MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN
THE UNITED STATES
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste (5306P)
EPA530-R-10-012
December 2010
www.epa.gov
-------
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN
THE UNITED STATES:
2009 FACTS AND FIGURES
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
OVERVIEW 1
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE? 4
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN PERSPECTIVE 5
Trends Over Time 5
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN 2009 5
Materials in MSW 6
Products in MSW 8
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOURCES OF MSW 11
MANAGEMENT OF MSW 11
Overview 11
Source Reduction 12
Recycling 13
Combustion with Energy Recovery 14
Disposal 14
THE BENEFITS OF RECYCLING 16
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 17
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 18
INTRODUCTION 18
BACKGROUND 18
The Solid Waste Management Hierarchy 18
Overview of the Methodology 19
HOW THIS REPORT CAN BE USED 21
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: IN PERSPECTIVE 24
The Two Methodologies for Characterizing MSW: Site-Specific Versus Materials Flow.. 24
Municipal Solid Waste Defined in Greater Detail 26
Other Subtitle D Wastes 27
Materials and Products Not Included in These Estimates 29
OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT 30
CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES 31
CHAPTER 2 CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BY WEIGHT 34
INTRODUCTION 34
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: CHARACTERIZED BY MATERIAL TYPE 35
Paper and Paperboard 39
Glass 43
Ferrous Metals 46
Aluminum 49
m
-------
Other Nonferrous Metals 50
Plastics 50
Other Materials 55
Food Scraps 58
Yard Trimmings 59
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 60
Summary of Materials in Municipal Solid Waste 61
PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 66
Durable Goods 67
Nondurable Goods 77
Containers and Packaging 85
Summary of Products in Municipal Solid Waste 97
SUMMARY 101
MSW Generation 101
MSW Recovery 102
Long Term Trends 104
CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES 105
CHAPTER 3 MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 148
INTRODUCTION 148
SOURCE REDUCTION 149
Source Reduction Through Redesign 151
Modifying Practices to Reduce Materials Use 152
Reuse of Products and Packages 153
Management of Organic Materials 155
Measuring Source Reduction 156
RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING (INCLUDING COMPOSTING) 156
Recyclables Collection 156
Recyclables Processing 161
COMBUSTION WITH ENERGY RECOVERY 166
RESIDUES FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES 168
LANDFILLS 168
SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MSW MANAGEMENT 170
CHAPTERS REFERENCES 173
APPENDIX A MATERIALS FLOW METHODOLOGY 185
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION 185
CONVERTING SCRAP 185
ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPORTS/EXPORTS 185
DIVERSION 186
ADJUSTMENTS FOR PRODUCT LIFETIME 186
RECOVERY 186
DISCARDS 187
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION, RECOVERY, AND DISCARDS 187
IV
-------
List of Tables
Table Page
ES-1 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with Energy
Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 - 2009 (In millions
of tons) 2
ES-2 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with Energy
Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 - 2009 (In percent
of total generation) 2
ES-3 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with Energy
Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 - 2009 (In pounds
per person per day) 3
ES-4 Generation and Recovery of Materials in MSW, 2009 7
ES-5 Generation and Recovery of Products in MSW by Material, 2009 10
Materials in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream, 1960 to 2009
1 Generated 36
2 Recovery 37
3 Discarded 38
Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 2009
4 Paper and Paperboard 40
5 Glass 44
6 Metal 47
7 Plastics 52
8 Rubber and Leather 56
Categories of Products in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream, 1960 to 2009
9 Generated 68
10 Recovery 69
11 Discarded 70
Products in MSW with Detail on Durable Goods, 1960 to 2009
12 Generated 72
13 Recovery 73
14 Discarded 74
Products in MSW with Detail on Nondurable Goods, 1960 to 2009
15 Generated 81
16 Recovery 82
17 Discarded 83
-------
Products in MSW with Detail on Containers and Packaging, 1960 to 2009
18 Generated (by weight) 89
19 Generated (by percent) 90
20 Recovery (by weight) 91
21 Recovery (by percent) 92
22 Discarded (by weight) 93
23 Discarded (by percent) 94
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
24 Selected Examples of Source Reduction Practices 151
25 Number and Population Served by Curbside Recyclables Collection
Programs, 2009 157
26 Materials Recovery Facilities, 2009 161
27 Municipal Waste-to-Energy Projects, 2009 167
28 Landfill Facilities, 2009 169
29 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion, and Discards
of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2009 171
List of Figures
Figure Page
ES-1 MSW Generation Rates, 1960 to 2009 3
ES-2 MSW Recycling Rates, 1960 to 2009 4
ES-3 Materials Generation in MSW, 2009 - 243 Million Tons 6
ES-4 Products Generated in MSW, 2009 - 243 Million Tons 8
ES-5 Number of Landfills in the U.S., 1988 - 2009 15
ES-6 Management of MSW in the U.S.,2009 16
1-A Municipal Solid Waste in the Universe of Subtitle D Wastes 27
1-B Definition of Terms 28
Materials Generated and Recovered in Municipal Solid Waste
2 Paper and Paperboard Products Generated in MSW, 2009 39
3 Paper and Paperboard Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2009 41
4 Glass Products Generated in MSW, 2009 44
5 Glass Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2009 45
6 Metal Products Generated in MSW, 2009 48
7 Metals Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2009 48
8 Plastics Products Generated in MSW, 2009 51
9 Plastics Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2009 55
10 Generation of Materials in MSW, 1960 to 2009 62
11 Recovery and Discards of Materials in MSW, 1960 to 2009 63
12 Materials Recovery, 2009 64
13 Materials Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2009 65
VI
-------
Products Generated and Recovered in Municipal Solid Waste
14 Generation of Products in MSW, 1960 to 2009 97
15 Nondurable Goods Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2009 99
16 Containers and Packaging Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2009 100
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
17 Diagram of Solid Waste Management 149
18 Population Served by Curbside Recycling, 2009 158
19 States With Bottle Deposit Rules 160
20 Estimated MRF Throughput, 2009 162
21 Mixed Waste Processing Estimated Throughput, 2009 163
22 MSW Composting Capacity, 2009 164
23 Yard Trimmings Composting Programs, 2009 165
24 Municipal Waste-to-Energy Capacity, 2009 167
25 Number of Landfills in the U.S.,2009 169
26 Municipal Solid Waste Management, 1960 to 2009 172
Materials Flow Methodology
A-l Materials Flow Methodology for Estimating Generation of Products and
Materials in MSW 188
A-2 Materials Flow Methodology for Estimating Discards of Products and
Materials in MSW 189
Vll
-------
Executive Summary
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN THE UNITED STATES: 2009 FACTS AND FIGURES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
This report describes the national municipal solid waste (MSW) stream based on data
collected for 1960 through 2009. The historical perspective is useful for establishing trends in
types of MSW generated and in the ways it is managed. In this Executive Summary, we briefly
describe the methodology used to characterize MSW in the United States and provide the latest
facts and figures on MSW generation, recycling, and disposal.
In the United States, we generated 243 million tons of MSW in 2009—eight million tons
less than generated in 2008. Excluding composting, 61.3 million tons of MSW were recycled, a
slight decrease of 0.5 million tons from 2008. The tons of food scrap and yard trimmings
recovered for composting were 20.8 million tons in 2008. The recovery rate for recycling
(including composting) was 33.8 percent in 2009, up from 33.4 percent in 2008. Although the
tons recycled and composted decreased in 2009, the tons generated also decreased resulting in an
increase in the recycling rate (see Tables ES-1 and ES-2 and Figures ES-1 and ES-2).
