CHARACTERIZATION OF
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN THE UNITED STATES:
1997 UPDATE
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division
Office of Solid Waste
Report No. EPA530-R-98-007
by
Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Prairie Village, KS
May, 1998
Printed on recycled paper
-------
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN THE UNITED STATES: 1997 UPDATE
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 13
Background 13
How this report can be used 14
Municipal solid waste in perspective 16
Municipal solid waste defined 16
Other Subtitle D wastes 16
The solid waste management hierarchy 17
Methodologies for characterizing municipal solid waste 18
The two methodologies 18
Definition of terms 19
Materials and products not included in these estimates 20
Overview of this report 20
References 22
2 CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BY WEIGHT 25
Introduction 25
Materials in municipal solid waste 25
Paper and paperboard 31
Glass 32
Ferrous metals 34
Aluminum 36
Other nonferrous metals 37
Plastics 37
Other materials 41
Food wastes 43
Yard trimmings 44
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes 46
Summary of materials in municipal solid waste 46
Products in municipal solid waste 50
Durable goods 50
Nondurable goods 59
Containers and packaging 66
Summary of products in municipal solid waste 75
Summary 78
References 81
3 MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 91
Introduction 91
Source reduction 91
Source reduction through redesign 93
Modifying practices to reduce materials use 94
Reuse of products and packages 94
Management of organic materials 96
Trends in source reduction 96
in
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Chapter Page
3 MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (continued)
Recovery for recycling (including composting) 108
Recyclables collection 108
Recyclables processing Ill
Combustion 114
Residues from waste management facilities 116
Landfill 116
Summary of historical and current MSW management 117
References 120
4 MARKETS FOR RECOVERED MATERIALS 125
Introduction 125
Paper and paperboard 125
Container glass 134
Aluminum containers 138
Steel in cans and appliances 141
PET and HOPE plastics 143
Compost 147
References 152
Appendix
A Material Flows Methodology 155
B Additional Perspectives on Municipal Solid Waste 159
Generation and discards by individuals 159
Residential and commercial generation of MSW 161
Organic/inorganic fractions of MSW discards 162
Ranking of products in MSW by weight 163
Characterization of MSW discards by volume 168
IV
-------
List of Tables
Table Page
ES-1 Generation and recovery of materials in MSW, 1996 5
ES-2 Generation and recovery of products in MSW by material, 1996 7
Materials in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream, 1960 to 1996
1 Generated 26
2 Recovery 27
3 Discarded 28
Products in Municipal Soiid Waste, 1996
4 Paper and paperboard 29
5 Glass 32
6 Metals 35
7 Plastics 38
8 Rubber and leather 42
Categories of Products in the Municipal Soiid Waste Stream, 1960 to 1996
9 Generated 51
10 Recovery 52
11 Discarded 53
Products in MSW with Detail on Durable Goods, 1960 to 1996
12 Generated 56
13 Recovery 57
14 Discarded 58
Products in MSW with Detail on Nondurable Goods, 1960 to 1996
15 Generated 63
16 Recovery 64
17 Discarded 65
Products in MSW with Detail on Containers and Packaging, 1960 to 1996
18 Generated (by weight) 69
19 Generated (by percent) 70
20 Recovery (by weight) 71
21 Recovery (by percent) 72
22 Discarded (by weight) 73
23 Discarded (by percent) 74
Management of Municipal Soiid Waste
24 Selected examples of source reduction practices 93
25 Generation of packaging, 1960 to 1996 99
26 Consumption and packaging of liquid foods, 1980 and 1996 100
27 Generation of nondurable papers, 1960 to 1996 103
28 Comparison of nondurable paper generation and media usage 105
29 Advertising expenditures by medium, 1990 and 1995 107
30 Number and population served by curbside recycling programs, 1996 109
31 Material recovery facilities, 1996 112
32 Municipal waste combustors, 1996 115
-------
List of Tables (continued)
Table Page
Management of Municipal Solid Waste (continued)
33 Landfill facilities, 1996 117
34 Generation, materials recovery, composting, combustion, and discards
of municipal solid waste, 1960 to 1996 118
Markets for Recovered Materials
35 Markets for recovered paper and paperboard, 1995 and 1996 126
36 Capacity to produce paper and paperboard by census region, 1994 132
37 Estimated market penetration for compost products 149
Additional Perspectives on Municipal Soiid Waste
B-l Per capita generation, materials recovery, combustion, and discards of municipal
solid waste, 1960 to 1996 160
B-2 Per capita generation of material solid waste, by material, 1960 to 1996 161
B-3 Classification of MSW generation into residential and commercial fractions, 1996 162
B-4 Composition of MSW discards by organic and inorganic fractions, 1960 to 1996 163
B-5 Generation of municipal solid waste, 1996 arranged in descending order by weight 165
B-6 Recovery of municipal solid waste, 1996 arranged in descending order by weight 166
B-7 Discards of municipal solid waste, 1996 arranged in descending order by weight 167
B-8 Summary of estimated density factors for landfilled materials 169
B-9 Estimated volume of products discarded in MSW, 1996 170
B-10 Estimated volume of materials discarded in MSW, 1996 172
VI
-------
List of Figures
Figure Page
ES-1 Materials generated in MSW by weight, 1996 4
ES-2 Products generated in MSW by weight, 1996 6
ES-3 Management of MSW in U.S., 1996 9
ES-4 Municipal solid waste management (thousand tons), 1960 to 1996 12
1 Municipal solid waste in the universe of Subtitle D wastes 17
Materials Generated and Recovered in Municipal Solid Waste
2 Paper and paperboard products generated in MSW, 1996 30
3 Paper generation and recovery, 1960 to 1996 31
4 Glass products generated in MS W, 1996 33
5 Glass generation and recovery, 1960 to 1996 33
6 Metal products generated in MSW, 1996 34
7 Metals generation and recovery, 1960 to 1996 36
8 Plastics products generated in MSW, 1996 40
9 Plastics generation and recovery, 1960 to 1996 41
10 Generation of materials in MSW, 1960 to 1996 46
11 Materials recovery and discards of MSW, 1960 to 1996 47
12 Materials recovery, 1996 48
13 Materials generated and discarded in MSW, 1996 49
Products Generated and Recovered in Municipal Solid Waste
14 Generation of products in MSW, 1960 to 1996 75
15 Nondurable goods generated and discarded in MSW, 1996 76
16 Containers and packaging generated and discarded in MSW, 1996 77
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
17 Diagram of solid waste management 92
18 Containers and packaging in MSW, 1996 99
19 Daily generation of packaging per person, 1960 to 1996 99
20 Annual consumption of beverages and beverage packaging, 1980 to 1996 101
21 Packaging of beverages by material, 1960 to 1996 102
22 Food consumption, nonfood expenditures, and packaging, 1980 to 1994 103
23 Packaging of food and nonfood products by material, 1960 to 1996 103
24 Daily generation of nondurable papers per person, 1960 to 1996 105
25 Annual generation of nondurable papers per person, 1990 to 1996 105
26 Population served in curbside recyclables collection programs, 1996 110
27 States with deposit/redemption legislation Ill
28 Existing MRFs, 1996 113
29 Mixed waste processing estimated capacity, 1996 114
30 MSW composting capacity, 1996 114
31 Yard trimmings composting programs, 1996 115
32 Municipal waste combustion capacity, 1996 116
33 Landfill capacity in the U.S., 1996 118
34 Municipal solid waste management, 1960 to 1996 120
Markets for Recovered Materials
35 Recovered paper and paperboard domestic use and exports, 1980 to 1996 127
36 Average Chicago end user prices for OCC, 1970 to 1997 127
37 End user markets for recovered newspapers, 1996 128
38 End user markets for recovered corrugated, 1996 129
vn
-------
List of Figures (continued)
Figure Page
Markets for Recovered Materials (continued)
39 End user markets for recovered mixed papers, 1996 130
40 End user markets for pulp substitutes and high grade deinking papers, 1996 130
41 Capacity to produce paper and paperboard by product category, 1996 131
42 End user markets for glass containers by product category 134
43 Domestic glass container production and recovery, 1986 to 1996 135
44 End user prices for container glass cullet, 1990 to 1996 136
45 End user markets for aluminum containers by product category 138
46 Aluminum beverage can generation and recovery, 1980 to 1996 139
47 End user processor market prices for aluminum containers, 1990 to 1997 139
48 End user markets for steel cans by product category 141
49 End user and processor market prices for steel containers, 1990 to 1997 142
50 Sources of recovered steel and iron for domestic use, 1996 143
51 End user markets for HOPE bottles by product category 144
52 Average end user prices for baled natural HOPE, 1990 to 1997 144
53 End user markets for PET bottles by product category 144
54 Average end user prices for baled PET bottles, 1990 to 1997 146
55 Capacity to consume compost 148
56 Compost market distribution 149
57 Average end user prices for yard trimmings compost, 1996 to 1997 150
A-l Material flows methodology for estimating generation of products and materials
in municipal solid waste 156
A-2 Material flows methodology for estimating discards of products and materials
in municipal solid waste 157
Vlll
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN THE UNITED STATES: 1997 UPDATE
Executive Summary
FEATURES OF THIS REPORT
This report is the latest in a series of reports published by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) describing the national municipal solid
waste (MSW) stream. The report characterizes the national solid waste stream for
1996. It also discusses trends and highlights changes that have occurred over the
years, both in the types of wastes generated and in the ways they are managed.
Although the report does not specifically address local and regional variations in
the waste stream, the data in the report can be used to develop approximate
estimates of MSW generation and composition in defined areas.
This report includes information on:
• Total MSW generation, recovery, and discards from 1960 to
1996.
• Per capita generation and discard rates.
• Materials (e.g., paper, glass, metals, plastic) that comprise
MSW, as well as products (e.g., durable and nondurable goods,
containers, packaging) found in the waste stream.
• Aggregate data on the infrastructure for MSW management,
including estimates of the number of curbside recycling
programs, drop-off centers, materials recovery facilities, and
composting programs in the United States.
• Trends in MSW management from 1960 to 1996, including
source reduction, recovery for recycling (including
composting), and disposal via combustion and landfilling.
• Markets for major recovered materials (paper and paperboard,
container glass, aluminum cans, steel in cans and appliances,
PET and HOPE plastics, and compost).
-------
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
1996 MSW Generation and Management:
• A total of 209.7 million tons of MSW was generated in 1996.
This reflects a decrease of nearly 2 million tons from 1995,
when MSW generation was 211.5 million tons.
• The per capita generation rate in 1996 was 4.3 pounds per
person per day, compared to 4.4 pounds per person per day
in 1995.
• The per capita discard rate (after recovery for recycling,
including composting) was 3.2 pounds per person per day in
1996, down from 3.3 pounds per person per day in 1995.
• Recycling (including composting) recovered 27 percent (57
million tons) of MSW in 1996, up from 26 percent (55
million tons) in 1995.*
• There were nearly 9,000 curbside recycling programs in the
United States in 1996, as well as more than 10,000 drop-off
centers for recyclables. About 360 materials recovery
facilities helped process the recyclables collected. More than
3,000 yard trimmings composting programs were reported.
• Recovery of paper and paperboard reached 41 percent (33
million tons) in 1996, accounting for more than half of the
total MSW recovered. In addition, nearly 11 million tons of
yard trimmings were recovered for composting in 1996,
accounting for the second largest fraction of total recovery.
The percentage of yard trimmings composted (38 percent)
has more than doubled since 1992.
• Landfills managed 55 percent of MSW generated (116
million tons), down from 57 percent in 1995. Combustion
facilities managed 17 percent (36 million tons) of total MSW
generated, about the same as in 1995.
Data shown for years prior to 1996 have been adjusted to reflect the latest revisions to the
methodology and therefore may differ slightly from the same measure reported in previous
updates.
-------
DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY
Municipal solid waste ( MSW) includes wastes such as durable goods, nondurable goods,
containers and packaging, food scraps, yard trimmings, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes from
residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. Examples of waste from these
categories include appliances, automobile tires, newspapers, clothing, boxes, disposable
tableware, office and classroom paper, wood pallets, and cafeteria wastes. MSW does not include
wastes from other sources, such as construction and demolition debris, automobile bodies,
municipal sludges, combustion ash, and industrial process wastes that might also be disposed in
municipal waste landfills or incinerators.
Source reduction activities reduce the amount or toxicity of wastes before they enter the
municipal solid waste management system (see Generation). Reuse is a source reduction activity
involving the recovery or reapplication of a package, used product, or material in a manner that
retains its original form or identity. Reuse of products such as refillable glass bottles, reusable
plastic food storage containers, or refurbished wood pallets are examples of source reduction.
Generation refers to the amount (weight or volume) of materials and products that enter the
waste stream before recycling (including composting), landfilling, or combustion takes place.
Recovery of materials means removing MSW from the waste stream for the purpose of recycling
(including composting). Recovery for recycling as defined for this report includes purchases of
postconsumer recovered materials plus net exports of the materials. Recovery of yard trimmings
includes diverting yard trimmings from disposal to a composting facility. For some materials,
recovery for uses such as highway construction or insulation is considered recovery along with
materials used in remanufacturing processes.
Combustion includes combustion of mixed MSW, fuel prepared from MSW, or a separated
component of MSW (such as rubber tires), with or without energy recovery.
Discards include the municipal solid waste remaining after recycling (including composting).
These discards are usually combusted or disposed of in landfills, although some MSW is littered,
stored, or disposed on site, particularly in rural areas.
Methodology. There are two primary methods for conducting a waste characterization study. The
first is a source-specific approach in which the individual components of the waste stream are
sampled, sorted, and weighed. Although this method is useful for defining a local waste stream,
extrapolating from a limited number of studies can produce a skewed or misleading picture if used
for a nationwide characterization of waste. Atypical circumstances encountered during sampling
or errors in the sample would be greatly magnified when expanded to represent the nation's entire
waste stream. The second method, which is used in this report, is called the "material flows
methodology." EPA's Office of Solid Waste and its predecessors in the Public Health Service
sponsored work in the 1960s and early 1970s to develop the material flows methodology. This
methodology is based on production data (by weight) for the materials and products in the waste
stream, with adjustments for imports, exports, and product lifetimes.
-------
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN 1996
MSW consists of both materials and products. Materials in MSW include
paper and paperboard, yard trimmings, glass, metal, plastics, wood, and food
wastes. Each material category (except for food wastes and yard trimmings) is
made up of many different products. Products in MSW are grouped into three
main categories: (1) durable goods (e.g., appliances), (2) nondurable goods (e.g.,
newspapers), and (3) containers and packaging. These product categories
generally contain each type of MSW material, with some exceptions. The durable
goods category contains no paper and paperboard. The nondurable goods category
includes only small amounts of metals and essentially no glass or wood. The
containers and packaging category includes only very small amounts of rubber,
leather, and textiles.
Materials in MSW
In 1996, MSW generation totaled 209.7 million tons. Figure ES-1 provides
a breakdown, by weight, of the MSW materials generated in 1996. Paper and
paperboard products made up the largest component of MSW generated (38
percent), and yard trimmings comprised the second largest material component
(13 percent). Glass, metals, plastics, wood, and food wastes each constituted
-------
Figure ES-1. Materials generated in MSW by weight, 1996
(Total weight = 209.7 million tons)
Glass 5.9%
12.4 million tons
Metals 7.7%
16.1 million tons
Papers paperboard 38.1°/
79.9 million tons
Plastics 9.4%
19.8 million tons
Wood 5.2%
10.8 million tons
Food 10.4%
21.9 million tons
Yard trimmings 13.40/
28.0 million tons
Other 9.9%
20.8 million tons
between 5 and 10 percent of the total MSW generated. Other materials in MSW,
such as rubber, leather, textiles, and miscellaneous wastes, made up
approximately 10 percent of the MSW generated in 1996.
A portion of each material category in MSW was recycled or composted in
1996, as illustrated in Table ES-1. It should be noted, however, that recovery rates
for some products within a material category are higher than the overall
recovery rate for the material category, because some products are not
-------
Table ES-1
GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF MATERIALS IN MSW, 1996
(In millions of tons and percent of generation of each material)
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous metals
Aluminum
Other nonferrous metals
Total metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other materials
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
TOTAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Weight
Generated
79.9
12.4
11.8
3.0
1.3
16.1
19.8
6.2
7.7
10.8
3.7
156.6
21.9
28.0
3.2
53.1
209.7
Weight
Recovered
32.6
3.2
4.5
1.0
0.8
6.4
1.1
0.6
1.0
0.5
0.8
46.0
0.5
10.8
Neg.
11.3
57.3
Recovery
as a Percent
of Generation
40.8%
25.7%
38.0%
34.3%
66.8%
39.6%
5.3%
9.5%
12.3%
4.5%
21.2%
29.4%
2.4%
38.6%
Neg.
21.3%
27.3%
Includes wastes from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
Neg. = Less than 50,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
recovered at all. For example, aluminum cans are recovered at rates above 60
percent, but the overall recovery rate for aluminum is 34 percent. Likewise, even
though corrugated containers are recovered at a rate of nearly 67 percent, the
overall recovery rate for paper and paperboard is 41 percent.
For this Update, significant changes were made in the methodologies and
data sources for wood and food wastes. These changes, which were incorporated
into revised estimates for 1990 through 1995, result in an increase in the
estimated total amount of MSW generation previously published. (See Chapter 2
for discussions of these changes.) Because of the increases in generated tonnage,
-------
revised total recovery percentages for the years 1990 through 1995 declined
slightly.
Products in MSW
Figure ES-2 shows the breakdown, by weight, of MSW products generated
in 1996. Containers and packaging comprised the largest portion of products
generated, at 33 percent (69 million tons) of total MSW generation. Nondurable
goods were the second largest fraction, comprising about 27 percent (56 million
tons). The third main category of products is durable goods, which comprised 15
percent (32 million tons) of total MSW generation.
Figure ES-2. Products generated in MSW by weight, 1996
(Total weight = 209.7 million tons)
Nondurable goods 26.5%
55.7 million tons
Durable goods 15.1%
31.7 million tons
Containers & packaging 33.0%
69.2 million tons
Food, other 12.
25.1 million tons
Yard trimmings 13.4%
28.0 million tons
Table ES-2 shows the generation and recovery of the product categories in
MSW. Recovery of containers and packaging was the highest of the three
product categories—40 percent of containers and packaging generated in 1996
were recovered for recycling. About 52 percent of aluminum packaging was
recovered (mostly aluminum beverage cans), while more than 56 percent of steel
packaging (mostly cans) was recovered. Paper and paperboard packaging recovery
was estimated at 54 percent; corrugated containers accounted for most of that
figure. Approximately 29 percent of glass containers were recovered overall,
while about 8 percent of wood packaging (mostly pallets removed from service)
-------
was recovered for recycling. About 10 percent of plastic containers and packaging
was recovered in 1996, mostly soft drink, milk, and water bottles.
Overall recovery of nondurable goods was 23 percent in 1996. Newspapers
constituted the largest portion of this recovery, with 54 percent of newspapers
generated being recovered for recycling. High-grade office papers and magazines
were also recovered in significant quantities in 1996, at 48 percent and 24 percent,
respectively. About 16 percent of clothing and other textile nondurable products
also were recovered for recycling.
Overall, durable goods were recovered at a rate of 17 percent in 1996, up
from 16 percent in 1995. Nonferrous metals had one of the highest recovery
rates, at 67 percent, due to the high rate of lead recovery from lead-acid batteries.
Nearly 32 percent of ferrous metals were recovered from appliances and
miscellaneous durable goods. Excluding retreads and tire-derived fuel use, over
18 percent of tires also were recovered for recycling.
Residential and Commercial Sources of MSW
Sources of MSW, as characterized in this report, include both residential
and commercial locations. Residential waste (including waste from multi-family
dwellings) is estimated to be 55 to 65 percent of total MSW generation.
Commercial waste (including waste from schools, some industrial sites where
packaging is generated, and businesses) constitutes between 35 and 45 percent.
Local and regional factors, such as climate and level of commercial activity,
contribute to these variations.
-------
Table ES-2
GENERATION AND RECOVERY OF PRODUCTS IN MSW
BY MATERIAL, 1996
(In millions of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Durable goods
Ferrous metals
Aluminum
Other non-ferrous metals
Total metals
Glass
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Wood
Textiles
Other materials
Total durable goods
Nondurable goods
Paper and paperboard
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Textiles
Other materials
Total nondurable goods
Containers and packaging
Steel
Aluminum
Total metals
Glass
Paper and paperboard
Plastics
Wood
Other materials
Total containers and packaging
Other wastes
Food wastes
Yard trimmings
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
Total other wastes
TOTAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Weight
Generated
Weight
Recovered
Recovery
as a Percent
of Generation
8.8
0.8
1.3
10.9
1.3
6.3
5.4
4.3
2.4
1.0
31.7
2.8
Neg.
0.8
3.7
Neg.
0.3
0.6
Neg.
0.1
0.8
5.4
31.8%
Neg.
66.8%
33.4%
Neg.
4.0%
11.0%
Neg.
5.3%
74.7%
17.1%
41.4
5.3
0.8
5.2
2.8
55.7
12.0
Neg.
Neg.
0.8
Neg.
12.9
29.0%
<1%
Neg.
15.8%
Neg.
23.1%
3.0
2.0
4.9
11.0
38.5
8.2
6.5
0.1
69.2
1.7
1.0
2.7
3.2
20.6
0.8
0.5
Neg.
27.7
56.4%
52.2%
54.7%
28.7%
53.5%
9.8%
7.5%
Neg.
40.1%
21.9
28.0
3.2
53.1
209.7
0.5
10.8
Neg.
11.3
57.3
2.4%
38.6%
Neg.
21.3%
27.3%
Includes wastes from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
Neg. = less than 50,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
-------
MANAGEMENT OF MSW
EPA's integrated waste management hierarchy includes the following
components:
• Source reduction (including reuse of products and backyard
composting of yard trimmings).
• Recycling (including composting).
• Waste combustion (preferably with energy recovery) and
landfilling.
Figure ES-3 shows how much MSW was recovered for recycling
(including composting) and how much was disposed of by combustion and
landfilling in 1996. Approximately 27 percent (57 million tons) of MSW was
recycled and composted; an estimated 17 percent (36 million tons) was combusted
(nearly all with energy recovery); and the remainder, 55 percent (116 million
tons), was landfilled. (Although, of this total small amounts may have been
littered or self-disposed rather than landfilled.)
Figure ES-3. Management of MSW in U.S., 1996
(Total weight = 209.7 million tons)
Landfill, other, 55.5%
116.3 million tons
Recovery for recycling
(including composting), 27.3%
57.3 million tons
Combustion, 17.2%
36.1 million tons
10
-------
Source Reduction
Source reduction includes the design, manufacture, purchase, or use of
materials, such as products and packaging, to reduce their amount or toxicity
before they enter the MSW management system. Some examples of source
reduction activities are:
• Designing products or packaging to reduce the quantity or the
toxicity of the materials used, or to make them easy to reuse.
• Reusing existing products or packaging.
• Lengthening the lives of products to postpone disposal.
• Using packaging that reduces the amount of damage or spoilage to
the product.
• Managing nonproduct organic wastes (e.g., food scraps and yard
trimmings) through on-site composting or other alternatives to
disposal (e.g., leaving grass clippings on the lawn).
Product source reduction activities are not quantified at the national level
in this report. The report does include a section discussing source reduction
trends in packaging and nondurable paper products.
On a per-person basis, generation of packaging has been about constant,
while at the same time, consumption of food and other products has been
increasing. Again on a per-person basis, generation of nondurable paper products
(newspapers, office papers, mail, and other printed products) has been about
constant since 1990, compared to rapid increases in previous years. At the same
time, electronic communication media (e-mail, Internet) have been increasing
rapidly. There also has been some shift of advertising dollars from printed media
to nonprinted media (television, radio, Internet). Trends are not yet clear, but
electronic communications and data exchange may be slowing the rate of growth
of paper products.
11
-------
Recovery
Recovery for recycling (including composting) continues to be one of the
most effective waste management techniques. In it's Annual Survey of solid
waste management practices, BioCycle Magazine (April 1997) reports that
approximately 51 percent of the U.S. population (135 million people) had access
to the nation's nearly 9,000 curbside recycling programs in 1996. Seventy-five
percent of the programs were in the Northeast and Midwest. In addition, over
10,000 drop-off centers for recyclables were reported in 1996. About 360 materials
recovery facilities helped process the recyclables collected in 1996. An estimated
3,300 yard trimmings composting programs (not backyard composting) existed in
1996; the majority of these programs were in the Northeast and Midwest.
Combustion
Most MSW combustion in the United States involves the recovery of an
energy product (generally steam or electricity). Total MSW combustion with
energy recovery, referred to as waste-to-energy combustion, currently has a
design capacity of 100,000 tons per day. There were 110 waste-to-energy
combustion facilities in the United States in 1996; nearly 40 percent of these were
located in the Northeast, accounting for 48 percent of total design capacity. In
addition, there were 8 facilities preparing refuse-derived fuel, and a small
amount of capacity (2,000 tons per day) for incineration without energy recovery.
Landfilling
Although the number of landfills in the United States is decreasing,
landfill capacity has remained relatively constant. In 1996, approximately 2,400
municipal solid waste landfills were reported in the contiguous United States,
with the Southeast and West having the greatest number of landfills. Thirty-five
states had landfills reporting more than 10 years of capacity remaining. Only
three states reported having less than 5 years of capacity left.
12
-------
Trends in MSW Management
MSW generation grew from 88 million tons in 1960 to 214 million tons in
1994 but has since dropped off to about 210 million tons in 1996 (Figure ES-4). In
the 1960s and early 1970s, a large percentage of MSW was burned. Through the
mid-1980s, incineration declined considerably and landfills became more difficult
to site. MSW generation continued to rise, however, while materials recovery
rates increased slowly. As a result, the burden on the nation's landfills grew
dramatically. Although there are now fewer municipal solid waste landfills,
their average size has increased and capacity at the national level does not appear
to be a problem. However, regional dislocations sometimes occur. As recovery
rates increased in the late 1980s and early 1990s—and combustion stayed
constant—discards to landfills have steadily decreased.
Figure ES-4. Municipal Solid Waste Management, 1960 to 1996
250,000
200,000
Recovery for the Composting
Component of Recycling
Recovery for Recycling
' >
Combustion
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
13
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND
This report is the most recent in a series of reports sponsored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to characterize municipal solid waste (MSW)
in the United States. Together with the previous reports, this report provides a
historical database for a 36-year characterization (by weight) of the materials and
products in MSW.
Management of the nation's municipal solid waste (MSW) continues to be
a high priority issue for many communities as we near the turn of the century.
Increasingly, the concept of integrated solid waste management—source
reduction of wastes before they enter the waste stream, recovery of generated
wastes for recycling (including composting), and environmentally sound
disposal through combustion facilities and landfills that meet current
standards—is being used by communities as they plan for the future.
There are many regional variations that require each community to
examine its own waste management needs. Such factors as local and regional
availability of suitable landfill space, proximity of markets for recovered
materials, population density, commercial and industrial activity, and climatic
and groundwater variations all may motivate each community to make its own
plans.
Identifying the components of the waste stream is an important step
toward addressing the issues associated with the generation and management of
municipal solid wastes. MSW characterizations, which analyze the quantity and
composition of the municipal solid waste stream, involve estimating how much
MSW is generated, recycled (including composting), combusted, and disposed of
in landfills. By determining the makeup of the waste stream, waste
characterizations also provide valuable data for setting waste management goals,
tracking progress toward those goals, and supporting planning at the national,
state, and local levels. For example, waste characterizations can be used to
highlight opportunities for source reduction and recycling and provide
information on any special management issues that should be considered.
Readers should note that this report characterizes the municipal solid
waste stream of the nation as a whole. Local and regional variations are not
addressed, but suggestions for use of the information in this report by local
planners are included in this chapter.
14
-------
HOW THIS REPORT CAN BE USED
The data in this report provide a nationwide picture of municipal solid
waste generation and management. The historical perspective is particularly
useful in establishing trends and highlighting the changes that have occurred
over the years, both in types of wastes generated and in the ways they are
managed. This perspective on MSW and its management is useful in assessing
national solid waste management needs and policy. The report is, however, of
equal or greater value as a solid waste management planning tool for state and
local governments and private firms.
A common error in using this report is to assume that all nonhazardous
wastes are included. As shown later in this chapter, municipal solid waste as
defined here does not include construction and demolition wastes, industrial
process wastes, or a number of other wastes that may well go to a municipal
waste landfill.
At the local or state level, the data in this report can be used to develop
approximate (but quick) estimates of MSW generation in a defined area. That is,
the data on generation of MSW per person nationally may be used to estimate
generation in a city or other local area based on the population in that area. This
can be of value when a "ballpark" estimate of MSW generation in an area is
needed. For example, communities may use such an estimate to determine the
potential viability of regional versus single community solid waste management
facilities. This information can help define solid waste management planning
areas and the planning needed in those areas. However, for communities
making decisions where knowledge of the amount and composition of MSW is
crucial, e.g., where a solid waste management facility is being sited, local
estimates of the waste stream should be made.
Another useful feature of this report for local planning is the information
provided on MSW trends. Changes over time in total MSW generation and the
mix of MSW materials can affect the need for and use of various waste
management alternatives. Observing trends in MSW generation can help in
planning an integrated waste management system that includes facilities sized
and designed for years of service.
While the national average data are useful as a checkpoint against local
MSW characterization data, any differences between local and national data
should be examined carefully. There are many possible reasons for these
differences, for example:
• Scope of waste streams may differ. That is, a local landfill may be
receiving construction and demolition wastes in addition to MSW, but
this report addresses MSW only.
15
-------
• Per capita generation of some products, such as newspapers and
telephone directories, varies widely depending upon the average size
of the publications. Typically, rural areas will generate less of these
products on a per person basis than urban areas.
• The level of commercial activity in a community will influence the
generation rate of some products, such as office paper, corrugated boxes,
wood pallets, and food wastes from restaurants.
• Variations in economic activity can affect waste generation in both the
residential and the commercial sectors.
• Variations in climate and local waste management practices will
greatly influence generation of yard trimmings. For instance, yard
trimmings exhibit strong seasonal variations in most regions of the
country. Also, the level of backyard composting in a region will affect
generation of yard trimmings.
• Generation and discards of other products will be affected by local and
state regulations and practices. Deposit laws, bans on landfilling of
specific products, and variable rate pricing for waste collection are
examples of practices that can influence a local waste stream.
While caution should be used in applying the data in this report, for some
areas, the national breakdown of MSW by material may be the only such data
available for use in comparing and planning waste management alternatives.
Planning a curbside recycling program, for example, requires an estimate of
household recyclables that may be recovered. If resources are not available to
adequately estimate these materials by other means, local planners may turn to
the national data. This is useful in areas that can reasonably be expected to have
typical/average MSW generation or in areas where appropriate adjustments in
the data can be made to account for local conditions.
In summary, the data in this report can be used in the following ways for
local planning:
• to develop approximate estimates of total MSW generation in an area
• to check locally developed MSW data for accuracy and consistency
• to help estimate quantities of recyclables and other MSW components
in an area
• to account for trends in total MSW generation and the generation of
individual components.
16
-------
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN PERSPECTIVE
Municipal Solid Waste Defined
Municipal solid waste includes durable goods, nondurable goods,
containers and packaging, food wastes and yard trimmings, and miscellaneous
inorganic wastes (Figure 1). Municipal solid wastes characterized in this report
come from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. Some
examples of the types of MSW that come from each of the broad categories of
sources are:
Sources and Examples
Residential (single-
and multi-family homes)
Commercial (office buildings,
retail and wholesale estab-
lishments, restaurants)
Institutional (schools,
libraries, hospitals, prisons)
Industrial (packaging and
administrative; not process
wastes)
Example Products
Newspapers, clothing, disposable
tableware, food packaging, cans and
bottles, food scraps, yard trimmings
Corrugated boxes, food wastes, office
papers, disposable tableware, paper
napkins, yard trimmings
Cafeteria and restroom trash can wastes,
office papers, classroom wastes, yard
trimmings
Corrugated boxes, plastic film, wood
pallets, lunchroom wastes, office papers.
The material flows methodology used in this report does not readily lend
itself to the quantification of wastes according to their source. For example,
corrugated boxes may be unpacked and discarded from residences, commercial
establishments such as grocery stores, institutions such as schools, or factories.
The methodology estimates only the total quantity of such boxes generated, not
their places of disposal or recovery for recycling.
Other Subtitle D Wastes
Some people assume that "municipal solid waste" must include
everything that is landfilled in Subtitle D landfills. (Subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act deals with wastes other than the hazardous
wastes covered under Subtitle C.) As shown in Figure 1, however, RCRA Subtitle
D includes many kinds of wastes. It has been common practice to landfill wastes
such as municipal sludge, nonhazardous industrial wastes, residue from
automobile salvage operations, and construction and demolition wastes along
17
-------
Figure 1. Municipal solid waste in the universe of Subtitle D wastes
Subtitle D Wastes
Municipal Solid Waste
Municipal sludge
Industrial nonhazardous waste
Construction & demolition waste
Agricultural waste
Oil and gas waste
Mining waste
Municipal Solid Waste
Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Containers & Packaging
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
with MSW, but these other kinds of wastes are not included in the estimates
presented in this report.
The Solid Waste Management Hierarchy
EPA's 1989 Agenda for Action endorsed the concept of integrated waste
management, by which municipal solid waste is reduced or managed through
several different practices, which can be tailored to fit a particular community's
needs. The components of the hierarchy are:
• source reduction (including reuse of products and backyard composting
of yard trimmings)
• recycling of materials (including composting)
• waste combustion (preferably with energy recovery) and landfilling.
With the exception of source reduction, this updated characterization
report includes estimates of the quantities of MSW managed by each practice in
the hierarchy.
18
-------
METHODOLOGIES FOR CHARACTERIZING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
The Two Methodologies
There are two basic approaches to estimating quantities of municipal solid
waste. The first method, which is site-specific, involves sampling, sorting, and
weighing the individual components of the waste stream. This method is useful
in defining a local waste stream, especially if large numbers of samples are taken
over several seasons. Results of sampling also increase the body of knowledge
about variations due to climatic and seasonal changes, population density,
regional differences, and the like. In addition, quantities of MSW components
such as food and yard trimmings can only be estimated through sampling and
weighing studies.
A disadvantage of sampling studies based on a limited number of samples
is that they may be skewed and misleading if, for example, atypical circumstances
were experienced during the sampling. These circumstances could include an
unusually wet or dry season, delivery of some unusual wastes during the
sampling period, or errors in the sampling methodology. Any errors of this kind
will be greatly magnified when a limited number of samples are taken to
represent a community's entire waste stream for a year. Magnification of errors
could be even more serious if a limited number of samples was relied upon for
making the national estimates of MSW. Also, extensive sampling would be
prohibitively expensive for making the national estimates. An additional
disadvantage of sampling studies is that they do not provide information about
trends unless performed in a consistent manner over a long period of time.
The second approach to quantifying and characterizing the municipal
solid waste stream—the method used for this report—utilizes a material flows
approach to estimate the waste stream on a nationwide basis. In the late 1960s
and early 1970s, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and its predecessors at the Public
Health Service sponsored work that began to develop this methodology. This
report represents the latest version of this database that has been evolving for
over 20 years.
The material flows methodology is based on production data (by weight)
for the materials and products in the waste stream. Generation data is the result
of making specific adjustments to the production data by each material and
product category. Adjustments are made for imports and exports and for
diversions from MSW (e.g., for building materials made of plastic and
paperboard). Adjustments are also made for the lifetimes of products. Finally,
food wastes and yard trimmings and a small amount of miscellaneous inorganic
wastes are accounted for by compiling data from a variety of waste sampling
studies.
19
-------
One problem with the material flows methodology is that product
residues associated with other items in MSW (usually containers) are not
accounted for. These residues would include, for example, food left in ajar,
detergent left in a box or bottle, dried paint in a can, etc. Some household
hazardous wastes, e.g., pesticide left in a can, are also included among these
product residues.
Definition of Terms
The material flows methodology produces an estimate of total municipal
solid waste generation in the United States, by material categories and by product
categories.
