIDUE

           Incinerator residue may be generated from industries, insti-
 tutions, and other establishments that burn their  own  solid wastes, or
 from Che burning of collected municipal solid waste.   The latter source
 of incinerator residue is judged to be the largest and reflects incin-
 eration of approximately 5 percent of generated municipal solid waste
 in energy recovery (waste-to-energy) facilities.

           Incinerator residue, as disposed, may be essentially dry, or
 it may contain sizable amounts of moisture.  If dry, the weight of
 residue from combustion of municipal solid waste may be as low as 20
 percent of the waste input; if the residue is wet  by virtue of being
 quenched in water, its weight may be as high as 45  percent of the waste
 input.  Assuming an average residue weight of 30 percent of incinerated
 municipal solid waste, about 2.3 million tons of residue per year are
 disposed from currently operating waste-to-energy  facilities in the U.S.
 Some additional tonnage is generated from municipal  solid waste incin-
 erators not practicing energy recovery, and from those establishments
 that burn their own waste.  Incinerator residue from this latter category
 is at least partially accounted for in industrial  process wastes or other
 industrial wastes.  Conversely, residue from burning sewage sludge is not
 accounted for.

           Some  incinerator residue has been stockpiled on-site (10), and
 some has been disposed in special landfills used for waste-co-energy
 facility waste  (11).   The fraction of incinerator  residue disposed in
 municipal landfills is unclear.  Indeed,  some tests of fly ash and bottom
 ash from municipal waste incineration have shown these residues to be un-
 acceptable in municipal landfills by virtue of their heavy metals content.
 Future disposal of incinerator residue in municipal landfills is,  there-
 fore,  somewhat  uncertain.

 BOILER RESIDUE

           Boiler residue, as used here, refers to  the  waste residues re-
maining  from combustion of fossil fuels (i.e.,  coal, oil, and natural
gas)  in  boilers.   (No significant residue quantity results from combus-
 tion  of  natural gas,  so it is not discussed further.)  Both coal and oil
are burned in boilers at power utilities,  industrial establishments,
 institutions, etc.  The residues remaining from combustion of coal and
oil  include  bottom ash,  fly ash,  and,  in  some cases, flue gas desulfur-
ization  wastes.   Sludges from treatment of wastewater  also result from
boiler operations,  but these are small by comparison.

           The quantities of boiler residue generated in the U.S.  from
combustion of coal  and oil are very  large.  Approximately 80 million
tons  (dry weight)  of  fly ash and bottom ash together are generated by
                                   2-5
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
 eleccric utility boilers  (12).  Nearly 4 million additional tons of ash
 are  estimated  to be generated by fossil fuel boilers located at indus-
 trial, commercial, and  institutional establishments.  In addition co
 fly  ash and bottom ash, large quantities of sludges and dry solids may
 be generated from flue  gas desulfurization.  Although only a small number
 of industrial boilers generate these wastes, they represent a significant
 amount of  industrial boiler residues (12).  The total quantity of flue
 gas  desulfurization wastes from electric utility boilers is unknown, but
 may  conceivably be quite  significant.

           Disposal of boiler residues varies considerably depending upon
 their source.  Electric utilities seem to rely mostly upon on-site dis-
 posal, but industrial and other establishments may use either municipal
 or industrial landfills.  Thus, whereas the total quantity of boiler
 residues is quite large,  the impact of these wastes on municipal land-
 fills may  be relatively low.

 HOUSEHOLD  HAZARDOUS WASTES

           A wide variety of hazardous household products eventually end
 up in the  waste stream.  They are frequently the "leftovers" from paint-
 ing, cleaning, fertilizing the yard, applying pesticides, etc.  These
 materials  are often mixed in with the family trash, drained into sewers,
 or stored  for long periods of time at the locations where they are gen-
 erated.  Included in household hazardous wastes are:  pesticides,  paints,
 thinners/solvents, cleaners, Pharmaceuticals,  chemicals, fertilizers,
 acids, caustics, car batteries, medications, and antifreeze (13)(14).

           The issue of household hazardous wastes is being dealt with
 in other reports.  It seems clear from the results of several local
household hazardous waste collection programs  that the quantities of
 such wastes are very small in comparison with  total household wastes.
 This does not mean,  however, that household hazardous wastes are
 unimportant.

 SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTES

          Small quantity generators of hazardous wastes, as used here,
are those non-household establishments generating less than 1,000  kilo-
grams per month of hazardous wastes.  These generators have not previ-
ously been subject to managing their wastes according to the require-
ments of  Subtitle C of RCRA,  which sets forth  requirements for hazardous
waste management.   However,  amendments to RCRA signed into law November 8,
1984, require a lowering of  the generator exclusion level to 100 kilograms
per month.   Thus,  a  new "small quantity generator" definition of between
100 and 1,000 kilograms per  month has evolved.
                                 2-6
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
           The issue of small quantity generator hazardous waste  is dis-
 cussed in other reports.  Small quantity generator hazardous  wastes have
 gone to municipal landfills in the past, and some are still being dis-
 posed there, but the amounts are not quantified here.

 USED OIL

           Approximately 1.2 billion gallons of used oil  were  generated
 in the U.S.  in 1983, resulting from both automotive and  industrial uses
 of oil (15).  About two-thirds of this quantity was reused; most was
 processed and used in burning applications, some was re-refined  into
 lube oil, some was used in road oiling, and the remainder was used in
 non-fuel industrial applications.

           The approximately one-third fraction of used oil generation
 that was disposed amounted to roughly 400 million gallons (15).  Most
 of this was  dumped on the ground, in drains, along roadsides, or in
 miscellaneous other places.  The used oil disposed of  in this manner
 is mostly engine oil from those who change their own automobile oil
 (do-it-yourselfers) and operators of large off-road equipment.  About
 165 million  gallons (or approximately 660,000 tons) of used oil gener-
 ated in 1983 were disposed in landfills or incinerators.   This quantity
 is equivalent to less than one-half of one percent of  municipal solid
 waste disposed.

 SUMMARY

           Estimated quantities of the wastes discussed in this chapter
 are  summarized in Table 2-1.   These non-municipal solid  wastes were ex-
 amined by virtue of their potential impacts on municipal  landfills.
 Quantities generated,  as  shown in Table 2-1, are quite varied, and are
 not  necessarily  indicative of their relative importance  in municipal
 landfills.   For  example,  over 80 million tons of ash from electric util-
 ity  and industrial  boilers are generated annually,  but this may not be
 very significant to municipal landfills.  Nonetheless, the total quantity
 of wastes shown  in  Table  2-1  is large and is nearly double the quantity
 of estimated municipal solid  waste.   Much of this waste  is not disposed
 in municipal landfills, but the potential for significant impacts on
municipal  landfills  from  these wastes is apparent.