MSW generation in 2009 declined to 4.34 pounds per person per day. This is a decrease
of 4 percent from 2008 to 2009. The recycling rate in 2009 was 1.46 pounds per person per day.
Discards sent for combustion with energy recovery was 0.52 pounds per person per day. Discards
sent to landfills after recycling and combustion with energy recovery declined to 2.36 pounds per
person per day in 2009. This is a decrease of 3.3 percent from 2008 to 2009 (see Table ES-3).
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-1. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with
Energy Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 - 2009
(In millions of tons)
Activity
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total materials recovery
Combustion with energy
recoveryt
Discards to landfill, other
disposal^
1960
88.1
5.6
Neg.
5.6
0.0
82.5
1970
121.1
8.0
Neg.
8.0
0.4
112.7
1980
151.6
14.5
Neg.
14.5
2.7
134.4
1990
208.3
29.0
4.2
33.2
29.7
145.3
2000
242.5
53.0
16.5
69.5
33.7
139.4
2005
252.4
59.3
20.6
79.9
31.6
140.9
2007
255.0
63.1
21.7
84.8
32.0
138.2
2008
251.0
61.8
22.1
83.9
31.6
135.6
2009
243.0
61.3
20.8
82.0
29.0
131.9
* Composting of yard trimmings, food scraps and other MSW organic material. Does not include backyard composting.
f Includes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse-derived fuel form, and combustion with energy
recovery of source separated materials in MSW (e.g., wood pallets and tire-derived fuel). See Table 29 footnote for more detail.
$ Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy recovery.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Table ES-2. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with
Energy Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 - 2009
(In percent of total generation)
Activity
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
r Total materials recovery
Combustion with energy
recoveryf
Discards to landfill, other
disposal^
1960
100.0%
6.4%
Neg.
6.4%
0.0%
93.6%
1970
100.0%
6.6%
Neg.
6.6%
0.3%
93.1%
1980
100.0%
9.6%
Neg.
9.6%
1.8%
88.6%
1990
100.0%
14.0%
2.0%
16.0%
14.2%
69.8%
2000
100.0%
21.9%
6.7%
28.6%
13.9%
57.5%
2005
100.0%
23.5%
8.1%
31.6%
12.5%
55.9%
2007
100.0%
24.8%
8.5%
33.3%
12.5%
54.2%
2008
100.0%
24.6%
8.8%
33.4%
12.6%
54.0%
2009
100.0%
25.2%
8.6%
33.8%
11.9%
54.3%
* Composting of yard trimmings, food scraps and other MSW organic material. Does not include backyard composting.
f Includes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse-derived fuel form, and combustion with energy
recovery of source separated materials in MSW (e.g., wood pallets and tire-derived fuel). See Table 29 footnote for more detail.
:f Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy recovery.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-3. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with
Energy Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 - 2009
(In pounds per person per day)
Activity
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total materials recovery
Combustion with energy
recoveryt
Discards to landfill, other
disposal!
Population (millions)
1960
2.68
0.17
Neg.
0.17
0.00
2.51
179.979
1970
3.25
0.22
Neg.
0.22
0.01
3.02
203.984
1980
3.66
0.35
Neg.
0.35
0.07
3.24
227.255
1990
4.57
0.64
0.09
0.73
0.65
3.19
249.907
2000
4.72
1.03
0.32
1.35
0.66
2.71
281.422
2005
4.67
1.10
0.38
1.48
0.58
2.61
296.410
2007
4.63
1.15
0.39
1.54
0.58
2.51
301.621
2008
4.52
1.11
0.40
1.51
0.57
2.44
304.060
2009
4.34
1.09
0.37
1.46
0.52
2.36
307.007
* Composting of yard trimmings, food scraps and other MSW organic material. Does not include backyard composting.
t Includes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse-derived fuel form, and combustion with energy
recovery of source separated materials in MSW (e.g., wood pallets and tire-derived fuel). See Table 29 footnote for more detail.
$ Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy recovery.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Figure ES-1. MSW Generation Rates, 1960 to 2009
300
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
A Total MSW generation
1990 1995 2000
I— Per capita generation
0
2005 2007 2009
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES-2. MSW Recycling Rates, 1960 to 2009
50%
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
—*—Total MSW recycling
1990 1995 2000
— Percent recycling
2005 2007 2009
Figures ES-1 and ES-2 show decreases in MSW generation and recycling from 2007 to
2009. The state of the economy has a strong impact on consumption and waste generation.
Waste generation increases during times of strong economic growth and decreases during times
of economic decline.
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE?
MSW—otherwise known as trash or garbage—consists of everyday items such as product
packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, and
batteries. Not included are materials that also may be disposed in landfills but are not generally
considered MSW, such as construction and demolition materials, municipal wastewater
treatment sludges, and non-hazardous industrial wastes.
-------
Executive Summary
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN PERSPECTIVE
Trends Over Time
Over the last few decades, the generation, recycling, and disposal of MSW have changed
substantially (see Tables ES-1, ES-2, and ES-3 and Figures ES-1 and ES-2). Annual MSW
generation continued to increase from 1960, when it was 88 million tons, until 2007. After 2007,
the tons of MSW generated started to decrease. The generation rate in 1960 was just 2.68 pounds
per person per day; it grew to 3.66 pounds per person per day in 1980, reached 4.72 pounds per
person per day in 2000, and decreased to 4.67 pounds per person per day in 2005. Since 2005,
MSW generation per capita rate has continued to decrease. The generation rate was 4.34 pounds
per person per day in 2009.
Over time, recycling rates have increased from just over 6 percent of MSW generated in
1960 to about 10 percent in 1980, to 16 percent in 1990, to 29 percent in 2000, and to about 34
percent in 2009. Disposal of waste to landfills has decreased from 94 percent of the amount
generated in 1960 to just over 54 percent of the amount generated in 2009.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN 2009
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses two methods to characterize the
243 million tons of MSW generated in 2009. The first is by material (paper and paperboard,
yard trimmings, food scraps, plastics, metals, glass, wood, rubber, leather and textiles, and other);
the second is by several major product categories. The product-based categories are containers
and packaging; nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers); durable goods (e.g., appliances); food
scraps; and other materials. See Figure 1-B in Chapter 1 for product category definitions.
-------
Executive Summary
Materials in MSW
A breakdown, by weight, of the MSW materials generated in 2009 is provided in Figure
ES-3. Paper and paperboard made up the largest component of MSW generated (28.2 percent),
food scraps were the second-largest component (14.1 percent) and yard trimmings were the third
largest (13.7 percent). Metals, plastics, and wood each constituted between 6 and 13 percent of
the total MSW generated. Glass made up 4.8 percent, rubber, leather, and textiles combined
made up 8.3 percent of MSW, while other miscellaneous wastes made up 3.5 percent of the
MSW generated in 2009.
Figure ES-3. Materials Generation in MSW, 2009
243 Million Tons (before recycling)
Food scraps 14.1%
Yard trimmings 13.7%
Other 3.5%
Wood 6.5%
Rubber, leather & textiles
8.3%
Paper and paperboard 28.2%
Plastics 12.3%
Glass 4.8%
Metals 8.6%
-------
Executive Summary
A portion of each material category in MSW was recycled or composted in 2009. The
highest rates of recovery were achieved with paper and paperboard, yard trimmings, and metals.
Over 62 percent (42.5 million tons) of paper and paperboard was recovered for recycling in 2009.
About 60 percent (19.9 million tons) of yard trimmings was recovered for composting or
mulching in 2009. This represents about a five-fold increase since 1990. Recycling paper and
paperboard and yard trimmings alone diverted about 26 percent of municipal solid waste from
landfills and combustion facilities. In addition, about 7.2 million tons, or 34.5 percent, of metals
were recovered for recycling. Recycling rates for all materials categories in 2009 are listed in
Table ES-4.