The term generation as used in this report refers to the weight of materials
and products as they enter the waste management system from residential,
commercial, institutional, and industrial sources and before materials recovery
or combustion takes place. Preconsumer (industrial) scrap is not included in the
generation estimates. Source reduction activities (e.g., backyard composting of
yard trimmings) take place ahead of generation.
Source reduction activities reduce the amount or toxicity of wastes before
they enter the municipal solid waste management system. Reuse is a source
reduction activity involving the recovery or reapplication of a package, used
product, or material in a manner that retains its original form or identity. Reuse
of products such as refillable glass bottles, reusable plastic food storage containers,
or refurbished wood pallets is considered source reduction, not recycling.
Recovery of materials as estimated in this report includes products and
yard trimmings removed from the waste stream for the purpose of recycling
(including composting). For recovered products, recovery equals reported
purchases of postconsumer recovered material (e.g., glass cullet, old newspapers)
plus net exports (if any) of the material. Thus, recovery of old corrugated
containers (OCC) is the sum of OCC purchases by paper mills plus net exports of
OCC. If recovery as reported by a data source includes converting or fabrication
(preconsumer) scrap, the preconsumer scrap is not counted towards the recovery
estimates in this report. For some materials, additional uses, such as glass used
for highway construction or newspapers used to make insulation, are added into
the recovery totals.
Combustion of MSW was estimated with and without energy recovery.
Combustion with energy recovery is often called "waste-to-energy," while
combustion without energy is called incineration in this report. Combustion of
separated materials—wood, rubber from tires, paper, and plastics—is included in
the estimates of combustion in this report.
20
-------
Discards include the MSW remaining after recovery for recycling
(including composting). These discards would presumably be combusted or
landfilled, although some MSW is littered, stored or disposed on-site, or burned
on-site, particularly in rural areas. No good estimates for these other disposal
practices are available, but the total amounts of MSW involved are presumed to
be small.
MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS NOT INCLUDED IN THESE ESTIMATES
As noted earlier, other Subtitle D wastes (illustrated in Figure 1) are not
included in these estimates, even though some may be managed along with
MSW (e.g., by combustion or landfilling). Household hazardous wastes, while
generated as MSW with other residential wastes, are not identified separately in
this report. Transportation equipment (including automobiles and trucks) is not
included in the wastes characterized in this report.
Certain other materials associated with products in MSW are often not
accounted for because the appropriate data series have not yet been developed.
These include, for example, inks and other pigments and some additives
associated with packaging materials. Considerable additional research would be
required to estimate these materials, which constitute a relatively small
percentage of the waste stream.
Some adjustments are made in this report to account for packaging of
imported goods, but there is little available documentation of these amounts.
OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT
Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 presents the results of the
municipal solid waste characterization (by weight). Estimates of MSW
generation, recovery, and discards are presented in a series of tables, with
discussion. Detailed tables and figures summarizing 1996 MSW generation,
recovery, and discards of products in each material category are included.
In Chapter 3 of the report, estimates of 1996 MSW management by the
various alternatives are summarized. These include recovery for recycling
(including composting), combustion, and landfilling. Also presented is a
discussion of source reduction, including a brief overview of trends in source
reduction as it relates to national MSW generation quantities. Summaries of the
infrastructure currently available for each waste management alternative are
also included in Chapter 3.
New to this update, Chapter 4 highlights a topic of interest in the solid
waste management field—markets for recovered materials. This chapter
provides an overview for the most commonly recovered materials in MSW,
with discussion on industry structure and capacity, and factors driving markets.
21
-------
Discussion of both trends in source reduction (Chapter 3), and markets for
recovered materials is not meant to provide a comprehensive nor final
discussion on either topic, but rather, an increased understanding of these two
complicated issues.
A discussion of the material flows methodology is presented in Appendix
A. In Appendix B, the MSW characterization data summarized in previous
chapters of the report are presented again from different perspectives. These
perspectives include; generation and management on a pounds per person per
day basis, generation by material on a pounds per person per day basis,
classification of generation into residential and commercial components, and a
ranking of products and materials by tonnage generated, recovered for recycling,
and discarded.
22
-------
Chapter 1
REFERENCES
Darnay, A., and W.E. Franklin, The Role of Packaging in Solid Waste
Management, 1966 to 1976. Public Health Service Publication No. 1855. U.S.
Government Printing Office. 1969.
Franklin, W.E., and A. Darnay. The Role of Nonpackaging Paper in Solid Waste
Management, 1966 to 1976. Public Health Service Publication No. 2040. U.S.
Government Printing Office. 1971.
Darnay, A., and W.E. Franklin. Salvage Markets for Materials in Solid Wastes.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-29c. U.S. Government Printing Office.
1972.
Franklin, W.E., et al. Base Line Forecasts of Resource Recovery 1972 to 1990.
Midwest Research Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
March 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs. Second Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Source Reduction
(SW-122). 1974.
Smith, F.L., Jr. A Solid Waste Estimation Procedure: Material Flows Approach.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SW-147). May 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs. Third Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Source Reduction
(SW-161). 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs. Fourth Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction
(SW-600). 1977.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource Recovery
Baseline. Prepared for the Resource Conservation Committee. May 16, 1979.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource Recovery
Baseline: Working Papers. Prepared for the Resource Conservation Committee.
May 16, 1979.
Resource Conservation Committee. Choices for Conservation: Final Report to
the President and Congress (SW-779). July 1979.
23
-------
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States, 1960 to 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 11, 1986.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
March 30, 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1990 Update. (EPA/SW-90-042). June 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1992 Update. (EPA/530-R-92-019). July 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1994 Update. EPA/530-R-94-042. November 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1995 Update. EPA/530-R-945-001. March 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1996 Update. EPA/530-R-97-015. June 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Task Force,
Office of Solid Waste. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action.
February 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. Subtitle D Study
Phase I Report (EPA/530-SW-054). October 1986.
24
-------
25
-------
Chapter 2
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BY WEIGHT
INTRODUCTION
The tables and figures in this chapter present the results of the update of
EPA's municipal solid waste characterization study through 1996. The data
presented also incorporate revisions to previously reported data for 1995 and, in
some instances, to data for earlier years. The revisions are generally due to
revisions in the various source data series used to prepare this report.
The findings are presented in two ways: a breakdown of municipal solid
waste (MSW) by material, and a breakdown by product (both by weight and by
percentage of generation or discards). While some products, for example, paper
towels, are made up of a single material—paper—other products, for example,
rubber tires, contain more than one material, such as rubber, ferrous metals, and
textiles. Thus the materials summary tables represent an aggregation of the
materials that go into all the products in MSW. (Note that the totals for the
materials and the products tables are the same.)
The summary tables and figures provide information on generation of
each material and product, and recovery for recycling (including composting, if
any). Tables and figures displaying discards of materials and products after
recovery for recycling (including composting) follow.
Recovery means that the materials have been removed from the
municipal solid waste stream. Recovery of materials in products means that the
materials are reported to have been purchased by an end-user or exported. For
yard trimmings, recovery includes estimates of the trimmings delivered to a
composting facility (not backyard composting). Under these definitions, residues
from a materials recovery facility (a MRF) or other waste processing facility are
counted as generation, since they are not purchased by an end-user. Residues
from an end-user facility (e.g., sludges from a paper deinking mill) are considered
to be industrial process wastes that are no longer part of the municipal solid
waste stream.
Additional detail is provided for some of the materials and products in
MSW that are of the most interest to planners: paper, glass, metals, plastics, and
rubber and leather.
MATERIALS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Generation, recovery, and discards of materials in MSW, by weight and by
percentage of generation or discards, are summarized in Tables 1 through 3.
Following these tables, each material is discussed in detail.
26
-------
Table 1
MATERIALS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1996
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other **
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated-Weight
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other **
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
29,990
6,720
10,300
340
180
70,820
390
1,840
1,760
3,030
70
54,620
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
88,120
1970
44,310
12,740
12,360
800
670
73,830
2,900
2,970
2,040
3,720
770
83,280
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
121,060
1980
55,160
15,130
12,620
1,730
1,160
75,570
6,830
4,200
2,530
7,010
2,520
108,890
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
151,640
1990
72,730
13,100
12,640
2,810
1,100
76,550
17,130
5,790
5,810
12,210
3,190
146,510
20,800
35,000
2,900
58,700
205,210
1992
74,260
13,130
12,080
2,870
1,120
76,070
18,410
5,800
6,620
12,270
3,370
149,930
21 ,000
35,000
3,000
59,000
208,930
1994
80,840
13,350
1 1 ,780
3,040
1,350
76,770
19,260
6,210
7,260
1 1 ,280
3,700
1 58,070
21 ,500
31 ,500
3,100
56,100
214,170
1995
81,670
12,830
1 1 ,630
2,950
1,260
75,840
18,900
6,030
7,400
1 0,440
3,650
156,760
21,800
29,750
3,150
54,700
21 1 ,460
1996
79,930
12,350
1 1 ,830
2,980
1,260
76,070
19,760
6,200
7,720
10,840
3,690
156,560
21 ,900
28,000
3,200
53,100
209,660
Percent of Total Generation
1960
34.0%
7.6%
1 1 .7%
0.4%
0.2%
72.3%
0.4%
2.1%
2.0%
3.4%
0.1%
62.0%
13.8%
22.7%
1.5%
38.0%
100.0%
1970
36.6%
10.5%
10.2%
0.7%
0.6%
77.4%
2.4%
2.5%
1.7%
3.1%
0.6%
68.8%
10.6%
19.2%
1.5%
31 .2%
1 00.0%
1980
36.4%
1 0.0%
8.3%
1.1%
0.8%
70.2%
4.5%
2.8%
1.7%
4.6%
1.7%
71 .8%
8.6%
18.1%
1.5%
28.2%
100.0%
1990
35.4%
6.4%
6.2%
1.4%
0.5%
8.7%
8.3%
2.8%
2.8%
6.0%
1.6%
71 .4%
10.1%
17.1%
1.4%
28.6%
100.0%
1992
35.5%
6.3%
5.8%
1.4%
0.5%
7.7%
8.8%
2.8%
3.2%
5.9%
1.6%
71 .8%
10.1%
16.8%
1.4%
28.2%
100.0%
1994
37.7%
6.2%
5.5%
1.4%
0.6%
7.6%
9.0%
2.9%
3.4%
5.3%
1.7%
73.8%
10.0%
14.7%
1.4%
26.2%
100.0%
1995
38.6%
6.1%
5.5%
1.4%
0.6%
7.5%
8.9%
2.9%
3.5%
4.9%
1.7%
74.1%
1 0.3%
14.1%
1.5%
25.9%
100.0%
1996
38.1%
5.9%
5.6%
1.4%
0.6%
7.7%
9.4%
3.0%
3.7%
5.2%
1.8%
74.7%
10.4%
13.4%
1.5%
25.3%
100.0%
Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process
wastes, or certain other wastes.
Includes electrolytes in batteries and fluff pulp, feces, and urine in disposable diapers.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
27
-------
Table 2
RECOVERY* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1996
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each material)
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other **
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered-Weight
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other **
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
5,080
100
50
Neg.
Neg.
50
Neg.
330
50
Neg.
Neg.
5,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
Neg.
5,610
1970
6,770
160
150
10
320
480
Neg.
250
60
Neg.
300
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
Neg.
8,020
1980
1 1 ,740
750
370
310
540
7,220
20
130
160
Neg.
500
1 4,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
Neg.
1 4,520
1990
20,230
2,620
2,580
1,010
730
4,320
370
370
660
130
680
29,380
Neg.
4,200
Neq.
4,200
33,580
1992
24,470
2,890
3,350
1,110
710
5,170
600
380
780
190
670
35,150
Neg.
5,400
Neq.
5,400
40,550
1994
29,470
3,110
4,120
1,150
990
6,260
940
500
870
360
910
42,420
480
8,000
Neq.
8,480
50,900
1995
32,700
3,140
4,230
1,020
810
6,060
990
540
900
450
750
45,530
570
9,000
Neq.
9,570
55,100
1996
32,610
3,170
4,500
1,020
840
6,360
1,060
590
950
490
780
46,010
520
10,800
Neq.
1 1 ,320
57,330
Percent of Generation of Each Material
1960
16.9%
1.5%
0.5%
Neg.
Neg.
0.5%
Neg.
17.9%
2.8%
Neg.
Nea
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.4%
1970
15.3%
1.3%
1.2%
1.3%
47.8%
3.5%
Neg.
8.4%
2.9%
Neg.
39.0%
9.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.6%
1980
21 .3%
5.0%
2.9%
1 7.9%
46.6%
7.9%
0.3%
3.1%
6.3%
Neg.
1 9.8%
1 3.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
9.6%
1990
27.8%
20.0%
20.4%
35.9%
66.4%
26.7%
2.2%
6.4%
1 1 .4%
1.1%
21 .3%
20.1%
Neg.
1 2.0%
Neg.
7.2%
1 6.4%
1992
33.0%
22.0%
27.7%
38.7%
63.4%
32.2%
3.3%
6.6%
1 1 .8%
1.5%
19.9%
23.4%
Neg.
15.4%
Neg.
9.2%
19.4%
1994
36.5%
23.3%
35.0%
37.8%
73.3%
38.7%
4.9%
8.1%
12.0%
3.2%
24.6%
26.8%
2.2%
25.4%
Neg.
15.1%
23.8%
1995
40.0%
24.5%
36.4%
34.6%
64.3%
38.3%
5.2%
9.0%
1 2.2%
4.3%
20.5%
29.0%
2.6%
30.3%
Neg.
1 7.5%
26.1%
1996
40.8%
25.7%
38.0%
34.2%
66.7%
39.6%
5.4%
9.5%
12.3%
4.5%
21.1%
29.4%
2.4%
38.6%
Neg.
21 .3%
27.3%
Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
Recovery of electrolytes in batteries; probably not recycled.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
28
-------
Table 3
MATERIALS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1996
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other **
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded-Weight
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other **
Total Materials in Products
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
24,910
6,620
10,250
340
180
70,770
390
1,510
1,710
3,030
70
49,010
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
82,510
1970
37,540
12,580
12,210
790
350
73,350
2,900
2,720
1,980
3,720
470
75,260
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
113,040
1980
43,420
1 4,380
12,250
1,420
620
74,290
6,810
4,070
2,370
7,010
2,020
94,370
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
137,120
1990
52,500
10,480
10,060
1,800
370
72,230
16,760
5,420
5,150
12,080
2,510
117,130
20,800
30,800
2,900
54,500
171,630
1992
49,790
10,240
8,730
1,760
410
70,900
17,810
5,420
5,840
12,080
2,700
1 1 4,780
21 ,000
29,600
3,000
53,600
168,380
1994
51 ,370
10,240
7,660
1,890
360
9,970
18,320
5,710
6,390
10,920
2,790
115,650
21 ,020
23,500
3,100
47,620
1 63,270
1995
48,970
9,690
7,400
1,930
450
9,780
17,910
5,490
6,500
9,990
2,900
1 1 1 ,230
21,230
20,750
3,150
45,130
156,360
1996
47,320
9,180
7,330
1,960
420
9,770
18,700
5,610
6,770
10,350
2,910
110,550
21 ,380
17,200
3,200
41 ,780
152,330
Percent of Total Discards
1960
30.2%
8.0%
12.4%
0.4%
0.2%
73.7%
0.5%
1.8%
2.1%
3.7%
0.1%
59.4%
14.8%
24.2%
1.6%
40.6%
100.0%
1970
33.2%
11.1%
10.8%
0.7%
0.3%
11.8%
2.6%
2.4%
1.8%
3.3%
0.4%
66.6%
1 1 .3%
20.5%
1.6%
33.4%
1 00.0%
1980
31 .7%
1 0.5%
8.9%
1.0%
0.5%
10.4%
5.0%
3.0%
1.7%
5.1%
1.5%
68.8%
9.5%
20.1%
1.6%
31 .2%
100.0%
1990
30.6%
6.1%
5.9%
1.0%
0.2%
7.7%
9.8%
3.2%
3.0%
7.0%
1.5%
68.2%
12.1%
1 7.9%
1.7%
31 .8%
100.0%
1992
29.6%
6.1%
5.2%
1.0%
0.2%
6.5%
10.6%
3.2%
3.5%
7.2%
1.6%
68.2%
12.5%
17.6%
1.8%
31 .8%
100.0%
1994
31 .5%
6.3%
4.7%
1.2%
0.2%
6.7%
1 1 .2%
3.5%
3.9%
6.7%
1.7%
70.8%
12.9%
14.4%
1.9%
29.2%
1 00.0%
1995
31 .3%
6.2%
4.7%
1.2%
0.3%
6.3%
1 1 .5%
3.5%
4.2%
6.4%
1.9%
71.1%
1 3.6%
1 3.3%
2.0%
28.9%
100.0%
1996
31.1%
6.0%
4.8%
1.3%
0.3%
6.4%
12.3%
3.7%
4.4%
6.8%
1.9%
72.6%
14.0%
1 1 .3%
2.1%
27.4%
100.0%
Discards after materials and compost recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes,
or certain other wastes.
Includes electrolytes in batteries and fluff pulp, feces, and urine in disposable diapers.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
29
-------
Paper and Paperboard
By any measure, the many products made of paper and paperboard, taken
collectively, are the largest component of MSW. The wide variety of products
that comprise the paper and paperboard materials total is illustrated in Table 4
and Figures 2 and 3. In this report, these products are classified as either
nondurable goods or as containers and packaging, with nondurable goods being
the larger category.
Table 4
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS IN MSW, 1996
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Generation
(Thousands
Product Category tons)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Newsprint 9,810
Groundwood inserts 2,480
Total Newspapers 12,290
Books 940
Magazines 1,970
Office Papers 6,660
Telephone Directories 470
Third Class Mail 4,510
Other Commercial Printing 6,560
Tissue Paper and Towels 2,980
Paper Plates and Cups 950
Other Nonpackaging Paper* 4,120
Total Paper and Paperboard
Nondurable Goods 41,450
Recovery
(Thousands
tons)
5,480
1,170
6,650
170
480
3,190
60
670
810
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
12,030
(Percent of
generation)
55.9%
47.2%
54.1%
18.1%
24.4%
47.9%
12.8%
14.9%
12.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
29.0%
Includes tissue in disposable diapers, paper in games and novelties, cards, etc.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Discards
(Thousands
tons)
4,330
1,310
5,640
770
1,490
3,470
410
3,840
5,750
2,980
950
4,120
29,420
Containers and Packaging
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper and Paperboard
Containers and Packaging
Total Paper and Paperboard
29
5
1
1
38
79
,020
460
,390
230
,980
50
,350
,480
,930
19,340
Neg.
980
Neg.
260
Neg.
Neg.
20,580
32,610
66.6%
Neg.
18.2%
Neg.
13.1%
Neg.
Neg.
53.5%
40.8%
9,680
460
4,410
230
1,720
50
1,350
17,900
47,320
30
-------
Figure 2. Paper and paperboard products generated in MSW, 1996
Corrugated boxes
Newspapers
Office papers
Commercial printing
Folding and milk cartons
Third class mail
Other papers
Tissue paper and towels
Bags and sacks
Magazines
Other packaging
Paper plates and cups
Books
Directories
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Thousand tons
25,000
30,000
Total generation of paper and paperboard in MSW has grown steadily
from 30 million tons in 1960 to 79.9 million tons in 1996 (Table 1). As a
percentage of total MSW generation, paper represented 34 percent in 1960 (Table
1). The percentage has varied over time, but increased to 38.1 percent of total
MSW generation in 1996.
(The sensitivity of paper products to economic conditions can be observed
in Figure 3. The tonnage of paper generated in 1975—a severe recession year—
was actually less than the tonnage in 1970, and the percentage of total generation
was also less in 1975. Similar but less pronounced declines in paper generation
can be seen in other recession years.)
Generation. Estimates of paper and paperboard generation are based on
statistics published by the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). These
statistics include data on new supply (production plus net imports) of the
various paper and paperboard grades that go into the products found in MSW.
The AF&PA new supply statistics are adjusted to deduct converting scrap, which
is generated when sheets of paper or paperboard are cut to make products such as
envelopes or boxes. Converting scrap rates vary from product to product; the
rates used in this report were developed as part of a 1992 report for the Recycling
Advisory Council with a few more recent revisions as new data became
available. Various deductions are also made to account for products diverted out
of municipal solid waste, such as gypsum wallboard facings or toilet tissue.
31
-------
Figure 3. Paper generation and recovery, 1960 to 1996
90 000 T
sn nnn .
70 000 .
fin nnn .
c
** 50 000 .
c
01
w 4n nnn .
o
H 30,000
20 000 .
10000 ,
o
^•^
Lo™
...-"'-
p-n-o-Q""^"^
^•-i
1^ \
_n-Q-°^H
_u— —
•x'-l
.^•"
r5^
--
-v./
-OJJ-TJ-0-1
.-•-•-•
•^
'
Recov
J"H"
k"
n-^7-^
-•^"^
sry^5^
j*
>.
-n
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Recovery. Estimates of recovery of paper and paperboard products for
recycling are based on annual reports of recovery published by AF&PA. The
AF&PA reports include recovery of paper and paperboard purchased by U.S.
paper mills, plus exports of recovered paper, plus a small amount estimated to
have been used in other products such as animal bedding. Recovery as reported
by AF&PA includes both preconsumer and postconsumer paper.
To estimate recovery of postconsumer paper products for this EPA report,
estimates of recovery of converting scrap and returned overissue newspapers are
deducted from the total recovery amounts reported by AF&PA. In earlier
versions of this EPA report, a simplifying assumption that all converting scrap is
recovered was made. For recent updates, various converting scrap recovery rates
ranging from 70 percent to 98 percent were applied to the estimates for 1990
through 1996. The converting scrap recovery rates were developed for a 1992
report for the Recycling Advisory Council. Because converting scrap and
overissue are deducted, the paper recovery rates presented in this report are
always lower than the total recovery rates published by AF&PA.
When recovered paper is repulped, and often deinked, at a recycling paper
mill, considerable amounts of sludge are generated in amounts varying from 5
percent to 35 percent of the paper feedstock. Since these sludges are generated at
an industrial site, they are considered to be industrial process waste, not
municipal solid waste; therefore they have been removed from the municipal
waste stream.
32
-------
Recovery of paper and paperboard for recycling is at the highest rate
overall compared to all other materials in MSW. As Table 4 shows, 66.6 percent
of all corrugated boxes were recovered for recycling in 1996. Newspapers were
recovered at a rate of 54.1 percent, and high grade office papers at 47.9 percent,
with lesser percentages of other papers being recovered also. Approximately 32.6
million tons of postconsumer paper were recovered in 1996—40.8 percent of total
paper and paperboard generation.
Discards After Recovery. After recovery of paper and paperboard for
recycling, discards were 47.3 million tons in 1996, or 31.1 percent of total MSW
discards.
Glass
Glass is found in MSW primarily in the form of containers (Table 5 and
Figures 4 and 5), but also in durable goods like furniture, appliances, and
consumer electronics. In the container category, glass is found in beer and soft
drink bottles, wine and liquor bottles, and bottles and jars for food, cosmetics, and
other products. More detail on these products is included in the later section on
products in MSW.
Generation. Glass accounted for 6.7 million tons of MSW in 1960, or 7.6
percent of total generation. Generation of glass continued to grow over the next
two decades, but then glass containers were widely displaced by other materials,
principally aluminum and plastics. Thus the tonnage of glass in MSW declined
in the 1980s, from approximately 15.1 million tons in 1980 to 13.2 million tons in
Table 5
GLASS PRODUCTS IN MSW, 1996
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Generation
(Thousand
Product Category tons)
Durable Goods*
Containers and Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles and Jars
Total Glass Containers
Total Glass
1,310
5,210
1,940
3,890
11,040
12,350
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
Neg.
1,680
480
1,010
3,170
3,170
(Percent of
generation)
Neg.
32.2%
24.7%
26.0%
28.7%
25.7%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
1,310
3,530
1,460
2,880
7,870
9,180
Glass as a component of appliances, furniture, consumer electronics, etc.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
33
-------
Beer & soft drink bottles *
Food, other bottles & jars
Wine & liquor bottles
Durable goods
Figure 4. Glass products generated in MSW, 1996
-\
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Thousand tons
* Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated waters, teas, and flavored drinks containing < 10% fruit juice.
1985. Beginning about 1987, however, the decline in generation of glass
containers slowed (Figure 5), and glass generation in 1996 was 12.4 million tons,
about the same as 1987. During the 1990's glass generation has varied from 12.4 to
13.6 million tons per year. Glass was 10 percent of MSW generation in 1980,
declining to 5.9 percent in 1996.
Figure 5. Glass generation and recovery, 1960 to 1996
1 6 000 ••-
14000 .
1 9 nnn .
c 1 0 000 •
£ '
T3
c Q nnn .
=!
.c 6 000 •
4000
7 nnn .
Or
.x1
,."•
i_n_n_n_n_p
i
/
X
i_TLj-i_n_n_r
-i'
T-n-n-D-D-c
,-•'•""
-43_O_DJ>J.
--..
^
m-D-Q-CK
Generatic
Re
P^
_CH>^
n
^''^.
covery
LQ^KKH
^.
l-Q
IjFi-i-u-u-i-i-iy-u-i-i-u-u — | 1 1 1 1 1
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
34
-------
Recovery. Published estimates indicate 3.2 million tons of glass containers
were recovered for recycling in 1996. Based on 1996 glass generation, an estimated
28.7 percent of glass containers was recovered for recycling, with a 25.7 percent
recovery rate for all glass in MSW. Most of the recovered glass went into new
glass containers, but a portion went to other uses such as fiberglass and glasphalt
for highway construction. The Glass Packaging Institute reported a recovery rate
of 38 percent for glass containers in 1996; this recovery rate includes an allowance
for refilling of bottles. Since this EPA report classifies refilling as reuse (source
reduction) rather than recovery for recycling, the recovery rate estimated for this
report is 28.7 percent of glass containers.
Discards After Recovery. Recovery for recycling lowered discards of glass to
9.2 million tons in 1996 (6.0 percent of total MSW discards).
Ferrous Metals
By weight, ferrous metals are the largest category of metals in MSW
(Figure 6 and Table 6). The largest quantities of ferrous metals in MSW are found
in durable goods such as appliances, furniture, tires, and other miscellaneous
durables. Containers and packaging are the other source of ferrous metals in
MSW. Large quantities of ferrous metals are found in construction materials and
in transportation products such as automobiles, locomotives, and ships, but
these are not counted as MSW in this report.
Total generation and recovery of all metals in MSW from 1960 to 1996 are
shown in Figure 7.
Figure 6. Metal products generated in MSW, 1996
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
[
Zi
=]
D Durable
s • Pact
caging D l\
ondurables
M
•
^H
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Thousand tons
35
-------
Table 6
METAL PRODUCTS IN MSW, 1996
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Recovery
Product Category
Durable Goods
Ferrous metals* 8,840
Aluminum** 840
Leadt 900
Other nonferrous metalst 360
Total Metals in Durable Goods 10,940
Nondurable Goods
Aluminum 180
Generation
(Thousand (Thousand (Percent of
tons) tons) generation)
31.8%
Neg.
93.3%
Neg.
33.4%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
6,030
840
60
360
Neg.
7,290
180
Containers and Packaging
Steel
Food and other cans
Other steel packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum
Beer and soft drink cans
Food and other cans
Foil and closures
Total Aluminum Packaging
Total Metals in
Containers and Packaging
Total Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other nonferrous
2,820
170
2,990
1,560
40
360
1,960
4,950
16,070
11,830
2,980
1,260
1,640
50
1,690
990
Neg.
30
1,020
2,710
6,360
4,500
1,020
840
58.2%
29.4%
56.5%
63.5%
7.0%
8.3%
52.0%
54.7%
39.6%
38.0%
34.2%
66.7%
1,180
120
1,300
570
40
330
940
T31T
9,710
7,330
1,960
420
* Ferrous metals in appliances, furniture, tires, and miscellaneous durables.
** Aluminum in appliances, furniture, and miscellaneous durables.
t Lead in lead-acid batteries.
t Other nonferrous metals in appliances and miscellaneous durables.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Generation. Approximately 10.3 million tons of ferrous metals were
generated in 1960. Like glass, the tonnages grew during the 1960s and 1970s, but
began to drop as lighter materials like aluminum and plastics replaced steel in
many applications. Generation of ferrous metals did, however, increase to 12.7
million tons in 1991, then dropped to 11.8 million tons in 1996. The percentage of
ferrous metals generation in MSW has declined from 11.7 percent in 1960 to 5.6
percent in 1996.
Recovery. The renewed emphasis on recovery and recycling in recent
years has included ferrous metals. Based on data from the Steel Recycling
36
-------
Figure 7. Metals generation and recovery, 1960 to 1996
1 8 000 T
1 R nnn .
14 000
1 9 nnn .
§
** 1 0 000 J
c
w Q nnn .
o
H 6000 .
4000 .
2000 .
n r
-•-•...'
i_n_n_rvO-C
.-•'"
'"
-D-n-n-o-i
l-n-D-D-D-C
MT-n-O-D-1
Generation ,
" \ ^±«
j-n-n-Q1"1-1"
,--"
^ ,
Recovery
c
z
-D-o
—
••
tP
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Institute, recovery of ferrous metals from appliances ("white goods") was
estimated to be 2.2 million tons of the total ferrous in appliances in 1996. Overall
recovery of ferrous metals from durable goods (large and small appliances,
furniture, and tires) was estimated to be 31.8 percent (2.8 million tons) in 1996
(Table 6).
Steel beverage cans, food cans, and other cans were estimated to be
recovered at a rate of 58.2 percent (1.6 million tons) in 1996. Approximately 50,000
tons of other steel packaging, such as steel strapping, was estimated to have been
recovered for recycling in 1996.
Discards After Recovery. Discards of ferrous metals after recovery were 7.3
million tons in 1996, or 4.8 percent of total discards.
Aluminum
The largest source of aluminum in MSW is aluminum cans and other
packaging (Table 6 and Figure 6). Other sources of aluminum (almost one-third
of generation) are found in durable and nondurable goods.
Generation. In 1996, approximately 2.0 million tons of aluminum were
generated as containers and packaging, while a total of approximately 1.0 million
tons was found in durable and nondurable goods. The total—3.0 million tons—
represented 1.4 percent of total MSW generation in 1996. Aluminum generation
was only 340,000 tons (0.4 percent of MSW generation) in 1960.
37
-------
Recovery. Aluminum beverage containers were recovered at a rate of 63.5
percent of generation (990,000 tons) in 1996, and 52.0 percent of all aluminum in
containers and packaging was recovered for recycling in 1996.
Discards After Recovery. In 1996, 2.0 million tons of aluminum were
discarded in MSW after recovery, which was 1.3 percent of total MSW discards.
Other Nonferrous Metals
Other nonferrous metals (e.g., lead, copper, zinc) are found in durable
products such as appliances, consumer electronics, etc. Lead in lead-acid batteries
is the most prevalent nonferrous metal (other than aluminum) in MSW. (Note
that only lead-acid batteries from passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles are
included. Lead-acid batteries used in large equipment or industrial applications
are not included.)
Generation. Generation of other nonferrous metals in MSW totaled 1.3
million tons in 1996. Lead in batteries accounted for 900,000 tons of this amount.
Generation of these metals has increased slowly, up from 180,000 tons in 1960. As
a percentage of total generation, nonferrous metals have never exceeded one
percent.
Recovery. Recovery of the other nonferrous metals was 840,000 tons in
1996, with most of this being lead recovered from batteries. It was estimated that
93.3 percent of battery lead was recovered in 1996.
Discards After Recovery. In 1996, 420,000 tons of nonferrous metals were
discarded in MSW. Percentages of total discards remained less than one percent
over the entire period.
Plastics
Plastics are a rapidly growing segment of MSW. Plastics are found in
durable and nondurable goods and in containers and packaging, with the latter
being the largest category of plastics in MSW (Table 7 and Figure 8).
In durable goods, plastics are found in appliances, furniture, casings of
lead-acid batteries, and other products. (Note that plastics in transportation
products generally are not included in this report.) As shown in Table 7, a wide
range of resin types is found in durable goods. While some detail is provided in
Table 7 for resins in durable goods, there are hundreds of different resin
formulations used in appliances, carpets, and other durable goods; a complete
listing is beyond the scope of this report.
Plastics are found in such nondurable products as disposable diapers, trash
bags, cups, eating utensils, sporting and recreational equipment, medical devices,
38
-------
Table 7
PLASTICS IN PRODUCTS IN MSW, 1996
(In thousands of tons, and percent of generation by resin)
Generation
(Thousand
Product Category tons)
Durable Goods
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Plastic Plates and Cups
LDPE/LLDPE
PS
Subtotal Plastic Plates and Cups
Trash Bags
HOPE
LDPE/LLDPE
Subtotal Trash Bags
All other nondurables*
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Subtotal All Other Nondurables
Total Plastics in Nondurable Goods, by resin
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in Nondurable Goods
Plastic Containers & Packaging
Soft drink bottles
PET
HOPE
Subtotal Soft Drink Bottles
Milk and water bottles
HOPE
340
450
370
540
1,030
530
3,000
6,260
20
790
810
230
630
860
180
350
500
1,340
740
490
80
3,680
180
580
500
1,990
740
1,280
80
5,350
680
20
700
650
Recovery Discards
(Thousand (Percent (Thousand
tons) of Gen.) tons)
30 310
50 400
Neg. 370
20 520
100 930
10 520
30 2,970
240 3.8% 6,020
20
10 780
800
230
630
860
180
350
500
1,340
740
490
80
3,680
180
580
500
1,990
740
10 1,270
80
10 0.2% 5,340
270 410
10 10
280 40.0% 420
200 30.8% 450
HDPE=High density polyethylene
LDPE=Low density polyethylene
LLDPE=Linear Low density polyethylene
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
PET=Polyethylene terephthalate
PP=Polypropylene
PS=Polystyrene
PVC=Polyvinyl chloride
39
-------
Table 7 (continued)
PLASTICS IN PRODUCTS IN MSW, 1996
(In thousands of tons, and percent of generation by resin)
Generation
(Thousand
Product Category
Plastic Containers & Packaging, cont.
Other plastic containers
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Subtotal Other Containers
Bags, sacks, & wraps
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, & Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging**
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Subtotal Other Packaging
tons)
390
670
70
30
70
40
10
1,280
520
60
2,150
430
60
3,220
110
1,230
230
300
310
80
40
2,300
Recovery
(Thousand (Percent
tons) of Gen.)
50
140
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
190 14.8%
10
90
100 3.1%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
30
10
Neg.
40 1.7%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
340
530
70
30
70
40
10
1,090
510
60
2,060
430
60
3,120
110
1,230
230
300
280
70
40
2,260
Total Plastics in Containers & Packaging, by resin
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in Containers & Packaging
Total Plastics in MSW, by resin
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in MSW
1,180
3,090
360
2,480
810
180
50
8,150
1,700
4,120
1,230
5,010
2,580
1,990
3,130
19,760
320
360
Neg.
90
30
10
Neg.
810 9.9%
350
410
Neg.
110
130
30
30
1,060 5.4%
860
2,730
360
2,390
780
170
50
7,340
1,350
3,710
1,230
4,900
2,450
1,960
3,100
18,700
PET=Polyethylene terephthalate
PP=Polypropylene
HDPE=High density polyethylene
LDPE=Low density polyethylene
LLDPE=Linear Low density polyethylene
All other nondurables include plastics in disposable diapers, clothing, footwear, etc.
Other plastic packaging includes coatings, closures, caps, trays, shapes, etc.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
40
PS=Polystyrene
PVC=Polyvinyl chloride
-------
household items such as shower curtains, etc. The plastic foodservice items are
generally made of clear or foamed polystyrene, while trash bags are made of
high-density polyethylene or low-density polyethylene. A wide variety of other
resins are used in other nondurable goods.
Plastic resins are also used in a variety of container and packaging products
such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) soft drink bottles, high-density
polyethylene (HOPE) bottles for milk and water, and a wide variety of other resin
types used in other plastic containers, bags, sacks, wraps, lids, etc.