          Wastes in  addition  to those discussed in  this chapter and the
preceding chapter may  also enter municipal landfills,  but most of those
of concern are believed to have been  addressed in this study.   However,
more  information on  the wastes addressed In this chapter  and  their
effects on land  disposal  is needed.
                                    2-7
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                               Table 2-1
 Waste  Scream
OTHER WASTES POTENTIALLY LANDFILLED
   (In million Cons per year and
    pounds per capica per day)

              Estimated Quantity
            (million
            tons/year)       (pcd) I/
 Demolition/construction
 wastes

 Water/vastewater treat-
 ment sludge

 Trees and brush 2J

 Street refuse

 Car bodies

 Nonhazardous industrial
 process waste

 Incinerator residue
 (1) waste-to-energy
    facilities
 (2) Other
 Boiler residue
 (1) fly ash; bottom ash
 (2) flue gas desulfurization
    waste

Used oil

     Totals
              31.5


            45 to 70

               7.9

              15+

              20


             100
     0.72


 1.0 to 1.6

     0.18

0.35 to 0.40

     0.46


     2.3
                     Estimated
               Disposal in Municipal
               Solid Waste Landfills
Unknown


Large fraction

Small fraction

Most

Small fraction


Unknown
2.3
Unknown
84
Unknown
1.6
>300
0.05
Unknown
1.9
Unknown
0.04
>7.0
Unknown
Unknown

Small fraction
Unknown
Less than 50


percent

I/  pcd » pounds per capita per day based upon an assumed U.S. population
    of 240 million.
21  Amount in addition to estimates in Chapter 1.

Source:  Franklin Associates,  Ltd.
                                    2-8
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES. LTD.

-------
                                Chapter 2

                               REFERENCES
  1.    Wilson,  D.  C., Editor.  Handbook of  Solid Waste Management.  Van
       Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.  1977.

  2.    Guidelines for Local Governments on  Solid Waste Management, U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, 1971;  as quoted in Reference 1.

  3.    "California Solid Waste Management Study  (1968) and Plan (1970),"
       U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency/OSWMP  (SW-2tsg); as quoted
       in Reference 1.

  4.    "Metropolitan Solid Waste Management  Plan."  Metropolitan Planning
       Commission, Kansas City Region.   May  1971.

  5.    Steel, E.  W., and T. J. McGhee.   Water  Supply and Sewerage.  Fifth
       Edition,  McGraw-Hill Book Co.  1979.

  6.    Steel, E.  W. Water Supply and Sewerage.  Fourth Edition, McGraw-
       Hill  Book Co.  1960.

  7.    Metcalf  & Eddy,  .nc.  Wastewater Engineering;  Treatment, Disposal,
       Reuse.   Second Edition.  McGraw-Hill  Book Co.  1979.

  8.    U.S.  Department of Commerce.   1986 u.s. Industrial Outlook.  January
       1986.

  9.    U.S.  Department of Commerce.   Current Industrial Reports, Pollution
       Abatement  Costs and Expenditures,  1982.  February 1984.

10.    Communication with a representative of  the Massachusetts Department
       of  Environmental Quality.  February 1984.

11.    Communication with a representative of  Vicon Recovery Systems,  Inc.
       November 1982.

12.    Franklin Associates, Ltd.,  from research conducted in connection
       with  studies on the health  and environmental effects of wastes
       from  combustion of coal and other  fossil fuels, performed for the
       U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1983-1984.

13.    "Household  Hazardous Waste:   Solving  the Disposal Dilemma," Golden
       Empire Health Planning Center,  Sacramento, California. 1984.
                                   2-9
                                                    FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
14.   Blackmar,  D.  S.,  S.  W.  Horsley, L.  Segall, and A. Woolf. "Results
      of a Regional Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program in
      Barnstable County, Massachusetts."  Hazardous Waste.  Volume 1,
      Number 1,  1984.

15.   Franklin Associates, Ltd.   "Composition and Management of Used
      Oil Generated in  the United States."  U.S. Environmental Protec-
      tion Agency (EPA/530-SW-013).  November 1984.
                                    2-10
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                                Chapter 3

                  FACTORS AFFECTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
                         GENERATION AND DISPOSAL
INTRODUCTION

           In  this  chapter  the  structural factors that shape the overall
picture  of municipal  solid waste will be addressed.  These are the  un-
derlying or causative factors  that result in growth or reduction in the
volumes  of solid waste that are disposed.  These factors will first be
described in  general  terms.  Then, the  effect of these factors on dis-
card and recovery  for recycling of various specific materials will  be
assessed.  This will  be followed by an  analysis of other factors affect-
ing actual disposal of the discarded material, such as energy recovery
and waste reduction measures.

GENERAL  STRUCTURAL FACTORS

Population

          Change in population is one of the most important basic fac-
tors affecting waste  generation.  It underlies all of the other factors.
As the population  of  the U.S.  grows, more and more people are purchasing
and discarding manufactured materials.  Thus, if population continues to
grow at  a rate of  a little more than one percent per year, as it has for
several  decades, this produces a ratchet effect which works against any
factors  that  would reduce  or stabilize  waste generation.

Social Patterns

          There are basic  changes occurring in U.S. society that create
changes  in purchase and discard habits.  One of these factors is growing
affluence.  By any measure, the average person in the U.S. has had  a
significant and steady increase in real purchasing power since World War
II.  For example,  purchases of goods have risen from $129 billion in 1945
to $1.5  trillion in 1984,  an increase of nearly 1,100 percent (1).   The
purchase of goods  is  the critical category, as these are the material
items that end up  being discarded.  In  recent times, government statistics
show chat while purchases  of services are growing faster than purchases of
goods, between 1970 and 1984 purchases  of nondurable goods (the category
most likely to be  rapidly  discarded) increased from $266 billion per year
in 1970  to $857 billion in 1984, an increase of 222 percent (1). Cor-
recting for inflation,  the 1972 constant dollar figures show  an increase
in purchases  from  $284  billion per year for nondurable goods in 1970 to
$394 billion  in 1984,  an increase of 39 percent.  This translates to
                                  3-1
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
 a compound growth  rate  of  2.4 percent per year.  Thus, the U.S. population
 can simply afford  to  purchase more goods, and therefore will dispose of
 more items.

           Other  important  social factors include the changing perceptions
 of roles  and the composition of the work force.  More people are now at
 work than ever before,  with the percentage of women holding jobs outside
 the home  being one of the  most significant changes in recent times.  In
 I960,  35  percent of civilian women were employed, as compared to 79 per-
 cent of  the men.  By  1985, this had grown to 50 percent for women, while
 the percent of all men  employed had dropped to 70 percent.  In married
 couple families, in 1960 only 25 percent of wives were employed, while
 in 1985,  49 percent of  wives were employed (1).