Table ES-4. Generation and Recovery of Materials in MSW, 2009
(In millions of tons and percent of generation of each material)
Material
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Metals
Steel
Aluminum
Other nonferrous metals*
Total metals
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Textiles
Wood
Other materials
Total Materials in Products
Other wastes
Food, other**
Yard trimmings
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
Total Other Wastes
TOTAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Weight
Generated
68.43
11.78
Weight
Recovered
42.50
3.00
Recovery As
a Percent
of Generation
62.1%
25.5%
15.62
3.40
1.89
20.91
29.83
7.49
12.73
15.84
4.64
171.65
5.23
0.69
1.30
7.22
2.12
1.07
1.90
2.23
1.23
67.27
33.5%
20.3%
68.8%
34.5%
7.1%
14.3%
14.9%
14.1%
26.5%
35.7%
34.29
33.20
3.82
71.31
242.96
0.85
19.90
Neg.
20.75
82.02
2.5%
59.9%
Neg.
29.7%
33.8%
Includes waste from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
* Includes lead from lead-acid batteries.
** Includes recovery of other MSW organics for composting.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
-------
Executive Summary
Products in MSW
The breakdown, by weight, of product categories generated in MSW in 2009 is shown
in Figure ES-4. Containers and packaging comprised the largest portion of products generated in
MSW, at 29.5 percent (71.6 million tons). Nondurable goods were the second-largest fraction, at
22 percent (53.4 million tons). The third-largest category of products is durable goods, which
made up 19.2 percent (46.6 million tons) of total MSW generation.
Figure ES-4. Products Generated in MSW, 2009
243 Million Tons (before recycling)
Containers & Packaging
29.5%
Nondurable Goods 22.0%
Food Scraps 14.1%
Yard Trimmings 13.7%
Other Wastes 1.5%
Durable Goods 19.2%
-------
Executive Summary
The generation and recovery of the product categories in MSW in 2009 are shown in
Table ES-5. This table shows that recovery of containers and packaging was the highest of the
three product categories—47.8 percent of containers and packaging generated in MSW in 2009
were recovered for recycling. About 51 percent of all aluminum cans in MSW was recovered
(37.5 percent of all aluminum packaging, including foil), while 66.2 percent of steel packaging
(mostly cans) in MSW was recovered. Paper and paperboard containers and packaging were
recovered at a rate of 62.4 percent; corrugated containers accounted for most of that amount.
Approximately 31 percent of glass containers in MSW were recovered, while about 22
percent of wood packaging (mostly wood pallets removed from service) was recovered for
recycling. About 14 percent of plastic containers and packaging in MSW were recovered—
mostly bottles and jars.
Overall recovery of nondurable goods in MSW was at 35.3 percent in 2009. Most of this
recovery comes from paper products such as newspapers and high-grade office papers (e.g.,
white papers). Newspapers constituted the largest portion of this recovery, with 88 percent of
newspapers generated being recovered for recycling. An estimated 74 percent of high-grade
office papers and 66 percent of other commercial printing was recovered in 2009. Newspaper,
high-grade office paper, and other commercial printing recovery increased in percentage from
2008 to 2009.
Recovery percentages of the other paper products in the nondurable goods category also
increased between 2008 and 2009, with standard mail* recovered at an estimated 63 percent, and
magazines at an estimated 54 percent.
Standard mail was formerly called Third Class mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-5. Generation and Recovery of Products in MSW by Material, 2009
(In millions of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Products
Durable Goods
Steel
Aluminum
Other non-ferrous 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
Glass
Paper and paperboard
Plastics
Wood
Other materials
Total containers and packaging
Other Wastes
Food, other**
Yard trimmings
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
Total other wastes
TOTAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Weight
Generated
Weight
Recovered
Recovery as
a Percent
of Generation
13.34
1.35
1.89
2.12
10.65
6.43
5.76
3.49
1.61
46.64
3.72
Neg.
1.30
Neg.
0.40
1.07
Neg.
0.44
1.23
8.16
27.9%
Neg.
68.8%
Neg.
3.8%
16.6%
Neg.
12.6%
76.4%
17.5%
33.48
6.65
1.06
9.00
3.25
53.44
17.43
Neg.
Neg.
1.46
Neg.
18.89
52.1%
Neg.
Neg.
16.2%
Neg.
35.3%
2.28
1.84
9.66
34.94
12.53
10.08
0.24
71.57
1.51
0.69
3.00
25.07
1.72
2.23
Neg.
34.22
66.2%
37.5%
31.1%
62.4%
13.7%
22.1%
Neg.
47.8%
34.29
33.20
3.82
71.31
242.96
0.85
19.9
Neg.
20.75
82.02
2.5%
59.9%
Neg.
29.1%
33.8%
Includes waste from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
* Includes lead from lead-acid batteries.
** Includes recovery of other MSW organics for composting.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
10
-------
Executive Summary
The nondurable goods category also includes clothing and other textile products—16.2
percent of these products were recovered for recycling or export in 2009.
Overall, durable goods were recovered at a rate of 17.5 percent in 2009. Nonferrous
metals other than aluminum had one of the highest recovery rates, at 68.8 percent, due to the high
rate of lead recovery from lead-acid batteries. Recovery of steel in all durable goods was 27.9
percent, with high rates of recovery from appliances.
One of the products with a very high recovery rate was lead-acid batteries, recovered at a
rate of about 96 percent in 2009. Other products with particularly high recovery rates were
newspapers (88 percent), corrugated boxes (81 percent), major appliances (67percent), steel
packaging (66.2 percent), and aluminum cans (51 percent). About 35 percent of rubber tires in
MSW were recovered for recycling. (Other tires were retreaded, and shredded rubber tires were
made into tire-derived fuel.)
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOURCES OF MSW
Sources of MSW, as characterized in this report, include both residential and commercial
locations. We estimate residential waste (including waste from multi-family dwellings) to be 55
to 65 percent of total MSW generation. Commercial waste (including waste from schools,
institutions, and businesses) constitutes between 35 and 45 percent of MSW. Local and regional
factors, such as climate and level of commercial activity, contribute to these variations.
MANAGEMENT OF MSW
Overview
EPA's integrated waste management hierarchy includes the following four components,
listed in order of preference:
11
-------
Executive Summary
• Source reduction (or waste prevention), including reuse of products and on-site
(or backyard) composting of yard trimmings
• Recycling, including off-site (or community) composting
• Combustion with energy recovery
• Disposal through landfilling.
Although we encourage the use of strategies that emphasize the top of the hierarchy
whenever possible, all four components remain important within an integrated waste
management system.
Source Reduction
Our waste management hierarchy emphasizes the importance of reducing the amount of
waste created, reusing whenever possible, and then recycling whatever is left. When municipal
solid waste is reduced and reused, this is called "source reduction"—meaning the material never
enters the waste stream.
Source reduction, also called waste prevention, 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. Examples of source reduction activities are:
• Designing products or packaging to reduce the quantity or the toxicity of the
materials used or make them easy to reuse.
• Reusing existing products or packaging, such as refillable bottles, reusable pallets,
and reconditioned barrels and drums.
12
-------
Executive Summary
• Lengthening the lives of products such as tires so fewer need to be produced and
therefore fewer need to be disposed of.
• Using packaging that reduces the amount of damage or spoilage to the product.
• Managing nonproduct organic wastes (e.g., food scraps, yard trimmings) through
onsite composting or other alternatives to disposal (e.g., leaving grass clippings on
the lawn).
Realizing the value of our resources, both financial and material, we have continued in
our efforts to reduce waste generation.