Generation. Production data on plastics resin use in products is taken from
the Modern Plastics annual statistical issue and the American Plastics Council
annual plastic recovery survey. The basic data are adjusted for product service
life, fabrication losses, and for net imports of plastic products to derive
generation of plastics in the various products in MSW.
Plastics comprised an estimated 390,000 tons of MSW generation in 1960.
The quantity has increased relatively steadily to 19.8 million tons in 1996 (Figure
9). As a percentage of MSW generation, plastics were less than one percent in
1960, increasing to 9.4 percent in 1996.
Recovery for Recycling. While overall recovery of plastics for recycling is
relatively small—1.1 million tons, or 5.4 percent of plastics generation in 1996
(Table 9)—recovery of some plastic containers has generally increased. Plastic
PET soft drink bottles and their base cups were recovered at a rate of about 40.0
percent in 1996. Recovery of high-density polyethylene milk and water bottles
was estimated at about 30.8 percent in 1996. Significant recovery of plastics from
lead-acid battery casings and from some other containers was also reported.
Figure 8. Plastics products generated in MSW, 1996
Durables
Nondurables
Bags, sacks and wraps
Other packaging
Soft drink, milk, and water
containers
Other containers
-I-
1,000
2,000
3,000 4,000
Thousand tons
5,000
6,000
7,000
41
-------
Figure 9. Plastics generation and recovery, 1960 to 1996
20 000 T
1 8 000 •
1 R nnn .
1 A nnn .
CO
o 1 2 000 •
T3
c -in nnn .
o ft nnn .
H
6000 .
4,000 .
2 000
— .•"*
—•-I
..'•'
,/N.
.''
'
o fflBPchb-n-ici-n-D--^^
1960 1965 1970 1975 19
1
s
.'
'm
T_n_n_n_n_r
Generation -
•
r
f
mS
,s
s'
_n_n-n-D-C
.,"•-
x'
Recovery
Hj-O-Q-a-I
s
H:
80 1985 1990 1995
The primary source of data on plastics recovery is an annual survey
conducted for the American Plastics Council (APC). In recent years there has
been a change in the way APC reports plastics recovery data. In previous years,
APC had reported the quantity of resin actually recycled after being cleaned and
processed. Starting in 1994 data reported by APC are recovery for recycling before
processing at the reclaimer. Thus, the plastics data are now more consistent with
the data reported for the other materials.
Discards After Recovery. Discards of plastics in MSW after recovery were
18.7 million tons, or 12.3 percent of total MSW discards.
Other Materials
Rubber and Leather. The predominant source of rubber in MSW is rubber
tires from automobiles and trucks (Table 8). Other sources of rubber and leather
include clothing and footwear and other miscellaneous durable and nondurable
products. These other sources are quite diverse, including such items as gaskets
on appliances, furniture, and hot water bottles, for example.
Generation. Generation of rubber and leather in MSW has shown
slow growth over the years, increasing from 1.8 million tons in 1960 to 6.2
million tons in 1996. One reason for the relatively slow rate of growth is that
tires have been made smaller and longer-wearing than in earlier years.
As a percentage of total MSW generation, rubber and leather has been
about 3.0 percent for many years.
42
-------
Table 8
RUBBER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS IN MSW, 1996
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Generation
(Thousand
Product Category tons)
Durable Goods
Rubber in Tires*
Other Durables**
Total Rubber & Leather
Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Clothing and Footwear
Other Nondurables
Total Rubber & Leather
Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
Total Rubber & Leather
3,170
2,220
5,390
560
230
790
20
6,200
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
590
Neg.
590
Neg.
Neg.
^^^^^^
Neg.
Neg.
~590~
(Percent of
generation)
18.6%
Neg.
10.9%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
9.5%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
2,580
2,220
4,800
560
230
790
20
5,610
Automobile and truck tires. Does not include other materials in tires.
** Includes carpets and rugs and other miscellaneous durables.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Recovery for Recycling. The only recovery for recycling identified in
this category is rubber from tires, and that was estimated to be 590,000 tons (18.6
percent of rubber in tires in 1996) (Table 8). (This recovery estimate does not
include tires retreaded or energy recovery from tires.) Overall, 9.5 percent of
rubber and leather in MSW was recovered in 1996.
Discards After Recovery. Discards of rubber and leather after
recovery were 5.6 million tons in 1996 (3.7 percent of total discards).
Textiles. Textiles in MSW are found mainly in discarded clothing,
although other sources were identified to be furniture, carpets, tires, footwear,
and other nondurable goods such as sheets and towels.
Generation. An estimated 7.7 million tons of textiles were generated
in 1996 (3.7 percent of total MSW generation).
Recovery for Recycling and Discards. A significant amount of
textiles is recovered for reuse. However, the reused garments and wiper rags re-
enter the waste stream eventually, so this is considered a diversion rather than
recovery for recycling and, therefore, not included in the recovery for recycling
estimates. Since data on elapsed time from recovery of textiles for reuse to final
43
-------
discard is limited, it was assumed that reused textiles re-enter the waste stream
the same year that they are first discarded. It was estimated that 12.3 percent of
textiles in clothing and items such as sheets and pillowcases was recovered for
export or reprocessing in 1996 (950,000 tons) leaving discards of 6.8 million tons
of textiles in 1996.
Wood. The sources of wood in MSW include furniture, miscellaneous
durables (e.g., cabinets for electronic equipment), wood packaging (crates, pallets),
and some other miscellaneous products.
Generation. Generation of wood in MSW was 10.8 million tons in
1996 (5.2 percent of total MSW generation).
Recovery for Recycling and Discards. Wood pallets recovered for
recycling (usually by chipping for uses such as mulch or bedding material, but
excluding wood combusted as fuel) was estimated at 490,000 tons in 1996. This
figure (along with wood generation) represents a change over previous
estimates. Recent studies on the pallet industry (Bush, Reddy, Araman) provided
new information on recovery and recycling of reusable pallets, including data on
the number of reusable pallets refurbished and returned to service.
Nearly 200 million pallets—representing over 5 million tons of wood
packaging—were estimated to be refurbished and returned to service in 1996.
This EPA report classifies pallets refurbished and returned to service as reuse
(source reduction) rather than recovery for recycling. Therefore, the 5 million
tons represents a reduction in the amount of wood packaging discarded to the
waste stream (i.e., a reduction in waste generation) rather than an increase in
recycling.
Accounting for pallet reuse and recovery for recycling, wood discards were
10.3 million tons in 1996, or 6.8 percent of total MSW discards. (Note: wood
generation, recovery for recycling, and discards in the Chapter 2 Tables have been
revised for the years 1990 through 1996.)
Other Products. Generation of "other product" waste is mainly associated
with disposable diapers, which are discussed under the section on Products in
Municipal Solid Waste. The only other significant source of materials in this
category is the electrolytes and other materials associated with lead-acid batteries
that are not classified as plastics or nonferrous metal.
Food Wastes
Food wastes included here consist of uneaten food and food preparation
wastes from residences, commercial establishments (restaurants, fast food
establishments), institutional sources such as school cafeterias, and industrial
sources such as factory lunchrooms. Food waste generated during the
44
-------
preparation and packaging of food products is considered industrial waste and
therefore not included in MSW food waste estimates.
Generation. Obviously no production data are available for food wastes.
Food wastes from residential and commercial sources were estimated using data
from sampling studies in combination with demographic data on population,
grocery store sales, restaurant sales, numbers of employees, and numbers of
prisoners and students in institutions.
Generation of food wastes was estimated to be over 21 million tons in
1996. This estimate represents a substantial change over previous estimates.
Recent studies, including a USDA Economic Research Service study and curbside
sampling studies in Seattle, Washington and Crawford County, Illinois, indicate
higher residential food waste generation than has been estimated in earlier
editions of the MSW Update.
The curbside sort data, which is viewed as more representative of current
food waste generation, was combined with recent waste sorts to develop a new
residential food waste estimate. Because the MSW waste stream (especially yard
trimmings) has changed since the early 1990s, the use of older waste sort data
from the 1980s was discontinued. Food waste estimates from 1990 to 1995 were
adjusted upward on a per capita basis.
Recovery for Composting and Discards. Beginning in 1994 for this series of
reports, a significant amount of food waste composting from commercial sources
was identified. In 1996 this amount was estimated at over 500,000 tons, or 2.4
percent of food waste generation. As discussed in Chapter 3, composting of food
wastes in backyard composting projects is classified as source reduction. Discards
of food wastes in 1996 were 21.4 million tons, or 14.0 percent of MSW total
discards.
Yard Trimmings
Yard trimmings* include grass, leaves, and tree and brush trimmings from
residential, institutional, and commercial sources.
Generation. In earlier versions of this report, generation of yard
trimmings was estimated using sampling studies and population data. While in
past years generation of yard trimmings had been increasing steadily as
population and residential housing grew (i.e., constant generation on a per capita
Although there are limited data available on the composition of yard trimmings, it is
estimated that the average composition by weight is about 50 percent grass, 25 percent
brush, and 25 percent leaves. These are "ballpark" numbers that will vary widely
according to climate and region of the country.
45
-------
basis), in recent years there has been a new trend. That is local and state
legislation is affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills.
Using data published by the Composting Council as updated from more
recent sources, legislation affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills was
tabulated. In 1992, 11 states and the District of Columbia—accounting for over 28
percent of the nation's population—had in effect legislation banning or
discouraging yard trimmings disposal in landfills. The tabulation of existing
legislation also shows that by 1996-97, 23 states representing more than 50 percent
of the nation's population had legislation requiring source separation or banning
of yard trimmings from landfills. Also, data compiled by BioCycle magazine
indicates that there were about 3,000 composting facilities for yard trimmings in
1992, increasing to over 3,200 facilities in 1996.
Using these facts, it was estimated that the effect of this legislation was no
increase in yard trimmings generation (i.e., entering the waste management
system) between 1990 and 1992 (i.e., the increase in yard trimmings due to
natural population increases was offset by source reduction efforts).
Furthermore, with 50 percent of the population expected to have yard trimmings
legislation in 1996-97, it was also estimated that yard trimmings declined
approximately 5.5 percent annually between 1992 and 1996. Because of this
phenomenon, yard trimmings generation is shown to be declining. An
estimated 28 million tons of yard trimmings were generated in MSW in 1996
(this compares to an estimated 35 million tons of yard trimmings generated in
1992).
Recovery for Composting and Discards. Quantitative national information
on composting of yard trimmings is difficult to obtain, but estimates were based
on a literature search, telephone survey of state officials, and data on numbers of
composting programs. Recovery data from state officials were adjusted where
appropriate to exclude quantities of non-yard trimmings, such as disaster wastes,
included in recovery values. Some states consider landspreading of yard
trimmings or yard trimmings used as landfill cover as recovery. Average tons
recovered per compost facility from states with data was used to account for
facilities in states without recovery quantity data. The states with and without
data were subdivided further into the categories with and without yard
trimmings legislation. States with yard trimmings legislation composted more
per facility than compost facilities in states without yard trimmings legislation.
Removal of yard trimmings for composting was estimated to be 39 percent
of generation in 1996 (10.8 million tons), leaving 17.2 million tons of yard
trimmings to be discarded. (It should be noted that the estimated 10.8 million
tons recovered for composting does not include yard trimmings recovered for
landspreading disposal.)
46
-------
It should also be noted that these recovery estimates do not account for
backyard composting by individuals or practices such as less bagging of grass
clippings; since the yard trimming estimates are based on sampling studies at the
landfill or transfer station, they are based on the quantities received there. These
source reduction practices are further discussed in Chapter 3.
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
This relatively small category of MSW is also derived from sampling
studies. It is not well defined and often shows up in sampling reports as "fines"
or "other." It includes soil, bits of concrete, stones, and the like.
Generation, Recovery, and Discards. This category contributed an
estimated 3.2 million tons of MSW in 1996. No recovery of these products was
identified; discards are the same as generation.
Summary of Materials in Municipal Solid Waste
Generation. Changing quantities and composition of municipal solid
waste generation are illustrated in Figure 10. Generation of MSW has grown
relatively steadily, from 88.1 million tons in 1960 to 209.7 million tons in 1996.
Over the years paper and paperboard has been the dominant material
generated in MSW, accounting for 38.1 percent of generation in 1996. Yard
trimmings, the second largest material component of MSW (13.4 percent of
MSW generation) have been declining as a percentage of MSW in recent years
due to state and local legislated landfill bans and increased emphasis on backyard
225,000
200,000
175,000
150,000
125,000
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
Figure 10. Generation of materials in MSW, 1960 to 1996
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
* All other primarily includes wood, rubber and leather, and textiles.
1990
1995
47
-------
composting and other source reduction measures such as the use of mulching
mowers. Metals account for 7.7 percent of MSW generation and have remained
fairly constant as a source of MSW, while glass increased until the 1980s and has
since declined or shown a slower rate of increase. In 1996 glass represented 5.9
percent of MSW generation. Food wastes have remained fairly constant in terms
of MSW tonnage (10.4 percent of generation). Plastics have increasingly been
used in a variety of products and thus have been a rapidly growing component of
MSW. In terms of tonnage contributed they ranked fourth in 1996 (behind paper,
yard trimmings, and food waste), and account for 9.4 percent of MSW generation.
Recovery and Discards. The effect of recovery on MSW discards is
illustrated in Figure 11. Recovery of materials for recycling and composting grew
at a rather slow pace during most of the historical period covered by this data
series, increasing only from 6.4 percent of generation in 1960 to 10.9 percent in
1985. Renewed interest in recycling (including composting) as waste
management alternatives came about in the late 1980s, and the recovery rate in
1990 was estimated to be 16.4 percent of generation, increasing to 27.3 percent in
1996.
Figure 11. Materials recovery and discards of MSW*, 1960 to 1996
,000
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990 1995
' Generation = recovery + discards
Estimated recovery of materials (including composting) is shown in
Figure 12. In 1996, recovery of paper and paperboard dominated materials
recovery at 56.9 percent of total tonnage recovered. Recovery of other materials,
while generally increasing, contributes much less tonnage, reflecting in part the
relatively smaller amounts of materials generated in those categories.
48
-------
Figure 12. Materials recovery*, 1996
Paper and
Paperboard
56.9%
Yard trimmings and
food wastes
19.7%
Metals 11.1%
Glass 5.6%
Plastics 1.8%
All Others 4.9%
* In percent by weight of total recovery.
Figure 13 illustrates the effect of recovery of materials for recycling,
including composting, on the composition of MSW discards. For example, paper
and paperboard were 38.1 percent of MSW generated in 1996, but after recovery,
paper and paperboard were 31.1 percent of discards.
Materials that have little or no recovery exhibit a larger percentage of
MSW discards compared to generation. For instance, food wastes were 10.4
percent of MSW generation in 1996, but 14.0 percent of discards.
49
-------
Figure 13. Materials generated and discarded
in municipal solid waste, 1996
(in percent of total generation and discards)
Paper & Paperboard 38.1 %
Other Wastes 15.1%
Yard Trimmings 13.4%
Glass 5.9%
Metals 7.7%
Plastics 9.4%
Food Wastes 10.4%
Generation
Paper & Paperboard 31.1 %
Other Wastes 18.9%
Yard Trimmings 11.3%
Glass 6.0%
Metals 6.4%
Plastics 12.3%
Food Wastes 14.0%
Discards
50
-------
PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Generation, recovery, and discards of products in municipal solid waste
are shown in a series of tables in this section. (Note that the totals for these tables
are the same as the previous series of tables for materials in MSW.) The products
in MSW are categorized as durable goods, nondurable goods, and containers and
packaging. Generation, recovery, and discards of these products are summarized
in Tables 9 through 11. Each product category is discussed in more detail below,
with detailed tables highlighting the products in each.
Durable Goods
Durable goods generally are defined as products having a lifetime of three
years or more, although there are some exceptions. In this report, durable goods
include large and small appliances, furniture and furnishings, carpets and rugs,
rubber tires, lead-acid automotive batteries, and miscellaneous durables (e.g.,
luggage, consumer electronics) (see Tables 12 through 14).* These products are
often called "oversize and bulky" in municipal solid waste management practice,
and they are generally handled in a somewhat different manner than other
components of MSW. That is, they are often picked up separately, and may not
be mixed with other MSW at the landfill, combustor, or other waste
management facility. Durable goods are made up of a wide variety of materials.
In order of tonnage in MSW in 1996, these include: ferrous metals, plastics,
rubber and leather, wood, textiles, glass, other nonferrous metals (e.g., lead,
copper), and aluminum.
Generation of durable goods in MSW totaled 31.7 million tons in 1996
(15.1 percent of total MSW generation). After recovery for recycling, 26.3 million
tons of durable goods remained as discards in 1996.
Major Appliances. Major appliances in MSW include refrigerators,
washing machines, water heaters, etc. They are often called "white goods" in the
trade. Data on unit production of appliances are taken from Appliance
Manufacturer Market Profile. The unit data are converted to weight using
various conversion factors developed over the years, plus data on the materials
composition of the appliances. Adjustments are also made for the estimated
lifetimes of the appliances, which range up to 20 years.
Generation of these products in MSW has increased very slowly; it was
estimated to be 3.5 million tons in 1996 (1.7 percent of total MSW). In general,
appliances have increased in quantity but not in average weight over the years.
Ferrous metals are the predominant materials in major appliances, but other
metals, plastics, glass, and other materials are also present.
Automobiles and other transportation equipment are not included in this report.
51
-------
Table 9
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1996
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 18)
Total Product** Wastes
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated-Weiqht
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product** Wastes
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,920
17,330
27,370
54,620
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
88,120
1970
14,660
25,060
43,560
83,280
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
121,060
1980
21 ,800
34,420
52,670
108,890
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
151,640
1990
29,810
52,170
64,530
146,510
20,800
35,000
2,900
58,700
205,210
1992
30,430
52,780
66,720
149,930
21 ,000
35,000
3,000
59,000
208,930
1994
31,120
56,850
70,100
158,070
21 ,500
31 ,500
3,100
56,100
214,170
1995
31,140
57,240
68,380
1 56,760
21 ,800
29,750
3,150
54,700
21 1 ,460
1996
31 ,660
55,650
69,250
156,560
21 ,900
28,000
3,200
53,100
209,660
Percent of Total Generation
1960
1 1 .3%
19.7%
31.1%
62.0%
13.8%
22.7%
1.5%
38.0%
100.0%
1970
12.1%
20.7%
36.0%
68.8%
10.6%
19.2%
1.5%
31 .2%
1 00.0%
1980
14.4%
22.7%
34.7%
71 .8%
8.6%
18.1%
1.5%
28.2%
100.0%
1990
14.5%
25.4%
31 .4%
71 .4%
10.1%
17.1%
1.4%
28.6%
100.0%
1992
14.6%
25.3%
31 .9%
71 .8%
10.1%
16.8%
1.4%
28.2%
100.0%
1994
14.5%
26.5%
32.7%
73.8%
10.0%
14.7%
1.4%
26.2%
100.0%
1995
14.7%
27.1%
32.3%
74.1%
10.3%
14.1%
1.5%
25.9%
100.0%
1996
15.1%
26.5%
33.0%
74.7%
10.4%
13.4%
1.5%
25.3%
100.0%
Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
wastes, or certain other wastes.
Other than food products.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process
52
-------
Table 10
RECOVERY* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1996
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each category)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product** Wastes
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered-Weight
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product** Wastes
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
350
2,390
2,870
5,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
5,610
1970
940
3,730
3,350
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
8,020
1980
1,360
4,670
8,490
14,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
14,520
1990
3,810
8,790
16,780
29,380
Neg.
4,200
Neg.
4,200
33,580
1992
4,140
1 1 ,070
19,940
35,150
Neg.
5,400
Neg.
5,400
40,550
1994
5,230
12,610
24,580
42,420
480
8,000
Neg.
8,480
50,900
1995
5,110
13,610
26,810
45,530
570
9,000
Neg.
9,570
55,100
1996
5,410
12,860
27,740
46,010
520
10,800
Neg.
1 1 ,320
57,330
Percent of Generation of Each Category
1960
3.5%
1 3.8%
1 0.5%
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.4%
1970
6.4%
14.9%
7.7%
9.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.6%
1980
6.2%
13.6%
16.1%
13.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
9.6%
1990
12.8%
16.8%
26.0%
20.1%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
7.2%
16.4%
1992
13.6%
21 .0%
29.9%
23.4%
Neg.
15.4%
Neg.
9.2%
19.4%
1994
16.8%
22.2%
35.1%
26.8%
2.2%
25.4%
Neg.
15.1%
23.8%
1995
16.4%
23.8%
39.2%
29.0%
2.6%
30.3%
Neg.
17.5%
26.1%
1996
17.1%
23.1%
40.1%
29.4%
2.4%
38.6%
Neg.
21 .3%
27.3%
Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
53
-------
Table 11
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1996
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product** Wastes
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded-Weiqht
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product** Wastes
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,570
1 4,940
24,500
49,010
1 2,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
82,510
1970
13,720
21 ,330
40,210
75,260
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
113,040
1980
20,440
29,750
44,180
94,370
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
137,120
1990
26,000
43,380
47,750
117,130
20,800
30,800
2,900
54,500
171,630
1992
26,290
41,710
46,780
114,780
21 ,000
29,600
3,000
53,600
1 68,380
1994
25,890
44,240
45,520
115,650
21 ,020
23,500
3,100
47,620
163,270
1995
26,030
43,630
41 ,570
1 1 1 ,230
21 ,230
20,750
3,150
45,130
156,360
1996
26,250
42,790
41,510
110,550
21 ,380
17,200
3,200
41 ,780
152,330
Percent of Total Discards
1960
1 1 .6%
18.1%
29.7%
59.4%
14.8%
24.2%
1.6%
40.6%
100.0%
1970
12.1%
18.9%
35.6%
66.6%
1 1 .3%
20.5%
1.6%
33.4%
100.0%
1980
14.9%
21 .7%
32.2%
68.8%
9.5%
20.1%
1.6%
31 .2%
100.0%
1990
15.1%
25.3%
27.8%
68.2%
12.1%
17.9%
1.7%
31 .8%
100.0%
1992
15.6%
24.8%
27.8%
68.2%
12.5%
17.6%
1.8%
31 .8%
1 00.0%
1994
15.9%
27.1%
27.9%
70.8%
12.9%
14.4%
1.9%
29.2%
100.0%
1995
16.6%
27.9%
26.6%
71.1%
13.6%
13.3%
2.0%
28.9%
100.0%
1996
17.2%
28.1%
27.3%
72.6%
14.0%
1 1 .3%
2.1%
27.4%
100.0%
Discards after materials and compost recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes,
or certain other wastes.
Other than food products.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
54
-------
Data on recovery of ferrous metals from major appliances are taken from a
survey conducted by the Steel Recycling Institute. Recovery of ferrous metals
from shredded appliances was estimated to be 2.2 million tons in 1996, leaving
1.3 million tons of appliances to be discarded.
Small Appliances. This category includes items such as toasters, hair
dryers, electric coffeepots, and the like. Information on shipments of small
appliances was obtained from Department of Commerce data. Information on
weights and materials composition of small appliances was obtained through
interviews. It was estimated that 780,000 tons of small appliances were generated
in 1996. A small amount of ferrous metals in small appliances may be recovered
through magnetic separation, but no specific data on recovery were found.
Furniture and Furnishings. Data on sales of furniture and furnishings are
provided by the Department of Commerce in dollars. These data are converted to
tons using factors developed for this study over the years. Adjustments are made
for imports and exports, and adjustments are made for the lifetimes of the
furniture.
Generation of furniture and furnishings in MSW has increased from 2.2
million tons in 1960 to 7.3 million tons in 1996 (3.5 percent of total MSW). No
significant recovery of materials from furniture was identified. Wood is the
largest material category in furniture, with ferrous metals second. Plastics, glass,
and other materials are also found in furniture.
Carpets and Rugs. An industry publication, Carpet and Rug Industrial
Review, publishes data on carpet sales in square yards. These data are converted
to tons using various factors developed for this report. An estimated 2.3 million
tons of carpets and rugs were generated in MSW in 1996, which was 1.1 percent
of total generation.
A small amount of recycling of carpet fiber was identified—estimated to be
one percent recovery in 1996.
Vehicle Tires. The methodology for estimating generation of rubber tires
for automobiles and trucks are based on data on replacement tires purchased and
vehicles deregistered as reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It is
assumed that for each replacement tire purchased, a used tire enters the waste
management system, and that tires on deregistered vehicles also enter the waste
management system. Retreaded tires are treated as a diversion out of the waste
stream; they are assumed to re-enter the waste stream after two years of use.
The quantities of tires in units are converted to weight and materials
composition using factors developed for this series of reports. In addition to
rubber, tires include relatively small amounts of textiles and ferrous metals.
55
-------
Generation of rubber tires increased from 1.1 million tons in 1960 to 3.9 million
tons in 1996 (1.9 percent of total MSW).
Data on recovery of tires in recent years are based on data from the Scrap
Tire Management Council. Previous years were based on an EPA scrap tire
market study, updated with information from Scrap Tire News. Rubber recovery
from tires has been small, but increasing in recent years. In 1996, an estimated
18.7 percent of tires generated were recovered for recycling, leaving 3.2 million
tons to be discarded. (Tires going to combustion facilities as fuel are included in
the combustion estimates in Chapter 3.)
Lead-Acid Batteries. The methodology for estimating generation of lead-
acid batteries is similar to the methodology for rubber tires as described above.
An estimated 1.8 million tons of lead-acid batteries from automobiles, trucks,
and motorcycles were generated in MSW in 1996 (0.9 percent of total generation).
Data on recovery of batteries are provided by the Battery Council
International. Recovery of batteries for recycling has fluctuated between 60
percent and 98 percent or higher; recovery has increased since 1980 as a growing
number of communities have restricted batteries from disposal at landfills or
combustors. In 1996, 93.8 percent of the lead in these batteries was estimated to be
recovered for recycling as well as substantial quantities of the polypropylene
battery casings; so discards after recycling of these batteries were decreased to
112,000 tons in 1996. (Some electrolytes and other materials in batteries are
removed from the municipal solid waste stream along with recovered lead and
polypropylene; these materials are counted as "recovered" along with the
recyclable materials.
Miscellaneous Durables. Miscellaneous durable goods include consumer
electronics such as television sets, video cassette recorders, personal computers,
luggage, sporting equipment, and the like. (Small appliances were included with
miscellaneous durables in previous reports in this series, but are estimated
separately in this report.) An estimated 12.0 million tons of these goods were
generated in 1996, amounting to 5.7 percent of MSW generated. Small amounts
of ferrous metals are estimated to be recovered from this category, decreasing
discards to 11.3 million tons. In addition to ferrous metals, this category includes
plastics, glass, rubber, wood, and other metals.
56
-------
Table 12
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1996
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Products
Thousands of Tons
1960
1970
1980
1990
1992
1994
1995
1996
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, lead acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 18)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated-Weight
Products
1,630
2,150
1,120
Neg.
5,020
9,920
17,330
27,370
54,620
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
88,120
2,170
2,830
1,890
820
6,950
1 4,660
25,060
43,560
83,280
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
121,060
2,950
4,760
2,720
1,490
9,880
21 ,800
34,420
52,670
108,890
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
151,640
3,310
460
6,790
1,660
3,610
1,510
1 2,470
29,810
52,170
64,530
146,510
20,800
35,000
2,900
58,700
205,210
3,280
520
6,940
1,820
3,610
1,530
12,730
30,430
52,780
66,720
149,930
21 ,000
35,000
3,000
59,000
208,930
3,280
650
6,980
2,120
4,080
2,010
12,000
31,120
56,850
70,100
158,070
21,500
31,500
3,100
56,100
214,170
3,420
710
7,170
2,230
3,770
1,810
12,030
31,140
57,240
68,380
156,760
21 ,800
29,750
3,150
54,700
21 1 ,460
3,520
780
7,320
2,310
3,910
1,810
12,010
31 ,660
55,650
69,250
156,560
21 ,900
28,000
3,200
53,100
209,660
Percent of Total Generation
1960
1970
1980
1990
1992
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
1.8%
2.4%
1.3%
Neg.
5.7%
1 1 .3%
19.7%
31.1%
62.0%
13.8%
22.7%
1.5%
38.0%
100.0%
1.8%
2.3%
1.6%
0.7%
5.7%
12.1%
20.7%
36.0%
68.8%
10.6%
19.2%
1.5%
31 .2%
100.0%
1.9%
3.1%
1.8%
1.0%
6.5%
14.4%
22.7%
34.7%
71 .8%
8.6%
18.1%
1.5%
28.2%
100.0%
1.6%
0.2%
3.3%
0.8%
1.8%
0.7%
6.1%
14.5%
25.4%
31 .4%
71 .4%
10.1%
17.1%
1.4%
28.6%
100.0%
1.6%
0.2%
3.3%
0.9%
1.7%
0.7%
6.1%
14.6%
25.3%
31 .9%
71 .8%
10.1%
16.8%
1.4%
28.2%
100.0%
1994
1.5%
0.3%
3.3%
1.0%
1.9%
0.9%
5.6%
14.5%
26.5%
32.7%
73.8%
10.0%
14.7%
1.4%
26.2%
100.0%
1995
1996
1.6%
0.3%
3.4%
1.1%
1.8%
0.9%
5.7%
14.7%
27.1%
32.3%
74.1%
10.3%
14.1%
1.5%
25.9%
100.0%
1.7%
0.4%
3.5%
1.1%
1.9%
0.9%
5.7%
15.1%
26.5%
33.0%
74.7%
1 0.4%
1 3.4%
1.5%
25.3%
100.0%
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process
wastes, or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
57
-------
Table 13
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1996
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Products
Thousands of Tons
1960
1970
1980
1990
1992
1994
1995
1996
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, lead acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered-Weight
Products
10
Neg.
330
Neg.
10
350
2,390
2,870
5,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
5,610
50
Neg.
250
620
20
940
3,730
3,350
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
8,020
130
Neg.
150
1,040
40
1,360
4,670
8,490
1 4,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1 4,520
1,070
10
Neg.
Neg.
440
1,480
810
3,810
8,790
16,780
29,380
Neg.
4,200
Neg.
4,200
33,580
1,450
10
Neg.
10
470
1,450
750
4,140
1 1 ,070
19,940
35,150
Neg.
5,400
Neg.
5,400
40,550
1,910
10
Neg.
10
620
1,980
700
5,230
12,610
24,580
42,420
480
8,000
Neg.
8,480
50,900
2,070
10
Neg.
20
660
1,620
730
5,110
13,610
26,810
45,530
570
9,000
Neg.
9,570
55,100
2,200
10
Neg.
30
730
1,700
740
5,410
12,860
27,740
46,010
520
10,800
Neg.
1 1 ,320
57,330
Percent of Generation of Each Product
1960
1970
1980
1990
1992
1994
1995
1996
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
0.6%
Neg.
29.5%
Neg.
0.2%
3.5%
13.8%
10.5%
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.4%
2.3%
Neg.
13.2%
75.6%
0.3%
6.4%
14.9%
7.7%
9.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.6%
4.4%
Neg.
5.5%
69.8%
0.4%
6.2%
13.6%
16.1%
13.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
9.6%
32.3%
2.2%
Neg.
Neg.
12.2%
98.0%
6.5%
12.8%
16.8%
26.0%
20.1%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
7.2%
16.4%
44.2%
1.9%
Neg.
0.5%
1 3.0%
94.8%
5.9%
1 3.6%
21 .0%
29.9%
23.4%
Neg.
1 5.4%
Neg.
9.2%
19.4%
58.2%
1.5%
Neg.
0.5%
15.2%
98.5%
5.8%
16.8%
22.2%
35.1%
26.8%
2.2%
25.4%
Neg.
15.1%
23.8%
60.5%
1.4%
Neg.
0.9%
1 7.5%
89.5%
6.1%
1 6.4%
23.8%
39.2%
29.0%
2.6%
30.3%
Neg.
1 7.5%
26.1%
62.5%
1.3%
Neg.
1.3%
18.7%
93.9%
6.2%
17.1%
23.1%
40.1%
29.4%
2.4%
38.6%
Neg.
21 .3%
27.3%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
58
-------
Table 14
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1996
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Products
Thousands of Tons
1960
1970
1980
1990
1992
1994
1995
1996
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, lead acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded-Weight
Products
1,620
2,150
790
Neg.
5,010
9,570
14,940
24,500
49,010
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
82,510
2,120
2,830
1,640
200
6,930
13,720
21 ,330
40,210
75,260
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
113,040
2,820
4,760
2,570
450
9,840
20,440
29,750
44,180
94,370
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
137,120
2,240
450
6,790
1,660
3,170
30
1 1 ,660
26,000
43,380
47,750
117,130
20,800
30,800
2,900
54,500
171,630
1,830
510
6,940
1,810
3,140
80
1 1 ,980
26,290
41,710
46,780
1 1 4,780
21 ,000
29,600
3,000
53,600
168,380
1,370
640
6,980
2,110
3,460
30
1 1 ,300
25,890
44,240
45,520
115,650
21,020
23,500
3,100
47,620
163,270
1,350
700
7,170
2,210
3,110
190
1 1 ,300
26,030
43,630
41 ,570
1 1 1 ,230
21,230
20,750
3,150
45,130
156,360
1,320
770
7,320
2,280
3,180
110
1 1 ,270
26,250
42,790
41,510
110,550
21 ,380
17,200
3,200
41 ,780
152,330
Percent of Total Discards
1960
1970
1980
1990
1992
1994
1995
1996
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
2.0%
2.6%
1.0%
Neg.
6.1%
1 1 .6%
18.1%
29.7%
59.4%
1 4.8%
24.2%
1.6%
40.6%
100.0%
1.9%
2.5%
1.5%
0.2%
6.1%
12.1%
18.9%
35.6%
66.6%
1 1 .3%
20.5%
1.6%
33.4%
100.0%
2.1%
3.5%
1.9%
0.3%
7.2%
1 4.9%
21 .7%
32.2%
68.8%
9.5%
20.1%
1.6%
31 .2%
100.0%
1.3%
0.3%
4.0%
1.0%
1.8%
0.0%
6.8%
15.1%
25.3%
27.8%
68.2%
12.1%
17.9%
1.7%
31 .8%
100.0%
1.1%
0.3%
4.1%
1.1%
1.9%
0.0%
7.1%
15.6%
24.8%
27.8%
68.2%
12.5%
17.6%
1.8%
31 .8%
1 00.0%
0.8%
0.4%
4.3%
1.3%
2.1%
0.0%
6.9%
1 5.9%
27.1%
27.9%
70.8%
1 2.9%
1 4.4%
1.9%
29.2%
100.0%
0.9%
0.4%
4.6%
1.4%
2.0%
0.1%
7.2%
16.6%
27.9%
26.6%
71.1%
13.6%
13.3%
2.0%
28.9%
100.0%
0.9%
0.5%
4.8%
1.5%
2.1%
0.1%
7.4%
17.2%
28.1%
27.3%
72.6%
14.0%
1 1 .3%
2.1%
27.4%
100.0%
Discards after materials and compost recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes,
or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
59
-------
Nondurable Goods
The Department of Commerce defines nondurable goods as those having
a lifetime of less than three years, and this definition was followed for this report
to the extent possible.
Products made of paper and paperboard comprise the largest portion of
nondurable goods. Other nondurable products include paper and plastic plates,
cups, and other disposable food service products; disposable diapers; clothing and
footwear; linens; and other miscellaneous products. (See Tables 15 through 17.)
Generation of nondurable goods in MSW was 55.7 million tons in 1996
(26.5 percent of total generation). Recovery of paper products in this category is
quite significant, resulting in 12.9 million tons of nondurable goods recovered in
1996 (23.1 percent of nondurables generation). This means that 42.8 million tons
of nondurable goods were discarded in 1996 (28.1 percent of total MSW discards).
Paper and Paperboard Products. Generation, recovery, and discards of
paper and paperboard products in nondurable goods are summarized in Tables
15 through 17. A summary for 1996 was shown earlier in Table 4. Each of the
paper and paperboard product categories in nondurable goods is discussed briefly
below.