           These  changes have brought about significant alterations in
 lifestyles in the  family home.  In those homes with two incomes, af-
 fluence is a factor in  the purchase of more goods.  Also, when both
 adult  members of a typical married couple come home from work, there
 is less time to  prepare meals and perform cleanup chores.  This is also
 true of single adult  households, which are increasing in numbers.  Thus,
 to the extent possible, these households often purchase convenience foods
 and disposable items  to lighten their chore loads.  It is clear that
 these  changing social patterns lead to more discards from homes.

           While  these changes have been occurring in homes, changes that
 increase  discards  have  also been occurring in business and industry.  As
 the labor costs  have  increased, employers have sought ways to reduce labor
 costs, in some cases by using prepackaged or unitized materials.  This has
 been a strong trend in  food preparation and light industrial operations.
 This trend also  generates more packaging wastes at the level where those
 wastes will  likely  reach municipal waste streams.

 Technological Changes

           Future historians will almost certainly characterize the period
 in  which  we  live as a unique time of rapid technological change.  The in-
 dustrial  revolution set in motion advances in technology at an accelerating
 pace which is continuing in the 1980s with no end in sight. These techno-
 logical advances affect work and leisure habits of disposal,  as well as
 the  nature of materials disposed.

          Perhaps the most evident example of technological change is the
advent of computers.  In just six  years—1980 to 1985—the total number
 of computers  installed in the U.S.  grew from 1.4 million to 24.2 million,
an  increase of over 1,600 percent,  and computer installations are still
growing at over 30  percent per year (2).  While this was once touted as
a change  that would reduce discards of paper,  instead it has  given rise
 to large  increases  in the use of computer printers that generate paper
 to be discarded.
                                    3-2
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
           Another cechnological change chat alters the volume and compo-
 sition of discards is microwave cooking.   This has greatly increased the
 sale and use of frozen and other packaged  prepared foods in both homes
 and commercial establishments,  increasing  the packaging materials that
 must be discarded.  In addition, making packaging compatible with micro-
 wave ovens has increased the use of plastics and paper, while decreasing
 use of aluminum foil.

           Technology also alters discards  in a more direct fashion.
 Packaging suppliers have active research programs, which continually
 examine package design and material choices in attempts to make their
 particular packages more competitive.   Numerous examples can be cited
 of  design changes of containers and wraps  that have led to more effic-
 ient use of materials, and therefore less  materials to be discarded.
 It  is estimated that folding cartons achieved an average weight reduc-
 tion of 10 to 20 percent during the period 1960 to 1975 by numerous
 weight-saving features such as  narrower glue seams, enhanced closing
 flap designs and use of a lower-density boxboard (3).  Other changes
 include lighcweighting of cans  and bottles, which has also been sig-
 nificant in recent years.

           Waste is also reduced by using new and more effective materials.
 For example,  many cheese products are now  wrapped in thin plastic films
 which are much lighter and less bulky than older waxes, waxed papers, or
 cellophane.  In many other cases,  flexible, high-strength film bags or
 pouches have replaced boxes and cans with  significant savings in dis-
 carded material.

 Trends in Product Packaging

           Running counter to this trend Co reduce waste is the trend to
 purchase products that require  extensive packaging, such as convenience
 foods and prepackaged hardware  and other small items.  While some in-
 stances may be found where these items are "overpackaged," in most cases
 the  relatively large amount of  packaging is functional in terms of pro-
 viding protection for the product,  theft protection, and convenience
 features.

           These factors were all combined  in a study which covered a 16-
year  period of 1960  to 1975 for packaging  of non-fluid foods (3).  Over
 that  period,  the  packaging per  person  and  the packaging per pound of
 product  both  remained essentially  unchanged.  Thus the trend to reduce
waste  by  technological innovation  was  balanced by the trend to buy more
convenience products,  which are extensively packaged.  No more recent
 studies  on  packaging  as a component of MSW were available, but the
 trend  in  pounds generated per person appears to be downward (Table 3-1) .
This can  be at least  partially  explained by the substitution of lighter
materials,  such as aluminum and plastics,  for heavier materials,  such
as ferrous  metals and  glass.
                                    3-3
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                                Table  3-1

                     TRENDS IN PER CAPITA  DISCARDS*
                       OF CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING
                     (In pounds per capita per  day)


                     Year                      pcd

                     1960                      0.73
                     1970                      1.05
                     1980                      1.02
                     1984                      1.01

                     1990                      1.00


* Discards after materials recovery has taken place and  before  energy
  recovery.

Source:   Franklin Associates, Ltd.


CHANGES IN MATERIAL AND PRODUCT CATEGORIES

Paper and Paperboard Products

          Table 3-2 shows the recent status  and trends of  paper and paper-
board products gross discards.  The largest  category  in  1984  was corrugated
packaging, accounting for 30 percent of the  total, followed by  newspapers
at nearly 20 percent of the total.  Thus,  these two categories  dominate  the
discards, accounting for 50 percent of the total.  However, the most rapid
growth over the period occurred in books and magazines,  commercial  printers,
and office papers.  On the other hand, there has been a  decline in  paper
plates and cups, and a low growth in paper packaging  and other  paperboard.

          Books and Magazines.  This category increased  from  6.3 percent
of the discards to 7.3 percent over the five-year period,  with  an increase
of 1.1 million tons per year in 1984 compared to 1980.   To a  large  degree,
this may be the result of a healthy economy, with a large  segment of this
growth attributable to advertising and to  leisure time activities.   How-
ever, it is also part of the changing  social patterns in this country as
people read more special interest publications  and have  more  money  and
time to pursue hobbies and other leisure activities.  This category is
definitely sensitive to the state of the economy, and will be subject
to fluctuations in the future.
                                   3-4
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                                                      Table  3-2
                          CROSS DISCARDS* OF  PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS. 1980 AND 1984
i
Cn
Nondurables

Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Office Papers
Commercial Printers
Tissue Products
Paper Plates and Cups
Other Nonpackaging

Containers and Packaging

Corrugated
Other Paperboard
Paper Packaging

Total Gross Discards
(In thousand tons and percent)

1980
11,037
i 3,390
4,001
t 3,110
2,373
ips 355
4.468
aging
16,330
4,812
4,086
% of
Total
20.4
6.3
7.4
5.8
4.4
0.7
8.3
30.2
8.9
7.6

1984
12,342
4,570
4,863
4.025
2.755
349
5,167
18,716
5.218
4,294
% of
Total
19.8
7.3
7.8
6.5
4.4
0.6
8.3
30.0
8.4
6.9

Difference
1,305
1,180
862
915
382
-6
699
2,386
406
208
Percent
Difference
11. 8
34.8
21.5
29.4
16.4
-1.7
15.6
14.6
8.4
5.1
                                          53,962  100.0
62,299 100.0
8,337
15.4
       * discards before materials recovery has taken place.