Recycling
The second component of our waste management hierarchy is recycling, including off-site
(or community) composting. Residential and commercial recycling turns materials and products
that would otherwise become waste into valuable resources. Materials like glass, metal, plastics,
paper, and yard trimmings are collected, separated, and sent to facilities that can process them
into new materials or products.
• Recycling (including community composting) recovered 33.8 percent (82 million
tons) of MSW generation in 2009.
• There were about 9,000 curbside recycling programs in the United States in 2009.
• In 2009, close to 3,000 yard trimmings composting programs were documented.
13
-------
Executive Summary
Combustion with Energy Recovery
MSW combustion with energy recovery increased substantially between 1980 and 1990
(from 2.7 million tons in 1980 to 29.7 million tons in 1990). From 1990 to 2000, the quantity of
MSW combusted with energy recovery increased over 13 percent to 33.7 million tons. After
2000, the quantity of MSW combusted with energy recovery has decreased to an estimated 29.0
million tons (11.9 percent of MSW generation) in 2009 (see Tables ES-1 and ES-2), less than the
29.7 million tons estimated in 1990.
Disposal
During 2009, about 54 percent of MSW was landfilled, similar to the percentage
landfilled in 2007 and 2008. As shown in Figure ES-5, the number of MSW landfills decreased
substantially over the past 21 years, from nearly 8,000 in 1988 to 1,900 in 2009—while average
landfill size increased. At the national level, capacity does not appear to be a problem, although
regional dislocations sometimes occur.
• The percentage of MSW landfilled remained about the same as 2008. Over time,
the tonnage of MSW landfilled in 1990 was 145.3 million tons (see Table ES-1),
but decreased to 139.4 million tons in 2000. The tonnage increased to 140.9
million tons in 2005, then declined to 131.9 in 2009. The tonnage landfilled
results from an interaction among generation, recycling, and combustion with
energy recovery, which do not necessarily rise and fall at the same time. In
general, as recovery increases, discards decrease.
14
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES-5. Number of Landfills in the United States, 1988 - 2009
8,000 --
7,000 - -
6,000 --
5,000 --
4,000 - -
3,000 --
2,000 --
1,000 - -
7924
7
37
9
6
_
-
32
6
_5 ft19
_
-
5
_
-
38
6
4
-
48
2
3,558
3<197 3,091
'
_
2514
-1 2<3142216
FT n 1 <967 1 £58 , vg-, 1 J54 1 ,908
i— 1 .— | _ |~|
Data Data
-- -- -- -- -- - - not - not -
available available
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
• In 2009, the net per capita discard rate (after materials recovery and combustion
with energy recovery) was 2.36 pounds per person per day. The net per capita
discard rate has decreased steadily since 1990. The 1990 rate was 3.19 pounds per
person per day, the 2000 rate was 2.71 pounds per person per day, the 2005 rate
was 2.61 pounds per person per day (Table ES-3).
MSW management through recovery for recycling (including composting), combustion
with energy recovery, and discard to disposal in 2009 is shown in Figure ES-6. In 2009, 82
millions tons (33.8 percent) of MSW were recycled, 29.0 million tons (11.9 percent) were
combusted with energy recovery, and 131.9 million tons (54.3 percent) were landfilled or
otherwise disposed. (Relatively small amounts of this total undoubtedly were incinerated without
energy recovery, littered, or illegally dumped rather than landfilled.)
15
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES- 6. Management of MSW in the United States, 2009
Combustion with Energy
Recovery 11.9%
Recovery 33.8%
Discarded 54.3%
THE BENEFITS OF RECYCLING
Recycling has environmental benefits at every stage in the life cycle of a consumer
product—from the raw material with which it's made to its final method of disposal. Aside from
reducing GHG emissions, which contribute to global warming, recycling also reduces air and
water pollution associated with making new products from raw materials. By utilizing used,
unwanted, or obsolete materials as industrial feedstocks or for new materials or products, we can
each do our part to make recycling work. Recycling also provides significant economic and job
creation impacts, a topic discussed at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/rmd/econ.htm.
16
-------
Executive Summary
Nationally, we recycled and composted 82 million tons of MSW. This provides an annual
benefit of 178 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reduced, comparable to
the annual greenhouse gas emissions from almost 33 million passenger vehicles. But the ultimate
benefits from recycling are cleaner land, air, and water, overall better health, and a more
sustainable economy.
The benefits of recycling and composting, such as elimination of GHG emissions, are
calculated using EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM). Please see: www.epa.gov/warm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
This report and related additional data are available on the Internet at
www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm.
17
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
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 49-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
for communities in the 21st century. 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 management through combustion
with energy recovery and landfilling that meet current standards—is being used by communities
as they plan for the future.
This chapter provides background on integrated waste management and this year's
characterization report, followed by a brief overview of the methodology. Next is a section on the
variety of uses for the information in this report. Then, more detail on the methodology is
provided, followed by a description of the contents of the remainder of the report.
BACKGROUND
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:
18
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
• Source reduction (or waste prevention), including reuse of products and on-site
(or backyard) composting of yard trimmings.
• Recycling, including off-site (or community) composting.
• Combustion with energy recovery.
• Disposal through landfilling.
As done in previous versions of this report, combustion with energy recovery is shown as
discards in the Chapter 2 tables and figures.
Overview of the Methodology
Readers should note that this report characterizes the municipal solid waste stream of the
nation as a whole. Data in this report can be used at the national level. The report can also be
used to address state, regional, and local situations, where more detailed data are not available or
would be too expensive to gather. More detail on uses for this information in this report for both
national and local purposes is provided later in this chapter.
At the state or local level, recycling rates often are developed by counting and weighing
all the recyclables collected, and then aggregating these data to yield a state or local recycling
rate. At the national level, we use instead a materials flow methodology, which relies heavily on a
mass balance approach. Using data gathered from industry associations, key businesses, and
similar industry sources, and supported by government data from sources such as the Department
of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau, we estimate tons of materials and products generated,
recycled, or discarded. Other sources of data, such as waste characterizations and surveys
performed by governments, industry, or the press, supplement these data.
19
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
To estimate MSW generation, production data are adjusted by imports and exports from
the United States, where necessary. Allowances are made for the average lifespans of different
products. Information on amounts of disposed MSW managed by combustion comes from
industry sources and the press. MSW not managed by recycling (including composting) or
combustion is assumed to be landfilled.
In any estimation of MSW generation, it is important to define what is and is not included
in municipal solid waste. EPA includes those materials that historically have been handled in the
municipal solid waste stream-those materials from municipal sources, sent to municipal landfills.
In this report, MSW includes wastes such as product packaging, newspapers, office and
classroom papers, bottles and cans, boxes, wood pallets, food scraps, grass clippings, clothing,
furniture, appliances, automobile tires, consumer electronics, and batteries.
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 debris, biosolids (sewage sludges), industrial process wastes, or a
number of other wastes that, in some cases, may go to a municipal waste landfill. These
materials, over time, have tended to be handled separately and are not included in the totals in
this report. EPA has addressed several of these materials separately, for instance, in Biosolids
Generation, Use, and Disposal in the United States, EPA530-R-99-009, September 1999, and
Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts, EPA530-R-
09-002, March 2009. Recycling (including composting) is encouraged for these materials as well.
In addition, the source of municipal solid waste is important. EPA's figures include
municipal solid waste from homes, institutions such as schools and prisons, and commercial
sources such as restaurants and small businesses. MSW does not include wastes of other types or
from other sources, including automobile bodies, municipal sludges, combustion ash, and
industrial process wastes that might also be disposed in municipal waste landfills or combustion
units.