• Newspapers are by far the largest single component of the nondurable
goods category, at 12.3 million tons generated in 1996 (5.9 percent of total
MSW). In 1996, 54.1 percent of newspapers generated were recovered for
recycling, leaving 5.6 million tons discarded (3.7 percent of total MSW
discarded). Estimates of newspaper generation are broken down into
newsprint (the majority of the weight of newspapers) and the
groundwood* inserts (primarily advertising) that are a significant
portion of the total weight of newspapers. This breakdown is shown in
Table 4.
• Books amounted to approximately 940,000 tons, or 0.4 percent of total
MSW generation, in 1996. Recovery of books is not well documented,
but it was estimated that approximately 170,000 tons of books were
recovered in 1996. Books are made of both groundwood and chemical
pulp.
• Magazines accounted for an estimated 2.0 million tons, or 0.9 percent of
total MSW generation, in 1996. Like books, recovery of magazines is not
Groundwood papers, like newsprint, are made primarily from pulp prepared by a
mechanical process. The other major type of wood pulp is prepared by a chemical process.
The nature of the pulp (groundwood vs. chemical) affects the potential uses for the
recovered paper.
60
-------
well documented. It was estimated that 480,000 tons of magazines were
recovered in 1996. Magazines are predominately made of coated
groundwood, but some uncoated groundwood and chemical pulps are
also used.
Many different kinds of papers are generated in offices. For this report,
office-type paper estimates include the high grade papers such as copier
paper, computer printout, stationery, etc. (6.7 million tons, or 3.2 percent
of total MSW generation, in 1996). These papers are almost entirely
made of uncoated chemical pulp, although some amounts of
groundwood are also used. It should be noted that some of these office-
type papers are generated at locations other than offices, including
homes and institutions such as schools. Also, other kinds of papers (e.g.,
newspapers, magazines, and packaging) are generated in offices, but are
accounted for in other categories. An estimated 3.2 million tons of
office-type papers were recovered in 1996.
Telephone directories were estimated to generate 470,000 tons (0.2
percent of total MSW) in 1996. These directories are made of
groundwood. It was estimated that 50,000 tons of directories were
recovered in 1996. The Yellow Pages Publishers Association (YPPA) has
instituted a programs to encourage recovery of directories and has
begun to collect and publish data on generation. Beginning in 1993 the
generation data in this report are taken from YPPA data; therefore, there
is some discontinuity with the data published for earlier years, which
was estimated. YPPA has discontinued its practice of estimating
recovery of directories.
Third-class mail includes catalogs and other direct bulk mailings; these
amounted to 4.5 million tons, or 2.2 percent of MSW generation, in
1996. Both groundwood and chemical pulps are used in these mailings.
It was estimated that 670,000 tons were recovered in 1996. The U.S.
Postal Service is implementing a program to increase recovery of bulk
mail in the future.
Other commercial printing includes a wide range of paper items:
brochures, reports, menus, invitations, etc. Both groundwood and
chemical pulps are used in these varied items. Generation was
estimated at 6.6 million tons, or 3.1 percent of MSW generation, in 1996,
with recovery at 810,000 tons.
Tissue paper and towels include facial and sanitary tissues and napkins,
but not bathroom tissue, which is nearly all diverted from MSW into
the waste water treatment system. Tissue products amounted to 3.0
million tons (1.4 percent of total MSW generation) in 1996. No
significant recovery of tissue products was identified.
61
-------
• Paper plates and cups include paper plates, cups, bowls, and other food
service products used in homes, in commercial establishments like
restaurants, and in institutional settings such as schools. Generation of
these products was estimated at 950,000 tons (0.5 percent of total MSW
generation) in 1996. No significant recovery of these products was
identified.
• Other nonpackaging papers—including posters, photographic papers,
cards and games, etc.—accounted for 4.1 million tons (1.9 percent of total
MSW generation) in 1996. No significant recovery of these papers was
identified.
Overall, generation of paper and paperboard products in nondurable goods
was 41.5 million tons in 1996 (Table 4). While newspapers were recovered at the
highest rate, other paper products, such as books, magazines, and office papers,
were also recovered for recycling, and the overall recovery rate for paper in
nondurables was 29.0 percent in 1996. Thus 29.4 million tons of paper in
nondurables were discarded in 1996.
Plastic Plates and Cups. This category includes plastic plates, cups, glasses,
dishes and bowls, hinged containers, and other containers used in food service at
home, in restaurants and other commercial establishments, and in institutional
settings such as schools. These items are made primarily of polystyrene resin. An
estimated 810,000 tons of these products were generated in 1996, or 0.4 percent of
total MSW (see Table 15). An estimated 11,000 tons of these products were
recovered for recycling in 1996.
Disposable Diapers. This category includes estimates of both infant diapers
and adult incontinence products. Generation was estimated using data on sales
of the products along with information on average weights and composition. An
estimated 3.0 million tons of disposable diapers were generated in 1996, or 1.5
percent of total MSW generation. (This tonnage includes an adjustment for the
urine and feces contained within the discarded diapers.) The materials portion of
the diapers includes wood pulp, plastics (including the super-absorbent materials
now present in most diapers), and tissue paper.
No significant recycling or composting of disposable diapers was identified
in 1996.
Clothing and Footwear. Generation of clothing and footwear was
estimated to be 5.3 million tons in 1996 (2.5 percent of total MSW). Textiles,
rubber, and leather are major materials components of this category, with some
plastics present as well. Generation estimates for these products are based on
sales data from the Department of Commerce along with data on average
weights for each type of product included. Adjustments are made for net imports
of these products based on Department of Commerce data.
62
-------
Previously, The Council for Textile Recycling has reported on recovery of
textiles for exports, reprocessing, and reuse. Based on their data, it was estimated
that 700,000 tons of textiles in clothing were recovered for export or recycling in
1996. (Reuse is not counted as recycling and is discussed in Chapter 3.)
Towels, Sheets, and Pillowcases. An estimated 750,000 tons of towels,
sheets, and pillowcases were generated in 1996. Generation was estimated using a
methodology similar to that for clothing. An estimated 130,000 tons of these
textiles were recovered for export or recycling in 1996.
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables. Generation of other miscellaneous
nondurables was estimated to be 3.4 million tons in 1996 (1.6 percent of MSW).
The primary material component of miscellaneous nondurables is plastics,
although some aluminum, rubber, and textiles are also present. Typical products
in miscellaneous nondurables include shower curtains and other household
items, disposable medical supplies, novelty items, and the like.
Generation of plastic products in miscellaneous nondurables is taken from
resin sales data published annually in Modern Plastics. Generation of other
materials in these nondurable products is estimated based on information in past
reports in this series.
63
-------
Table 15
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1996
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,920
1970
14,660
1980
21 ,800
1990
29,810
1992
30,430
1994
31,120
1995
31,140
1996
31 ,660
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books"
Magazines**
Office Papers
Telephone Directories**
Third Class Mail**
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Plastic Plates and Cupst
Trash Bags**
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 18)
Total Product Wastes?
Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated-Weight
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
7,110
1,920
1,520
1,260
1,090
270
Neg.
2,700
1,360
100
17,330
27,370
54,620
33,500
88,120
9,510
2,470
2,650
2,130
2,080
420
350
3,630
1,620
200
25,060
43,560
83,280
37,780
121,060
1 1 ,050
3,390
4,000
3,120
2,300
630
190
1,930
4,230
2,170
1,410
34,420
52,670
108,890
42,750
151,640
13,430
970
2,830
6,410
610
3,820
4,460
2,960
650
650
780
2,700
3,840
4,010
710
3,340
52,170
64,530
146,510
58,700
205,210
12,680
930
2,370
6,660
680
3,560
5,500
2,750
680
680
840
2,870
4,120
4,400
720
3,340
52,780
66,720
149,930
59,000
208,930
13,680
1,180
2,250
6,970
470
4,400
6,080
2,860
870
810
940
2,980
4,470
4,870
750
3,270
56,850
70,100
158,070
56,100
214,170
13,140
1,150
2,530
6,630
490
4,620
6,770
2,970
970
780
780
3,010
4,270
5,070
740
3,320
57,240
68,380
156,760
54,700
21 1 ,460
12,290
940
1,970
6,660
470
4,510
6,560
2,980
950
810
860
3,050
4,070
5,340
750
3,440
55,650
69,250
156,560
53,100
209,660
Percent of Total Generation
1960
1 1 .3%
1970
12.1%
1980
1 4.4%
1990
14.5%
1992
1 4.6%
1994
14.5%
1995
1 4.7%
1996
15.1%
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office Papers
Telephone Directories**
Third Class Mail**
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Plastic Plates and Cupst
Trash Bags**
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product Wastes?
Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
8.1%
2.2%
1.7%
1.4%
1.2%
0.3%
Neg.
3.1%
1.5%
0.1%
19.7%
31.1%
62.0%
38.0%
100.0%
7.9%
2.0%
2.2%
1.8%
1.7%
0.3%
0.3%
3.0%
1.3%
0.2%
20.7%
36.0%
68.8%
31 .2%
1 00.0%
7.3%
2.2%
2.6%
2.1%
1.5%
0.4%
0.1%
1.3%
2.8%
1.4%
0.9%
22.7%
34.7%
71 .8%
28.2%
100.0%
6.5%
0.5%
1.4%
3.1%
0.3%
1.9%
2.2%
1.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1.9%
2.0%
0.3%
1.6%
25.4%
31 .4%
71 .4%
28.6%
1 00.0%
6.1%
0.4%
1.1%
3.2%
0.3%
1.7%
2.6%
1.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
1.4%
2.0%
2.1%
0.3%
1.6%
25.3%
31 .9%
71 .8%
28.2%
100.0%
6.4%
0.6%
1.1%
3.3%
0.2%
2.1%
2.8%
1.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
1.4%
2.1%
2.3%
0.4%
1.5%
26.5%
32.7%
73.8%
26.2%
100.0%
6.2%
0.5%
1.2%
3.1%
0.2%
2.2%
3.2%
1.4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
1.4%
2.0%
2.4%
0.3%
1.6%
27.1%
32.3%
74.1%
25.9%
100.0%
5.9%
0.4%
0.9%
3.2%
0.2%
2.2%
3.1%
1.4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
1.5%
1.9%
2.5%
0.4%
1.6%
26.5%
33.0%
74.7%
25.3%
100.0%
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process
wastes, or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
t Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
j Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
64
-------
Table 16
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1996
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Thousands of Tons
1960
350
1970
940
1980
1,360
1990
3,810
1992
4,140
1994
5,230
1995
5,110
1996
5,410
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books"
Magazines**
Office Papers
Telephone Directories**
Third Class Mail**
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Plastic Plates and Cupst
Trash Bags**
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered-Weight
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
1,820
100
250
130
Neg.
Neg.
40
50
Neg.
2,390
2,870
5,610
Nea
5,610
2,250
260
710
340
Neg.
Neg.
110
60
Neg.
3,730
3,350
8,020
Nea.
8,020
3,020
280
870
350
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
150
Neg.
4,670
8,490
1 4,520
Nea.
1 4,520
5,110
100
300
1,700
40
200
700
Neg.
Neg.
10
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
510
120
Neg.
8,790
16,780
29,380
4,200
33,580
6,000
140
380
2,440
50
350
1,000
Neg.
Neg.
20
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
570
120
Neg.
1 1 ,070
19,940
35,150
5,400
40,550
6,250
220
630
2,940
50
690
1,050
Neg.
Neg.
10
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
640
130
Neg.
12,610
24,580
42,420
8,480
50,900
7,010
220
650
3,040
60
710
1,120
Neg.
Neg.
10
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
660
130
Neg.
13,610
26,810
45,530
9,570
55,100
6,650
170
480
3,190
50
670
810
Neg.
Neg.
10
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
700
130
Neg.
12,860
27,740
46,010
1 1 ,320
57,330
Percent of Generation of Each Product
1960
3.5%
1970
6.4%
1980
6.2%
1990
12.8%
1992
1 3.6%
1994
16.8%
1995
16.4%
1996
17.1%
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office Papers
Telephone Directories**
Third Class Mail**
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Plastic Plates and Cupst
Trash Bags**
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
25.6%
5.2%
16.4%
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
1.5%
Neg.
Neg.
13.8%
10.5%
10.3%
Neg.
6.4%
23.7%
10.5%
26.8%
16.0%
Neg.
Neg.
3.0%
Neg.
Neg.
14.9%
7.7%
9.6%
Neg.
6.6%
27.3%
8.3%
21 .8%
1 1 .2%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1 3.6%
16.1%
1 3.3%
Neg.
9.6%
38.0%
10.3%
10.6%
26.5%
6.6%
5.2%
15.7%
Neg.
Neg.
1.5%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
12.7%
16.9%
Neg.
16.8%
26.0%
20.1%
7.2%
16.4%
47.3%
15.1%
1 6.0%
36.6%
7.4%
9.8%
1 8.2%
Neg.
Neg.
2.9%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1 3.0%
1 6.7%
Neg.
21 .0%
29.9%
23.4%
9.2%
1 9.4%
45.7%
18.6%
28.0%
42.2%
10.6%
15.7%
17.3%
Neg.
Neg.
1.2%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.1%
17.3%
Neg.
22.2%
35.1%
26.8%
15.1%
23.8%
53.3%
19.1%
25.7%
45.9%
12.2%
15.4%
16.5%
Neg.
Neg.
1.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.0%
17.6%
Neg.
23.8%
39.2%
29.0%
17.5%
26.1%
54.1%
18.1%
24.4%
47.9%
1 0.6%
1 4.9%
1 2.3%
Neg.
Neg.
1.2%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.1%
1 7.3%
Neg.
23.1%
40.1%
29.4%
21 .3%
27.3%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
t Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
j Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
65
-------
Table 17
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1996
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books"
Magazines**
Office Papers
Telephone Directories**
Third Class Mail**
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Plastic Plates and Cupst
Trash Bags**
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded-Weight
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office Papers
Telephone Directories**
Third Class Mail**
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Plastic Plates and Cupst
Trash Bags**
Disposable Diapers
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,570
1970
13,720
1980
20,440
1990
26,000
1992
26,290
1994
25,890
1995
26,030
1996
26,250
5,290
1,820
1,270
1,130
1,090
270
Neg.
2,660
1,310
100
1 4,940
24,500
49,010
33,500
82,510
7,260
2,210
1,940
1,790
2,080
420
350
3,520
1,560
200
21 ,330
40,210
75,260
37,780
1 1 3,040
8,030
3,110
3,130
2,770
2,300
630
190
1,930
4,230
2,020
1,410
29,750
44,180
94,370
42,750
137,120
8,320
870
2,530
4,710
570
3,620
3,760
2,960
650
640
780
2,700
3,840
3,500
590
3,340
43,380
47,750
117,130
54,500
171,630
6,680
790
1,990
4,220
630
3,210
4,500
2,750
680
660
840
2,870
4,120
3,830
600
3,340
41,710
46,780
114,780
53,600
1 68,380
7,430
960
1,620
4,030
420
3,710
5,030
2,860
870
800
940
2,980
4,470
4,230
620
3,270
44,240
45,520
115,650
47,620
163,270
6,130
930
1,880
3,590
430
3,910
5,650
2,970
970
770
780
3,010
4,270
4,410
610
3,320
43,630
41 ,570
1 1 1 ,230
45,130
156,360
5,640
770
1,490
3,470
420
3,840
5,750
2,980
950
800
860
3,050
4,070
4,640
620
3,440
42,790
41,510
110,550
41 ,780
152,330
Percent of Total Discards
1960
1 1 .6%
1970
12.1%
1980
14.9%
1990
15.1%
1992
1 5.6%
1994
15.9%
1995
1 6.6%
1996
17.2%
6.4%
2.2%
1.5%
1.4%
1.3%
0.3%
Neg.
3.2%
1.6%
0.1%
18.1%
29.7%
59.4%
40.6%
100.0%
6.4%
2.0%
1.7%
1.6%
1.8%
0.4%
0.3%
3.1%
1.4%
0.2%
18.9%
35.6%
66.6%
33.4%
1 00.0%
5.9%
2.3%
2.3%
2.0%
1.7%
0.5%
0.1%
1.4%
3.1%
1.5%
1.7%
21 .7%
32.2%
68.8%
31 .2%
100.0%
4.8%
0.5%
1.5%
2.7%
0.3%
2.1%
2.2%
1.7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
1.6%
2.2%
2.0%
0.3%
1.9%
25.3%
27.8%
68.2%
31 .8%
1 00.0%
4.0%
0.5%
1.2%
2.5%
0.4%
1.9%
2.7%
1.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
1.7%
2.4%
2.3%
0.4%
2.0%
24.8%
27.8%
68.2%
31 .8%
100.0%
4.6%
0.6%
1.0%
2.5%
0.3%
2.3%
3.1%
1.8%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
1.8%
2.7%
2.6%
0.4%
2.0%
27.1%
27.9%
70.8%
29.2%
100.0%
3.9%
0.6%
1.2%
2.3%
0.3%
2.5%
3.6%
1.9%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
1.9%
2.7%
2.8%
0.4%
2.1%
27.9%
26.6%
71.1%
28.9%
100.0%
3.7%
0.5%
1.0%
2.3%
0.3%
2.5%
3.8%
2.0%
0.6%
0.5%
0.6%
2.0%
2.7%
3.0%
0.4%
2.3%
28.1%
27.3%
72.6%
27.4%
100.0%
Discards after materials and compost recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes,
or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
66
-------
Containers and Packaging
Containers and packaging make up a major portion of MSW, amounting
to 69.3 million tons of generation in 1996 (33.0 percent of total generation).
Generation, recovery, and discards of containers and packaging are shown in
detail in Tables 18 through 23.
There is substantial recovery of many container and packaging products,
especially corrugated containers. In 1996, 40.1 percent of containers and packaging
generated was recovered for recycling. Because of this recovery, containers and
packaging comprised 27.3 percent of total MSW discards in 1996.
Containers and packaging in MSW are made of several materials: paper
and paperboard, glass, ferrous metals, aluminum, plastics, wood, and small
amounts of other materials. Material categories are discussed separately below.
Glass Containers. Glass containers include beer and soft drink bottles
(which includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated waters, teas, and flavored
drinks containing not more than 10 percent fruit juice), wine and liquor bottles,
and bottles and jars for food, cosmetics, and other products. Generation of glass
containers is estimated using Department of Commerce data. Adjustments are
made for imports and exports of both empty glass containers and containers
holding products, e.g., imported beer.
Generation of these glass containers was 11 million tons in 1996, or 5.3
percent of MSW generation (Tables 18 and 19). This is a slight decrease in
generation compared to 1995.
Resource Recycling's Container Recycling Report (May 1997) reports the
Glass Packaging Institute's (GPI) recovery rate for glass containers, but GPI
includes reuse of refillable bottles in the figure. Since refilling is defined as reuse
rather than recycling in this report, the refilled bottles are not counted as
recovery here. An estimated 3.2 million tons of glass containers were recovered
for recycling in 1996, or 28.7 percent of generation. Glass container discards were
7.8 million tons in 1996, or 5.2 percent of total MSW discards.
Steel Containers and Packaging. Steel food and other cans, and other steel
packaging (e.g., strapping), totaled 3.0 million tons in 1996 (1.4 percent of total
MSW generation), with most of that amount being cans for food products (Tables
18 and 19). Generation estimates are based on data supplied by the Steel Recycling
Institute (SRI), the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), and the Can
Manufacturers Institute (CMI). Estimates include adjustments for net imports.
Recovery data for steel containers and packaging were provided by the
Steel Recycling Institute. An estimated 1.7 million tons of steel packaging were
recovered in 1996, or 56.5 percent of generation. The SRI estimates include both
67
-------
recovery from residential sources and magnetic separation of steel cans and other
ferrous products at waste-to-energy combustion facilities.
Aluminum Containers and Packaging. Aluminum containers and
packaging include beer and soft drink cans (including all carbonated and non-
carbonated soft drinks, tea, tonic, waters and juice beverages), other cans, and foil
and closures. Aluminum can generation is estimated based on data from the Can
Manufacturers Institute and the Aluminum Association, while data on other
aluminum packaging is based on Department of Commerce data. Total
aluminum container and packaging generation in 1995 was 2.0 million tons, or
0.9 percent of total MSW generation.
Aluminum can recovery data comes from the Aluminum Association.
Aluminum beer and soft drink cans were recovered at an estimated 63.5 percent
rate in 1996. Recovery of all aluminum packaging was estimated to be 52.0
percent of total generation in 1996. After recovery for recycling, 940,000 tons of
aluminum packaging were discarded in 1996.
Paper and Paperboard Containers and Packaging. Corrugated boxes are the
largest single product category of MSW at 29.0 million tons generated, or 13.8
percent of total generation, in 1996. Corrugated boxes also represent the largest
single category of product recovery, at 19.3 million tons of recovery in 1996 (66.6
percent of boxes generated were recovered). After recovery, 9.7 million tons of
corrugated boxes were discarded, or 6.4 percent of MSW discards in 1996.
Other paper and paperboard packaging in MSW includes milk cartons,
folding boxes (e.g., cereal boxes, frozen food boxes, some department store boxes),
bags and sacks, wrapping papers, and other paper and paperboard packaging.
Overall, paper and paperboard containers and packaging totaled 38.5 million tons
of MSW generation in 1996, or 18.4 percent of total generation.
While recovery of corrugated boxes is by far the largest component of
paper packaging recovery, smaller amounts of other paper packaging products
are recovered (estimated at 1.2 million tons in 1996). The overall recovery rate
for paper and paperboard packaging in 1996 was 53.5 percent. Other paper
packaging like folding boxes and sacks is mostly recovered as mixed papers.
Plastic Containers and Packaging. Many different plastic resins are used to
make a variety of packaging products. Some of these include polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) soft drink bottles—some with high-density polyethylene
(HOPE) base cups, HOPE milk jugs, film products (including bags and sacks)
made of low-density polyethylene (LDPE and LLDPE), and containers and other
packaging (including coatings, closures, etc.) made of polyvinyl chloride,
polystyrene, polypropylene, and other resins. Estimates of generation of plastic
containers and packaging are based on data on resin sales by end use published
annually by Modern Plastics, a trade publication, and the American Plastics
Council annual plastic recovery survey.
68
-------
Plastic containers and packaging have exhibited rapid growth in MSW,
with generation increasing from 120,000 tons in 1960 (0.1 percent of generation)
to 8.2 million tons in 1996 (3.9 percent of MSW generation). (Note: plastic
packaging as a category in this report does not include single-service plates and
cups and trash bags, which are classified as nondurable goods.)
Estimates of recovery of plastic products are based on data published
annually by the American Plastics Council. Plastic soft drink bottles and base cups
were estimated to have been recovered at a 38.9 percent rate in 1996 (271,000
tons). Recovery of plastic milk and water bottles was estimated to have been
202,000 tons, or 30.8 percent of generation. Overall, recovery of plastic containers
and packaging was estimated to be 800,000 tons, or 9.8 percent in 1996. Discards of
plastic packaging were thus 7.4 million tons in 1996, or 4.8 percent of total MSW
discards.
Wood Packaging. Wood packaging includes wood crates and pallets
(mostly pallets). Data on production of wood packaging is from the Wooden
Pallet and Container Association, as well as recent studies on the pallet industry
(Busch, Reddy, Araman). In 1996, 6.5 million tons of wood pallets and other
wood packaging were estimated to have been generated, or 3.1 percent of total
MSW generation.
Wood pallets recovered for recycling (usually by chipping for uses such as
mulch or bedding material, but excluding wood combusted as fuel) was
estimated at 480,000 tons in 1996. This figure (along with wood generation)
represents a change over previous estimates. Recent studies on the pallet
industry (Bush, Reddy, Araman) provided new information on recovery and
recycling of reusable pallets, including data on the number of reusable pallets
refurbished and returned to service.
Nearly 200 million pallets—representing over 5 million tons of wood
packaging—were estimated to be refurbished and returned to service in 1996.
This EPA report classifies pallets refurbished and returned to service as reuse
(source reduction) rather than recovery for recycling. Therefore, the 5 million
tons represents a reduction in the amount of wood packaging discarded to the
waste stream (i.e., a reduction in generation) rather than an increase in recycling.
Accounting for pallet reuse and recovery for recycling, wood packaging
discards were 6.0 million tons in 1996, or 3.9 percent of total MSW discards.
(Note: wood packaging generation, recovery for recycling, and discards in the
Chapter 2 Tables have been revised for the years 1990 through 1996.)
Other Packaging. Estimates are included for some other miscellaneous
packaging such as bags made of textiles, small amounts of leather, and the like.
These latter quantities are not well documented, but were estimated to amount
to 150,000 tons generated in 1996.
69
-------
Table 18
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1996
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,920
17,330
1970
14,660
25,060
1980
21,800
34,420
1990
29,810
52,170
1992
30,430
52,780
1994
31,120
56,850
1995
31,140
57,240
1996
31,660
55,650
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Food and Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Packaging
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons**
Folding Cartons**
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks**
Wrapping Papers**
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
Milk Bottles**
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks**
Wraps**
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
1,400
1,080
3,710
6,190
640
3,760
260
4,660
Neg.
Neg.
170
170
7,330
3,840
2,940
14,110
60
60
120
2,000
120
27,370
54,620
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
88,120
5,580
1,900
4,440
1 1 ,920
1,570
3,540
270
5,380
100
60
410
570
12,760
4,830
3,810
21 ,400
910
1,180
2,090
2,070
130
43,560
83,280
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
1 21 ,060
6,740
2,450
4,780
13,970
520
2,850
240
3,610
850
40
380
1,270
17,080
790
3,820
230
3,380
200
850
26,350
260
230
890
390
840
790
3,400
3,940
130
52,670
108,890
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
151,640
5,640
2,030
4,160
1 1 ,830
150
2,540
200
2,890
1,550
20
330
1,900
24,010
510
4,300
290
2,440
110
1,020
32,680
430
530
1,430
940
1,530
2,040
6,900
8,180
150
64,530
146,510
20,800
35,000
2,900
58,700
205,210
5,480
1,930
4,350
1 1 ,760
80
2,730
170
2,980
1,580
30
330
1,940
25,400
480
4,590
280
2,320
80
1,120
34,270
510
520
1,540
970
1,820
2,160
7,520
8,090
160
66,720
149,930
21 ,000
35,000
3,000
59,000
208,930
5,250
1,800
5,000
12,050
10
2,990
220
3,220
1,710
40
340
2,090
28,140
520
5,150
300
2,300
80
1,070
37,560
600
580
1,380
1,320
1,770
2,250
7,900
7,120
160
70,100
158,070
21 ,500
31 ,500
3,100
56,100
214,170
5,120
1,790
4,620
1 1 ,530
Neg.
2,690
210
2,900
1,580
40
350
1,970
28,800
510
5,310
260
1,980
70
1,150
38,080
650
620
1,180
1,200
1,710
2,220
7,580
6,170
150
68,380
156,760
21,800
29,750
3,150
54,700
21 1 ,460
5,210
1,940
3,890
1 1 ,040
Neg.
2,820
170
2,990
1,560
40
360
1,960
29,020
460
5,390
230
1,980
50
1,350
38,480
700
650
1,280
1,360
1,860
2,300
8,150
6,480
150
69,250
156,560
21 ,900
28,000
3,200
53,100
209,660
Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
70
-------
Table 19
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1996
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In percent of total generation)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Percent of Total Generation
1960
1 1 .3%
19.7%
1970
12.1%
20.7%
1980
14.4%
22.7%
1990
1 4.5%
25.4%
1992
14.6%
25.3%
1994
1 4.5%
26.5%
1995
14.7%
27.1%
1996
15.1%
26.5%
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Food and Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Packaging
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons**
Folding Cartons**
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks**
Wrapping Papers**
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
Milk Bottles**
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks**
Wraps**
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
1.6%
1.2%
4.2%
7.0%
0.7%
4.3%
0.3%
5.3%
Neg.
Neg.
0.2%
0.2%
8.3%
4.4%
3.3%
1 6.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
2.3%
0.1%
31.1%
62.0%
13.8%
22.7%
1.5%
38.0%
100.0%
4.6%
1.6%
3.7%
9.8%
1.3%
2.9%
0.2%
4.4%
0.1%
Neg.
0.3%
0.5%
10.5%
4.0%
3.1%
17.7%
0.8%
1.0%
1.7%
1.7%
0.1%
36.0%
68.8%
10.6%
19.2%
1.5%
31 .2%
100.0%
4.4%
1.6%
3.2%
9.2%
0.3%
1.9%
0.2%
2.4%
0.6%
Neg.
0.3%
0.8%
1 1 .3%
0.5%
2.5%
0.2%
2.2%
0.1%
0.6%
1 7.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.6%
0.3%
0.6%
0.5%
2.2%
2.6%
0.1%
34.7%
71 .8%
8.6%
18.1%
1.5%
28.2%
100.0%
2.7%
1.0%
2.0%
5.8%
0.1%
1.2%
0.1%
1.4%
0.8%
Neg.
0.2%
0.9%
1 1 .7%
0.2%
2.1%
0.1%
1.2%
0.1%
0.5%
15.9%
0.2%
0.3%
0.7%
0.5%
0.7%
1.0%
3.4%
4.0%
0.1%
31 .4%
71 .4%
10.1%
17.1%
1.4%
28.6%
100.0%
2.6%
0.9%
2.1%
5.6%
Neg.
1.3%
0.1%
1.4%
0.8%
Neg.
0.2%
0.9%
12.2%
0.2%
2.2%
0.1%
1.1%
0.0%
0.5%
16.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.7%
0.5%
0.9%
1.0%
3.6%
3.9%
0.1%
31 .9%
71 .8%
10.1%
16.8%
1.4%
28.2%
100.0%
2.5%
0.8%
2.3%
5.6%
Neg.
1.4%
0.1%
1.5%
0.8%
Neg.
0.2%
1.0%
13.1%
0.2%
2.4%
0.1%
1.1%
0.0%
0.5%
17.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.6%
0.6%
0.8%
1.1%
3.7%
3.3%
0.1%
32.7%
73.8%
10.0%
1 4.7%
1.4%
26.2%
100.0%
2.4%
0.8%
2.2%
5.5%
Neg.
1.3%
0.1%
1.4%
0.7%
Neg.
0.2%
0.9%
13.6%
0.2%
2.5%
0.1%
0.9%
0.0%
0.5%
18.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.6%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
3.6%
2.9%
0.1%
32.3%
74.1%
10.3%
14.1%
1.5%
25.9%
100.0%
2.5%
0.9%
1.9%
5.3%
Neg.
1.3%
0.1%
1.4%
0.7%
Neg.
0.2%
0.9%
1 3.8%
0.2%
2.6%
0.1%
0.9%
0.0%
0.6%
1 8.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.6%
0.6%
0.9%
1.1%
3.9%
3.1%
0.1%
33.0%
74.7%
1 0.4%
1 3.4%
1.5%
25.3%
100.0%
Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
71
-------
Table 20
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1996
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Thousands of Tons
1960
350
2,390
1970
940
3,730
1980
1,360
4,670
1990
3,810
8,790
1992
4,140
1 1 ,070
1994
5,230
12,610
1995
5,110
13,610
1996
5,410
12,860
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Food and Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons**
Folding Cartons**
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks**
Wrapping Papers**
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
Milk Bottles**
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks**
Wraps**
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaaina
Total Containers & Pkq
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
90
10
Neg.
100
10
20
Neg.
30
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
2,520
220
2,740
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
2,870
5,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
5,610
140
10
Neg.
150
20
60
Neg.
80
10
Neg.
Neg.
10
2,760
350
3,110
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
3,350
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
8,020
730
20
Neg.
750
50
150
Neg.
200
310
Neg.
Neg.
310
6,390
Neg.
Neg.
520
Neg.
Neg.
310
7,220
10
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
10
Neg.
Nea.
8,490
14,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
14,520
1,890
210
520
2,620
40
590
60
690
990
Neg.
20
1,010
1 1 ,530
Neg.
340
Neg.
200
Neg.
Neg.
12,070
140
20
20
30
30
20
260
130
Nea.
16,780
29,380
Neg.
4,200
Neg.
4,200
33,580
1,530
430
930
2,890
40
1,090
50
1,180
1,080
Neg.
30
1,110
13,310
Neg.
460
Neg.
340
Neg.
Neg.
14,110
210
110
80
20
20
10
450
200
Nea.
19,940
35,150
Neg.
5,400
Neg.
5,400
40,550
1,650
470
990
3,110
Neg.
1,550
60
1,610
1,120
Neg.
30
1,150
16,210
Neg.
1,010
Neg.
420
Neg.
Neg.
1 7,640
320
170
140
30
30
20
710
360
Nea.
24,580
42,420
480
8,000
Neg.
8,480
50,900
1,670
470
1,000
3,140
Neg.
1,510
50
1,560
990
Neg.
30
1,020
18,480
Neg.
1,080
Neg.
340
Neg.
Neg.
19,900
300
190
150
40
40
20
740
450
Nea.
26,810
45,530
570
9,000
Neg.
9,570
55,100
1,680
480
1,010
3,170
Neg.
1,640
50
1,690
990
Neg.
30
1,020
1 9,340
Neg.
980
Neg.
260
Neg.
Neg.
20,580
280
200
190
50
50
30
800
480
Nea.
27,740
46,010
520
10,800
Neg.
1 1 ,320
57,330
Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
Other than food products.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
72
-------
Table 21
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1996
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In percent of generation of each product)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Percent of Generation of Each Product
1960
3.5%
13.8%
1970
6.4%
1 4.9%
1980
6.2%
13.6%
1990
1 2.8%
1 6.8%
1992
13.6%
21 .0%
1994
1 6.8%
22.2%
1995
16.4%
23.8%
1996
17.1%
23.1%
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Food and Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons**
Folding Cartons**
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks**
Wrapping Papers**
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
Milk Bottles**
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks**
Wraps**
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaaina
Total Containers & Pkq
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
6.4%
Neg.
Neg.
1.6%
1.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
34.4%
Neg.
7.5%
1 9.4%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea
1 0.5%
1 0.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
6.4%
2.5%
Neg.
Neg.
1.3%
1.3%
1.7%
Neg.
1.5%
10.0%
Neg.
Neg.
1.8%
21 .6%
Neg.
9.2%
14.5%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
7.7%
9.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
6.6%
1 0.8%
Neg.
Neg.
5.4%
9.6%
5.3%
Neg.
5.5%
36.5%
Neg.
Neg.
24.4%
37.4%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
36.5%
27.4%
3.8%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
16.1%
1 3.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Nea.
9.6%
33.5%
10.3%
12.5%
22.1%
26.7%
23.2%
30.0%
23.9%
63.9%
Neg.
6.1%
53.2%
48.0%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
36.9%
32.6%
3.8%
1.4%
3.2%
2.0%
1.0%
3.8%
1.6%
Nea.
26.0%
20.1%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
7.2%
16.4%
27.9%
22.3%
21 .4%
24.6%
50.0%
39.9%
29.4%
39.6%
68.4%
Neg.
9.1%
57.2%
52.4%
Neg.
10.0%
Neg.
14.7%
Neg.
Neg.
41 .2%
41 .2%
21 .2%
5.2%
2.1%
1.1%
0.5%
6.0%
2.5%
Nea.
29.9%
23.4%
Neg.
15.4%
Neg.
9.2%
19.4%
31 .4%
26.1%
19.8%
25.8%
Neg.
51 .8%
27.3%
50.0%
65.5%
Neg.
8.8%
55.0%
57.6%
Neg.
19.6%
Neg.
18.3%
Neg.
Neg.
47.0%
53.3%
29.3%
10.1%
2.3%
1.7%
0.9%
9.0%
5.1%
Nea.
35.1%
26.8%
2.2%
25.4%
Neg.
15.1%
23.8%
32.6%
26.3%
21 .6%
27.2%
Neg.
56.1%
23.8%
53.8%
62.7%
Neg.
8.6%
51 .8%
64.2%
Neg.
20.3%
Neg.
17.2%
Neg.
Neg.