       Source:  Franklin Associates,  Ltd.  (Working Papers,  Part  E).

-------
           Commercial  Printers.  This category increased from 5.8 percent
 of total to 6.5 percent over  the period 1980 to 1984.  Based on gross
 discards,  the  increase was  29.4 percent.  Much of this increase is due
 to increased advertising, and is directly tied to the health of the econ-
 omy.   This category will, therefore, also be subject to fluctuations.

           Office Papers.  On  the other hand, the dramatic growth in office
 papers over the five-year period, from 7.4 percent of total discards to
 7.8 percent, may represent  an important basic change in paper discards.
 This  trend is  in part related to increased paper consumption from use of
 computer printers and high"-speed office copiers.  This use is expected to
 continue to grow, and office papers will continue growing as a fraction of
 the total  paper discarded.

           Declining Categories.  Penetration of paper and paperboard pack-
 aging  markets  by other materials is a continuing feature of the marketplace.
 Paper  plates and cups declined 1.7 percent over the period 1980 to 1984,
 the only paper and paperboard category to do so.  Paper packaging grew at
 5.1 percent over the  period, declining from 7.6 percent of the total paper
 and paperboard gross  discards to 6.9 percent.  This is largely because of
 the loss of markets to other materials, especially plastics.  An example
 is the  continuing conversion of consumer sacks and bags from paper to
 plastic.

           It is also  noteworthy that while total paper and paperboard grew
 by 15.4  percent over  the period, "other paperboard" grew at the slower
 rate of  8.4 percent.  This  is primarily because of the traditional stable
 market  for  recycled paperboard, which continues to decline slowly as a
 total percent  of packaging materials.

          Recovery.   Paper recovery for recycling has been a major source
 of raw material for the paper and paperboard industry in the U.S. for many
 decades.  Since 1960, the tonnage of paper recycled has increased almost
 every year, with an occasional hiatus during recessions.   Overall,  the
 recovery of paper in  1984 was nearly 13 million tons, which was 2.4 times
 the 5.3 million tons  in 1960.  The 1960 recycling rate was 18 percent of
 gross discards, while the 1984 rate was 21 percent of gross discards of
 paper (Working Papers, Part E).

          Paper recycling occurs when supplies of uncontaminated paper can
be obtained at sufficiently low prices that new products  can be manufac-
 tured and marketed at prices competitive with products manufactured from
wood pulp.  Although new contaminants that are difficult  to remove con-
 tinually emerge on the scene, particularly plastic materials and new
 inks,  the Industry finds new ways of dealing with these problems.   Both
 the tonnage recycled and the percent of gross discards are expected to
 increase slowly over the next few years.
                                    3-6
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
 Glass Containers

           During the 1960s and early 1970s,  glass containers grew rapidly
 as the soft drink and beer industries boomed and glass held a prominent
 share of the market.  From 1960 to 1973,  glass beer and soft drink con-
 tainer gross discards grew from 1.4 million  tons to 6.1 million tons,
 more than a four-fold increase.  At the same time, discard of wine and
 liquor containers more than doubled, from 0.9 million tons to 2.1 million
 tons.  Other uses for glass containers, such as for food, Pharmaceuticals
 and cosmetics, etc., grew from 3.7 million tons to 4.4 million tons.  How-
 ever, in the mid-1970s, the discards of glass flattened, as product sales
 leveled off and plastic and metal containers began to make inroads.

           Table 3-3 shows what happened in the first five years of this
 decade,  1980 to 1984.  Because of intense competition from metals and
 plastic,  glass containers have lost market share.  Large soft drink con-
 tainers have been lost to plastic, and single-service beer and soft drink
 consumers have expanded use of cans.  Glass  beer and soft drink containers
 have declined 14.2 percent since 1980.  The  wine and liquor category has
 also declined by 7 percent, while other uses have remained essentially
 unchanged.

           In the future,  glass is expected to continue to lose market
 share (Working Papers, Part I).  Plastic  containers are poised for pos-
 sible further take-over of beer and soft  drink markets, food packaging,
 and wine  and liquor.

           Recovery.   Glass recycling has  always been a routine part of
 glass plant operation, but collection of  postconsumer glass declined
 after World War II to a very low level.  By  the early 1970s,  recovery
 of  postconsumer glass containers for recycling was under 2 percent of
 gross discards.  The reason for the low recycling  rate is primarily eco-
 nomics.   When virgin raw materials can be obtained more cheaply than post-
 consumer  glass, then the  more economical  alternative is pursued.   In ad-
 dition, contamination of  glass cullet by  aluminum rings, ceramics, or
 glass of  the wrong color  can result in operating difficulties in  glass
 manufacturing plants.

          During the 1970s,  virgin raw materials became more  costly at
 the  same  time that recycling of materials was becoming a social and po-
 litical issue.   As some States passed container deposit laws,  glass
processors  and container  manufacturing companies developed improved
ways  of processing and cleaning postconsumer  glass.  By 1980,  use of
postconsumer  cullet  had reached 750,000 tons  per year,  or 5 percent of
glass discards.  As  gross discards fell over  the following year,  post-
consumer  recycling  increased to one million  tons in 1984,  or  nearly 8
percent of  gross discards (Working Papers, Part I).
                                    3-7
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
LJ
00
                                                        Table 3-3

                                  CROSS DISCARDS* OF CLASS CONTAINERS,  1980 AND  1984
        Beer and Soft Drink

        Wine and Liquor

        Other

        Total
(In thousand tons and percent)
1980
6,766
2,453
4.755
13,974
% of
Total
48.4
17.6
34.0
100.0
1984
5.806
2.282
4,711
12,799
% of
Total
45.4
17.8
36.8
100.0
Difference
-960
-171
-44
-1,175
Percent
Difference
-14.2
-7.0
-0.9
-8.4
        * Discards before materials recovery has taken place.

        Source:   Franklin Associates,  Ltd.  (Working Papers,  Part  I).

-------
           In the years ahead, postconsumer glass  recovery and recycling
 is expected to continue growing slowly,  although  if more States pass
 beverage container deposit legislation,  the growth should be faster.