20
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
HOW THIS REPORT CAN BE USED
Nationwide. 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 consistency in
methodology and scope aids in the use of the document for reporting over time. The report is,
however, of equal or greater value as a solid waste management planning tool for state and local
governments and private firms.
Local or state level. 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.
21
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
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 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.
Specific reasons for regional differences may include:
• Variations in climate and local waste management practices, which 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.
• Differences in the scope of waste streams. That is, a local landfill may be
receiving construction and demolition wastes in addition to MSW, but this report
addresses MSW only.
• Variance in the per capita generation of some products, such as newspapers and
telephone directories, 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.
• Level of commercial activity in a community. This will influence the generation
rate of some products, such as office paper, corrugated boxes, wood pallets, and
food scraps from restaurants.
22
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
• Variations in economic activity, which affect waste generation in both the
residential and the commercial sectors.
• 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. National data are also useful in areas where appropriate adjustments in the
data can be made to account for regional conditions as mentioned above.
In summary, the data in this report can be used in local planning to:
• Develop approximate estimates of total MSW generation in an area.
• Check locally developed MSW data for accuracy and consistency.
• Account for trends in total MSW generation and the generation of individual
components.
• Help set goals and measure progress in source reduction and recycling (including
composting).
23
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: IN PERSPECTIVE
The Two Methodologies for Characterizing MSW: Site-Specific Versus Materials
Flow
There are two basic approaches to estimating quantities of municipal solid waste at the
local, state, or national levels—site-specific and materials flow. This report is based on the
materials flow approach because site-specific approaches are problematic for national estimates.
Site-specific studies. In the first methodology, which is site-specific, sampling, sorting,
and weighing the individual components of the waste stream could be used. This methodology 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 other factors. In
addition, quantities of MSW components such as food scraps 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.
24
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
Of course, at the state or local level, sampling may not be necessary—many states and
localities count all materials recovered for recycling, and many weigh all wastes being disposed
to generate state or local recycling rates from the "ground up." To use these figures at the
national level would require all states to perform these studies, and perform them in a consistent
manner conducive to developing a national summary, which so far has not been practical.
Materials flow. The second approach to quantifying and characterizing the municipal
solid waste stream-the methodology used for this report-utilizes a materials flow 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 30 years.
The materials flow methodology is based on production data (by weight) for the materials
and products in the waste stream. To estimate generation data, specific adjustments are made to
the production data for 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 that become construction and demolition debris.) Adjustments are also made for the
lifetimes of products. Finally, food scraps, yard trimmings, and a small amount of miscellaneous
inorganic wastes are accounted for by compiling data from a variety of waste sampling studies.
One problem with the materials flow 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 a jar, detergent left in a box or bottle, and dried paint in a can.
Some household hazardous wastes, (e.g., pesticide left in a can) are also included among these
product residues.
25
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction and Methodology
Municipal Solid Waste Defined in Greater Detail
As stated earlier, EPA includes those materials that historically have been handled in the
municipal solid waste stream-those materials from municipal sources, sent to municipal landfills.
In this report, MSW includes wastes such as product packaging, newspapers, office and
classroom paper, bottles and cans, boxes, wood pallets, food scraps, grass clippings, clothing,
furniture, appliances, automobile tires, consumer electronics, and lead-acid batteries. For
purposes of analysis, these products and materials are often grouped in this report into the
following categories: durable goods, nondurable goods, containers and packaging, food scraps
and yard trimmings, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes.
Municipal solid wastes characterized in this report come from residential, commercial,
institutional, or 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 establishments, 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 scraps, 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.
26
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
The materials flow methodology used in this report does not readily lend itself to the
quantification of wastes according to their sources. For example, corrugated boxes may be
unpacked and discarded from residences, commercial establishments such as grocery stores and
offices, institutions such as schools, or factories. Similarly, office papers are mostly generated in
offices, but they also are generated in residences and institutions. The methodology estimates
only the total quantity of products 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-A, however, RCRA Subtitle D includes many kinds of wastes. It has been common practice to
landfill wastes such as municipal sludges, nonhazardous industrial wastes, residue from
automobile salvage operations, and construction and demolition debris along with MSW, but
these other kinds of wastes are not included in the estimates presented in this report.
Figure 1-A. Municipal Solid Waste in the Universe of Subtitle D Wastes
Subtitle D Wastes
The Subtitle D Waste included in this report is Municipal Solid Waste, which includes:
Containers and packaging such as soft drink bottles and corrugated boxes
Durable goods such as furniture and appliances
Nondurable goods such as newspapers, trash bags, and clothing
Other wastes such as food scraps and yard trimmings.
Subtitle D Wastes not included in this report are:
Municipal sludges Agricultural wastes
Industrial nonhazardous process wastes Oil and gas wastes
Construction and demolition debris Mining wastes
Land clearing debris Auto bodies
Transportation parts and equipment Fats, grease, and oils
27
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
Figure 1-B. Definition of Terms
The materials flow methodology produces an estimate of total municipal solid waste generation,
recovery, and discards in the United States by materials 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 to be 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 or 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. Imported secondary materials are also not counted in 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 with energy recovery, often called "waste-to-energy," is estimated in Chapter 3
of this report. Combustion of separated materials-wood and rubber from tires-is included in the estimates of
combustion with energy recovery in this report.
Discards include MSW remaining after recovery for recycling or composting. These discards
presumably would be combusted with or without energy recovery or landfilled, although some MSW is
littered, stored or disposed onsite, or burned onsite, 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.
28
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
For the analysis of municipal solid waste, products are divided into three basic categories: durable
goods, nondurable goods, and containers and packaging. The durable goods and nondurable goods categories
generally follow the definitions of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Durable goods are those products that last 3 years or more. Products in this category include major
and small appliances, furniture and furnishings, carpets and rugs, tires, lead-acid batteries, consumer
electronics, and other miscellaneous durables.
Nondurable goods are those products that last less than 3 years. Products in this category include
newspapers, books, magazines, office papers, directories, mail, other commercial printing, tissue paper and
towels, paper and plastic plates and cups, trash bags, disposable diapers, clothing and footwear, towels, sheets
and pillowcases, other nonpackaging paper, and other miscellaneous nondurables.
Containers and packaging are assumed to be discarded the same year the products they contain are
purchased. Products in this category include bottles, containers, corrugated boxes, milk cartons, folding
cartons, bags, sacks, and wraps, wood packaging, and other miscellaneous packaging.
Materials and Products Not Included in These Estimates
As noted earlier, other Subtitle D wastes (illustrated in Figure 1-A) 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 parts and equipment (including
automobiles and trucks) are 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.
29
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
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 2009
MSW generation, recovery, and discards of products in each material category are included.
In Chapter 3 of the report, estimates of MSW management by the various alternatives are
summarized. These include recovery for recycling and composting, combustion, and landfilling.
Summaries of the infrastructure currently available for each waste management alternative are
also included in Chapter 3.
A brief discussion of the materials flow methodology for estimating generation, recycling,
and disposal is presented in Appendix A.
30
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
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 ofNonpackaging 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.
31
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
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.
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. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1997 Update. EPA/530-R-98-007. May 1998.
32
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1998 Update. EPA/530-R-99-021. September 1999.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and
Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 1998. EPA/530-F-00-024. April 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 1999 Facts
and Figures. EPA/530-R-01-014. July 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2000 Facts
and Figures. EPA/530-R-02-001. June 2002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2001 Facts
and Figures. EPA/530-R-03-011. October 2003. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/
pubs/msw2001 .pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2005 Facts
and Figures. EPA530-R-06-011. October 2006. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/
pubs/mswchar05 .pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2007 Facts
and Figures. EPA530-R-08-010. November 2008. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/
municipal/pubs/mswOV-rpt.pdf
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.