52.3%
46.2%
30.6%
12.7%
3.3%
2.3%
0.9%
9.8%
7.3%
Nea.
39.2%
29.0%
2.6%
30.3%
Neg.
17.5%
26.1%
32.2%
24.7%
26.0%
28.7%
Neg.
58.2%
29.4%
56.5%
63.5%
Neg.
8.3%
52.0%
66.6%
Neg.
1 8.2%
Neg.
13.1%
Neg.
Neg.
53.5%
40.0%
30.8%
1 4.8%
3.7%
2.7%
1.3%
9.8%
7.4%
Nea.
40.1%
29.4%
2.4%
38.6%
Neg.
21 .3%
27.3%
Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
Other than food products.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
73
-------
Table 22
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1996
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,570
1 4,940
1970
13,720
21 ,330
1980
20,440
29,750
1990
26,000
43,380
1992
26,290
41,710
1994
25,890
44,240
1995
26,030
43,630
1996
26,250
42,790
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Food and Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons**
Folding Cartons**
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks**
Wrapping Papers**
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
Milk Bottles**
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks**
Wraps**
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
1,310
1,080
3,710
6,090
640
3,760
260
4,660
Neg.
Neg.
170
170
4,810
3,840
2,720
1 1 ,370
60
60
120
2,000
120
24,500
49,010
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
82,510
5,440
1,900
4,440
1 1 ,770
1,570
3,480
270
5,300
100
60
410
560
10,000
4,830
3,460
18,290
910
1,180
2,090
2,070
130
40,210
75,260
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
1 1 3,040
6,010
2,450
4,780
13,220
520
2,700
240
3,410
540
40
380
960
10,690
790
3,820
230
3,380
200
850
19,130
250
230
890
390
840
790
3,390
3,940
130
44,180
94,370
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
137,120
3,750
1,820
3,640
9,210
110
1,950
140
2,200
560
20
310
890
12,480
510
3,960
290
2,240
110
1,020
20,610
290
510
1,410
910
1,500
2,020
6,640
8,050
150
47,750
117,130
20,800
30,800
2,900
54,500
171,630
3,950
1,500
3,420
8,870
40
1,640
120
1,800
500
30
300
830
12,090
480
4,130
280
1,980
80
1,120
20,160
300
410
1,460
950
1,800
2,150
7,070
7,890
160
46,780
114,780
21,000
29,600
3,000
53,600
168,380
3,600
1,330
4,010
8,940
10
1,440
160
1,610
590
40
310
940
1 1 ,930
520
4,140
300
1,880
80
1,070
19,920
280
410
1,240
1,290
1,740
2,230
7,190
6,760
160
45,520
115,650
21 ,020
23,500
3,100
47,620
163,270
3,450
1,320
3,620
8,390
Neg.
1,180
160
1,340
590
40
320
950
10,320
510
4,230
260
1,640
70
1,150
18,180
350
430
1,030
1,160
1,670
2,200
6,840
5,720
150
41 ,570
1 1 1 ,230
21,230
20,750
3,150
45,130
156,360
3,530
1,460
2,880
7,870
Neg.
1,180
120
1,300
570
40
330
940
9,680
460
4,410
230
1,720
50
1,350
17,900
420
450
1,090
1,310
1,810
2,270
7,350
6,000
150
41,510
110,550
21 ,380
17,200
3,200
41 ,780
152,330
* Discards after materials and compost recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes,
or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
74
-------
Table 23
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 1996
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In percent of total discards)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Percent of Total Discards
1960
1 1 .6%
18.1%
1970
12.1%
1 8.9%
1980
14.9%
21 .7%
1990
15.1%
25.3%
1992
15.6%
24.8%
1994
1 5.9%
27.1%
1995 1996
16.6%
27.9%
17.2%
28.1%
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Food and Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Food and Other Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Milk Cartons**
Folding Cartons**
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks**
Wrapping Papers**
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
Soft Drink Bottles**
Milk Bottles**
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks**
Wraps**
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Wastes
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
1.6%
1.3%
4.5%
7.4%
0.8%
4.6%
0.3%
5.6%
Neg.
Neg.
0.2%
0.2%
5.8%
4.7%
3.3%
1 3.8%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
2.4%
0.1%
29.7%
59.4%
14.8%
24.2%
1.6%
40.6%
100.0%
4.8%
1.7%
3.9%
10.4%
1.4%
3.1%
0.2%
4.7%
0.1%
Neg.
0.4%
0.5%
8.8%
4.3%
3.1%
16.2%
0.8%
1.0%
1.8%
1.8%
0.1%
35.6%
66.6%
1 1 .3%
20.5%
1.6%
33.4%
100.0%
4.4%
1.8%
3.5%
9.6%
0.4%
2.0%
0.2%
2.5%
0.4%
Neg.
0.3%
0.7%
7.8%
0.6%
2.8%
0.2%
2.5%
0.1%
0.6%
1 4.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.6%
0.3%
0.6%
0.6%
2.5%
2.9%
0.1%
32.2%
68.8%
9.5%
20.1%
1.6%
31 .2%
100.0%
2.2%
1.1%
2.1%
5.4%
0.1%
1.1%
0.1%
1.3%
0.3%
Neg.
0.2%
0.5%
7.3%
0.3%
2.3%
0.2%
1.3%
0.1%
0.6%
12.0%
0.2%
0.3%
0.8%
0.5%
0.9%
1.2%
3.9%
4.7%
0.1%
27.8%
68.2%
12.1%
17.9%
1.7%
31 .8%
100.0%
2.3%
0.9%
2.0%
5.3%
Neg.
1.0%
0.1%
1.1%
0.3%
Neg.
0.2%
0.5%
7.2%
0.3%
2.5%
0.2%
1.2%
0.0%
0.7%
12.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.9%
0.6%
1.1%
1.3%
4.2%
4.7%
0.1%
27.8%
68.2%
12.5%
17.6%
1.8%
31 .8%
100.0%
2.2%
0.8%
2.5%
5.5%
Neg.
0.9%
0.1%
1.0%
0.4%
Neg.
0.2%
0.6%
7.3%
0.3%
2.5%
0.2%
1.2%
0.0%
0.7%
12.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.8%
0.8%
1.1%
1.4%
4.4%
4.1%
0.1%
27.9%
70.8%
12.9%
1 4.4%
1.9%
29.2%
100.0%
2.2%
0.8%
2.3%
5.4%
Neg.
0.8%
0.1%
0.9%
0.4%
Neg.
0.2%
0.6%
6.6%
0.3%
2.7%
0.2%
1.0%
0.0%
0.7%
1 1 .6%
0.2%
0.3%
0.7%
0.7%
1.1%
1.4%
4.4%
3.7%
0.1%
26.6%
71.1%
13.6%
13.3%
2.0%
28.9%
100.0%
2.3%
1.0%
1.9%
5.2%
Neg.
0.8%
0.1%
0.9%
0.4%
Neg.
0.2%
0.6%
6.4%
0.3%
2.9%
0.2%
1.1%
0.0%
0.9%
1 1 .8%
0.3%
0.3%
0.7%
0.9%
1.2%
1.5%
4.8%
3.9%
0.1%
27.3%
72.6%
1 4.0%
1 1 .3%
2.1%
27.4%
100.0%
* Discards after materials and compost recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes,
or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
75
-------
Summary of Products in Municipal Solid Waste
Changing quantities and composition of municipal solid waste generation
by product category are illustrated in Figure 14. This figure shows graphically that
generation of durable goods has increased very gradually over the years.
Nondurable goods and containers and packaging have accounted for the large
increases in MSW generation.
The materials composition of nondurable goods in 1996 is shown in
Figure 15. Paper and paperboard made up 74.5 percent of nondurables in MSW
generation, with plastics contributing 9.6 percent, and textiles 9.4 percent. Other
materials contributed lesser percentages. After recovery for recycling, paper and
paperboard were 68.8 percent of nondurable discards, with plastics being 12.5
percent, and textiles 10.3 percent.
The materials composition of containers and packaging in MSW in 1996 is
shown in Figure 16. By weight, paper and paperboard products made up 55.6
percent of containers and packaging generation, with glass second at 15.9 percent
of containers and packaging generation. Plastics accounted for 11.8 percent of
containers and packaging generation, while wood pallets were 9.4 percent.
Recovery for recycling makes a significant change, with paper and
paperboard being 43.1 percent of containers and packaging discards after recovery
takes place. Glass containers accounted for 19.0 percent of discards of containers
and packaging, plastics was 17.7 percent, and woods comprised 14.4 percent.
Some additional perspectives on products in municipal solid waste are
included in Appendix B of this report.
Figure 14. Generation of products in MSW, 1960 to 1996
CO
c
o
-t-J
T3
c
CO
CO
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
76
-------
Figure 15. Nondurable goods generated and discarded
in municipal solid waste, 1996
(in percent of total generation and discards)
Metals 0.3%
Paper &
Paperboard
74.5%
Plastics 9.6%
Rubber & Leather 1.4%
Textiles 9.4%
Other 4.8%
Generation
Metals 0.4%
Papers
Paperboard
68.8%
Rubber & Leather 1.8%
Textiles 10.3%
Other 6.2%
Discards
77
-------
Figure 16. Containers and packaging generated and discarded
in municipal solid waste, 1996
(in percent of total generation and discards)
Paper &
Paperboard
55.6%
Paper &
Paperboard
43.1%
Glass 15.9%
Metals 7.1%
Plastics 11.8%
Other 9.6%
Generation
Glass 19.0%
Metals 5.4%
Plastics 17.7%
Other 14.8%
Discards
78
-------
SUMMARY
The data presented in this chapter can be summarized by the following
observations:
MSW Generation
• Total generation of municipal solid waste in 1996 was 209.7 million
tons, which was less than in 1995 (211.5 million tons) and 1994 (214.2
million tons).
• Paper and paperboard products made up the largest percentage of all
the materials in MSW—79.9 million tons, or 38.1 percent of total
generation in 1996.
• Yard trimmings comprised the second largest material category,
estimated at 28.0 million tons, or 13.4 percent of total generation, in
1996. This compared to 35.0 million tons (16.8 percent of total
generation) in 1992. This decline is largely due to state legislation
affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills, including source
reduction measures such as backyard composting and leaving grass
trimmings on the yard.
• Total materials in products declined by 200,000 tons from 1995 to 1996,
and over 1.5 million tons from 1994 to 1996. Paper and paperboard
products in MSW experienced the largest decline, 1.7 million tons from
1995 to 1996.
• Plastic products had the largest increase in generation for all materials,
growing by nearly one million tons (18.9 versus 19.8 million tons) from
1995 to 1996. Plastics used for containers and packaging accounted for
the majority of this increase.
• Between 1995 and 1996, generation of durable goods and containers and
packaging increased in tonnage (1.7 and 1.3 percent, respectively), while
generation of nondurable goods decreased in tonnage (-2.8 percent). In
nondurables, newspapers and magazines accounted for the largest
decline—1.4 million tons—from 1995 to 1996.
• Each major product category increased as a percentage of MSW
generated, while generation of yard trimmings was declining in
percentage.
79
-------
MSW Recovery
Recovery of materials in MSW increased from 55.1 million tons in
1995 (26.1 percent of total generation) to 57.3 million tons in 1996 (27.3
percent of generation).
Recovery of most materials in MSW increased in both tonnage and
percent of total generation. Two material categories, paper and
paperboard and food wastes, experienced a slight decrease in tonnage
recovered from 1995 to 1996.
Recovery of products in MSW increased by 480,000 tons, from 29.0
percent to 29.4 percent of generation. Recovery of ferrous products
accounted for most of this increase—270,000 tons. Recovery of other
wastes (yard trimmings and food wastes) increased by over 1.7 million
tons, from 17.5 percent to 21.3 percent of generation.
Containers and packaging led the major product categories in tonnage
and percentage recovery, increasing from 26.8 million tons (39.2
percent of generation) in 1995 to 27.7 million tons (40.1 percent of
generation) in 1996. Nondurable goods had the second highest tonnage
recovery in 1996—12.9 million tons, or 23.1 percent of generation.
Measured by tonnage, the most-recovered products in 1996 were
corrugated boxes (19.3 million tons), yard trimmings (10.8 million
tons), newspapers (6.6 million tons), glass containers (3.2 million tons),
office papers (3.2 million tons), and ferrous metal from large appliances
(2.2 million tons). Collectively, these products account for nearly 80
percent of total MSW recovery.
Measured by percentage of generation, products with the highest
recovery rates in 1995 were lead-acid batteries (93.8 percent), corrugated
boxes (66.6 percent), aluminum beverage cans (63.5 percent), ferrous
metals in large appliances (62.5 percent), steel cans (58.2 percent), and
newspapers (54.1 percent).
Long Term Trends
Generation of MSW has increased steadily (except in recession years),
from 88.1 million tons in 1960 to 209.7 million tons in 1996. However,
in 1995 and 1996 both the tonnage of materials in products and total
MSW has declined.
Generation of paper and paperboard, the largest material component of
MSW, has increased in almost every year. Yard trimmings, the second
largest component, have been declining recently due to state legislation
80
-------
affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills and source reduction
measures at residences. Generation of other materials is generally on
an upward trend, although generation of glass in 1996 was lower than
in 1980, and generation of metals in 1996 was about the same as in 1980.
In percentage of total MSW generation, recovery for recycling
(including composting) did not exceed 15 percent until 1990. Growth in
the recovery rate to current levels (27.3 percent) reflects a rapid increase
in the infrastructure for recovery starting in the late 1980s.
Recovery (as a percent of generation) of most materials in MSW has
increased dramatically over the 36 years for which statistics have been
tabulated. Some examples:
1980 1996
Paper and paperboard 21% 41%
Glass 5% 26%
Metals 8% 40%
Plastics 2% 5%
Yard trimmings - 39%
81
-------
Chapter 2
REFERENCES
GENERAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1996 Update. EPA/530-R-97-015. June 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1995 Update. EPA/530-R-96-001. November 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1994 Update. EPA/530-R-94-042. November 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1992 Update. EPA/530-R-92-019. July 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1990 Update. EPA/530-SW-90-042. June 1991.
Franklin, M.A. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States,
1960 to 2000 (Update 1988). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/530-SW-
88-033. NTIS PB88-232780/WEP. March 1988.
Franklin, M.A. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States,
1960 to 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. REPT-15-3490-00. NTIS
PB87-178323/WEP. July 1986.
ALUMINUM CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING
The Aluminum Association. Aluminum Statistical Review. Various years.
Can Manufacturers Institute. Can Shipments Report. Various years.
Resource Recycling's Bottle/Can Recycling Update. Various issues.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Closures for Containers." MQ34H. Various years.
CARPETS AND RUGS
The Carpet and Rug Institute. Carpet & Rug Industry Review. Various years.
82
-------
Personal communication with a representative of the Carpet and Rug Institute.
February 14, 1992.
Rauch Associates, Inc. The Ranch Guide to the U.S. Adhesives and Sealants
Industry. ISBN O-932157-05-X.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Carpets and Rugs." MA22Q. Various years.
FERROUS METAL CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING
American Iron and Steel Institute. Annual Statistical Report. Various years.
Can Manufacturers Institute. Can Shipments Report. Various years.
Personal communication with a representative of the Association of Container
Reconditioning. June 1994.
Personal communication with a representative of the Steel Recycling Institute.
April 1996.
Personal communication with a representative of the Steel Recycling Institute.
July 1997.
Smith, F.L. A Solid Waste Estimation Procedure: Material Flows Approach. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/530-SW-147. May 1974.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Closures for Containers." MQ34H. Various years.
FOOD WASTE
California Integrated Waste Management Board. "Waste Disposal Rates for
Business Types", www.ciwmb.ca.gov/.
Food Manufacturers Institute. Composting Workbook. "Reducing Waste
Disposal Costs: How to Evaluate the Benefits of Composting in the Supermarket
Industry." Food Marketing Institute. 1994.
Goldstein, Nora. "National Trends in Food Residuals Composting Part I".
BioCycle. July 1997.
Goldstein, Nora and Dave Block. "Nationwide Inventory of Food Residuals
Composting Part II". BioCycle. August 1997.
83
-------
Grocery Committee on Solid Waste. Composting Task Force Report. October 24,
1991.
Hinshaw, Jane, and Ivan Braun. "Targeting Commercial Businesses for
Recycling." Resource Recycling. November 1991.
Kunzler, Conni, and Molly Farrell. "Food Service Composting Projects Update."
BioCycle. May 1996.
Kunzler, Conni, and Rebecca Roe. "Food Service Composting Projects on the
Rise." BioCycle. April 1995.
Luboff, Christine, and Karen May. "Measuring Generation of Food Residuals."
July 1995.
Marion, James, New York State Department of Corrections. Presentation at the
BioCycle conference. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1994.
Newell, Ty, Elizabeth Markstahler, and Matthew Snyder. "Commercial Food
Waste from Restaurants and Grocery Stores." Resource Recycling. February 1993.
Savage, George M. "The History and Utility of Waste Characterization Studies."
MSW Management. May/June 1994.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Estimating and Addressing America's Food
Losses". Economic Research Service, www.econ.ag.gov/. July 1997.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures,
1996". Economic Research Service. Judith Jones Putnam. April 1996.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Combined Annual and
Revised Monthly Retail Trade." Current Business Reports. BR/95-RV.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Monthly Retail Trade."
Current Business Reports. April 1997.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population
Reports. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. "Trends and Forecasts: Retail Sales." U.S.
Industrial Outlook 1994.
84
-------
Walsh, Patrick, Wayne Pferdehirt, and Phil O'Leary. "Collection of Recyclables
from Multifamily Housing and Businesses." Waste Age. April 1993.
FURNITURE AND FURNISHINGS
Smith, F.L. A Solid Waste Estimation Procedure: Material Flows Approach. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/530-SW-147. May 1974.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures
and Annual Survey of Manufactures. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Average Weight and Width of Broadwoven Fabrics (Gray)." MC-22T.
November 1977.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Office Furniture." MA-25H. Various years.
GLASS CONTAINERS
Brewers Almanac. Various years.
Resource Recycling. Container Recycling Update. Various issues.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Glass Containers." M32G. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Exports, Schedule B Commodity by Country
- Domestic Merchandise. FT 447.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports for Consumption. FT 247.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports of Merchandise for Consumption.
FT 110 and FT 125.
LEAD-ACID BATTERIES
American Automobile Manufacturers Association. AAMA Motor Vehicle Facts
and Figures. Various years.
Battery Council International. Industry Statistics. Various years.
Battery Council International. National Recycling Rate Study. March 1995.
Battery Council International. National Recycling Rate Study. December 1996.
85
-------
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Products Containing Lead and
Cadmium in Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/530-SW-89-015A. NTIS PB89-
151039/WEP. January 1989.
Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. Motorcycle Statistical Annual. Various years.
U. S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Various
years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports By Commodity.. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook "Metals." Various years.
MAJOR APPLIANCES
American Iron and Steel Institute Annual Statistical Report. Various years.
Appliance Magazine. Corcoran Communications. September 1983.
Appliance Manufacturer. Annual Industry Marketing Guide, March issue of
various years.
Appliance Manufacturer. Market Profile. Various years.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Trends and Forecasts. 1971 to
1988.
Electrical Merchandising. January 1951.
Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association. Statistical Highlights. Various years.
National Industrial Pollution Control Council. The Disposal of Major
Appliances. June 1971.
Personal communication with a representative of Amana, Inc. November 1991.
Personal communication with a representative of Steel Recycling Institute
August 1997.
Sears, Roebuck and Co. Spring and Fall Retail Catalogs. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures.
Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Major Household Appliances." MA36F. Various years.
86
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States. Various years.
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
American Forest & Paper Association, Paper Recycling Group. 1997 Annual
Statistical Summary Waste Paper Utilization. April 1997.
American Forest & Paper Association, Paper Recycling Group. 1996 Annual
Statistical Summary Waste Paper Utilization. April 1996.
American Forest & Paper Association. 1997 Statistics of Paper, Paperboard &
Wood Pulp. November 1997.
American Forest & Paper Association. 1996 Statistics of Paper, Paperboard &
Wood Pulp. November 1996.
American Forest & Paper Association. Paper, Paperboard, Pulp Capacity and Fiber
Consumption, 1995-1999. December 1996.
American Forest & Paper Association. Monthly Statistical Report. Various issues.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Evaluation of Proposed New Recycled Paper Standards
and Definitions. Special Task Force on Standards and Definitions, Recycled Paper
Committee, Recycling Advisory Council. January 27, 1992.
U.S. Postal Service. Annual Report of the Postmaster General: Fiscal Year 1995.
U.S. Postal Service. 1996 Annual Report of the United States Postal Service. 1997.
Yellow Pages Publishers Association. Yellow Pages Publishers Environmental
Network: Progress Report for the Year 1996. March 1997.
PLASTICS
Modern Plastics. Resin Statistics. January issue, various years.
R.W. Beck and Associates. "Postconsumer Plastics Recycling Rate Study for the
American Plastics Council." Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1994 U.S. Industrial Outlook.
RUBBER
American Automobile Manufacturers Association. AAMA Motor Vehicle Facts
and Figures. Various years.
87
-------
International Tire and Rubber Association, Inc. formerly American Retreader's
Association, Inc. Louisville, Kentucky.
McRee, Robert E. "Recap - Recapture: Incineration of Rubber for Energy
Recovery" Presented at the Joint NTDRA/RMA International Symposium.
Washington, DC. October 22, 1982.
National Petroleum News Market Facts. Mid-June issue. Various years.
Personal communication with the Scrap Tire Management Council. September
1996.
Retreader's Journal. April 1987.
Scrap Tire Management Council. "1994 Scrap Tire Use/Disposal Study". Results
published in Scrap Tire News. March 1995.
Scrap Tire Management Council. "Scrap Tire Use/Disposal Study 1996 Update".
April 1997.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures.
Industry series 30A-30. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Rubber Mechanical Goods." MA30C. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Rubber: Production, Shipments, and Stocks." MA30A. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States. Various editions.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. U.S. Imports for
Consumption. FT 247. Table 1. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook. "Plastics and Rubber."
Also earlier editions. Various years.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Markets for Scrap Tires. EPA/530-SW-90-
074A. October 1991.
International Tire and Rubber Association, Inc. "The Tire Retreading/Repair
Journal" April 1997.
-------
TEXTILES AND FOOTWEAR
Council for Textile Recycling. Textile Recycling Fact Sheet.
J.C. Penney's Catalog. 1990.
National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers. Fact Sheets. Various years.
Riggle, David. "Tapping Textile Recycling." BioCycle. February 1992.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Apparel." MA23A, MA23E, MA23G. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Sheets, Towels and Pillowcases." MQ23X. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. MA31A, MA23E, MA23G, and MA23A. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States. Various years.
Spiegel Catalog. Fall/winter 1997.
WOOD PACKAGING
Araman, Phillip, and Robert Bush. "An Update on the Pallet Industry" Brooks
Forest Products Center, release pending.
Araman, Phillip, and Robert Bush. "Use of New Wood Pallets, Containers is
Stagnant to Declining" Pallet Enterprise. September 1997.
Eshbach, Ovid, Ed. Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals. Second Edition.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Personal communication with representative of the National Wooden Pallet
and Container Association. September 1996.
Personal communication with representative of the U.S. Forestry Service
Laboratory, Princeton, WV. December 1991.
Personal communication with representative of U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. December 1991.
Personal communication with representative of Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
December 1991.
89
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.
Wood Used in U.S. Manufacturing Industries, 1977. December 1983.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook . "Wood Products."
Various year.
YARD TRIMMINGS
Composting Council Research and Education Foundation. "1995 Compost
Capacity Survey". James Butler and Associates. October 1996.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Survey of Selected State Officials. September 1997.
Goldstein, Nora and Jim Glenn. "The State of Garbage in America Part I."
BioCycle. April, 1997.
Goldstein, Nora and Jim Glenn. "The State of Garbage in America Part II."
BioCycle. May, 1997.
Raymond Communications. "State Recycling Laws Update." 1994.
Raymond Communications. "State Recycling Laws Update." Year-end Edition
1996.
Savage, George M. "The History and Utility of Waste Characterization Studies."
MSW Management. May/June 1994.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America, Part I." BioCycle. April
1995.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America, Part II." BioCycle. May
1995.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America, Part II." BioCycle. May
1996.
The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the Year 2000.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Appendix J and Appendix K. Keep America Beautiful,
Inc. September 1994.
"Yard Waste Legislation: Disposal Bans and Similar Bills as of July, 1993."
Composting Council. Fact Sheet. July 1993.
90
-------
91
-------
Chapter 3
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
INTRODUCTION
EPA's tiered integrated waste management strategy includes the following
components:
1. Source reduction (including reuse of products and backyard
composting of yard trimmings)
2. Recycling of materials (including composting)
3. Waste combustion (preferably with energy recovery) and landfilling.
Characterization of historical municipal solid waste (MSW) management
is a component of this report (overview in Figure 17). Estimates of historical
recovery of materials for recycling, including yard trimmings for composting,
are presented in Chapter 2. Estimates of MSW combustion are presented in this
chapter, and quantities of waste landfilled are estimated by subtracting
combustion and recovery for recycling (including composting) from total MSW
generation.
Also included in this chapter is a discussion of the current MSW
management infrastructure. Current solid waste collection, processing, and
disposal programs and facilities are highlighted with tables and figures.
While source reduction is not quantified as a line item in this report, a
discussion of source reduction activities is included in this chapter. Source
reduction activities have the effect of reducing MSW generation, while other
management alternatives deal with MSW once it is generated. Included in this
chapter is a discussion on trends in source reduction from a national perspective,
including the identification of possible factors that could explain any apparent
trends in source reduction.
SOURCE REDUCTION
Source reduction is gaining more attention as an important solid waste
management option. Source reduction, often called "waste prevention," is
defined by EPA as "any change in the design, manufacturing, purchase, or use
of materials or products (including packaging) to reduce the amount or toxicity
before they become municipal solid waste. Prevention also refers to the reuse of
products or materials." Thus, source reduction activities affect the waste stream
before the point of generation. In this report, MSW is considered to have been
generated if it is placed at curbside or in a receptacle such as a dumpster for
92
-------
Figure 17. Diagram of Solid Waste Management
Generation
of waste for
management
Changes in
package
design
Changes in
purchasing
habits
Changes in
industrial
practices
Recovery for
recycling (including
composting)
m
Backyard
composting,
grasscycling
Increased
reuse
Other
changes in
use patterns
Landfill
Disposal
Combustion
& Disposal
SOURCE REDUCTION
WASTE REDUCTION
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd. based on EPA hierarchy.
pickup, or if it is taken by the generator to another site for disposal or other
management alternative.
Source reduction measures encompass a very broad range of activities
by private citizens, communities, commercial establishments, institutional
agencies, and manufacturers and distributors. Example source reduction
actions are shown in Table 24 and further discussed in this chapter. In
general, source reduction activities include:
• Redesigning products or packages so as to reduce the quantity of
materials or the toxicity of the materials used, by substituting lighter
materials for heavier ones and lengthening the life of products to
postpone disposal.
• Using packaging that reduces the amount of damage or spoilage to
the product.
• Reducing amounts of products or packages used through
modification of current practices by processors and consumers.
• Reusing products or packages already manufactured.
93
-------
Table 24
SELECTED EXAMPLES OF SOURCE REDUCTION PRACTICES
Source Reduction Practice
MSW Product Categories
Durable
Goods
Nondurable
Goods
Containers &
Packaging
Organics
Redesign
Material reduction
Material substitution
Lengthen life
• Downgauge metal in
appliances
• Use of composites
in appliances and
electronic circuitry
• High mileage tire
• Electronic components
reduce moving parts
• Paperless purchase
orders
• Regular servicing
• Look at warranties
• Extend warranties
• Concentrates
• Cereal in bags
• Coffee brick
• Multi-use products
• Design for secondary
uses
• Xeriscaping
Consumer Practices
• Purchase
• Repair
• Duplexing
• Sharing
• Reduce unwanted
third class mail
• Purchasing:
products in bulk,
concentrates
Reuse
By design
Secondary
• Modular design
• Borrow or rent for
temporary use
• Give to charity
• Buy or sell at
garage sale
• Envelopes
• Clothing
• Waste paper
scratch pads
• Pallets
• Returnable secondary
packaging
• Loosefill
• Grocery sacks
• Dairy containers
• Glass and plasticjars
Reduce/Eliminate Toxins
• Eliminate PCBs
• Soy ink, waterbased
• Waterbased solvents
• Reduce mercury
• Replace lead foil on
wine bottles
Reduce Organics
Food wastes
Yard trimmings
• Backyard composting
• Vermi-composting
• Backyard composting
• Grasscycling
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
• Managing non-product organic wastes (food wastes, yard
trimmings) through backyard composting or other on-site
alternatives to disposal.
Source Reduction Through Redesign
Since source reduction of products and packages can save money through
reducing materials and energy costs, manufacturers and packaging designers
have been pursuing these activities for many years. Combined with other source
reduction measures, redesign can have a significant effect on material use and
eventual discards. Design for source reduction can take several approaches.
94
-------
Materials substitution can make a product or package lighter. For
example, there has been a continuous trend of substitution of lighter materials
such as plastics and aluminum for materials such as glass and steel. The
substitution may also involve a flexible package instead of a rigid package. A
product or package can be redesigned to reduce weight or volume. Toxic
materials in products or packaging can be replaced with non-toxic substitutes.
Considerable efforts have been made in this area in the past few years.
Lengthening product life delays the time when the products enter the
municipal waste stream. The responsibility for lengthening product life lies
partly with manufacturers and partly with consumers. Products can be designed
to last longer and be easier to repair. Since some of these design modifications
may make products more expensive, at least initially, manufacturers must be
willing to invest in new product development and consumers must demand the
products and be willing to pay for them to make the goal work. Consumers and
manufacturers must also be willing to care for and repair products.
Modifying Practices to Reduce Materials Use
Businesses and individuals can often modify their current practices to
reduce the amounts of waste generated. In a business office, electronic mail can
replace printed memoranda and data. Reports can be copied on both sides of the
paper (duplexed). Modifying practices can be combined with other source
reduction measures to reduce generation and limit material use.
Individuals (and businesses) can request removal from mailing lists to
reduce the amount of mail received and discarded. When practical, products can
be purchased in large sizes or in bulk to minimize the amount of packaging per
unit of product. Concentrated products can also reduce packaging requirements;
some of these products, such as fabric softeners and powdered detergent, are
designed to be used with refillable containers.
Reuse of Products and Packages
Similar to lengthening product life, reuse of products and packages delays
the time when the items must finally be discarded as waste. When a product is
reused, presumably purchase and use of a new product is delayed, although this
may not always be true.
Many of the products characterized for this report are reused in sizable
quantities (e.g., furniture, wood pallets, clothing, etc.). The recovery of products
and materials for recycling (including composting) as characterized in Chapter 2
does not include reuse of products, but reuse is discussed in this section.
Durable Goods. There is a long tradition of reuse of durable goods such as
large and small appliances, furniture, and carpets. Often this is done informally
95
-------
as individuals pass on used goods to family members and friends. Other durable
goods are donated to charitable organizations for resale or use by needy families.
Some communities and other organizations have facilitated exchange programs
for citizens, and there are for-profit retail stores that deal in used furniture,
appliances, and carpets. Other goods are resold by individuals at garage sales, flea
markets, and the like. Borrowing and sharing items like tools can also reduce the
number of products to be discarded ultimately. There is generally a lack of data
on the volume of durable goods reused in the United States, and what the
ultimate effect on MSW generation might be.
Nondurable Goods. While nondurable goods by their very nature are
designed for short term use and disposal, there is considerable reuse of some
items classified as nondurable. In particular, footwear, clothing, and other textile
goods are often reused. Much of the reuse is accomplished through the same
types of channels as those described above for durable goods. That is, private
individuals, charitable organizations, and retail outlets (consignment shops) all
facilitate reuse of discarded clothing and footwear. In addition, considerable
amounts of textiles are reused as wiping cloths before being discarded.
Another often-cited waste prevention measure is the use of washable
plates, cups, napkins, towels, diapers, etc. instead of the disposable variety. (This
will reduce solid waste but will have other environmental effects, such as
increased water and energy use.) Other reusable items are available, for example:
reusable air filters, reusable coffee filters, reconditioned printer cartridges, etc.
Containers and Packaging. Containers and packaging can be reused in two
ways: they can be used again for their original purpose, or they can be used in
other ways.
Glass bottles are a prime example of reuse of a container for its original
purpose. Refillable glass beer and soft drink bottles can be collected, washed, and
refilled for use again. Some years ago large numbers of refillable glass soft drink
bottles were used, but these have largely been replaced by single-use glass bottles,
plastic bottles, and aluminum cans. Considerable numbers of beer bottles are
collected for refilling, often by restaurants and taverns, where the bottles can
easily be collected and returned by the distributor. The Glass Packaging Institute
estimates that refillable glass bottles achieve a rate of 8 trips (refillings) per bottle.
Another example in this category is the use of refurbished wood pallets for
shipping palletized goods. The National Wooden Pallet & Container Association
estimates that over 60 percent of new wood pallets produced are reusable.
Many other containers and packages can be recycled, but are not often
reused. Some refillable containers (e.g., plastic laundry softener bottles) have
been introduced; the original container can be refilled using concentrate
purchased in small packages. This practice can achieve a notable source reduction
96
-------
in packaging. As another example, some grocery stores will allow customers to
reuse grocery sacks, perhaps allowing a refund for each sack brought back for
reuse. Also, many parcel snippers will take back plastic packaging "peanuts" for
reuse.
Many ingenious reuses for containers and packaging are possible in the
home. People reuse boxes, bags, jars, jugs, and cans for many purposes around
the house. There are no reliable estimates as to how these activities affect the
waste stream.
Management of Organic Materials
Food wastes and yard trimmings combined made up over 23 percent of
MSW generation in 1996, so source reduction measures aimed at these products
can have an important effect on waste generation. Composting is the usual
method for recovering these organic materials. As defined in this report,
composting of organic materials after they are taken to a central composting
facility is a waste management activity comparable to recovery for recycling.
Estimates for these composting activities are included in this chapter.
Composting or other reduction management measures that take place at
the point of generation (e.g., the yard of a home or business) is source reduction.
Backyard composting of yard trimmings and some food discards is not a new
practice, but in recent years publicity and education programs have encouraged
more people to participate. There also is a trend toward leaving grass clippings
on lawns, sometimes through the use of mulching mowers. Other actions that
will complement the increase in yard trimmings management include
establishment of variable rates, improved technology (mulching mowers), and
legislative regulations (e.g., landfill bans).
Part of the impetus for source reduction of yard trimmings is the large
number of state regulations discouraging landfilling or other disposal of yard
trimmings. The Composting Council and other sources report that in 1992, 12
states (amounting to over 28 percent of the nation's population) had in effect
legislation affecting management of yard trimmings. By 1997, nearly two dozen
states (amounting to approximately 50 percent of the nation's population) were
to have in effect legislation affecting disposal of yard trimmings. While data on
amounts of yard trimmings received at disposal facilities is limited, there is
considerable anecdotal evidence indicating that when these bans go into effect,
people find ways to source reduce.
Trends in Source Reduction
This section focuses on source reduction trends for two major product
categories of MSW—nondurable papers (i.e., newspapers, telephone directories,
office papers, etc.), and containers and packaging (other than corrugated boxes
97
-------
and wood pallets). These two categories were chosen because of the likely
presence of source reduction trends and their significant contribution to total
MSW generation. Together they represent over 35 percent of total MSW
generation and 50 percent of products generated as MSW.
Another component of MSW that has had success with source reduction
is yard trimmings. Recent trends in source reducing yard trimmings (primarily
through local and state legislation affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills)
are discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of this report.
Containers and Packaging. This discussion of trends in packaging source
reduction focuses on primary packaging, which includes the packages that
actually hold a product. Examples of primary packaging include cans, bottles, and
boxes such as cereal boxes. Some secondary packaging is also included in the
analysis (see packaging definitions box). This discussion excludes corrugated
boxes and wood packaging (pallets), which generally are used to contain and
transport products already packaged in primary or secondary packaging.
