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.
------- |