33
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 report through 2009. The data presented also incorporate some
revisions to previously reported data for 1990 through 2008. The revisions are generally due to
improvements in the data available from data sources used in developing this report.
This chapter discusses how much municipal solid waste (MSW) is generated, recovered,
and disposed. First, an overview presents this information for the most recent years, and for
selected years back to 1960. This information is summarized in Tables 1 to 3 and Figures 10 to
13. Then, throughout the remainder of the chapter, MSW is characterized in more detail.
Findings are presented in two basic ways: the first portion of the chapter presents data by
material type. Some material types of most use to planners (paper and paperboard, glass, metals,
plastics, and rubber and leather) are presented in detail in Tables 4 to 8 and Figures 2 to 9, while
data on other materials also are summarized in Figures 12 and 13.
The second portion of the chapter presents data byproduct type. This information is
presented in Tables 9 to 23 and Figures 14 to 16. Products are classified into durable goods (e.g.,
appliances, furniture, tires); nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers, office-type papers, trash bags,
clothing); and containers and packaging (e.g., bottles, cans, corrugated boxes). A fourth major
category includes other wastes—yard trimmings, food scraps, and miscellaneous inorganic
wastes. These wastes are not manufactured products, but to provide complete information in each
table, they are included in both the product and the material tables.
34
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
This chapter provides data on generation, recovery, and discards of MSW. (See Figure 1-
B in Chapter 1 for definitions of these terms.) Recovery, in this report, 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 have been
exported from the United States. For yard trimmings and food scraps, recovery includes
estimates of the material delivered to a composting facility (not backyard composting). Under
these definitions, residues from a materials recovery facility (MRF) or other waste processing
facility are counted as generation (and, of course, discards), 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.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: CHARACTERIZED BY MATERIAL TYPE
Generation, recovery, and discards of materials in MSW, by weight and by percentage of
generation and discards, are summarized in Tables 1 through 3. Figures 10 and 11 (later in this
chapter) illustrate these data over time. A snapshot, by material, for 2009 is provided in Figures
12 and 13. In the following sections, each material is discussed in detail.
35
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 1
MATERIALS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
(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 Scraps
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 Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
29,990
6,720
10,300
340
180
10,820
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
13,830
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
15,510
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
16,550
17,130
5,790
5,810
12,210
3,190
146,510
23,860
35,000
2,900
61,760
208,270
2000
87,740
12,760
14,110
3,200
1,600
18,910
25,540
6,710
9,440
13,600
4,000
178,700
29,810
30,530
3,500
63,840
242,540
2005
84,840
12,540
14,990
3,330
1,860
20, 180
29,260
7,360
11,380
14,790
4,280
184,630
31,990
32,070
3,690
67,750
252,380
2007
82,530
12,520
15,640
3,360
1,880
20,880
30,750
7,540
1 1 ,940
15,280
4,550
185,990
32,610
32,630
3,750
68,990
254,980
2008
77,420
12,150
15,730
3,410
1,960
21,100
30,060
7,630
12,430
15,540
4,670
181,000
33,340
32,900
3,780
70,020
251,020
2009
68,430
11,780
15,620
3,400
1,890
20,910
29,830
7,490
12,730
15,840
4,640
171,650
34,290
33,200
3,820
71,310
242,960
Percent of Total Generation
1960
34.0%
7.6%
11.7%
0.4%
0.2%
12.3%
0.4%
2.1%
2.0%
3.4%
0.1%
62.0%
1 3.8%
22.7%
1 .5%
38.0%
100.0%
1970
36.6%
10.5%
10.2%
0.7%
0.6%
11.4%
2.4%
2.5%
1 .7%
3.1%
0.6%
68.8%
10.6%
19.2%
1 .5%
31 .2%
100.0%
1980
36.4%
10.0%
8.3%
1.1%
0.8%
10.2%
4.5%
2.8%
1.7%
4.6%
1.7%
71.8%
8.6%
18.1%
1.5%
28.2%
100.0%
1990
34.9%
6.3%
6.1%
1.3%
0.5%
7.9%
8.2%
2.8%
2.8%
5.9%
1 .5%
70.3%
1 1 .5%
16.8%
1 .4%
29.7%
100.0%
2000
36.2%
5.3%
5.8%
1 .3%
0.7%
7.8%
10.5%
2.8%
3.9%
5.6%
1 .6%
73.7%
12.3%
12.6%
1 .4%
26.3%
100.0%
2005
33.6%
5.0%
5.9%
1.3%
0.7%
8.0%
1 1 .6%
2.9%
4.5%
5.9%
1.7%
73.2%
12.7%
12.7%
1 .5%
26.8%
100.0%
2007
32.4%
4.9%
6.1%
1.3%
0.7%
8.2%
12.1%
3.0%
4.7%
6.0%
1 .8%
72.9%
12.8%
12.8%
1 .5%
27.1%
100.0%
2008
30.8%
4.8%
6.3%
1 .4%
0.8%
8.4%
12.0%
3.0%
5.0%
6.2%
1 .9%
72.1%
13.3%
13.1%
1 .5%
27.9%
100.0%
2009
28.2%
4.8%
6.4%
1 .4%
0.8%
8.6%
12.3%
3.1%
5.2%
6.5%
1 .9%
70.6%
14.1%
13.7%
1 .6%
29.4%
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, A Division of ERG
36
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 2
RECOVERY* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
(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 Scraps
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, OtherA
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.
Neg.
Neg.
5,610
1970
6,770
160
150
10
320
480
Neg.
250
60
Neg.
300
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
8,020
1980
1 1 ,740
750
370
310
540
1,220
20
130
160
Neg.
500
14,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
14,520
1990
20,230
2,630
2,230
1,010
730
3,970
370
370
660
130
680
29,040
Neg.
4,200
Neg.
4,200
33,240
2000
37,560
2,880
4,680
860
1,060
6,600
1,480
820
1,320
1,370
980
53,010
680
15,770
Neg.
16,450
69,460
2005
41 ,960
2,590
5,030
690
1,280
7,000
1,770
1,100
1,850
1,830
1,210
59,310
690
19,860
Neg.
20,550
79,860
2007
44,480
2,880
5,280
730
1,300
7,310
2,100
1,140
1,920
2,020
1,240
63,090
810
20,900
Neg.
21,710
84,800
2008
42,940
2,810
5,310
720
1,360
7,390
2,130
1,140
1,910
2,130
1,300
61 ,750
800
21 ,300
Neg.
22,100
83,850
2009
42,500
3,000
5,230
690
1,300
7,220
2,120
1,070
1,900
2,230
1,230
61 ,270
850
19,900
Neg.
20,750
82,020
Percent of Generation of Each Material
1960
16.9%
1 .5%
0.5%
Neg.
Neg.
0.5%
Neg.
1 7.9%
2.8%
Neg.
Neg.
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.
19.8%
13.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
9.6%
1990
27.8%
20.1%
1 7.6%
35.9%
66.4%
24.0%
2.2%
6.4%
1 1 .4%
1.1%
21 .3%
19.8%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
6.8%
16.0%
2000
42.8%
22.6%
33.2%
26.9%
66.3%
34.9%
5.8%
12.2%
14.0%
10.1%
24.5%
29.7%
2.3%
51 .7%
Neg.
25.8%
28.6%
2005
49.5%
20.7%
33.6%
20.7%
68.8%
34.7%
6.0%
14.9%
16.3%
12.4%
28.3%
32.1%
2.2%
61 .9%
Neg.