 Plastic Materials

           Discarded plastic products have  grown from less than 400,000
 tons in 1960 to nearly 10 million tons in  1984 as industry and house-
 hold consumers have increased their purchases of  plastics (Working Papers,
 Part H).  The unique features of plastics,  which  include high strength
 per pound,  ease of fabrication, and the ability to tailor-make materials
 for a given end use, have stimulated new product  development as well as
 displacement of other products.  Historically, the largest growth has
 been in packaging applications, where plastic films have displaced paper,
 cellophane, and metal foils, while plastic containers have replaced metal
 cans and glass bottles.  In addition, new  products such as plastic "squeeze"
 bottles and enhanced characteristics, such as added strength for trash bags,
 have created new markets.

           Table 3-4 shows strong growth in all areas of plastics.  Addi-
 tional  penetration of markets is expected  in the  future, as well as con-
 tinued  development of new products, which  makes plastic materials the
 most rapidly growing material in the solid waste  stream.

           Recovery.  Recovery and recycling is a  common occurrence within
 plastic product manufacturing plants.  However, this is a case of having
 clean,  uncontaminated scrap of known composition.  Recovery and recycling
 of  postconsumer plastics from the solid waste stream is another matter.
 Plastics of different composition may look alike, which makes source sep-
 aration difficult.  Many plastic products  are made of several types of
 plastics laminated together, or affixed rigidly.  There is also sometimes
 a problem of moisture or other contamination, which may make recycling
 difficult.   Thus,  recovery and recycling of  postconsumer plastics is not
 c ommon.

          There are only two examples of plastic  products where recycling
 has  occurred on a wide scale—PET soft drink containers, and polyethylene
 milk jugs.   The only significant documented postconsumer recycling is
 PET  soft drink containers (and their polyethylene base cups) in beverage
container deposit States, where 63,000 tons were  recovered in 19B4.  This
was  18  percent of the total national discard of PET bottles, and two-
 thirds  of one percent of the gross discards of plastics.

          There is additional recovery of  postconsumer plastics outside
 of mandatory deposit States,  but these are  isolated cases and the total
 tonnage  is  not large.

          There is currently much attention being devoted to recycling
plastics.   It is a highly visible and rapidly growing component of solid
                                     3-9
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES. LTD.

-------
                                Table 3-4

                       GROSS DISCARDS* OF PLASTIC.
                              1980 AND 1984
                     (In thousand cons and percent)
Packaging
Nondurables \J
Durables 2]
Other

Total
                   1980
        % of
        Total
4,273   53.3
1,647   20.5
1,72437 21.5
  375    4.7
 1984

5,088
1,922
2,034
  636
7. of
Total
^HMM^^B

52.6
99.8
21.0
 6.6
8,019  100.0   9,680  100.0
              Percent
Difference  Difference
    815
    275
    310
    261

  1,841
                               23.0
!_/  Includes disposables, trash bags, etc.
2]  Includes houseuares, toys, records,  luggage,  electronics,  etc.
3/  1982 was used instead of 1980 because of a discontinuity in the data
    series.

* Discards before materials recycling has taken place.

Source:   Franklin Associates, Ltd. (Working Papers,  Parts H and 0).


waste.  Plastics manufacturers are currently quite interested in developing
new ways of recycling their products.  Therefore, plastics recycling may
increase in the future, but as of now there is no specific evidence that
would indicate strong growth.  Either products that can use  mixed  plas-
tics must be developed for extensive use applications,  or ways of source
separating plastics to a high degree of  purity must be  devised.  Other-
wise, recycling of postconsumer plastics will not exceed a very low per-
cent of the plastic products discarded.

Steel Packaging

          The presence of steel packaging in solid waste is declining,
with an overall 18 percent decline in the last five years (Table 3-5).
All areas of steel packaging are declining, but the sharpest drop is
in beverage containers.  Steel beverage  containers reached their peak
in 1973, when over 30 billion cans were  sold for beer and soft drinks
(Working Papers, Part J).  In 1984, this had declined to 4 billion  cans,
about 13 percent of the peak.  As Table  3-5 shows, the  decline in tons
of steel discarded has been 76 percent since 1980.  Steel cans have been
                                   3-10
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
Food Cans




Beverage Cans




Other Cans




Other Packaging \J




Total
                                                Table 3-5




                           CROSS DISCARDS* OF STEE1. PACKAGING,  1980 AND 1984
(In thousand tons and percent)
1980
2,088
516
760
244
3,608
% of
Total
57.9
14.3
21.1
6.8
100.0
1984
1.896
126
748
191
2,961
Z of
Total
64.0
4.3
25.3
6.5
100.0
Difference
-192
-390
-12
-53
-647
Percent
Difference
-9.2
-75.6
-1.6
-21.7
-17.9
I/  Includes steel pails, drums, etc.




* Discards before materials recycling has taken place.




Source:   Franklin Associates, Ltd. (Working Papers, Part J).

-------
 displaced  in  the beverage container markets, for the most part by aluminum
 cans.   In  the larger  containers,  such as steel drums and palls, steel has
 been losing out to  plastic containers.  Steel packaging will likely hold
 a small share of packaging markets in the future, but may continue to de-
 cline  in some areas.   The largest stable market is in food cans, where
 aluminum has  not been successful  in penetrating the market except for
 certain specialty areas.

           Recovery.   Recovery of  steel packaging materials from solid
 waste  has  never been  an  important recycling factor in terms of the
 fraction of the gross discards.   The historical high occurred in 1979
 when 228,000  cons were recovered by a combination of source separation
 recycling  projects, and  by shredding and magnetic separation operations
 at energy  recovery  plants, transfer stations, or other waste processing
 operations.   The 228,000 ton  recovery was one percent of steel packaging
 discards (Working Papers, Part J).

           Since 1979,  recovery has declined to a low value of 113,000
 tons in 1984,  which is one-half of one percent of the gross discards.
 About  8,000 tons were  from community source separation projects, and
 105,000 tons  were from shredders.  Recovery is expected to decline even
 further because of  the lack of good markets for the recovered material.
 A recent survey of  shredder operations shows that only in a small number
 of  cases can  recovered steel be marketed.  There are several reasons for
 this.   One is that markets for scrap steel are generally depressed, with
 large  surpluses of scrap available.  Another reason is that postconsumer
 steel  is considered to be contaminated and to have a low volume, thus dis-
 couraging  transportation distances of more than a few miles and making
 any  upgrading  of quality an uneconomical situation.  However, location
 of a supply of used steel cans near a detinning operation or near copper
 mining  regions are exceptions.