PACKAGING DEFINITIONS
Primary packaging has direct contact with the product it holds. Examples include
glass and plastic bottles that contain beverages, steel and aluminum cans that contain
food or beverages, bags that hold chips, and paperboard that packages food or
consumer goods such as toys.
Secondary packaging allows products to be unitized for handling and distribution, but
does not come into direct contact with the product. Examples include a corrugated
paperboard tray that holds cans of vegetables, a plastic ring or paperboard box that
unitizes beverage cans, and a sealed plastic bag that holds small boxes of candies.
Tertiary packaging unitizes products (usually already in primary and secondary
packaging) for shipping or distribution. Examples include a corrugated box holding
many boxes or bags of a food product, and shrink or stretch plastic unitizing boxes on a
wood pallet.
Exclusion of corrugated containers and wood pallets does not imply that
these packages are not being source reduced; this is occurring. However, these
two packaging categories are so significant in weight that they tend to
overwhelm any discussion of other packaging.
As Figure 18 shows, corrugated containers and wood pallets together made
up 51 percent of all containers and packaging in 1996. The remaining 49 percent
of containers and packaging is predominantly primary packaging.
98
-------
Figure 18. Containers and packaging in MSW, 1996
Wood pallets (9%)
All other containers
& packaging (49%)
One measure of source reduction of packaging is generation on a per capita
basis (Figure 19 and Table 25).
Total generation of products and packaging in MSW typically grows as
population grows, so expressing generation on a per person basis eliminates
population growth as a factor and permits the focus to be on actual use of a
product or package. Daily generation of packaging per person tended to increase
through the 1960s and 1970s. Generation on a per-person basis tended to decrease
after 1979, although most of the decline came in the early 1980s. Also, some years
have seen an "uptick" in generation of packaging (Figure 19.)
Figure 19. Daily generation of packaging* per person, 1960 to 1996
(In pounds per person per day)
1 00 -p
>• 0 80 -
T3
1
§ 0 60 -
2
i
g. 0 40 -
T3
c
a. 0 20 -
n nn -
^
— ^ N
j»-— " \
-\_.
— v
•••.
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
* Excluding corrugated boxes and wood pallets
99
-------
Table 25
GENERATION OF PACKAGING*, 1960 TO 1996
(Pounds per person per day)
Annual
Generation Increase or
Year (pcd) decrease (%)
1960
1970
1980
1985
1996
0.55
0.77
0.76
0.71
0.70
—
3.5%
-0.1%
-1.4%
-0.2%
* Excluding corrugated boxes and wood pallets.
Source reduction measures for packaging include:
• lightweighting—reducing the material required to make a package, e.g.,
an aluminum can
• elimination of packaging (e.g., not putting a bottle in a box)
• product concentration—changing product formulation to permit a
smaller package
• material substitution—using a lighter material to perform the same
function.
While these source reduction measures are relatively easy to quantify on a
product-specific basis (examples have been included in previous characterization
reports), it is not practical as yet to quantify the effects of any particular measure
on a national basis. Nevertheless, some interesting observations can be made
based on available data. To illustrate packaging source reduction, packaging of
three product categories was investigated: beverages, food, and nonfood products.
Beverage Packaging. The packaged beverages included in this analysis are
soft drinks, beer, wine, liquor, fruit juice and drinks, milk, water, and other
drinks not requiring additional preparation. Consumption per person of these
beverages has grown from 76 gallons per year to 96 gallons per year, or 28 percent,
since 1980 (Figure 20 and Table 26). In particular, consumption of packaged soft
drinks and water has grown tremendously.
At the same time, packaging of beverages on a per person basis has actually
decreased from 101 pounds per year to 93 pounds per year, or 7.5 percent. Pounds
of packaging per gallon of beverage decreased from 1.33 in 1980 to 0.97 pounds
per gallon in 1996, or 27 percent.
All beverage containers have been made lighter over the 16-year period.
However, most of the source reduction has apparently come about through
100
-------
Figure 20. Annual consumption of beverages and
beverage packaging, 1980 and 1996
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
101
96
76
.93,
Gallons/person
Pounds/person
1980
1996
materials substitution of plastics and paper for glass and metals (Figure 21).
While the introduction of plastic bottles and paper cartons for milk and juice
caused an apparent increase in materials use for beverage containers, the trend
since 1980 has been mostly downward in pounds used per person per day.
Table 26
CONSUMPTION AND PACKAGING OF LIQUID FOODS, 1980 AND 1996
1980
1996
Beer
Soft Drinks
Wine
Liquor
Water
Sport Drinks*
Ready-to-drink Tea*
Fruit Beverages
Milk
Total
Consumption
(million gallons)
4,847
6,315
460
445
630
2,256
2,229
17,182
Gallons/person/year
Packaging/person/year (Ib)
Pounds of packaging per gallon
76
Packaging
(thousand tons)
4,678
2,162
985
760
63
2,522
291
11,461
101
1.33
Consumption Packaging
(million gallons) (thousand tons)
5,795
10,295
485
327
2,892
454
621
2,256
2,469
25,594
5,540
1,722
1,038
559
346
172
999
1,753
254
12,383
96
93
0.97
* Included in other beverage categories in 1980.
References: Beverage World, Can Manufacturers Institute, Brewers Almanac, Statistical
Abstract, Distilled Spirit Council, The Beer Institute.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
101
-------
Figure 21. Packaging of beverages by material,
1960 to 1996 (In pounds per person per day)
0.00
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Food and Nonfood Packaging. Nonbeverage food consumption (in
pounds per person) has been on the rise since 1980. Total food consumption
increased from 948 pounds per person per year in 1980 to 1,099 pounds per
person per year in 1994—almost 16 percent. Consumption of fresh fruits and
vegetables and other foods (e.g., snack foods) increased more than meat, poultry,
and canned goods.
Consumption of nonfood products also has been increasing. Although the
weights of total purchases are not available, constant dollar expenditures for
general merchandise, building materials (including hardware), apparel, drug
store purchases, and other goods are available.
General merchandise expenditures increased more than 5 percent per year
between 1980 and 1995. Overall expenditures increased 4.8 percent per year, after
adjusting for inflation. Although this does not directly show an increase in the
total weight of product purchases, it does indicate a likely increase in packaged
products.
Nonbeverage food consumption, nonfood product expenditures, and
nonbeverage packaging are summarized in Figure 22. Nonfood constant dollar
expenditures per capita rose 47 percent from 1980 to 1994. Food consumption in
pounds per person increased almost 16 percent. Packaging of these products was
about the same in pounds per person per day in 1994 as in 1980 (Figure 23).
The fact that more goods are likely being purchased while packaging stays
about constant (on a per-person basis) suggests that goods are being packaged
more efficiently. Excluding corrugated boxes and wooden pallets, more food and
other products are being packaged with less glass, steel, aluminum, and paper on
a per person basis. Only plastic packaging has increased on a per person basis
between 1980 and 1996.
102
-------
Figure 22. Food consumption, nonfood expenditures,
and packaging, 1980 to 1994
2 000 .
1 500 .
1 000 .
^nn .
0.
——~~~~
Nonbeve
Nonfood expenditures ($1 ,000/person)
rage food cons
ge packaging (
—
jmption (pounds/person)
1
Dounds/person
.
^
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994
0.60
0.00
Figure 23. Packaging of food and nonfood products
by material, 1960 to 1996
1960 1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
In summary, these data indicate that more beverage, food, and nonfood
products are being packaged with less material. For non-transportation
packaging, there appears to be a trend in source reduction.
Nondurable Paper. This discussion of trends in source reduction
focuses on nondurable papers. Nondurable papers include newspapers, books,
magazines, office paper, telephone directories, third class mail, other
commercial printing, and other nonpackaging paper. Newspapers are by far
the largest component of nondurable papers, with 12.3 million tons generated
in 1996. There were 6.6 million tons each of office papers and commercial
103
-------
printing in 1996. Other large categories of nondurable papers include 4.5
million tons of third class mail, 4.5 million tons of other nonpackaging paper,
and 2.9 million tons of books and magazines. Nondurable paper totaled 41.4
million tons in 1996.
After experiencing continued growth from 1960 to 1990, per capita
generation of nondurable paper has remained essentially flat over the past six
years (Table 27, Figures 24 and 25).
Table 27
GENERATION OF NONDURABLE PAPERS*, 1960 TO 1996
(In pounds per person per day)
Year
1960
1970
1980
1990
1996
Generation
(pcd)
0.44
0.55
0.62
0.80
0.78
Annual
Increase or
Decrease (%)
—
2.2%
1.3%
2.5%
-0.2%
Excludes tissue paper and towels, and paper plates and cups.
Compared to 1990, per capita generation rates of commercial printing
had a slight increase, whereas newspapers have seen a decline, and other
paper grades have not changed much. Nondurable papers, as a percent of total
MSW generation, has also remained flat—at about 27 percent since 1990.
The majority of nondurable paper is used for information dissemination,
with most nondurable paper grades created for the sole purpose of distributing
information. For example, newspapers bring news and advertisements to people,
while telephone directories list important numbers. Commercial printing and
third class mail also deliver message. Looking at how information is distributed
may give insights to source reduction trends of printed materials used for
information dissemination.
New forms of electronic (i.e., nonpaper) media, both in personal/business
communication and advertising, may be affecting paper generation. The
"paperless office" was a subject discussed in the 1980's with the advent of the
personal computer. In general, offices did not significantly reduce paper usage.
However, with little growth experienced for nondurable paper generation rates
in the 1990's, the "information age" may be beginning to have an effect on
nondurable paper generation.
104
-------
a
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Figure 24. Daily generation of nondurable papers* per person,
1960 to 1996 (In pounds per person per day)
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
* Excludes tissue paper and towels, and paper plates and cups.
1985
1990
1995
Figure 25. Annual generation of nondurable papers per person,
1990 to 1996 (In pounds per person per year)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Information dissemination is difficult to measure. Therefore, it will be
discussed in two general categories: personal and business communication and
data exchange; and advertising for goods and services. Both of these categories
have undergone dramatic changes in recent times. The changes involve
computers, telecommunications, and other electronic machinery; the mix of
printed versus nonprinted media; and the sheer amount of information and
data being exchanged.
Personal and Business Communication. Personal and business
communication and data exchange occurs through telephones, faxes, the
105
-------
internet, electronic mail (e-mail), and first class mail. Trends in nondurable
paper generation compared to electronic media use are shown in Table 28.
As noted earlier, nondurable paper generation has remained
essentially flat during the 1990's. In contrast, the use of electronic forms of
data transfer, communication, and information dissemination has
experienced large growth—providing possible evidence of the beginnings of a
trend in source reduction.
As Table 28 indicates, the annual percent change for nondurable paper
generation is relatively flat (±5 percent). In contrast, the percent of
households with a personal computer (PC) has increased every year, recently
more than 8 percent per year. Homes with a personal computer have grown
from 22 million in 1989 to 43 million in 1996. Roughly half of those homes
had a communications modem and more than one-third subscribed to an
internet service. The number of hours spent with on-line electronic
communication is expected to grow by 36 percent annually through 1999.
Internet domain sites, electronic locations where internet users can go
electronically for information, grew by more than 300 percent in 1996.
Electronic mail, or e-mail, provides users the ability to send and receive
letters and memos, tables and figures, and whole documents (or anything
scanable) without the use of paper. E-mail has been growing rapidly in the last
few years. There were 1.7 trillion e-mail messages sent in 1996, growing more
than 50 percent per year. E-mail addresses have increased by more that 20
percent per year for the past six years.
Table 28
COMPARISON OF NONDURABLE PAPER GENERATION* AND MEDIA USAGE
Nondurable Paper*
thousand annual
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
tons
36,438
34,745
36,545
38,142
39,547
39,648
37,513
% change
-4.6%
5.2%
4.4%
3.7%
0.3%
-5.4%
Homes with a PC
million
units
23
24
29
32
36
39
43
annual
% change
4%
20%
9%
13%
9%
8%
E-mail Addresses
thousand
addresses
6,000
13,446
20,893
26,196
31,500
39,200
51,000
annual
% change
124%
55%
25%
20%
24%
30%
Internet Domain Sites
thousand annual
sites % change
250
1,080 332%
* Excludes tissue paper and towels, and paper plates and cups.
References: Encyclopedia of American Industries, Electronic Messaging Association,
Franklin Associates, Ltd, InterNIC News.
106
-------
The telephone is an important tool for most homes and businesses.
Approximately 94 percent of households in the U.S. have telephones. This
percent is likely higher for businesses. Growth in cellular phone subscribers
has been significant—from approximately 2 million users in 1988 to over 33
million users in 1995. The facsimile (fax) machine has made business and
personal communications more rapid. Anything on a printed page can be
faxed to any location in the world that has telephone lines and a fax machine.
This can decrease the time required for exchange, but may not reduce the
paper generated. In fact, sometimes letters and documents are faxed and sent
through the mail. This redundancy occurs to provide a clean original of the
documents faxed.
While growth in e-mail, telephone, and fax communications has
significantly increased, the generation of first class mail has not noticeably
declined. In fact, first class mail has increased, both in number of pieces and
tonnage. In 1996, almost 100 billion pieces of mail were delivered, up from 76
billion in 1986. This is due partly to the increase in product purchases via
mail. First class mail is still an integral part of business communication and
data exchange, with most businesses using it to deliver letters, reports,
information, products, etc. Also important are overnight services not
associated with the U.S. Postal Service (e.g., Federal Express). These services
operate much like first class mail, but guarantee overnight delivery.
E-mail, the internet, and other electronic media all have the potential
to reduce paper generation in the future. If Americans are getting more
information—news, advertising, entertainment, and other—from non-
printed media, paper generation from printed media (newspapers, magazines,
etc.) could be reduced. Although other forces are acting to bring about
reductions in the generation of certain grades of paper, the tremendous
growth of the internet will likely have an impact. Also, as the comfort level
with handling electronic media increases, the 1980's vision of a "paperless
office" may eventually have an effect on nondurable paper generation. (Note:
it could be argued that increased electronic communication has the potential
to increase paper generation—however, nondurable paper generation rates
for the 1990's do not appear to support this.)
Advertising. In this era, consumer information is proliferating
dramatically and constant dollar advertising expenditures are growing (from
$54 billion in 1980 to $170 billion in 1996). This brings up the question—
where and how is information transmission taking place? As was indicated,
printed matter generation per capita has been relatively flat in the 1990's. Only
commercial printing has experienced significant growth, increasing by over 10
percent per year.
107
-------
Table 29
ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES BY MEDIUM, 1990 and 1995
(In billion dollars and percent)
1990 1995
Billion $ Percent Billion $ Percent
Printed Media
Newspapers $32.3 25.1% $36.8 22.7%
Magazines $6.8 5.3% $8.6 5.3%
Yellow Pages $8.9 6.9% $10.3 6.4%
Direct Mail $23.4 18.2% $32.6 20.1%
Business Papers $2.4 1.9% $3.6 2.2%
Subtotal $73.8 57.3% $91.8 56.7%
Nonprinted Media
Television
Radio
Other
Subtotal
Total
$28.4
$8.7
$17.7
$54.9
$128.6
22.1%
6.8%
13.8%
42.7%
100.0%
$36.7
$11.5
$21.9
$70.1
$161.9
22.7%
7.1%
13.5%
43.3%
100.0%
Reference: Statistical Abstract, 1996.
Advertising has been changing in the past two decades. Table 29 (see
above) compares 1990 and 1995 advertising expenditures for the printed and
nonprinted media markets. Printed media experienced a slight decline in the
total percent of advertising expenditures (57.3 percent in 1990 compared to
56.7 percent in 1995), and an annual growth rate of about 5 percent (compared
to 5.5 percent for nonprinted media) for the same period.
Other observations for each type of major advertising media are
presented below.
• Direct mail has a large share of advertising dollars, accounting for over
50 percent of the growth in printed media advertising. Direct mail, both
third class mail and catalogs, is a method marketers use to target their
products to customers of particular demographic attributes.
• Newspaper subscriptions have been decreasing for some time. Per
capita newspaper generation has steadily declined from 1986 to 1996
and per household generation declined more rapidly. Magazine
generation has been following a similar trend. Per capita generation
has not fallen faster because Sunday circulation and Sunday paper size
have increased. As newspapers and magazines decline in popularity,
other forms of media usage are increasing. (Newspapers have been
studied as a source reduction case study in the 1996 MSW update.)
108
-------
• Cable and satellite television companies have dramatically increased
the number of television channels available to viewers. The average
person spends 1,600 hours per year watching television, both for news
and entertainment. Advertising expenditures for television are nearly
equal to newspaper advertising.
• Advertising on radio and in telephone directories has been relatively
flat in the past ten years. Advertising on radio, like television, produces
negligible generation of nondurable paper. Generation of directories
has been flat the past several years.
• Other advertising expenditures include e-mail and internet
advertisements. This is an increasing mode of advertising. More
computers are in use in homes and businesses, and modems are
becoming standard equipment.
This analysis suggests that information dissemination media used in
advertising may be shifting. More electronic communications, data transfers,
and advertisements are occurring, while nondurable paper growth is flat.
Although it is difficult to document the electronic industry and exactly how it
affects paper generation, these trend data could be described as evidence for
source reduction in nondurable papers.
RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING (INCLUDING COMPOSTING)
Recyclables Collection
Before recyclable materials can be processed and recycled into new
products, they must be collected. Most residential recycling involves curbside
recyclables collection, drop-off programs, buy-back operations, and/or container
deposit systems. Collection of recyclables from commercial establishments is
usually separate from residential recyclables collection programs.
Curbside Recyclables Collection. In 1996, there were over 8,800 curbside
recyclables collection programs reported in the U.S. As shown in Table 30 and
Figure 26, the extent of residential curbside recycling programs varies
tremendously by geographic region, with the most extensive curbside collection
occuring in the Northeast.
In 1996 slightly over one-half (51 percent) of the U.S. population, or 134
million persons, had access to curbside recyclables collection programs. The
Northeast region had the largest population served, 43 million persons. In the
Northeast over 80 percent of the population had access to curbside recyclables
collection, while in the South only 35 percent of the population had access to
curbside recycling. Most of the programs were located in the Northeast (39
percent) and Midwest (36 percent) regions of the country.
109
-------
Table 30
NUMBER AND POPULATION SERVED BY
CURBSIDE RECYCLABLES COLLECTION PROGRAMS, 1996
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
U.S. Total
Number of
Programs
3,427
1,318
3,198
874
8,817
Population
(in millions)
51,580
93,098
62,082
57,340
264,100
Population Served
(in thousands)
43,052
32,798
27,454
31,326
134,630
(1)
(%)
83%
35%
44%
55%
51%
(1) Percent of population served by curbside programs was calculated using population
of states reporting data.
Source: Statistical Abstract 1996, Bureau of Census 1996, BioCycle 1997.
Figure 26. Population Served by Curbside Recycling, by Region
Drop-off Centers. Drop-off centers typically collect residential materials,
although some accept materials from businesses. They are found in locations
such as grocery stores, sheltered workshops, charitable organizations, city-
sponsored sites, and apartment complexes. Types of materials collected vary
greatly; however, drop-off centers can usually accept a greater variety of materials
than a curbside collection program.
no
-------
It is difficult to quantify drop-off centers in the U.S. It is estimated that
there were 10,436 programs in 1996, according to the BioCycle survey (Goldstein
1997). In some areas, particularly those with sparse population, drop-off centers
may be the only option for collection of recyclable materials. In other areas, they
supplement other collection methods.
Buy-back Centers. A buy-back center is typically a commercial operation
that pays individuals for recovered materials. This could include scrap metal
dealers, aluminum can centers, waste haulers, or paper dealers. Materials are
collected by individuals, small businesses, and charitable organizations.
Deposit Systems. Nine states have container deposit systems: Connecticut,
Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and
Vermont (Figure 27). In these programs, the consumer pays a deposit on
beverage containers at the point of purchase, which is redeemed on return of the
empty containers. California has a similar system where containers can be
redeemed, but the consumer pays no deposit. With the exception of California,
no new deposit laws have been enacted since the early 1980s, due in part to the
convenience and economics of curbside recycling.
Deposit systems generally target beverage containers (primarily beer and
soft drink), which account for less than 4 percent of total MSW generation. It is
estimated that about 35 percent of all recovery of beverage containers comes from
the 9 traditional deposit states mentioned above, and an additional 20 percent of
beverage containers recovered come from California. (Note: These recovery
estimates reflect not only containers redeemed by consumers for deposit, but also
Figure 27. States with Deposit/Redemption Legislation
111
-------
containers recovered through existing curbside and drop-off recycling programs.
Containers recovered through these programs eventually are credited to the
distributor and counted towards the redemption rate.)
Commercial Recyclables Collection. The greatest quantity of recovered
materials comes from the commercial sector. Old corrugated containers (OCC)
and office papers are widely collected from commercial establishments. Grocery
stores and other retail outlets that require corrugated packaging are part of an
infrastructure that brings in the most recovered material. OCC is often baled at
the retail outlet and picked up by a paper dealer.
Office paper (e.g., white, mixed color, computer, etc.) is part of another
commercial recyclables collection infrastructure. Depending on the quantities
generated, businesses (e.g., banks, institutions, schools, printing operations, etc.)
can sort materials and have them picked up by a paper dealer, or self deliver the
materials to the recycler. It should be noted that commercial operations also
make recycling available for materials other than paper.
Multi-family residence recycling could be classified as either residential or
commercial recyclables collection. Multi-family refuse is usually handled as a
commercial account by waste haulers. It is also the same waste hauler that makes
recycling available to multi-family dwellings (typically 5 or more units), which
could resemble a drop-off center.
Recyclables Processing
Processing recyclable materials is performed at materials recovery facilities
(MRFs), mixed waste processing facilities, and mixed waste composting facilities.
Some materials are sorted at the curb and require less attention. Other materials
are sorted into streams at the curb, such as a paper stream and a container stream,
with additional sorting at a facility (MRF). Mixed waste can also be processed to
pull out recyclable and compostable materials.
Materials Recovery Facilities. Materials recovery facilities vary widely
across the U.S., depending on the incoming materials and the technology and
labor used to sort the materials. There were 363 MRFs operating in the U.S in
1996, with an estimated total daily capacity of 29.4 thousand tons per day (Table
31). Like curbside collection programs, the most extensive recyclables processing
capacity occurs in the Northeast (Figure 28).
The majority of MRFs are considered low technology, meaning the
materials are predominantly sorted manually. MRFs classified as high
technology sort recyclables using eddy currents, magnetic pulleys, optical sensors,
and air classifiers. As MRFs change and grow, many low technology MRFs add
high tech features and high technology MRFs include manual sorting, making
the difference between high and low technology MRFs less definitive.
112
-------
Table 31
MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITIES, 1996
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
U.S. Total
Number
95
93
92
83
363
Capacity
(tpd)
7,800
7,500
7,400
6,700
29,400
Source: Governmental Advisory Associates 1997.
Figure 28. MRF Capacity, 1996
persons
o>
0
c
0 120 -
E
tons/day capacity per
-t^ 00
o o o
(Capacity in tons per day per million population)
Northeast South Midwest West
Source: Governmental Advisory Associates 1 997 and U.S. Bureau of Census.
Mixed Waste Processing. Mixed waste processing facilities are less
common than conventional MRFs, but there are several facilities in operation in
the U.S., as shown in Figure 29. Mixed waste processing facilities receive waste
just as if it were going to a landfill. The mixed waste is loaded on conveyors and,
using both mechanical and manual (high and low technology) sorting, recyclable
materials are removed for further processing. In 1996, there were reported 58
mixed waste processing facilities in the U.S., handling about 34,800 tons of waste
per day (Governmental 1997). The West region has the largest concentration of
these processing facilities.
113
-------
Figure 29. Mixed Waste Processing Capacity, 1996
(Capacity in
c
o
-------
Yard Trimmings Composting. Yard trimmings composting is much more
prevalent than mixed waste composting. On-site management of yard trimmings
is not included in this section, but is discussed in the source reduction section.
There were 3,260 yard trimmings composting programs reported in 1996. About
75 percent of these programs are in the Northeast and Midwest regions, as shown
in Figure 31. Based on 10.8 million tons of yard trimmings recovered for
composting in the United States, yard trimmings composting facilities handled
approximately 25,500 tons per day in 1996.
Figure 31. Yard Trimmings Composting Programs, 1996
(In number of programs)
1 /no ,-
| 1 200 •
ro
DM nnn .
°~ 800
o
m cnn
^ Ann .
a
200
Northeast
Source: BioCycle 1997.
South
Midwest West
COMBUSTION
Most of the municipal solid waste combustion currently practiced in this
country incorporates recovery of an energy product (generally steam or
electricity). The resulting energy reduces the amount needed from other sources,
and the sale of the energy helps to offset the cost of operating the facility. In past
years, it was common to burn municipal solid waste in incinerators as a volume
reduction practice; energy recovery became more prevalent in the 1980s.
Total U.S. MSW combustion with energy recovery, referred to as waste-to-
energy (WTE) combustion, had a 1996 design capacity of 100,000 tons per day.
There were 110 WTE facilities in 1996 (Table 32). The Northeastern and Southern
regions had most of the MSW combustion capacity in 1996 (Figure 32). In
addition to WTE combustion, 5,400 tons per day of refuse-derived fuel (RDF)
were prepared, and there was an additional 2,450 daily tons of capacity for
incineration without energy recovery.
115
-------
Table 32
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS 1996 (1)(2)
WTE (2)
RDF Processing (3) Incinerator (4)
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
U.S. Total (1)
No.
existing
43
36
22
9
110
Design Design
Capacity No. planned & Capacity
(tpd) under construction (tpd)
48,092
34,145
13,288
4,830
100,355
4
4
2
2
12
6,740
3,025
3,400
175
13,340
No.
0
3
4
1
8
Design
Capacity
(tpd)
0
2,115
2,990
300
5,405
Design
Capacity
No. (tpd)
12
2
3
2
19
434
95
1,700
222
2,451
(1) Projects on hold or inactive were not included. Facilities in Hawaii and Alaska not included.
(2) WTE includes MB, MOD, RDF, RDF-Combustion.
(3) RDF processing = waste processing facility generating a prepared fuel for off-site combustion.
Includes existing and planned sites.
(4) Facilities without energy recovery.
Source: Integrated Waste Services Association, 1997.
In addition to facilities combusting mixed MSW (processed or
unprocessed), there is a small but growing amount of combustion of source-
separated MSW. In particular, there is considerable interest in using rubber tires
as fuel in dedicated facilities or as fuel in cement kilns. In addition, there is
combustion of wood wastes and some paper and plastic wastes, usually in boilers
that already burn some other type of solid fuel. For this report, it was estimated
that about 2.5 million tons of MSW were combusted in this manner in 1996,
with tires contributing a majority of the total.
Figure 32. Municipal Waste Combustion Capacity, 1996
(Capacity in tons per day per million population)
<0
£ 1 nnn .-
£
OJ
I=L
c- 800 •
o
^ 600 •
oj ouu
I=L
£.
•y 40Q .
& tuu
Q.
(0
fj
>. 9nn .
g- zuu
-o
~m
i o .
I I
Northeast South Midwest West
Source: Integrated Waste Services Association 1997 and U.S. Bureau of Census.
116
-------
In most cases the facilities have a stated daily capacity, but they normally
operate at less than capacity over the course of a year. It was assumed for this
report that throughput over a year of operation is 85 percent of rated capacity.
While this is a conservative assumption, it has proven to be reasonably accurate
over the years. (While new facilities are reporting operation at very high
utilization rates, other facilities do not meet the same standards for annual
throughput as compared to rated capacity.)
The total throughput of MSW through all combustion facilities was an
estimated 36 million tons, or 17 percent of MSW generation, in 1996.
RESIDUES FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
Whenever municipal wastes are processed, residues will remain. For the
purposes of this report, it is assumed that most of these residues are landfilled.
Materials processing facilities (MRFs) and compost facilities generate some
residues when processing various recovered materials. These residues include
materials that are unacceptable to end users (e.g., broken glass, wet newspapers),
other contaminants (e.g., products made of plastic resins that are not wanted by
the end user), or dirt. While residue generation varies widely, 5 to 10 percent is
probably typical for a MRF. Residues from a MRF or compost facility are
generally landfilled. Since the recovery estimates in this report are based on
recovered materials purchased by end users rather than materials entering a
processing facility, the residues are counted with other disposed materials.
When municipal solid waste is combusted, a residue (usually called ash) is
left behind. Years ago this ash was commonly disposed of along with municipal
solid waste, but combustor ash is not counted as MSW in this report because it
generally must be managed separately. (There are a number of efforts underway
to reuse ash.) As a general "rule of thumb," MSW combustor ash amounts to
about 25 percent (dry weight) of unprocessed MSW input. This percentage will
vary from facility to facility depending upon the types of waste input and the
efficiency and configuration of the facility.
LANDFILL
Although the number of landfills is decreasing, the capacity has remained
relatively constant. In 1996, approximately 2,400 municipal solid waste landfills
were reported in the contiguous U.S. New landfills are now much larger than in
the past.
Table 33 and Figure 33 show the number of landfills in each region. The
Southeast and West had the greatest number of landfills. Thirty-five states had
more than 10 years of capacity left. Three states reported having less than 5 years
of capacity remaining.
117
-------
Table 33
LANDFILL FACILITIES, 1996
Number of States with
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTHEAST
MIDWEST
WEST
U.S. Total *
Number of
Landfills *
208
857
490
827
2,382
Years Capacity Remaining
> 10 yr
5
11
8
11
35
5 to 10 yr
1
5
4
0
10
< 5 yr
3
0
0
0
3
* Excludes landfills reported in Alaska (700) and Hawaii (9).
Source: BioCycle, April 1997 and Waste Age May, 1996.
1 nnn .-
<" ROO
^
T3
ro 600 .
0
0)
-° Ann .
^
c
n
Figure 33. Landfill Capacity in the U.S., 1996
(In number of landfills)
Northeast South Midwest West
Source: BioCycle, April 1997.
SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MSW MANAGEMENT
This summary provides some perspective on historical and current
municipal solid waste management practices in the U.S. The study results are
summarized in Table 34 and Figure 34.
Historically, municipal solid waste generation has grown relatively steadily
(88 million tons in 1960 to 214 million tons in 1994). However, after peaking in
1994, MSW generation the last two years has experienced a decline (both in
product and non-product waste categories). In 1996 MSW generation was less
118
-------
Table 34
GENERATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING, COMBUSTION,
AND DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1996
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of Tons
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after recovery
Combustion**
Discards to landfill,
other disposal!
1960
88,120
5,610
Neg.
5,610
82,510
27,000
55,510
1970
121,060
8,020
Neg.
8,020
113,040
25,100
87,940
1980
151,640
14,520
Neg.
14,520
137,120
13,700
123,420
1990
205,210
29,380
4,200
33,580
171,630
31,900
139,730
1992
208,930
35,150
5,400
40,550
168,380
32,690
135,690
1994
214,170
42,420
8,480
50,900
163,270
32,490
130,780
1995
211,460
45,530
9,570
55,100
156,360
35,540
120,820
1996
209,660
46,010
11,320
57,330
152,330
36,090
116,240
Percent of Total Generation
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after recovery
Combustion**
Discards to landfill,
other disposal!
1960
100.0%
6.4%
Neg.
6.4%
93.6%
30.6%
63.0%
1970
100.0%
6.6%
Neg.
6.6%
93.4%
20.7%
72.6%
1980
100.0%
9.6%
Neg.
9.6%
90.4%
9.0%
81.4%
1990
100.0%
14.3%
2.0%
16.4%
83.6%
15.5%
68.1%
1992
100.0%
16.8%
2.6%
19.4%
80.6%
15.6%
64.9%
1994
100.0%
19.8%
4.0%
23.8%
76.2%
15.2%
61.1%
1995
100.0%
21.5%
4.5%
26.1%
73.9%
16.8%
57.1%
1996
100.0%
21.9%
5.4%
27.3%
72.7%
17.2%
55.4%
* Composting of yard trimmings and food wastes. Does not include mixed MSW composting or backyard composting.
MSW composting estimated to be less than 500 thousand tons per year.
** Includes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse-derived fuel form, incineration without energy recovery, and
combustion with energy recovery of source separated materials in MSW.
! Discards after recovery minus combustion.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
than 210 million tons, providing possible evidence of the beginnings of a trend
in source reduction. (See the previous section in this chapter for a discussion on
trends in source reduction.)
In the 1960s and early 1970s a large percentage of MSW was burned, with
little recovery for recycling. Landfill disposal typically consisted of open
dumping, often accompanied with open burning of the waste to reduce its
volume. Through the mid-1980s, incineration declined considerably and
landfills became difficult to site, and waste generation continued to increase.
Materials recovery rates increased very slowly in this time period, and the
burden on the nation's landfills grew dramatically. As Figure 34 graphically
shows, discards of MSW to landfill or other disposal apparently peaked in the
119
-------
Figure 34. Municipal Solid Waste Management, 1960 to 1996
Recovery for the Composting
Component of Recycling
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
1986-1987 period, then began to decline as materials recovery and combustion
increased. Although there are now fewer municipal solid waste landfills, their
average size has increased and capacity at the national level does not appear to be
a problem. However, regional dislocation sometimes occur.
Recovery of products and yard trimmings increased steadily, while
combustion has stayed relatively constant—15 to 17 percent of total MSW
generation. As a result, MSW discards to landfills have decreased in the 1990's.
Landfilling accounted for 116.2 million tons of MSW in 1996. As a percent of
total MSW generation, landfilling has consistently decreased—from 83.2 percent
of generation in 1986 to 55.4 percent in 1996.
120
-------
Chapter 3
REFERENCES
GENERAL
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Solid Waste Management At The Crossroads . Multi-
client study. October 1997. Draft.
Governmental Advisory Associates, The Materials Recycling and Processing
Industry in the United States: 1995-96 Yearbook, Atlas, and Directory. 1995.
Governmental Advisory Associates, 1997 Update to the Materials Recycling and
Processing Industry in the United States. 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Task Force,
Office of Solid Waste. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action.
February 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1990 Update. EPA/530-SW-90-042. June 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1992 Update. EPA/530-R-92-019. July 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1994 Update. EPA/530-R-94-042. November 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1995 Update. EPA/530-R-945-001. March 1996.
SOURCE REDUCTION
Beer Institute, The. Research Services Department. 1996.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996.
Also various other years.
Beverage World. April 1997 and various other issues.
Brewers Almanac, 1980. "The Brewing Industry in the United States." 1980.
Can Manufacturers Institute. Can Shipment Report. Various years.
Computer world. Volume 21, number 15. April 1997.
121
-------
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. Green Products
by Design: Choices for a Cleaner Environment. OTA-E-541. October 1992.
Council on Packaging in the Environment. "COPE Backgrounder: Source
Reduction." March 1995.
Electronic Messaging Association, Arlington, Virginia.
Encyclopedia of American Industries: Volume One, Manufacturing Industries.
1995.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Materials Technology: Packaging Design and the
Environment. Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment.
April 1991.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste
Management to the Year 2000. Keep America Beautiful, Inc. 1994.
InterNIC News, http:/rs.internic.net.
Miller Freeman, Inc. Pulp & Paper 1997 North American Factbook. 1996.
Personal communication between Franklin Associates, Ltd. and the Distilled
Spirits Council of the United States, Arlington, Virginia. October 1997.
Personal communication between Franklin Associates, Ltd. and the Electronic
Messaging Association, Arlington, Virginia. October 1997.
Standard & Poor. Industry Surveys. December 31, 1992.
Rattray, Tom. "Source Reduction—An Endangered Species?" Resource
Recycling. November 1990.
Raymond Communications. State Recycling Laws Update. 1994.
Standard & Poor. Industry Surveys. November 24, 1994.
Standard & Poor. Wood, P. Industry Surveys. June 22, 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Consumer's Handbook for
Reducing Solid Waste. EPA/530-K-92-003. August 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Wise: Second Year Progress
Report. EPA/530-R-96-016. September 1996.
Veronis, Suhler & Associates Inc. Communications Industry Report. New York,
New York. 1996.