30.3%
31 .6%
2007
53.9%
23.0%
33.8%
21 .7%
69.1%
35.0%
6.8%
15.1%
16.1%
13.2%
27.3%
33.9%
2.5%
64.1%
Neg.
31 .5%
33.3%
2008
55.5%
23.1%
33.8%
21.1%
69.4%
35.0%
7.1%
1 4.9%
1 5.4%
13.7%
27.8%
34.1%
2.4%
64.7%
Neg.
31 .6%
33.4%
2009
62.1%
25.5%
33.5%
20.3%
68.8%
34.5%
7.1%
1 4.3%
1 4.9%
14.1%
26.5%
35.7%
2.5%
59.9%
Neg.
29.1%
33.8%
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.
• Includes recovery of paper and mixed MSW for composting.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
37
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 3
MATERIALS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
(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 Scraps
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 Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
24,910
6,620
1 0,250
340
180
1 0,770
390
1,510
1,710
3,030
70
49,010
1 2,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
82,510
1970
37,540
1 2,580
12,210
790
350
13,350
2,900
2,720
1,980
3,720
470
75,260
1 2,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
1 1 3,040
1980
43,420
14,380
12,250
1,420
620
14,290
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
10,470
10,410
1,800
370
12,580
16,760
5,420
5,150
12,080
2,510
117,470
23,860
30,800
2,900
57,560
1 75,030
2000
50,180
9,880
9,430
2,340
540
12,310
24,060
5,890
8,120
12,230
3,020
1 25,690
29,130
14,760
3,500
47,390
1 73,080
2005
42,880
9,950
9,960
2,640
580
13, 180
27,490
6,260
9,530
12,960
3,070
125,320
31 ,300
12,210
3,690
47,200
1 72,520
2007
38,050
9,640
10,360
2,630
580
13,570
28,650
6,400
10,020
13,260
3,310
122,900
31 ,800
1 1 ,730
3,750
47,280
170,180
2008
34,480
9,340
10,420
2,690
600
13,710
27,930
6,490
10,520
13,410
3,370
119,250
32,540
1 1 ,600
3,780
47,920
167,170
2009
25,930
8,780
10,390
2,710
590
13,690
27,710
6,420
10,830
13,610
3,410
110,380
33,440
13,300
3,820
50,560
160,940
Percent of Total Discards
1960
30.2%
8.0%
12.4%
0.4%
0.2%
13.1%
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%
100.0%
1980
31 .7%
10.5%
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
30.0%
6.0%
5.9%
1 .0%
0.2%
7.2%
9.6%
3.1%
2.9%
6.9%
1 .4%
67.1%
13.6%
17.6%
1 .7%
32.9%
100.0%
2000
29.0%
5.7%
5.4%
1 .4%
0.3%
7.?%
13.9%
3.4%
4.7%
7.1%
1 .7%
72.6%
16.8%
8.5%
2.0%
27.4%
100.0%
2005
24.9%
5.8%
5.8%
1 .5%
0.3%
7.6%
15.9%
3.6%
5.5%
7.5%
1 .8%
72.6%
18.1%
7.1%
2.1%
27.4%
100.0%
2007
22.4%
5.7%
6.1%
1 .5%
0.3%
8.0%
1 6.8%
3.8%
5.9%
7.8%
1 .9%
72.2%
18.7%
6.9%
2.2%
27.8%
100.0%
2008
20.6%
5.6%
6.2%
1 .6%
0.4%
8.2%
16.7%
3.9%
6.3%
8.0%
2.0%
71 .3%
19.5%
6.9%
2.3%
28.7%
100.0%
2009
16.1%
5.5%
6.5%
1 .7%
0.4%
8.5%
17.2%
4.0%
6.7%
8.5%
2.1%
68.6%
20.8%
8.3%
2.4%
31 .4%
100.0%
Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy 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, A Division of ERG
38
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Paper and Paperboard
Collectively, the many products made of paper and paperboard1 materials comprise the
largest component of MSW. The paper and paperboard materials category includes products such
as office papers, newspapers, corrugated boxes, milk cartons, tissue paper, and paper plates and
cups (Figure 2 and Table 4).
Figure 2. Paper and paperboard products generated in MSW, 2009
Corrugated boxes
Newspapers
Gable top/aseptic and folding cartons
Office-type papers
Standard mail
Other papers
Commercial printing
Tissue paper and towels
Magazines
Other packaging
Paper plates and cups
Books
Bags and sacks
Directories
m
m
m
a
•.-.-. •.•.•.•.•.•.•.!
'•I
••••••••(
0 5 10 15 20 25 3
million tons
Total generation of paper and paperboard in MSW has grown from 30 million tons in
1960 to 68 million tons in 2009 (Table 1). As a percentage of total MSW generation, paper
represented 34 percent in 1960 (Table 1). The percentage has varied over time, but is estimated
to be 28.2 percent of total MSW generation in 2009.
The term "cardboard" is often used for products made of paperboard (boxboard and containerboard), but this
inexact term is not used in the paper industry.
39
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 4
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2009
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Product Category
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Newsprint
Groundwood Inserts
Total Newspapers
Books
Magazines
Office-type Papers*
Telephone Directories
Standard Mail**
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Other Nonpackaging Paper***
Total Paper and Paperboard
Nondurable Goods
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
5,060
2,700
Recoveryt
(Thousand
tons)
4,490
2,350
(Percent of
generation)
88.7%
87.0%
7,760
960
1,450
5,380
650
4,650
3,490
3,490
1,170
4,480
33,480
17,430
52.1%
t Since 2008, recycling rates increased due to generation going down and applying default
values to increased single stream recovered mixed paper products.
* High-grade papers such as copy paper and printer paper; both residential and commercial.
** Formerly called Third Class Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
*** Includes tissue in disposable diapers, paper in games and novelties, cards, etc.
$ Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons
A Table 4 does not include 10,000 tons of paper used in durable goods (Table 1).
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
570
350
920
640
670
1,390
410
1,700
1,180
3,490
1,170
4,480
16,050
Containers and Packaging
Corrugated Boxes
Gable Top/ Aseptic Cartons $
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper and Paperboard
Containers and Packaging
Total Paper and Paperboard*
27,190
460
4,980
90
910
1,310
34,940
68,420
22,100
30
2,490
Neg.
450
Neg.
25,070
42,500
81.3%
6.5%
50.0%
Neg.
49.5%
Neg.
71.8%
62.1%
5,090
430
2,490
90
460
1,310
9,870
25,920
40
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
As Figure 3 illustrates, paper generation has generally increased since 1960, peaked at
about 88 million tons in 2000, and declined after 2000 to 68 million tons in 2009.
Figure 3. Paper and paperboard generation and recovery, 1960 to 2009
1960 1965
1970 1975
1980
1985 1990
1995 2000
2005
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. Similar but less pronounced declines in paper generation can be seen in other
recession years. This sensitivity is most obvious after 2006.
The wide variety of products that comprise the paper and paperboard materials total is
illustrated in Table 4 and Figure 2. In this report, these products are classified as nondurable
goods or as containers and packaging, with nondurable goods being the larger category.
41
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 or rolls 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 revisions as new data became available. Various deductions also are
made to account for products diverted out of municipal solid waste, such as gypsum wallboard
facings (classified as construction and demolition debris) or toilet tissue (which goes to
wastewater treatment plants).
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
relatively small amount estimated to have been used in other products such as insulation and
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 (preconsumer industrial process waste) 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 more recent updates, various
converting scrap recovery rates ranging from 70 percent to 98 percent were applied to the
estimates for 1990 through 2009. The converting scrap recovery rates were developed for a 1992
report for the Recycling Advisory Council. Because recovered converting scrap is deducted, the
paper recovery rates presented in this report are always lower than the total recovery rates
published by AF&PA.