          Another more recent concern has arisen in the scrap industry
 concerning the recycling of large steel containers such as pails and
 drums.   These are the customary containers for many products that are
 hazardous materials,  such as pesticides and industrial chemicals.  In
addition, these containers are frequently reused for disposal of mater-
 ials that may be hazardous wastes.  Thus,  scrap dealers are concerned
 that residual hazardous materials may be present in these containers

Aluminum

          Aluminum containers and packaging have shown steady growth over
 the 25-year history documented in this study, with nearly a ten-fold in-
crease  In beverage cans and a three-fold increase in foil (Working Papers,
Part K).  Table 3-6 shows that the rapid increase in the growth of alu-
minum beverage cans continues, with an increase of nearly 30 percent in
the past five years.  This rapid growth has occurred at the expense of
                                 3-12
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                                                Table 3-6




                  CROSSinSCARDS* OF ALUMINUM CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING, 1980 AND 1984
Beverage Cans




Food and Other Cans




Foil




Closures




Total
(In thousand ions and percent)
1980
926
s 39
304
3
1,272
% of
Total
72.8
3.1
23.9
0.2
100.0
1984
1,203
52
307
3
1,565
% of
Total
76.9
3.3
19.6
0.2
100.0
Difference
277
13
3
0
293
Percent
Difference
29.9
33.3
1.0
0.0
23.0
* Discards before materials recycling has taken place.




Source:   Franklin Associates,  Ltd.  (Working Papers,  Part  K).

-------
 steel containers,  as aluminum has  almost  entirely replaced steel cans in
 the beer market.   The aluminum can share  of  soft drinks has also increased
 steadily.  The penetration  of this market is even greater than indicated
 by the aluminum tonnage,  because over  the period the average weight of an
 aluminum can has  decreased  7  percent.

           The largest percentage increase in gross discards in the last
 five years is in  food and other cans.  While aluminum cans do not repre-
 sent a large share of the food packaging  market, their use is growing
 rapidly.  The increase over the last five years was 33 percent.  However,
 aluminum cans do  not have the technical advantages over steel cans in the
 food market that  they have  in beverage cans,  so penetration of this mar-
 ket has been much  slower.   In particular,  most canned foods are heat pro-
 cessed after being sealed in  the cans, requiring a high-strength can.

           On the  other hand,  another major market for aluminum is the use
 of foil in packaging.   The  foil market grew  steadily until the late 1970s,
 when it began to  flatten  out.   At  the  present time foils are being used
 in numerous new applications,  but  are  being  displaced in other applica-
 tions by plastic  films, resulting  in a relatively flat market.  Some of
 the new markets, however, are very thin foils placed on plastic films
 to enhance barrier properties.

           Recovery.   Aluminum cans are recovered and recycled at a greater
 rate than any other material  studied.  Prior to 1970, very little recovery
 existed,  but in the early 1970s the aluminum companies mounted enormous
 efforts to recover cans.  The  recycling rate first exceeded 50 percent in
 1981,  and has hovered  close to  that level  ever since.  Recovery of bev-
 erage  cans has been enhanced by deposit laws now existing in nine States.

           Recovery of  aluminum  food cans  is  estimated to be about 10 per-
 cent.   Their recovery  is more difficult than beverage cans because of
 sanitation problems  in storing  cans with  residual food wastes, and be-
 cause  aluminum food  cans are not generated in large quantities in house-
 holds.   This lessens the convenience of recycling.   Foil and closures
 are also  recycled  from homes,  but  the rate is quite low.

           In 1984,  it  is estimated  that 643,000 tons of aluminum were
 recovered  from gross discards of 1.6 million tons of aluminum contain-
 ers  and packaging  (Working Papers,   Part K).  Recovery should continue
 to  grow slowly, and  if additional  States adopt container deposit laws,
 significant  increases could occur.   However, the percent recovery is
 expected  to  be  stable at about  50 percent of the cans in gross discards.
 Thus, as  the number  of aluminum cans increases,  the recovered tons will
 increase, but not  the percentage.

 Rubber

          The gross  discards of tires for each year are tied to the
number of automobiles sold in  previous years, and to the average  life
                                    3-14
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
 of  tires.  In recent years, automobile sales  have  shown declines or low
 growth in a cyclical fashion since peaking In 1978 (1).  At Che same
 tine,  cars have become smaller, requiring smaller  tires, and tires have
 become more durable in recent years.  All of  this  leads to a decreasing
 discard tonnage for tires, which declined by  A3.2  percent in the first
 half of this decade (Table 3-7).

           Other discarded rubber products fall into  two categories—
 hoses  and belts, and fabricated rubber products.   A  large portion of
 fabricated rubber products include automobile components such as floor
 mats or pads and foam rubber inserts.   Thus,  this  segment of the indus-
 try has declined along with generally  declining sales and smaller cars.
 The category of hoses and belts includes automobile  components, as well
 as  conveyor belts and other products related  to mining, agriculture, and
 heavy  industry.  All of these economic segments have shown recent declines
 or  low growth (Working Papers,  Part D).  In addition, some rubber produces
 are being displaced by plastic  products.  Table 3-7  shows a 47 percent de-
 cline  in rubber products other  than tires for 1980 to 1984.

           Rubber discards are expected to grow from  their low levels of
 1984.   Although rapid growth is not expected,  car  sales will probably
 increase as the number of people in the driving ages increases.  Also,
 some economic recovery is expected in  other industries that consume
 rubber and rubber products.

           Recovery.  Rubber is  diverted from  the waste stream for tire
 retreading or recovered from the waste stream for  rubber tire splitting,
 reclaiming or asphalt rubber manufacture.  Since 1960, demand for retread
 tires  and other rubber reuse and recycling has dropped steadily.  Recovery
 for reuse or recycling was 20 percent  of discards  in I960, but by 1984,
 the recovery for reuse and recycling was 5.2  percent of discards.  The
 actual tons of rubber diverted  or recovered have dropped sharply as rub-
 ber product manufacture has declined.   The tonnage of tires for retreading
 has dropped from a high in 1978 of 92,000 tons to  33,000 tons in 1984.
 Rubber recovered for other uses has declined  steadily from 326,000 tons
 in  1960  to 103,000 tons in 1984 (Working Papers, Part D).

           There is no reason for optimism in  terms of tire diversion for
 retread  or rubber recovery because the products made from recovered rubber
have low demand,  or are being replaced by plastics.  The growing concern
 over problems associated with tire disposal may result in small amounts
 of  increased recovery for use in asphalt rubber, but indications are that
 future recovery may rely on development of improved  means of burning
 rubber with recovery of energy.

MATERIALS  RECOVERY

           Trends  in recovery of various materials  and products in the
municipal  waste stream were discussed  in the  preceding sections.  To
                                     3-15
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                                              Table 3-7
                          GROSS DISCARDS* OF RUBBER PRODUCTS.  1980 AND 1984
(In thousand tons and percent)
Tires and Tire Products
Other Rubber Products
Total
1980
2,132
1,473
3,605
2 of
Total
59.1
40.9
100.0
I of
1984 Total
1.211 60.9
777 39.1
1.988 100.0
Difference
-921
-696
-1,617
Percent
Difference
-43.2
-47.3
-44.8
* Discards before materials recycling has taken place.