122
-------
RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING
Governmental Advisory Associates. The Materials Recycling and Processing
Industry in the United States: 1995-1996 Yearbook. 1996.
Governmental Advisory Associates, 1997 Update to the Materials Recycling and
Processing Industry in the United States. 1997.
Kreith, Frank. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1994.
Goldstein, Nora. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. May 1997.
Goldstein, Nora, et al. "1996 MSW Composting Survey of the United States."
BioCycle. November 1996.
The Composting Council. "MSW Composting Facilities." Fall 1995.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States. 1996.
COMBUSTION
"1991-1992 Energy-from-Waste Report." Solid Waste & Power. HCI Publications.
October 1991, December 1990.
Integrated Waste Services Association. "High Court Rules Ash Not Exempt from
Subtitle C Regulation." Update. Summer 1994.
Riser, Jonathan V.L. "A Comprehensive Report on the Status of Municipal
Waste Combustion." Waste Age. November 1990.
Riser, Jonathan V.L. "Municipal Waste Combustion in North America: 1992
Update." Waste Age. November 1992.
Riser, Jonathan V.L. "The 1992 Municipal Waste Combustion Guide." National
Solid Wastes Management Association. February 1992.
Riser, Jonathan V.L. "The IWSA Municipal Waste Combustion Directory: 1993."
Integrated Waste Services Association. February 1994.
Riser, Jonathan V.L., and John Menapace. "The 1995 IWSA Municipal Waste
Combustion Directory Of United States Facilities." Integrated Waste Services
Association. March 1995.
123
-------
Riser, Jonathan V.L., and John Menapace. "The 1996 IWSA Municipal Waste
Combustion Directory Of United States Facilities." Integrated Waste Services
Association. March 1996.
Rigo, Greg and Maria Zannes. "The 1996 IWSA Municipal Waste Combustion
Directory Of United States Facilities." Integrated Waste Services Association.
November 1997.
Levy, Steven J. Municipal Waste Combustion Inventory. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Municipal & Industrial Solid Waste
Division. November 22, 1991.
National Solid Wastes Management Association. "The 1992 Municipal Waste
Combustion Guide." Waste Age. November 1992.
"The 1991 Municipal Waste Combustion Guide." Waste Age. November 1991.
LANDFILL
Franklin Associates, Ltd. unpublished data and estimates, 1996.
Repa, Edward and Allen Blakey. "Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Trends: 1996
Update." Waste Age. May 1996.
Goldstein, Nora. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. April 1997.
124
-------
125
-------
Chapter 4
MARKETS FOR RECOVERED MATERIALS
INTRODUCTION
The past few years, markets and prices for recovered materials have
fluctuated widely. There are a number of factors driving these markets changes.
Some factors discussed in this chapter include:
• Economic conditions: domestic and international
• Overall demand for products
• Demand for products made partially or entirely from recovered
materials
• Quality of recovered materials (contamination issues)
• Capacity to use recovered materials
• Excess capacity to produce virgin materials
• Transportation distances (costs)
• Export markets
• Discontinuities between supply and demand
• Legislation.
This chapter provides a broad overview of markets for the most commonly
recovered materials in MSW; paper and paperboard, glass containers, aluminum
containers, steel in cans and major appliances, HOPE and PET plastics bottles, and
compost.
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
Current Markets for Recovered Paper and Paperboard
The major markets for recovered paper and paperboard products are the
domestic paper industry and exports (Table 35 and Figure 35). A small amount of
recovered paper (mostly newspapers) is also used for other purposes such as
insulation and animal bedding. Products made of paper and paperboard are an
important component of municipal solid waste (MSW), making up 37 percent of
MSW generation and 57 percent of MSW recovery in 1996. Thus, recovery of
paper and paperboard products has a significant effect on the amount of MSW
remaining to be managed by other alternatives.
Table 35 highlights changes that occurred between 1995 and 1996. Despite a
10 percent increase in domestic mill consumption of recovered paper, weak
export demand caused a slight decline in total paper and paperboard recovery
(42.3 million tons in 1996 versus 42.5 million tons in 1995).
126
-------
Table 35
MARKETS FOR RECOVERED PAPER AND PAPERBOARD, 1995 AND 1996
(In thousand tons)
1995
Markets
Paper Manufacture
Newsprint
Printing-Writing, Related Papers
Packaging & Industrial Converting
Tissue Papers
Total Paper
Paperboard Manufacture
Kraft Linerboard
Other Kraft Paperboard
Semichemical Paperboard
Recycled Containerboard
Other Recycled Paperboard
Total Paperboard
Construction Paper & Board Manufacture
Total Domestic Paper Industry
Net Exports*
Other Uses**
Total Recovered Paper and Paperboard
Utilization
3,169
2,493
987
3,396
10,045
4,019
306
1,860
6,931
7,430
20,546
1,070
31,661
9,898
980
42,539
% of Total
Utilization
7%
6%
2%
8%
24%
9%
1%
4%
16%
17%
48%
3%
74%
23%
2%
100%
1996
Utilization
3,198
2,541
1,113
3,642
10,494
4,207
328
2,082
8,782
7,602
23,001
1,064
34,559
6,686
1,030
42,275
% of Total
Utilization
8%
6%
3%
9%
25%
10%
1%
5%
21%
18%
54%
3%
82%
16%
2%
100%
1996 domestic utilization is preliminary. Includes both preconsumer and postconsumer
recovered paper and paperboard.
* Exports minus imports.
** Cellulosic insulation, animal bedding, etc.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: American Forest & Paper Association.
Utilization of recovered paper and paperboard in domestic paperboard
manufacture increased by about 2.5 million tons between 1995 and 1996, with
recycled containerboard and other paperboard consuming nearly 40 percent of
the total used in 1996. Utilization of recovered paper and paperboard in paper
manufacture increased modestly between 1995 and 1996.
As Table 35 and Figure 35 show, exports increased dramatically until mid-
1995, then went into decline through 1996. As a result, total markets for
recovered paper and paperboard declined slightly between 1995 and 1996,
although domestic consumption was up. In this same time frame, prices for
127
-------
Figure 35. Recovered paper and paperboard
domestic use and exports, 1980 to 1996
(In thousand tons)
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000 - •
10,000 -.
O Domestic use
CD Exports
fl
1980 1982
Source: AF&PA
1984 1986
1988
1990
1992 1994
1996
recovered papers fluctuated wildly. (See Figure 36 for an example.) While the
example figure is for old corrugated containers (OCC), other recovered paper
grades showed much the same pattern. Exports were not the only factor in the
price decline in 1995-1996; production at domestic mills (operating rate) was well
below capacity in the same period.
Figure 36. Average Chicago end user prices for OCC,
1970 to 1998 (In dollars per ton)
200
o
-------
Markets for Specific Recovered Paper and Paperboard Products
The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) issues an annual
report of domestic use and exports of recovered paper and paperboard by grade.*
Five grades are reported: old newspapers (which include printing-writing paper
inserts and other papers as well as newsprint); old corrugated containers (which
can include kraft paper bags); mixed papers (which can include a wide variety of
recovered papers and paperboard such as office papers, telephone directories,
magazines, and others); pulp substitutes (which are high grade, print free, and
usually converting scrap); and high-grade deinking (which are printed office
papers, converting scrap, and other high-quality papers).
Because many recovered paper products could be marketed as more than
one grade of recovered paper, (e.g., office papers could be mixed papers or high-
grade deinking), the discussion that follows should not be interpreted as
identifying the only markets for a particular recovered product.
Old Newspapers. Markets for recovered old newspapers as reported by
AF&PA are shown in Figure 37. Recovered newspapers go to a very wide range
of products and exports. As Figure 37 illustrates, the most important single use is
in the manufacture of newsprint, at 34 percent of the total recovered. In 1996
recycled paperboard, at 21 percent of total, was the second most important market
for newspapers, while exports consumed about the same amount as recycled
paperboard. All other uses (e.g., construction products, molded pulp products,
cellulose insulation, and animal bedding) amounted to 26 percent of the total.
Figure 37. End user markets for recovered newspapers, 1996
Source: AF&PA
AF&PA data reported in this section include both preconsumer and postconsumer recovery.
Recovery figures shown elsewhere in this report are for postconsumer recovery only.
129
-------
Corrugated. Markets for recovered corrugated (mostly corrugated boxes)
are shown in Figure 38. Recovered corrugated goes to a wide variety of end uses,
although paperboard products use the majority recovered. In 1996, recycled
containerboard provided 37 percent of the total market, with kraft linerboard
(used to make corrugated boxes) and other recycled paperboard, at 18 percent and
17 percent, accounting for large quantities also. Exports accounted for 12 percent
of the total and all other uses (e.g., packaging and industrial papers, tissue papers,
and construction products) amounted to 16 percent.
Figure 38. End user markets for recovered corrugated, 1996
12% / O^er recycled
paperboard
17%
Source: AF&PA
Mixed Papers. Markets for recovered mixed papers are shown in Figure
39. The largest market for recovered mixed papers in 1996 was recycled
paperboard at 36 percent of the total recovered. The mixed papers that go into
recycled paperboard tend to be the "lower" grades, which could include boxboard,
magazines, telephone directories, and other grades that are heavily printed. The
second largest market in 1996 was exports at 22 percent. Tissue papers and
printing-writing papers together accounted for 23 percent of the mixed paper
market. The "higher" grades of mixed paper, e.g., office papers and preconsumer
converting scrap, would tend to go to these end uses. Finally, a variety of other
uses (e.g., newsprint and construction products) accounted for 20 percent of
mixed papers recovered in 1996.
Pulp Substitutes and High-grade Deinking Papers. These grades of
recovered paper contain higher percentages of preconsumer paper than the other
grades discussed. Postconsumer recovered paper in these grades is mostly high-
grade office papers. Markets for these grades in 1996 are shown in Figure 40.
Tissue papers were the largest market at 31 percent of total recovered, and
printing-writing papers were second, at 26 percent of total. Exports took 19
130
-------
Figure 39. End user markets for recovered mixed papers, 1996
Source: AF&PA
percent of these recovered grades, while recycled paperboard and other uses (e.g.,
newsprint, packaging and industrial papers, and construction products)
accounted for the other 24 percent.
Figure 40. End user markets for pulp substitutes
and high grade deinking papers, 1996
Source: AF&PA
Industry Structure for Recovered Paper and Paperboard
The pulp and paper industry* as a whole is an important part of the U.S.
economy, ranking eleventh among all manufacturing industries in contribution
The generic term "paper industry" includes manufacturers of paper, paperboard, and
construction paper and paperboard products.
131
-------
Figure 41. Capacity to produce paper and paperboard
by product category, 1996
Other Paperboard 5% Newsprint 7%
Boxboard 11%
Printing-Writing Papers 28%
Containerboard 36%
X I \ S
Packaging & Industrial Papers 6%
Tissue Papers 7%
Source: AF&PA
to gross domestic product (GDP) (Miller Freeman 1996). Within the industry,
containerboard (corrugated boxes) and the various grades of printing and writing
papers are the dominant grades produced, making up 64 percent of total capacity
in 1996 (AF&PA 1996). (See Figure 41 above.) Other important grades of paper
and paperboard produced in the United States include newsprint, packaging and
industrial converting papers, tissue papers, boxboard, and other paperboard.
In 1996, the annual domestic capacity to produce paper and paperboard
products was:
Paper products 47.5 million tons
Paperboard products 51.6 million tons
Construction products* 2.1 million tons
Total paper industry 101.2 million tons
It should be noted that the industry capacity shown above includes some
products (e.g., bathroom tissue, automotive board, and construction products)
that are not classified as MSW. These products are, however, markets for
recovered paper and paperboard products in MSW.
Papermaking capacity is not evenly distributed across the United States, as
shown for 1994 in Table 36. The South Central Region, which includes Alabama,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and other states, had 31 percent of all papermaking
capacity in that year. Next was the South Atlantic Region at 24 percent (e.g.,
Paper or paperboard construction products include gypsum wallboard liners, roofing felt,
and panel board.
132
-------
Table 36
CAPACITY TO PRODUCE PAPER AND PAPERBOARD BY CENSUS REGION, 1994
(In thousand tons)
Grades
Paper
Paperboard
Construction
Total Capacity
% of Total
Number of mills
Consumption of recovered paper
% of Total
Source: American Forest & Paper Association.
New
England
5,109
1,086
53
6,248
7%
67
2,057
7%
Middle
Atlantic
4,148
1,734
325
6,207
7%
89
2,957
10%
North
Central
10,856
6,094
502
17,452
18%
137
8,564
28%
South
Atlantic
7,756
14,893
482
23,131
24%
70
6,111
20%
South
Central
11,889
16,568
749
29,206
31%
78
5,802
19%
Mountain
& Pacific
6,182
6,949
95
13,226
14%
61
5,459
18%
Total
45,940
47,324
2,206
95,470
100%
502
30,950
100%
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina). The North Central
Region (which includes Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and other
states) and the Middle Atlantic Region (New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania) had more mills than the southern regions, but the mills were
smaller, on average. The Mountain and Pacific Regions, which include
California, Oregon, and Washington, have the fewest mills, but significant
capacity (14 percent of the total).
Regional markets (consumption) for recovered paper and paperboard are
also shown in Table 36. The North Central Region, which has many recycling
mills, is the leader; the South Atlantic, South Central, and Mountain and Pacific
Regions also consume large quantities of recovered paper and paperboard. The
New England and Middle Atlantic Regions consume the lowest quantities of
recovered paper and paperboard.
Factors Driving Markets for Recovered Paper and Paperboard
The paper industry is large and very diverse. The fiber content of paper
and paperboard products ranges from 100 percent virgin wood fibers to 100
percent recycled fibers, with many combinations of virgin/recycled fibers in
between. For many of these products, it is quite possible to vary the mix of
virgin/recycled fibers depending upon the availability, quality, and price of the
different fiber sources. Also, it is possible in many instances to substitute one
recovered paper grade for another, again depending upon the availability and
price. For these reasons, it is quite difficult to pinpoint exact reasons for demand
for recovered paper. This section includes a discussion of some of the factors
driving recovered paper markets.
133
-------
Demand for paper and paperboard products in general. Production
of paper is quite sensitive to economic conditions, and in bad
economic times, demand for products such as newspapers,
corrugated boxes, and some printing papers will fall. Since so many
of these paper grades use at least some recovered paper in their
production, this affects demand for recovered paper. (See the first
part of this chapter for a discussion of some factors affecting growth
of the paper industry.)
Demand for products containing recycled fiber. Consumers may
resist purchasing products made with recovered paper because of
real or perceived quality problems. For example, producers of
deinked pulp for use in printing-writing papers have been
experiencing quality and demand problems, and there have been
mill shutdowns as a result.
Exports. Exports are a very important market for recovered papers,
but these markets are erratic and almost impossible to predict. They
are dependent upon economic and political factors in the importing
countries. Some of the factors contributing to a slowdown in U.S.
paper exports in the 1990s included: competitive prices for virgin
woodpulp, higher levels of paper recovery in Europe and some
Asian countries, a temporary shortage of containers for shipping in
1993, and a decline in the worldwide economy in 1996.
Discontinuities between supply and demand. Supply and demand
for recovered paper products are often "out of synch." For example,
if one or more foreign countries suddenly begin purchasing large
quantities of recovered paper, supplies will become short and prices
will be driven up. If the export demand drops suddenly, which is
not uncommon, then prices will plunge and there will be too much
supply.
To cite another example, a rapid build-up of recycling collection and
processing infrastructure, which has happened in the 1990s, can
create an oversupply, again contributing to a fall in prices unless
demand also increases.
Virgin material capacity. Occasionally a large amount of new
capacity to produce mostly virgin fiber products will drive down the
price of virgin pulp. The virgin pulp may then compete with
recycled pulp at a favorable price.
Quality Issues. The paper industry has specifications defining the
permissible content of many grades of recovered paper. If recovered
paper is contaminated (e.g., by the presence of other grades of paper
134
-------
or other materials such as glass or plastics), the collected paper may
be rejected by the buyer or reclassified as a less desirable (and less
valuable) product. This can become a problem when paper is
collected along with other materials, as often occurs in a curbside
collection program.
• Legislation favoring recycled content. Legislation favoring recycled
content products (or sometimes the threat of legislation) at the state
or federal level can help to create demand for recycled content
papers.
CONTAINER GLASS
Current Markets for Recovered Glass Containers
Glass container manufacturers are by far the largest users of glass cullet, as
shown in Figure 42. Approximately 2.5 million tons of cullet are used by
domestic glass container manufacturers, which is almost 80 percent of total
recovery. Container manufacturers use cullet of the same color (color
contamination allowances vary from 0 to 50 percent). Cullet use saves energy
and consumption of virgin raw materials (essentially sand).
As previously shown in Chapter 2, over 11 million tons of container glass
were generated in 1996 (approximately 10 million tons are produced
domestically). The largest component of container glass generation is beer bottles
(45 percent), followed by food containers (35 percent). Soft drink bottles, wine and
liquor bottles, and containers for other products (e.g., medicine, cosmetics) are
also produced.
Figure 42. End user markets for glass containers
by product category
Fiberglass 16%
Source: Glass Packaging Institute
135
-------
Approximately 61 percent of domestic glass containers are flint (clear), 31
percent are amber (brown), and the remaining 8 percent are green (Resource
Recycling October 1996). The share of imported glass containers that are amber
and green is much higher.
Container glass is a versatile recyclable material. Aside from color, the
properties of container glass cullet (crushed glass) are common to the various
glass containers. For example, color sorted cullet from a pickle jar can be used in
the fabrication of a soft drink or perfume container of the same color.
Glass is recovered through most curbside collection programs, container
deposit programs, and drop-off programs. Recovery of container glass has
increased since 1980, but the increase has been fairly "flat" in recent years (Figure
43). Recovery has increased from 750 thousand tons in 1980 (5 percent) to 3.2
million tons in 1996 (29 percent).
Market shares for glass containers have declined in the last decade, and
that trend is expected to continue in the near future. Glass containers were once
the predominant container for soft drinks, but aluminum and more recently,
plastics, have dramatically increased their market share in beverages as well as
some other traditional glass markets (e.g., salad dressing, peanut butter, etc.).
Non-refillable beer bottles are the largest market for glass, accounting for nearly
one-half of domestic glass container shipments.
Domestic glass container manufacturers currently average about 27
percent recycled content. The glass industry has steadily increased recycled
1° 000
1 n nnn .
c 8 000
£ '
~o
c c nnn
-------
Figure 44. End user prices for container glass cullet,
1990 to 1998 (In dollars per ton)
0 -I—i—i—i—i i i i i i i i i—i—i—i i i i i i i—i—i—i i i i i i i i i—i—i—i i i i—i—i
Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98
Source: Recycling Times
content over the past decade and can likely achieve higher recycled content.
Some European manufacturers, as well as a few U.S. manufacturers, have
recycled content over 80 percent.
There is also a considerable amount of cullet going to fiberglass fabrication.
Other markets include use as aggregate in glasphalt, glascrete, and other
construction materials; abrasives and filter media; and miscellaneous art and
project glass. Altogether, these other markets total 640 thousand tons recovered
in 1996. The U.S. exported less than 50 thousand tons of glass cullet to Great
Britain, Italy, Canada, Mexico and other countries.
Market prices for glass cullet have remained relatively stable in recent
years. As shown in Figure 44, currently flint and amber glass cullet ranges from
$30 to $40 per ton, and green between $10 and $20 per ton.
Industry Structure for Recovered Glass Containers
There are approximately 70 glass container plants in the U.S. Glass
container manufacturers are concentrated in Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio,
and Pennsylvania. There are also facilities in California, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Texas, and several other states, but in general, there are very few
plants in the central U.S. and the Rocky Mountain states (Franklin Assoc. 1994).
Glass benefication (processing) facilities accept crushed glass from recyclers
with substantially more processing occurring. At the benefication plant cullet is
cleaned and further processed into furnace-ready quality. Glass benefication
plants are found throughout the same areas as the container plants.
137
-------
Fiberglass manufacturers are found throughout the northeast, southeast,
midwest, and pacific coast regions. Markets for glass aggregate and abrasives are
scattered throughout the U.S.
Factors Driving Markets for Recovered Glass Containers
Markets for recovered container glass cullet are dependent on the
following:
• level of contamination
• level of recycled content in new glass containers
• production volume of new glass containers
• transportation distance to facility.
Acceptable glass contamination for colored glass varies from near zero
percent to 50 percent. Flint glass can accept anywhere from zero to 5 percent color
contamination, while amber glass can accept up to 20 percent. Green glass
fabrication can accept up to 50 percent different colors. There is very low
tolerance for ceramics contamination in glass manufacture. A small chip or
fragment of ceramic material from a cap or mug will disintegrate in the furnace,
causing problems in hundreds of new containers.
As shown earlier in Figure 43, production of new glass containers has
waned in recent years, having an impact on demands for raw materials. It is
expected that domestic production of glass containers will remain at about 10
million tons annually. Demand for cullet is somewhat proportional to
production. However, as production of glass containers has declined, the more
efficient glass plants have continued to make containers and use considerable
amounts of cullet.
Recycled glass is collected in excess of traditional market needs in many
areas of the country (Resource Recycling August 1997). This is an indication that
new markets must be identified or the cullet must be shipped further to meet the
needs of a traditional market.
The density of glass cullet is very high, making the distance to market an
important issue. The further the cullet must be transported, the higher the
ultimate cost of the raw materials. There is a high concentration of glass
manufacturing facilities in Illinois and New Jersey and the states in between.
However, about one fourth of the states have no manufacturers.
If glass container collection and processing programs continue to provide
quality glass cullet, and the distance to market is acceptable, communities should
be able to adequately supply the domestic glass container market. Based on
expected domestic production volume and recycled cullet content use, the
demand for quality color-separated cullet will continue to be sound.
138
-------
ALUMINUM CONTAINERS
Current Markets for Recovered Aluminum Containers
All aluminum packaging is produced from aluminum sheet, plate, and
foil. Aluminum beverage cans contain just over 50 percent recycled content, so
most recovered used beverage containers (UBCs) are remelted into ingot,
flattened into can sheet, and made into new beverage cans, as shown in Figure
45. Some UBCs are exported, and some ingot is made from UBCs.
Aluminum containers traditionally have been the most sought after
container by curbside programs, buy-back programs, scrap dealers, etc. because of
their high value. Scrap aluminum is converted into new products at a
substantial energy savings compared to making aluminum from raw material
(bauxite).
Aluminum packaging made up a little less than one percent of MSW
generation in 1996. Aluminum packaging recovery—almost exclusively used
beverage containers—has been at or greater than 50 percent since 1981. Figure 46
shows generation and recovery of aluminum beverage cans since 1980. Recovery
has remained at or near one million tons since 1990.
The recycled content for new aluminum containers in 1992 was 47 percent,
and in 1996 it was 51.6 percent. Aluminum markets can absorb more material,
either in new beverage cans by increasing the recycled content or in other
markets such as aluminum casting, extrusion, or exports (Figure 46).
Figure 45. End user markets for aluminum containers
by product category
Casting 10%
Exports 5%
Extrusion 10%
Source: Container Recycling Report
139
-------
Figure 46. Aluminum beverage can generation
1 500 -
1 250 -
C
o
- 1,000-
c
1 750 -
o
*~ 500 -
250 -
0 -
and recovery, 1980 to 1996 (In thousand tons)
Q Generation
n Recovery
if
1
. .
—
1980 1982 1984
-
1986
•I —
T—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
Source: Aluminum Association, Can Manufacturers Institute, Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Market prices for recovered aluminum containers have varied
significantly in the past several years, as shown in Figure 47. End user prices paid
by primary and secondary smelters ranged from an average of $600 per ton in
1994 to over $1,400 per ton in 1995. Recently, processor prices have been, on
average, lower than end user prices by about $300 per ton.
Industry Structure for Recovered Aluminum Containers
Many secondary ingot mills have, by design, been built near sheet
manufacturers. As shown previously in Figure 45, most recovered aluminum
1
1
c
o
Q.
ro
"o
Q
Figure 47. End user and processor market prices for
,500 ,
,200 -
900 -
600 -
300 -
0 -
Jan
aluminum containers, 1990 to 1998 (In dollars per ton)
End user Jv.
\r^v\ ) , ^v_y — ^
^-A /v v"x/^| s~T_r's/r ' ^\^-~^
\ff\^jr^Jl^>f^~ — \J Processor
-90 Jan-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98
Source: Recycling Times
140
-------
containers eventually make it back into aluminum sheet, which is new can
stock. A small amount of aluminum is being exported as ingot from a secondary
smelter, and a smaller amount of UBCs is exported.
In 1997, there were 74 secondary ingot mills in the U.S., concentrated in
the Great Lakes area, southern California, Tennessee, Georgia, and several
scattered elsewhere (Aluminum Association 1997). The scrap ingot mills will be
the likely destination for most recovered UBCs. There are 48 sheet and plate
manufacturers with convenient access to the secondary ingot mills.
Factors Driving Markets for Recovered Aluminum Containers
Markets for recovered aluminum containers are dependent on the
following:
• level of contamination
• street price for UBCs
• level of recycled content in new containers
• demand for new aluminum containers.
End users of recovered aluminum require that it meet strict specifications.
UBCs must be magnetically separated to remove steel and iron, be free of foreign
substances, and be baled to certain size and density requirements.
In states having a deposit on beverage containers, consumers have an
additional economic incentive to return UBCs. Recovery in non-deposit states is
more strongly tied to the street price for UBCs. If the street price (the price paid by
buy-back centers) increases, more containers will be retrieved in the consumer
market from disposal locations, parks, roadsides, commercial sites, and
residences.
The industry has made gains in source reduction by reducing the thickness
of aluminum beverage cans. In 1996, there were almost 32 cans per pound,
compared to 31 in 1995 and 24 in 1980. Recent source reduction gains have also
been realized as a result of a reduced lid size (Container Recycling Report May
1997).
Overall, market share for new aluminum containers has been relatively
flat in the past several years. Although aluminum food and other containers
have increased market prominence, they are heavily outweighed by the
aluminum beverage container (82 percent of aluminum packaging), which has
lost some ground recently to slightly larger PET plastic bottles. The combination
of source reduction and flat market share could mean that fewer UBCs would be
available for recovery. However, recovered tonnage and percentage can increase
if more cans are recovered.
141
-------
STEEL IN CANS AND APPLIANCES
Current Markets for Recovered Steel in MSW
Integrated steel mills consumed 420 thousand tons, and mini-mills
consumed 520 thousand tons of recovered steel (Figure 48). Approximately 140
thousand tons of steel cans went to detinners in 1996, where the tin was
removed electrochemically. Once detinned, the cans entered other recovery
markets. The market outlook for residential recovered steel appears positive.
Market prices have been relatively stable, consumption has been growing, and
the industry is actively promoting collection and processing.
Figure 48. End user markets for steel cans
by product category
Detinners 10%
Source: Steel Recycling Institute
Exports 4%
The market value of recovered steel is shown in Figure 49. End user prices
for steel containers have been relatively flat in the 1990s, ranging from $50 to $70
per ton. The street price for steel cans was considerably lower, at about $15 per
ton. Prices shown are the average of the high and low prices for all U.S. regions.
Market prices for appliances (not shown) ranged from $0 to $12 per ton at
processors (street prices).
Industry Structure for Recovered Steel in MSW
Production of iron and steel is an important industry in the U.S., with
over 105 million tons produced in 1996 (AISI 1997). About 57 percent of the
production is in basic oxygen process furnaces, which use some scrap as a raw
material, and the remainder is produced in electric arc furnaces, which typically
use 100 percent scrap.
142
-------
Figure 49. End user and processor market prices for
steel containers, 1990 to 1998 (In dollars per ton)
0 -I—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i i i i i i—i i i i i—i—i—i—i—i i i i i i i i i i i—i—i-
Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98
Source: Recycling Times
Steel mills in Indiana and Ohio rank highest in tons produced, with mills
in the other Great Lakes states and southern states accounting for most of the
other production. There are relatively few mills in the central and western states.
Recoverable steel in MSW comes primarily from steel cans and major
appliances. From these sources, about 5.4 million tons of steel were generated in
MSW in 1996 (approximately 2.8 million tons of steel cans and 2.6 million tons
of appliance steel). Excluded from this discussion are steel in tires, furniture, and
miscellaneous durable products (e.g., small appliances, electronics), some of
which get recovered for recycling.
Steel cans are a common component of household MSW; they are
collected predominantly through curbside recyclables collection programs. They
are also separated from the ash of waste combustion facilities.
Recoverable steel is also generated from obsolete appliances (washers,
dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers, water heaters, microwave ovens, ranges, and
room air conditioners). Most of these appliances are taken to automobile
shredders or other scrap processing operations, where the steel is recovered.
Both steel cans and steel in appliances are recovered at high rates. About
3.9 million tons of steel in MSW were recovered for recycling in 1996. About 2.2
million tons were from appliances and 1.7 million tons were from steel cans.
The steel can recovery rate in 1996 was 56 percent, while steel from appliances
was recovered at a rate of 83 percent.
143
-------
Factors Driving Markets for Recovered Steel in MSW
Capacity to utilize recovered steel from MSW is not really an issue.
Ferrous scrap accounts for more than half of the raw materials used to produce
steel products and iron castings in the U.S. (Metal Statistics 1996). Further, steel
recovered from MSW is a very small portion (about 6 percent) of the total
recovered scrap used based on data from the American Iron and Steel Institute
(Figure 50).
The only real issue, then, is the continued willingness of the domestic
steel and iron industry to utilize steel products recovered from MSW. Since the
industry is actively promoting recovery of steel from MSW, markets seem to be
secure for the recovered products.
Figure 50. Sources of recovered steel and iron
for domestic use, 1996
MSW 6%
Source: AISI
PET AND HOPE PLASTICS
Current Markets for Recovered Plastic Bottles
Plastics make up approximately 9 percent of total MSW by weight. This
discussion on markets for recovered plastics will focus on high density
polyethylene (HOPE) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resins, as they
account for about 80 percent of currently recovered plastics in MSW. (Other
plastic resins are also recovered, including polypropylene, low density
polyethylene, polystyrene, and others.)
144
-------
HOPE Bottles. Natural (unpigmented) HOPE bottles for milk, water, and
juice make up less than one percent of MSW, but are frequently collected for
recycling. These natural HOPE bottles were recovered at a rate of 30 percent in
1996. Most HOPE bottles are recovered through curbside and drop-off recycling
programs. Also, HOPE grocery bags are often collected at grocery stores.
New bottles made with recycled content are the largest consumer of
recovered HOPE containers, as shown in Figure 51. Drainage pipe and plastic
lumber are also significant consumers of postconsumer HOPE resin. Other uses
for postconsumer HOPE resin include fabrication into trash bags and grocery
sacks, slip sheets used in warehouse distribution, pallets, and crates.
The market for postconsumer natural HOPE throughout the early 1990s
remained steady. There appeared to be less HOPE bottle scrap available in 1996.
Reclaimers believe this was due to a decline in participation and education in
curbside programs. There were also a few curbside recyclables collection
programs that stopped collecting plastics (Container Recycling Report Feb. 1997).
Market prices for postconsumer natural HOPE have been relatively good,
as shown in Figure 52. Except for a rise and fall in 1995, the price paid for natural
HOPE has been between $100 and $200 per ton in the early 1990s. From early 1996
to present, the average HOPE price has steadily risen to over $300 per ton.
As natural HOPE commands stronger market prices, color-separated HOPE
resin has become more marketable (Container Recycling Report February 1997).
Many fabrication techniques can use a color separated HOPE resin, such as found
in multilayer and heavily pigmented bottles and containers.
Figure 51. End user markets for HOPE bottles
by product category
Exports 4%
Source: Modern Plastics
145
-------
Figure 52. Average end user prices for baled natural HOPE,
1990 to 1998 (In dollars per ton)
600
500
0
Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98
Source: Recycling Times
PET Bottles. While PET soft drink bottles make up less than one percent
of all MSW, they are typically included in recovery programs. PET soft drink
bottles were recovered at a rate of 39 percent in 1996. PET bottles are often
collected through residential curbside collection systems. PET soft drink bottles
are also collected in container deposit/redemption programs in 10 states. In
addition, drop-off collection programs usually receive PET soft drink bottles.
Fiber markets are the largest user of recovered PET, consuming
approximately 140 thousand tons in 1996 (Figure 53). Markets for the fiber
Figure 53. End user markets for PET bottles
by product category
Source: Modern Plastics
146
-------
600
500
400
CD
£300
200
100
0
Figure 54. Average end user prices for baled PET bottles,
1990 to 1998 (In dollars per ton)
i
Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92
Source: Recycling Times
Jan-93
Jan-94
Jan-95
Jan-96
Jan-97
Jan-98
include carpeting and fiberfill for garments and sleeping bags. About 80 thousand
tons of postconsumer PET were exported in 1996. Other uses for postconsumer
PET resin include food grade and non-food grade bottles, strapping and sheet,
and other applications.
Scrap prices for recovered PET have not been as favorable as HOPE prices,
as shown in Figure 54. PET had the same rise and fall that most recyclable
materials had in 1995; however, because of the large supply of off-class virgin
resin (which competes with recycled PET), the PET price kept dropping after
others stabilized or began climbing. Prices for baled PET reached a low point of
about $80 per ton at the end of 1996. By the end of 1997 average prices for bales
were over $100 per ton.
Industry Structure for Recovered Plastic Bottles
Like the other basic industries discussed in this chapter, production of
plastic resins is an important part of the U.S. economy. With respect to recycling,
however, there are important differences. Other materials producers (e.g., the
paper, glass, and steel industries) can and do use recovered postconsumer
materials as raw materials in their plants, with or without the addition of virgin
raw materials. For technical reasons, plastic resin producers rarely do the same.
Recovered plastic products are usually sent to a reclaimer, who sorts,
grinds, cleans, dries, and pelletizes the plastics. HOPE handlers and reclaimers
tend to be located near metropolitan centers, because it is in the larger cities that
successful curbside recyclables collection or drop-off programs supply operations
with a supply of postconsumer HOPE. PET handlers and reclaimers are
147
-------
concentrated in the eastern U.S. Recyclers in South Carolina and Georgia
consume a considerable amount of postconsumer PET.
After processing, the pellets can be sold to a fabricator to be made into a
new product. The pellets are not returned to a virgin resin plant. Therefore,
capacity to make virgin resin does not provide a market for recovered resin.
Factors Driving Markets for Recovered Plastic Bottles
The factors driving the postconsumer plastics markets differ by resin.
HOPE markets are currently healthy, with no oversupply of virgin HOPE resin to
provide price competition.
Market factors for PET are less favorable. Due to the increased popularity
of PET beverage bottles, the industry geared up for increased production. There is
currently an over-capacity for virgin PET resin, reducing its price structure and
providing off-class virgin which competes with recycled PET for the same
markets. Not only has the U.S. developed a large capacity, but China, Korea, and
Taiwan, consumers of U.S. postconsumer PET, have been increasing their virgin
capacity. This further reduces demand for U.S. recovered PET.
There has also been a weakening or sunset of plastic recycling laws in
some states. For example, legislation in Florida changed, reducing the demand
for recovered PET.
COMPOST
Current Markets for Compost
Composters must make a product consistently high in quality to ensure
long term markets. Composters have increased their markets by producing
compost blends to meet the needs of specific end users. Different composts can be
blended, or compost can be combined with other materials such as soil to
produce custom blends. Compost has a variety of uses including erosion control,
wetland mitigation, bioremediation, land reclamation, biofilters, storm water
filtrates, soil amendments, low grade fertilizers, mulches and fungicides
(BioCycle October 1996, July 1997). End users of compost include farms, golf
courses and other sport fields, nurseries, the home products industry, parks and
recreation departments, state highway departments, and land reclamation
projects.
Several components of MSW can be composted, including yard
trimmings, food wastes, soiled paper, and the biodegradable components in
mixed MSW. Non-MSW feed stocks currently being composted include
industrial food waste, agricultural by-products, biosolids (waste water treatment
148
-------
sludge), and animal manure. Composting non-MSW feed stocks is increasing in
popularity as a resource management technique.