Source:   Franklin Associates, Ltd. (Working Papers,  Part D).

-------
 illustrate the overall effect of materials recovery  on  the waste stream,
 Table 3-8 shows gross discards of wastes before materials recovery takes
 place, recovery of materials, and net discards in 1984.

           Overall, an estimated 15.1 million tons of postconsumer mater-
 ials were recovered in 1984, or 10.2 percent of gross discards.  The
 table and figure clearly show that paper and paperboard  recovery greatly
 exceeds all others; recovery of these products was 86 percent of total
 recovery (Figure 3-1).  (In addition, there is recovery  of scrap from
 converting operations that is excluded from gross discards.)  If there
 were no recovery of paper products, paper and paperboard would be 42
 percent of discards rather than 37 percent.

           Recovery of corrugated boxes contributes the most tonnage to
 total recovery—almost 7 million tons in 1984.   Recovery of newspapers
 is second, at 3.4 million tons.  Other grades of paper recovered include
 office papers, magazines,  and packaging paper and paperboard (Working
 Papers,  Part E).

           Other products that are recovered for recycling include ferrous
 scrap from appliances, glass containers, steel containers, aluminum con-
 tainers,  and plastic containers.  There is known to  be recovery of non-
 ferrous  metals and textiles, but not in sufficient quantities to be re-
 flected  in Table 3-8.  In addition, some yard wastes are composted, but
 the  quantity is not known and is presumed to be relatively small.

 ENERGY RECOVERY

           Processing municipal solid waste for energy recovery may signif-
 icantly  affect the quantities of such waste disposed in  landfills.  Rec-
 ords  of  previous,  current,  and planned waste-to-energy facilities were
 used  to  develop historical  data and to assist in developing projections
 of municipal solid waste processed for energy (5 through 21) .  The
 results  of  this effort are  presented in this section.

 Historical  and Projected Waste-to-Energy Activity

           Historical and projected estimates of municipal solid waste
 processed  in  waste-to-energy facilities are shown  in  Table 3-9 and
 Figure 3-2.   A review of Table 3-9 reveals that no significant waste-
 to-energy  facilities were found in the U.S.  from 1960 through 1964.
Although waste incineration was occurring prior to that  time, no re-
covery of  the  resulting heat energy was evident in the 1960s until
 1965.  From 1965  through 1985,  a relatively continuous increase in
municipal  solid waste quantities processed in waste-to-energy facilities
occurred.   This increase was far more  pronounced after 1975.
                                    3-17
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
                     86%
                                                        0 PAPER
                                                        0 GLASS
                                                        B METALS
                                                        • PLASTICS
                                                        D RUBBER AND LEATHER
Figure 3-1.   Materials recovered in  1984  from municipal  solid waste,  in
              percent of total recovery.
                              3-18

-------
                                               Table 3-8
               DISCARDS AND RECOVERY OF MATERIALS IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM,  1984
Materials
Glass
Metals
  Ferrous
  Aluminum
  Other Nonferrous
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other
Food Wastes
Yard Wastes
     TOTAL WASTES DISCARDED
(In millions of

Cross
Discards
board 62.3
13.9
11.3
2.1
ous 0.3
9.7
her 3.4
2.8
5.1
0.1
ODD PRODUCT WASTES 111.1
10.8
23.8
n organic Wastes 2.5
tons and

2 of
Discards
42.1
9.4
7.6
1.4
0.2
6.5
2.3
1.9
3.4
0.1
75.0
7.3
16.1
1.7
percent)
Postconsumer
Materials
Recovery
12.9
1.0
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
Q.O
15.1
0.0
0.0
0.0


Net
Discards
49.4
12.9
11.0
1.5
0.3
9.6
3.3
2.8
5.1
0.1
96.0
10.8
23.8
2.5


I of
Discards
37.1
9.7
8.3
1.1
0.2
7.2
2.5
2.1
3.8
0.1
72.2
8.1
17.9
1.9
148.1
100.0
15.1
133.0
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source:   Franklin Associates, Ltd. (Working Papers,  Part 0).
100.0

-------
                                                             Table 3-9




                             FORECAST U.S. WASTE-TO-EHERGY FACILITY THROUGHPUT. 1990. 1995. AND 2000
(In thousands of tons per


CJ
I
K>
O

Technology
Mass Burn
RDF (Supplemental)
RDF (Dedicated Boiler)
Modular Incineration
Other Systems*
TOTALS

Low
4.400
800
2.910
600
130
8. 840
1990
Hid
6.600
1.190
4.360
910
200
13.260

High
8.800
1.590
5,810
1,200
260
17.660

Low
7.700
840
3,770
800
350
13,460
year)
1995
Mid
13.200
1,290
6.080
1,310
640
22,520


High
22.000
1,780
9,260
2,040
1.140
36,220


Low
11.000
880
4.550
1.000
570
18.000

2000
Mid
19.800
1.390
7.800
1.930
1.080
32.000


High
35.200
1.970
12.710
3.100
2.020
55.000
Source:  References 1  through 17.

-------
U)

SJ
                       35-

                       30

                       25
                    in
                    S.  20
                    o
                       15-
10--
                        5 -
                        0 •  I I  I  I  » I T
                        I960     1965
                    1970
1975
                    Figure 3-2.  Municipal  solid waste processed in energy recovery  facilities, 1960  to 2000.

-------
           The quantity  of  MSW processed  for energy recovery has risen
 from approximately 200,000 tons  in  1965  to 6.5 million tons in 1984.
 In 1984 that was almost 5  percent of net waste discards  (after mater-
 ials recovery).   Projections  indicate  that 32 million tons of waste
 will be processed in  2000,  or over  20  percent of net discards.  These
 estimates are fairly  conservative;  others have made much higher esti-
 mates of waste that will be processed.

 Factors Having a Negative  Effect on Energy Recovery

           Regulatory  requirements relating to air pollution emissions
 and solid residues from waste incineration may have significant impacts.
 Emissions of heavy metals,  dioxins, and  acids in stack gases from incin-
 erators are  of considerable concern.   Both fly ash and bottom ash from
 waste incineration have been  reported  to fail the Extraction Procedure
 Toxicicy test for heavy metals.  Exceedances in levels of lead and cad-
 mium may occur,  thereby triggering  a hazardous waste designation for
 the ash.

           The potential exists for  major impacts on the costs of waste-
 to-energy facilities.   For  example, California reportedly requires that
 fly ash from waste incineration be  sent  to a Class 1 landfill for haz-
 ardous waste,  at a cost of  up to $100  per ton.  The bottom ash must go
 to a Class 2 landfill costing almost twice that of existing landfills.
 The ash from a waste-to-energy facility  may be 30 percent or more (by
 weight) of the incoming  municipal solid waste, so additional costs for
 handling hazardous wastes can be large.

           Pending tax legislation may  also have a negative impact on
 resource recovery.  Previously-used tax  incentives for building waste-
 to-energy facilities, including investment tax credits,  rapid depreci-
 ation,  and tax-exempt financing with industrial revenue bonds, could be
 lost under some  tax reform  proposals.

           Adding  to the negative economic impacts on energy recovery
 are  declining  oil  and natural gas prices.  Replacement of these fuels
 with energy  recovered from  solid waste has traditionally been the major
 source  of  revenues to support a waste-to-energy facility.

 Factors  Having a Positive Effect on Energy Recovery

           Waste-to-energy projects  should profit from tightening land-
 fill  requirements.  Most proposed landfill sites face a  high level of
 social opposition, which may eliminate them from further consideration
 or result  in long and costly delays.  In addition,  as regulatory require-
ments become more  stringent, higher landfill costs are experienced.   The
combined  social and regulatory pressures attendant  in developing new land-
fills are also resulting in higher waste transportation  costs.   One  end
result of  tightening landfill  requirements will be  more  emphasis on  ex-
amining energy recovery as an  alternative.
                                    3-22
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
 SOURCE REDUCTION MEASURES

           The environmental movement of  the 1970s  (22)(23) developed
 something of a hierarchy of solid waste  management options that begin
 with source reduction and proceed through a series of alternatives:

             Reduction at the source
             Reuse
             Recycle
             Burn for energy
             Sanitary landfill

           Interestingly, the source reduction movement has all but dis-
 appeared.  At the same time, many of the things advocated by those who
 support this option have seen some impact, although mostly as a result
 of  competitive economic forces and consumer demands.

           Source reduction advocates operate from  the premise that waste
 not be created to begin with because products are designed to have an in-
 finite life time.  Obviously, the trend  has been strongly in the opposite
 direction in both durables and nondurable goods.

           Nonetheless, some interesting  things have happened that can
 be  considered source reduction even though the motivation had nothing
 to  do  with avoiding solid waste disposal. For example:

           • The downsizing of automobile tires and longer
             tread life have reduced tire discards  signif-
             icantly.  (Advocates used to propose the
             100,000 mile tire; something approaching
             40,000 or more is now the industry standard.)

           • Lightweight ing of products and packaging has
             taken place.  In some cases  products or pack-
             ages are redesigned to reduce materials use;
             in some cases more durable materials are used.

           Other source reduction measures have not developed.  For instance,
most appliances have the same useful life of many years ago and are more
cost effective to replace than repair, especially small appliances.  Some
 States have  attempted (with little success) to ban certain products or
materials,  e.g.,  disposable diapers or plastic substitutes for wood and/
or paperboard.   Finally, source reduction sometimes included other things
 such as reuse  of  products,  e.g.,  refillable beverage containers or design
of generic packaging that could be used  by any manufacturer.

           In summary,  some source reduction activities have occurred as a
result of  economic  pressures,  but the effectiveness of most suggested source
reduction measures  has not been demonstrated.
                                   3-23
                                                   FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD

-------
                               Chapter 3

                              REFEREMCES
  1.   U.S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United
      Staces, 1986.  106th Edition.

  2.   International Data Corporation.  Computer Industry Review &
      Forecast. 1980-1989.

  3.   Hunt, R. G., F. D. Shobe, J. C. Trewolla, and W.  E. Franklin,
      "The Application of Technology-Directed Methods to Reduce Solid
      Waste and Conserve Resources in the Packaging of  Non-Fluid Foods."
      Prepared for the National Science Foundation by Franklin Associ-
      ates, Ltd.  1978.

  4.   "ISIS Cautions Pesticides Wastes Disposers."  Phoenix Quarterly.
      Spring 1986.

  5.   "Resource Recovery Activities Report."  Waste Age.  November 1984 and 1985,

  6.   U.S. Conference of Mayors. "Resource Recovery Activities."  City
      Currents.  April 1984.

  7.   U.S. Conference of Mayors. "Resource Recovery Activities."  City
      Currents.  March 29, 1982.                                     *~

  8.   "Resource Recovery Activities."  National Center  for Resource
      Recovery (NCRR) Bulletin.  September 1981.

  9.   Alvarez, R. J.  "A Look at U.S. Plants That are Burning MSW."
      Waste Age.  January 1985.

10.   "Resource Recovery."  Solid Waste Management/RRJ.   November 1980.

11.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Resource  Recovery and Waste
      Reduction Activities,  A Nationwide Survey."  (SW-432).   November
      1979.

12.   Berenyi, E., and R.  Gould.  1984 Resource Recovery  Yearbook.
      Governmental Advisory  Associates,  Inc.,  New York,  NY.   1984.

13.   Payne,  J.   "Energy Recovery from Refuse - State of the  Art."
      Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division.  April 1976.
                                 3-24
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------
 14.    "Resource Recovery Activities."  National Center for Resource
       Recovery (NCRR)  Bulletin.   March 1980.

 15.    "Resource Recovery:  A Status Report."  Solid Waste Management/
       RRJ.   April 1978.

 16.    "Resource Recovery Systems  - A Status Report."  NCRR Solid Waste
       Management Briefs.   March 1976.

 17.    National Center  for Resource Recovery.  "Status of Resource Re-
       covery Systems."  Solid Wastes Management/RRJ.  March 1976.

 18.    "Operating or Planned Resource Recovery Systems."  Professional
       Engineer.  November 1975.

 19.    Fitzpatrick,  J.  V.  "Energy  Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste:
       Present Status and Future Prospects."  Presented at a meeting
       of The Society of  the Plastics Industry, Inc., Cincinnati,  OH.
       May 22,  1973.

 20.    Franklin,  W.  E., M.  A.  Franklin, and R. G. Hunt.  Waste Paper;
       The Future of  a  Resource, 1980-2000.  Franklin Associates,  Ltd.
       for the Solid  Waste Council  of the Paper Industry.   December 1982.

 21.    McManus,  F.,  Editor.   Resource Recovery Report.  Monthly editions
       from February  through December 1985.

22.    "Talking  Trash."  Proceedings  of the Meeting of the National Coa-
       lition  on Solid Waste.  March  4-6, 1977.  Environmental Action
       Foundation.

23.    "REDUCE."   League of  Women Voters Education Fund.  1975.
                                    3-25
                                                  FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-------