It is estimated that 80 to 85 percent of compost is successfully marketed.
Mixed MSW compost is more difficult to market. Only one of the MSW
composting facilities reports any revenue from sale of materials (BioCycle
December 1996).
A market capacity study for compost use completed for The Solid Waste
Composting Council found that capacity for compost use is far greater than
supply. The silviculture (development and care of forests) and agriculture
industries have the greatest potential demand for compost use. Figure 55 shows
the percentage demand by industry based on cubic yards.
Figure 55. Capacity to consume compost
Silviculture 10%
Other Uses 4%
(landscapers, bagged retail,
delivered topsoil, landfill cover,
nurseries, sod production)
Source: The Composting Council
This same study estimated market penetration to be the greatest for the
industries included in the "other" category. The landscape industry has a
penetration of approximately 20 percent, bagged/retail 80 percent, and container
nurseries less than 50 percent. The silviculture and agriculture industries,
estimated to have the largest capacity, have a market penetration of less than one
and 2 percent respectively. Table 37 lists market penetration for all of the
industries considered in the study.
A project completed in 1996 for The Composting Council Research and
Education Foundation surveyed compost facilities in seven states—California,
New Jersey, Ohio, Washington, Minnesota, Florida, and Massachusetts. The
149
-------
Table 37
ESTIMATED MARKET PENETRATION
FOR COMPOST PRODUCTS
(In percent)
Application Segment
Landscapers
Delivered Topsoil
Bagged/Retail
Landfill Final Cover
Surface Mine Reclamation
Container Nurseries
Field Nurseries
Sod Production
Silviculture
Agriculture
Market
Penetration (%)
<20
<5
80
<5
<5
<50
<2
Source: The Composting Council.
responding facilities estimated the distribution of their compost by weight. The
results of this survey are illustrated above in Figure 56. The landscape and
agriculture industries received over 50 percent of the compost produced by the
facilities in the seven states surveyed.
Figure 56. Compost market distribution
Bagged/retail
7%
Land Reclamation
5%
Source: The Composting Council
150
-------
The facilities surveyed were also asked to estimate the percentages of
various feedstocks used in the compost operation. The most common response
was yard trimmings at 72 percent. Other feedstocks mentioned included wood,
manure, biosolids, and brewery waste.
Figure 57 shows the average prices paid for yard trimmings compost. The
price remained fairly constant over the 16-month period shown. Compost prices
vary widely based on product quality, competition and customer type. The prices
in Figure 57 are averages (i.e., not weighted by compost quantities sold). The
reported prices paid for compost ranged from 2 dollars per cubic yard to 30 dollars
per cubic yard over this period. On the average, compost prices are lowest in the
northwest and highest in the southwest.
Compost is sold in bulk loads or bagged. Bulk sales move larger quantities
of compost for most composters. Bagged compost builds product acceptance and
expands markets. A consumer may be hesitant to purchase large quantities of
compost but will purchase a bag, which can lead to bulk sales later (BioCycle
August 1996).
(D
Q.
15
12
9
6
JS 3
o
Q
0
Figure 57. Average end user prices for yard trimmings compost,
1996 to 1998 (In dollars per cubic yard)
H 1—h
H 1 1—h
H 1 1 h
H 1 1 h
H—I 1 h
Jan-96 Apr-96 Jul-96 Oct-96 Jan-97 Apr-97
Source: Compost News
Jul-97
Oct-97 Jan-98
Industry Structure for Compost
Compost can be produced from a source separated organics stream or
combinations of the various feedstocks. BioCycle reported in 1996 over 3,200 yard
trimmings composting facilities in the U.S. and 15 MSW composting facilities.
The number of operational food waste composting facilities in 1997, also
surveyed by BioCycle, was 176. The actual number of facilities may be greater, as
151
-------
not all yard trimmings facilities are required to be permitted and therefore may
not be counted by state agencies. There may also be industries composting process
wastes on-site that are not accounted for in any of the surveys.
Factors Driving Markets for Compost
Compost markets are dependent on the following:
• quality of compost
• consistency of product quality
• customer acceptance
• distance from supplier to customer
• meeting needs of end users.
Compost quality and consistency of quality over time lead to customer
acceptance and continuing sales. Providing compost users technical compost
parameters (e.g., pH, salt content, particle size, etc.) help assure successful
compost use and overall satisfaction. Education on the benefits of compost also
improves customer acceptance.
The distance from the supplier to the customer impacts the marketing of
compost. Since compost is marketed at a comparatively low value, the
transportation cost may have a larger impact on compost than most other
recovered products. The markets available to a compost operator may be limited
by the feedstock and/or the potential end users that are located within a
marketable distance.
Understanding the needs of potential end users allows an operator to
customize the end product to meets these needs. For example, the nutrient level
and end product particle size needs will vary depending on the final application.
To expand sales, a compost operator must realize the importance of individual
differences in compost use.
152
-------
Chapter 4
REFERENCES
Alexander, Ron. "Innovations in Compost Marketing." BioCycle. October 1996.
Aluminum Association, The. Aluminum Statistical Review for 1996. 1997.
American Forest & Paper Association, Paper Recycling Group. 1997 Annual
Statistical Summary Recovered Paper Utilization. April 1997.
American Forest & Paper Association. 1996 Statistics Paper, Paper-board & Wood
Pulp. November 1996.
American Forest & Paper Association. Paper, Paper-board, Pulp Capacity and Fiber
Consumption. December 1996.
American Iron and Steel Institute. Annual Statistical Report 1996. 1997.
American Metal Market. Metal Statistics 1996, Ferrous Edition.
"Container Recycling Report." Resource Recycling. April 1997.
"Container Recycling Report." Resource Recycling. February 1997.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Solid Waste Management at the Crossroads. Release
pending.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste
Management to the Year 2000. Keep America Beautiful, Inc. September 1994.
Goldstein, Nora and Dave Block. "Nationwide Inventory of Food Residuals
Composting Part II". BioCycle. August 1997.
Goldstein, Nora and Jim Glenn. "The State of Garbage in America Part I."
BioCycle. April, 1997.
Goldstein, Nora, Robert Steuteville, and Molly Farrell. "MSW Composting in
the United States." 1996 BioCycle MSW Survey. BioCycle. November 1996.
Goldstein, Nora. "The State of Garbage in America Part I." BioCycle. April 1997.
McEntee Media Corporation. Composting News. October 1996 to September 1997.
Miller Freeman, Inc. Pulp & Paper 1997 North American Factbook. 1996.
153
-------
North American Insulation Manufacturers of America. "Fiber Glass Insulation
Manufacturers' Use of Recycled Glass Reaches Ail-Time High." Press release.
November 1996.
"Resins Report." Modern Plastics. January 1997.
Steel Recycling Institute. The Recycling Magnet. Volume 8, number 1. Winter
1997.
Steuteville, Robert. "The Bottom Line In Bagging." BioCycle. August 1996.
Steuteville, Robert. "Year End Review of Recycling." BioCycle. December 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1997 Update.
154
-------
155
-------
Appendix A
MATERIAL FLOWS METHODOLOGY
The material flows methodology is illustrated in Figures A-l and A-2. The
crucial first step is making estimates of the generation of the materials and
products in MSW (Figure A-l).
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION
Data on domestic production of materials and products were compiled
using published data series. U.S. Department of Commerce sources were used
where available, but in several instances more detailed information on
production of goods by end use is available from trade associations. The goal is to
obtain a consistent historical data series for each product and/or material.
CONVERTING SCRAP
The domestic production numbers were then adjusted for converting or
fabrication scrap generated in the production processes. Examples of these kinds
of scrap would be clippings from plants that make boxes from paperboard, glass
scrap (cullet) generated in a glass bottle plant, or plastic scrap from a fabricator of
plastic consumer products. This scrap typically has a high value because it is
clean and readily identifiable, and it is almost always recovered and recycled
within the industry that generated it. Thus, converting/fabrication scrap is not
counted as part of the postconsumer recovery of waste.
ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPORTS/EXPORTS
In some instances imports and exports of products are a significant part of
MSW, and adjustments were made to account for this.
DIVERSION
Various adjustments were made to account for diversions from MSW.
Some consumer products are permanently diverted from the municipal waste
stream because of the way they are used. For example, some paperboard is used
in building materials, which are not counted as MSW. Another example of
diversion is toilet tissue, which is disposed in sewer systems rather than
becoming MSW.
In other instances, products are temporarily diverted from the municipal
waste stream. For example, textiles reused as rags are assumed to enter the waste
stream the same year the textiles are initially discarded.
156
-------
Domestic Production
of
Materials/Products
Conversion/
fabricating
Scrap
Imports
of
Materials/Products
Exports
of
Materials/Products
Diversion
of
Materials/Products
Permanent
Diversion
Municipal
Solid Waste
Generation
Temporary
Diversion
Figure A-1. Material flows methodology for estimating
generation of products and materials in municipal solid waste.
157
-------
MSW
Generation
f
Recovery
for
Recycling
Recovery
for
Composting
T
Discards
after
Recycling
and
Composting
f
Recovery for
Combustion
with
Energy
Recovery
Recovery for
Combustion
without
Energy Recovery
Discards
to Landfill
and
Other
Disposal
Figure A-2. Material flows methodology for estimating
discards of products and materials in municipal solid waste.
158
-------
ADJUSTMENTS FOR PRODUCT LIFETIME
Some products (e.g., newspapers and packaging) normally have a very
short lifetime; these products are assumed to be discarded in the same year they
are produced. In other instances (e.g., furniture and appliances), products have
relatively long lifetimes. Data on average product lifetimes are used to adjust the
data series to account for this.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND DISCARDS
The result of these estimates and calculations is a material-by-material and
product-by-product estimate of MSW generation, recovery, and discards.
159
-------
Appendix B
ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
In this appendix, the municipal solid waste (MSW) characterization data
summarized in previous chapters of the report are presented again from
different perspectives. These are:
• Historical and 1996 MSW generation and management on a pounds per
person per day basis
• Historical and 1996 MSW generation by material on a pounds per
person per day basis
• A classification of 1996 MSW generation into residential and
commercial components
• Historical and 1996 discards of MSW classified into organic and
inorganic fractions
• A ranking of products and materials in 1996 MSW by tonnage
generated, recovered for recycling, and discarded.
Generation and Discards by Individuals
Municipal solid waste planners often think in terms of generation and
discards on a per capita (per person) basis. Data on historical and projected MSW
generation and management are presented on the basis of pounds per person per
day in Table B-l. The top line shows a steady increase in per capita generation of
MSW from 1960 to 1990, from 2.7 pounds per person per day in 1960 to 4.5
pounds per person per day in 1990. During the 1990s, however, the per capita
generation rate has decreased to 4.3 pounds per person per day in 1996. The
primary reason for the decline in growth of MSW generation is a decrease in
yard trimmings entering the MSW management system.
The per capita discards represent the amount remaining after recovery for
recycling (including composting). Discards after recovery for recycling grew from
2.5 pounds per person per day in 1960 to 3.8 pounds per person per day in 1990.
Between 1990 and 1996, discards declined to 3.2 pounds per person per day due to
increased recovery for recycling (including composting).
In 1996, an estimated 0.7 pounds per person per day of discards were
managed through combustion, while the remainder—2.4 pounds per person per
day—went to landfill or other disposal.
160
-------
Table B-l
PER CAPITA GENERATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMBUSTION,
AND DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 1996
(In pounds per person per day; population in thousands)
Generation
Recovery for recycling & composting
Discards after recovery
Combustion
Discards to landfill,
other disposal
Resident Population (thousands)
1960
2.68
0.17
0.82
—mr
179,979
1970
3.25
0.22
TUT
0.67
—^
203,984
1980
3.66
0.35
0.33
—TW
227,255
1990
4.51
0.74
0.70
3~U7~
249,398
1992
4.49
0.87
0.70
—^T
255,011
1994
4.51
1.07
0.68
—^
260,372
1995
4.41
1.15
0.70
—nx
262,890
1996
4.33
1.18
0.70
—^
265,284
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Population figures from Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
In Table B-2, per capita generation of each material category characterized
in this study is shown. The current per capita generation rate for paper and
paperboard products has nearly doubled from 1960 (0.9 versus 1.65 pounds per
person per day). However, since 1990 per capita paper generation has remained
relatively steady—between 1.6 and 1.7 pounds per person per day. Plastics has
experienced the largest per capita growth rate, increasing to 0.4 pounds per
person per day in 1996. After experiencing growth from 1960 to 1990, per capita
generation rates for glass and metal products have declined slightly. Per capita
generation rates for rubber and leather and textile products have increased to 0.13
and 0.16 pounds per person per day, respectively. After growing steadily, the
increasing use of reusable pallets in the 1990s has resulted in a decrease in per
capita wood generation—to 0.2 pounds per person per day.
Generation of food wastes has remaining at about 0.45 pounds per person
per day during the 1990s (Note: change in food waste generation methodology
reflected in years 1990 through 1996). Generation of yard trimmings on a per
capita basis increased over a 30-year period, but has begun to decline because of
source reduction efforts. Generation of yard trimmings was 0.6 pounds per
person per day in 1996.
Overall, per capita generation of MSW increased throughout the 36-year
study period. However, since 1990 per capita generation of materials use in
nonfood products has remained relatively steady (3.2 to 3.3 pounds per person
per day) while per capita generation for yard trimmings has decreased due to
source reduction efforts.
161
-------
Table B-2
PER CAPITA GENERATION* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE,
BY MATERIAL, 1960 TO 1996
(In pounds per person per day)
Materials
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Textiles
Wood
Other
Total Nonfood Products
Food wastes
Yard trimmings
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
Total MSW Generated
Resident Population (thousands)
1960
0.91
0.20
0.33
0.01
0.06
0.05
0.09
0.00
TUT
0.37
0.61
0.04
2.68
179,979
1970
1.19
0.34
0.37
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.10
0.02
T7T
0.34
0.62
0.05
3.25
203,984
1980
1.33
0.36
0.37
0.16
0.10
0.06
0.17
0.06
ZTT
0.31
0.66
0.05
3.66
227,255
1990
1.60
0.29
0.36
0.38
0.13
0.13
0.27
0.07
T7T
0.46
0.77
0.06
4.51
249,398
1992
1.60
0.28
0.35
0.40
0.12
0.14
0.26
0.07
T7T
0.45
0.75
0.06
4.49
255,011
1994
1.70
0.28
0.34
0.41
0.13
0.15
0.24
0.08
3-3T
0.45
0.66
0.07
4.51
260,372
1995
1.70
0.27
0.33
0.39
0.13
0.15
0.22
0.08
T7T
0.45
0.62
0.07
4.41
262,890
1996
1.65
0.26
0.33
0.41
0.13
0.16
0.22
0.08
TZT
0.45
0.58
0.07
4.33
265,284
* Generation before materials or energy recovery.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Table 1. Population figures from the Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports.
Residential and Commercial Generation of MSW
The sources of MSW generation are of considerable interest to
management planners. The material flows methodology does not lend itself well
to a distinction as to sources of the materials because the data used are national
in scope. However, a classification of products and materials by residential and
commercial sources was first made for the 1992 update of this series of reports.
For purposes of this classification, residential waste was considered to
come from both single family and multi-family residences. This is somewhat
contrary to a common practice in MSW management to classify wastes collected
from apartment buildings as commercial. The rationale used for this report is
that the nature of residential waste is basically the same whether it is generated
in a single or multi-family residence. (Yard trimmings are probably the primary
exception, and this was taken into account.) Because of this approach, the
percentage of residential waste shown here is higher than that often reported by
waste haulers.
Commercial wastes for the purpose of this classification include MSW
from retail and wholesale establishments; hotels; office buildings; airports and
train stations; hospitals, schools, and other institutions; and similar sources. No
industrial process wastes are included, but normal MSW such as packaging,
162
-------
cafeteria and washroom wastes, and office wastes from industrial sources are
included. As is the case for the data in Chapter 2, construction and demolition
wastes, sludges, ashes, automobile bodies, and other non-MSW wastes are not
included.
The classification of MSW generation into residential and commercial
fractions was made on a product-by-product basis (see Appendix C of EPA report
530-R-94-042, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:
1994 Update). The 1996 tonnage generation of each product was allocated to
residential or commercial sources on a "best judgment" basis; then the totals
were aggregated. These are estimates for the nation as a whole, and should not be
taken as representative of any particular region of the country.
A few revisions to the methodology were subsequently made based on
estimates made in a 1994 report for Keep America Beautiful, which was
extensively reviewed by public and private sector experts in municipal solid
waste management. Discards of major appliances and rubber tires were
reassigned to the commercial sector rather than the residential sector because,
while these products may be used in a residential setting, they tend to be collected
and managed through the commercial sector.
Based on this analysis, a reasonable range for residential wastes would be
55 to 65 percent of total MSW generation, while commercial wastes probably
range between 35 to 45 percent of total generation (Table B-3).
Table B-3
CLASSIFICATION OF MSW GENERATION INTO
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL FRACTIONS, 1996
(In thousands of tons and percent of total)
Residential Wastes
Commercial Wastes
Thousand tons
115,310 - 136,280
73,380 - 94,350
Percent of total
55.0% - 65.0%
35.0% - 45.0%
Estimates are presented as a range because of wide variations across
the country.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Organic/Inorganic Fractions of MSW Discards
The composition of MSW in terms of organic and inorganic fractions is of
interest to planners of waste management facilities and others working with
MSW. This characterization of MSW discards is shown in Table B-4. (Discards
163
-------
were used instead of generation because discards enter the solid waste
management system after recovery for recycling, including composting.)
The organic fraction of MSW has been increasing steadily since 1970, from
75 percent organics in 1970 to over 85 percent in 1996. It is interesting to note,
however, that the percentage of MSW that is organics began to "level off" after
1990 because of the decline in yard trimmings discarded.
Table B-4
COMPOSITION OF MSW DISCARDS*
BY ORGANIC AND INORGANIC FRACTIONS,
1960 TO 1996
(In percent of total discards)
Year
1960
1970
1980
1990
1996
Organics**
77.3%
75.5%
77.5%
85.1%
85.5%
Inorganics!
22.7%
24.5%
22.5%
14.9%
14.5%
* Discards after materials recovery has taken place,
and before combustion.
** Includes paper, plastics, rubber and leather,
textiles, wood, food wastes, and yard trimmings.
t Includes glass, metals, and miscellaneous inorganics.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Table 3.
Ranking of Products in MSW by Weight
About 50 categories of products and materials are characterized as line
items in the tables in Chapter 2. It is difficult when examining that set of tables to
see in perspective the relative tonnages generated or discarded by the different
items. Therefore, Tables B-5, B-6, and B-7 were developed to illustrate this point.
In Table B-5, the various MSW products and materials are arranged in
descending order by weight generated in 1996. Subtotals in the right-hand
column group components together for further illustration. For example,
corrugated boxes, yard trimmings, and food wastes stand at the top of the list,
with each generating over 10 percent of total MSW. Together these three items
totaled 37.6 percent of MSW generated in 1996. The next six components, each
comprising 3 to 10 percent of total MSW generation, accounted for 24.5 percent of
generation. Together these nine components accounted for over 62 percent of
total MSW generated. The 22 items at the bottom of the list each amounted to
164
-------
less than one percent of generation in 1996; together they amounted to only 11.1
percent of total MSW generation.
Table B-6 ranks products in descending order by weight recovered in 1996.
Three products—corrugated boxes, yard trimmings, and newspapers—each
account for over 10 percent of total recovery, and collectively account for over 64
percent of MSW recovery. The next three components, each comprising 3 to 10
percent of total MSW recovery, accounted for 12.4 percent of generation. The
bottom 17 items each amounted to less than one percent of generation in 1996;
together they amounted to only 6.0 percent of total MSW recovery.
A different perspective is provided in Table B-7, which ranks products in
MSW by weight discarded after recovery for recycling (including composting).
This table illustrates how recovery alters the products' generation rankings. For
example, corrugated boxes, which ranked the highest in generation, ranked
fourth in discards in 1996.
Food wastes and yard trimmings accounted for over 25 percent of total
MSW discards in 1996. Seven components, each representing 3 to 10 percent of
total MSW discards, accounted for over 33 percent of discards. These components
included; miscellaneous durables, corrugated boxes, furniture and furnishings,
wood packaging, other commercial printing, newspapers, and clothing and
footwear. Together these nine components made up 58.3 percent of MSW
discards in 1996. Twenty categories of discards were each less than one percent of
the total; together these items totaled 9.4 percent of 1996 discards.
165
-------
Table B-5
GENERATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1996
ARRANGED IN DESCENDING ORDER BY WEIGHT
(In thousands of tons and percent of MSW generation)
Corrugated boxes
Yard trimmings
Food wastes
Newspapers
Miscellaneous durables
Furniture and furnishings
Office-type papers
Other commercial printing
Wood packaging
Paper folding cartons
Clothing and footwear
Glass beer & soft drink bottles
Third class mail
Other nonpackaging paper
Rubber tires
Glass food & other bottles
Major appliances
Miscellaneous nondurables
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
Disposable diapers
Steel cans and other packaging
Tissue paper and towels
Carpets and rugs
Other plastic packaging
Paper bags and sacks
Magazines
Aluminum cans and other packaging
Glass wine & liquor bottles
Plastic wraps
Lead-acid batteries
Plastic bags and sacks
Other paper packaging
Plastic other containers
Paper plates and cups
Books
Plastic trash bags
Plastic plates and cups
Small appliances
Towels, sheets, and pillowcases
Plastic soft drink bottles
Plastic milk bottles
Telephone directories
Paper milk cartons
Other paperboard packaging
Other miscellaneous packaging
Paper wraps
Total MSW Generation
Thousand
Tons
29,020
28,000
21,900
12,290
12,000
7,320
6,660
6,560
6,480
5,390
5,340
5,210
4,510
4,070
3,910
3,890
3,520
3,450
3,200
3,050
2,990
2,980
2,310
2,300
1,980
1,970
1,960
1,940
1,860
1,810
1,360
1,340
1,280
950
940
860
810
780
750
700
660
470
460
230
150
50
209,660
Percent
of Total
13.8%
13.4%
10.4%
5.9%
5.7%
3.5%
3.2%
3.1%
3.1%
2.6%
2.5%
2.5%
2.2%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.7%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.1%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
<0.1%
100.0%
Cummulative
Percent
13.8%
27.2%
37.6%
43.5%
49.2%
52.7%
55.9%
59.0%
62.1%
64.7%
67.2%
69.7%
71.9%
73.8%
75.7%
77.5%
79.2%
80.9%
82.4%
83.8%
85.3%
86.7%
87.8%
88.9%
89.8%
90.8%
91.7%
92.6%
93.5%
94.4%
95.0%
95.7%
96.3%
96.7%
97.2%
97.6%
98.0%
98.3%
98.7%
99.0%
99.4%
99.6%
99.8%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Chapter 2.
166
-------
Table B-6
RECOVERY OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1996
ARRANGED IN DESCENDING ORDER BY WEIGHT
(In thousands of tons and percent of MSW recovery)
Corrugated boxes
Yard trimmings
Newspapers
Office-type papers
Major appliances
Lead-acid batteries
Glass beer & soft drink bottles
Steel cans and other packaging
Aluminum cans and other packaging
Glass food & other bottles
Paper folding cartons
Other commercial printing
Miscellaneous durables
Rubber tires
Clothing and footwear
Third class mail
Food wastes
Wood packaging
Glass wine & liquor bottles
Magazines
Plastic soft drink bottles
Paper bags and sacks
Plastic milk and other bottles
Plastic other containers
Books
Towels, sheets, and pillowcases
Telephone directories
Plastic bags and sacks
Plastic wraps
Other plastic packaging
Carpets and rugs
Plastic plates and cups
Small appliances
Total MSW Recovery
Thousand
Tons
19,340
10,800
6,650
3,190
2,200
1,700
1,680
1,680
1,020
1,020
980
810
740
730
700
670
520
490
480
480
270
260
200
190
170
130
60
50
50
30
20
10
10
57,330
Percent
of Total
33.7%
18.8%
11.6%
5.6%
3.8%
3.0%
2.9%
2.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.4%
1.3%
1.3%
1.2%
1.2%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
0.5%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
100.0%
Cummulative
Percent
33.7%
52.6%
64.2%
69.7%
73.6%
76.5%
79.5%
82.4%
84.2%
86.0%
87.7%
89.1%
90.4%
91.6%
92.9%
94.0%
94.9%
95.8%
96.6%
97.5%
97.9%
98.4%
98.7%
99.1%
99.4%
99.6%
99.7%
99.8%
99.9%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Chapter 2.
167
-------
Table B-7
DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1996
ARRANGED IN DESCENDING ORDER BY WEIGHT
(In thousands of tons and percent of discards)
Food wastes
Yard trimmings
Miscellaneous durables
Corrugated boxes
Furniture and furnishings
Wood packaging
Other commercial printing
Newspapers
Clothing and footwear
Paper folding cartons
Other nonpackaging paper
Third class mail
Glass beer & soft drink bottles
Office-type papers
Miscellaneous nondurables
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
Rubber tires
Disposable diapers
Tissue paper and towels
Glass food & other bottles
Carpets and rugs
Other plastic packaging
Plastic wraps
Paper bags and sacks
Magazines
Glass wine & liquor bottles
Other paper packaging
Major appliances
Plastic bags and sacks
Steel cans and other packaging
Plastic other containers
Paper plates and cups
Aluminum cans and other packaging
Trash bags
Plastic plates and cups
Books
Small appliances
Towels, sheets, and pillowcases
Paper milk cartons
Plastic milk and other bottles
Plastic soft drink bottles
Telephone directories
Other paperboard packaging
Other miscellaneous packaging
Lead-acid batteries
Paper wraps
Total MSW Discards
Thousand
Tons
21,380
17,200
11,270
9,690
7,320
5,990
5,750
5,640
4,640
4,410
4,070
3,840
3,530
3,470
3,450
3,200
3,180
3,050
2,980
2,870
2,290
2,270
1,820
1,710
1,490
1,470
1,340
1,320
1,300
1,300
1,090
950
940
860
800
770
760
620
460
460
430
410
230
150
110
50
152,330
Percent
of Total
14.0%
11.3%
7.4%
6.4%
4.8%
3.9%
3.8%
3.7%
3.0%
2.9%
2.7%
2.5%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.1%
2.1%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.5%
1.5%
1.2%
1.1%
1.0%
1.0%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.7%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
<0.1%
100.0%
Cummulative
Percent
14.0%
25.3%
32.7%
39.1%
43.9%
47.8%
51.6%
55.3%
58.3%
61.2%
63.9%
66.4%
68.8%
71.0%
73.3%
75.4%
77.5%
79.5%
81.4%
83.3%
84.8%
86.3%
87.5%
88.6%
89.6%
90.6%
91.5%
92.3%
93.2%
94.0%
94.7%
95.4%
96.0%
96.6%
97.1%
97.6%
98.1%
98.5%
98.8%
99.1%
99.4%
99.6%
99.8%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Chapter 2.
168
-------
Characterization of MSW Discards by Volume
Solid waste is generally characterized by weight, either in pounds or tons.
Most statistics are compiled by weight. Landfill, combustion, and recycling
facilities generally charge fees by weight, and estimates of quantities are stated in
tons. Weight can be readily and accurately measured using scales. People agree
that properly calibrated scales will accurately measure weight, but there is no
standard methodology for measuring municipal solid waste volume. Previous
work on establishing a national consensus on solid waste volumes were
undertaken in 1989. Results of this, and subsequent, research are presented in
detail in previous updates of this report (i.e., 1990 and 1994 updates).
This section of Appendix B presents estimates of MSW discards by volume
for 1996 using density factors previously developed. Table B-8 summarizes these
estimated density factors for major categories of landfilled materials.
The estimated volume of MSW discards by product (Table B-9) and
material (Table B-10), in cubic yards, was derived from Chapter 2 and Table B-8.
(It is necessary to characterize the volume of MSW discards rather than
generation because discard estimates most closely match the wastes received at a
landfill, where the experimental data were derived. Discards include the waste
left after materials recovery and composting and before combustion, landfilling,
or other disposal.)
The data in Tables B-9 and B-10 is useful in comparing relative volumes of
products and materials in a landfill. However, caution is advised when using the
data in these tables. The density values in Table B-8 are based on sorted MSW
materials. The intermingling of different materials with different characteristics,
as occurs in a landfill, results in filling more air space than if the materials were
landfilled individually (or apart from each other). For example, mixing one cubic
yard of paper with one cubic yard of plastic results in less than two cubic yards of
material. At best, the data in the tables may provide an indication of the relative
order of densities and volumes of the various waste components in a landfill.
The calculated MSW landfill densities shown in Tables B-9 and B-10 are
about 750 pounds per cubic yard of, significantly less than what is typically
reported. Densities achieved in landfills that accept MSW are reported to vary
between 700 and 1,600 pounds per cubic yard. A minimum initial compaction
density of 1,000 pounds per cubic yard is sometimes recommended in landfill
operator training courses. As landfill depth increases, the density of the waste
increases. Higher densities are found in other solid wastes disposed in landfills.
The MSW discards density would, therefore, need to be higher than shown here
in order to achieve the landfill densities generally reported today.
169
-------
Table B-8
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED DENSITY FACTORS
FOR LANDFILLED MATERIALS
Density
(Ib/cu yd)
Durable Goods 475
Nondurable Goods
Nondurable paper 800
Nondurable plastic 315
Disposable diapers
Diaper materials 795
Urine and feces 1,350
Rubber 345
Textiles 435
Miscellaneous nondurables 390
Containers and Packaging
Glass containers
Beer & soft drink bottles 2,800
Other containers 2,800
Steel Containers
Beer & soft drink cans 560
Food cans 560
Other packaging 560
Aluminum
Beer & soft drink cans 250
Other packaging 550
Paper and Paperboard
Corrugated 750
Other paperboard 820
Paper packaging 740
Plastics
Film 670
Rigid containers 355
Other packaging 185
Wood packaging 800
Other miscellaneous packaging 1,015
Food Wastes 2,000
Yard Trimmings 1,500
Reference: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
"Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:
1994 Update". EPA/530-R-94-042. November 1994.
170
-------
Table B-9
ESTIMATED VOLUME OF PRODUCTS DISCARDED IN MSW, 1996
DURABLE GOODS
NONDURABLE GOODS
Newspapers
Books
Magazines
Office papers
Directories
Third class mail
Other commercial printing
Tissue paper and towels
Paper plates and cups
Plastic plates and cups
Trash bags
Disposable diapers
Other nonpackaging paper
Clothing and footwear
Towels, sheets & pillowcases
Other misc. nondurables
Total Nondurable Goods
CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING
Glass Packaging
Beer and soft drink
Wine and liquor
Food and other bottles & jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Food and other cans
Other steel packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and soft drink cans
Other cans
Foil and closures
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated boxes
Milk cartons
Folding cartons
Other paperboard packaging
Bags and sacks
Wrapping paper
Other paper packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
1996
Discards*
(thousand tons)
26,250
5,640
770
1,490
3,470
410
3,840
5,750
2,980
950
800
860
3,050
4,070
4,640
as 620
3,450
42,790
rING
3,530
1,470
s 2,870
7,870
1,180
120
1,300
570
40
330
940
9,690
460
4,420
lg 230
1,710
50
1,340
17,900
Weight
(%of
total)
17.2%
3.7%
0.5%
1.0%
2.3%
0.3%
2.5%
3.8%
2.0%
0.6%
0.5%
0.6%
2.0%
2.7%
3.0%
0.4%
2.3%
28.1%
2.3%
1.0%
1.9%
5.2%
0.8%
0.1%
0.9%
0.4%
0.0%
0.2%
0.6%
6.4%
0.3%
2.9%
0.2%
1.1%
0.0%
0.9%
11.8%
Landfill
Density**
(Ib/cu yd)
475
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
355
670
1,150
800
435
435
390
699
2,800
2,800
2,800
2,800
560
560
560
250
250
550
309
750
820
820
820
740
800
740
767
Landfill
Volume***
(thousand cu yd)
110,526
14,100
1,925
3,725
8,675
1,025
9,600
14,375
7,450
2,375
4,507
2,567
5,303
10,175
21,333
2,851
17,692
122,375
2,521
1,050
2,050
5,621
4,214
429
4,643
4,560
320
1,200
6,080
25,840
1,122
10,780
561
4,622
125
3,622
46,672
Volume
(%of
total)
27.4%
3.5%
0.5%
0.9%
2.2%
0.3%
2.4%
3.6%
1.8%
0.6%
1.1%
0.6%
1.3%
2.5%
5.3%
0.7%
4.4%
30.4%
0.6%
0.3%
0.5%
1.4%
1.0%
0.1%
1.2%
1.1%
0.1%
0.3%
1.5%
6.4%
0.3%
2.7%
0.1%
1.1%
0.0%
0.9%
11.6%
(continued on next page)
171
-------
Table B-9 (continued)
ESTIMATED VOLUME OF PRODUCTS DISCARDED IN MSW, 1996
1996
Discards*
(thousand tons)
Plastics Packaging
Soft drink bottles
Milk and other bottles
Other containers
Bags and sacks
Wraps
Other plastics packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood packaging
Other misc. packaging
Total Containers & Packaging
Total Product Waste f
Other Wastes
Food wastes
Yard trimmings
Miscellaneous inorganics
Total Other Wastes
TOTAL MSW DISCARDED
430
450
1,090
1,300
1,820
2,270
7,360
5,990
150
41,510
110,550
21,380
17,200
3,200
41,780
152,330
Weight
(%of
total)
0.3%
0.3%
0.7%
0.9%
1.2%
1.5%
4.8%
3.9%
0.1%
27.3%
72.6%
14.0%
11.3%
2.1%
27.4%
100%
Landfill
Density**
(Ib/cuyd)
355
355
355
670
670
185
327
800
1,015
674
621
2,000
1,500
2,500
1,783
756 *
Landfill
Volume***
(thousand cu yd)
2,423
2,535
6,141
3,881
5,433
24,541
44,953
14,975
296
123,239
356,141
21,380
22,933
2,560
46,873
403,014 *
Volume
(%of
total)
0.6%
0.6%
1.5%
1.0%
1.3%
6.1%
11.2%
3.7%
0.1%
30.6%
88.4%
5.3%
5.7%
0.6%
11.6%
100%
From Chapter 2. Discards after materials recovery and composting, before combustion and landfilling.
From Table B-8.
This assumes that all waste discards are landfilled, but some are combusted.
Other than food products.
This density factor and volume are derived by adding the individual factors. Actual landfill density
and densities of certain products may be considerably higher than shown (see discussion in text).
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
172
-------
Table B-10
ESTIMATED VOLUME OF MATERIALS DISCARDED IN MSW, 1996
Paper & Paperboard
Plastics
Yard Trimmings
Ferrous Metals
Rubber & Leather
Wood
Textiles
Food Wastes
Aluminum
Glass
Other!
Totals
1996
Discards*
(thousand tons)
47,320
18,700
17,200
7,330
5,610
10,350
6,770
21,380
1,960
9,180
6,530
152,330
Weight
(%ofMSW
total)
31.1
12.3
11.3
4.8
3.7
6.8
4.4
14.0
1.3
6.0
4.3
100.0
Landfill
Density**
(Ib/cu yd)
795
370
1,500
570
355
850
410
2,000
380
2,500
2,100
756 *
Landfill
Volume***
(thousand cu yd)
119,044
101,081
22,933
25,719
31,606
24,353
33,024
21,380
10,316
7,344
6,219
403,020 *
Volume
(%ofMSW
total)
29.5
25.1
5.7
6.4
7.8
6.0
8.2
5.3
2.6
1.8
1.5
100.0
* From Chapter 2. Discards after materials recovery and composting, before combustion and landfilling.
** Composite material density factors developed by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
** This assumes that all waste discards are landfilled, but some are combusted.
t Found by difference to obtain total to match products table. Note: Results in this table and Table B-9
are not identical due to rounding differences.
! This density factor and volume are derived by adding the individual factors. Actual landfill density
and densities of certain materials may be considerably higher than shown (see discussion in text).
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
173
-------
174
------- |