42
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
Recovery of paper and paperboard for recycling is among the highest rates overall
compared to other materials in MSW (Table 2). As Table 4 shows, 81.3 percent of all corrugated
boxes were recovered for recycling in 2009; this is up from 67.3 percent in 2000 (Table 21).
Newspapers were recovered at a rate of 88.1 percent, and high grade office papers at 74.2
percent, with lesser percentages of other papers being recovered also. Approximately 43 million
tons of postconsumer paper were recovered in 2009—62.1 percent of total paper and paperboard
generation. This is up from 42.8 percent in 2000 (Table 2).
Discards After Recovery. After recovery of paper and paperboard for recycling, discards
were 25.9 million tons in 2009, or 16.1 percent of total MSW discards (Table 3).
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.
43
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 5
GLASS PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2009
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Product Category
Durable Goods*
Containers and Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles**
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Other Bottles and Jars
Total Glass Containers
Total Glass
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
2,120
6,000
1,710
1,950
9,660
11,780
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
Neg.
2,340
310
350
3,000
3,000
(Percent of
generation)
Neg.
39.0%
18.1%
17.9%
31.1%
25.5%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
2,120
3,660
1,400
1,600
6,660
8,780
Glass as a component of appliances, furniture, consumer electronics, etc.
** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink
alcoholic coolers and cocktails.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
Figure 4. Glass products generated in MSW, 2009
Beer & soft drink bottles'
Durable goods
Other bottles & jars
Wine & liquor bottles
s
s
s
* Includes carbor
to-drink alcoholic
ated drinks and nc
coolers and cockt
n-carbonated wate
ails
r, teas, flavored dr
nks, and ready-
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.(
million tons
44
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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
13.1 million tons in 1990. Beginning about 1987, however, the decline in generation of glass
containers slowed (Figure 5). During the 1990s glass generation varied from 12.0 to 13.6 million
tons per year. After 2000, glass generation trended downward from 12.8 to 11.8 million tons in
2009. Glass was 10 percent of MSW generation in 1980, declining to 4.8 percent in 2009.
18
16
Figure 5. Glass generation and recovery, 1960 to 2009
14 -
12 -
10-
Generation
6 -
Recovery
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
45
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Recovery. Recovered glass containers (bottles) are used to make new glass containers
and other uses such as fiberglass insulation, aggregate, and glasphalt for road construction. Until
1998, the Glass Packaging Institute published estimates of glass bottle recovery annually. Since
this data source is no longer available, industry and state agency sources were contacted for
recovery data. Recovery of glass containers was estimated at 3.0 million tons in 2009, up from an
estimated 2.8 million tons in 2008.
Discards After Recovery. Recovery for recycling lowered discards of glass to 8.8
million tons in 2009 or 5.5 percent of total MSW discards (Table 3).
Ferrous Metals
By weight, ferrous metals (iron and steel) are the largest category of metals in MSW
(Table 6 and Figure 6). The largest quantities of ferrous metals in MSW are found in durable
goods such as appliances, furniture, and tires. 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 parts and 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 2009 are shown in
Figure 7.
Generation. Approximately 10.3 million tons of ferrous metals were generated in 1960.
Like glass, the tonnages grew during the 1960s, but began to slow as lighter materials like
aluminum and plastics replaced steel in many applications. Since 1970, generation of ferrous
metals has varied between about 12.4 million tons in 1970 to 15.6 million tons in 2009 (Table 1).
The percentage of ferrous metals generation in total MSW has declined from 11.7 percent in
1960 to 6.4 percent in 2009.
46
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 6
METAL PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2009
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Product Category
Durable Goods
Ferrous Metals*
Aluminum**
Leadt
Other Nonferrous Metals $
Total Metals in Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Aluminum
Containers and Packaging
Steel
Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Packaging
Total Metals in
Containers and Packaging
Total Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other nonferrous
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
13,340
1,350
1,350
540
16,580
210
1,940
340
2,280
1,360
70
410
1,840
4,120
20,910
15,620
3,400
1,890
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
3,720
Neg.
1,300
Neg.
5,020
Neg.
1,280
230
1,510
690
NA
NA
690
2,200
7,220
5,230
690
1,300
(Percent of
generation)
27.9%
Neg.
96.3%
Neg.
30.3%
Neg.
66.0%
67.6%
66.2%
50.7%
37.5%
53.4%
34.5%
33.5%
20.3%
68.8%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
9,620
1,350
50
540
11,560
210
660
110
770
670
70
410
1,150
1,920
13,690
10,390
2,710
590
Ferrous metals (iron and steel) in appliances, furniture, tires, and miscellaneous durables.
Aluminum in appliances, furniture, and miscellaneous durables.
Lead in lead-acid batteries.
Other nonferrous metals in appliances and miscellaneous durables.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. NA = Not Available
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
47
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 6. Metal products generated in MSW, 2009
El Ferrous metals EDAIuminum E Other nonferrous
Durables
Packaging
Nondurables
22 -|
20 -
18 -
16 -
million tons
Figure 7. Metals generation and recovery, 1960 to 2009
10 12 14 16 18
Generation
+^r*^
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
48
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Recovery. The renewed emphasis on recovery and recycling in recent years has included
ferrous metals. Based on data from the Steel Recycling Institute, recovery of ferrous metals from
appliances ("white goods") was estimated at a rate of 90 percent in 2009. Recovery of all
materials in appliances (including ferrous metals) was estimated at 66.8 percent (Table 13).
Overall recovery of ferrous metals from durable goods (large and small appliances, furniture, and
tires) was estimated to be 27.9 percent (3.7 million tons) in 2009 (Table 6).
Steel cans were estimated to be recovered at a rate of 66.0 percent (1.3 million tons) in
2009. Approximately 230,000 tons of other steel packaging, including strapping, crowns, and
drums, were estimated to have been recovered for recycling in 2008. Recovery of ferrous metals
includes material collected through recycling programs as well as metal recovered at combustion
facilities.
Discards After Recovery. In 2009, discards of ferrous metals after recovery were 10.4
million tons, or 6.5 percent of total discards (Table 3).
Aluminum
The largest source of aluminum in MSW is aluminum cans and other packaging (Table 6
and Figure 6). Other sources of aluminum are found in durable and nondurable goods.
Generation. In 2009, 1.8 million tons of aluminum were generated as containers and
packaging, while approximately 1.6 million tons were found in durable and nondurable goods.
The total-3.4 million tons-was 1.4 percent of total MSW generation in 2009 (Table 1).
Aluminum generation was only 340,000 tons (0.4 percent of MSW generation) in 1960.
Recovery. Aluminum beverage containers were recovered at a rate of 50.7 percent of
generation (0.7 million tons) in 2009, and 37.5 percent of all aluminum in containers and
packaging (beverage containers, food containers, foil, and other aluminum packaging) was
recovered for recycling in 2009.
49
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Discards After Recovery. In 2009, about 2.7 million tons of aluminum were discarded in
MSW after recovery, which was 1.7 percent of total MSW discards (Table 3).
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 1.9 million tons in
2009. Lead in batteries accounted for 1.4 million tons of this amount. Generation of these metals
has increased slowly, up from 180,000 tons in 1960, 1.1 million tons in 1990, and 1.6 million
tons in 2000. As a percentage of total generation, nonferrous metals have never exceeded one
percent.
Recovery. Recovery of the other nonferrous metals was 1.3 million tons in 2009, with
most of this being lead recovered from batteries. It was estimated about 96 percent of battery lead
was recovered in 2009.
Discards After Recovery. In 2009, 590,000 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. While plastics are found in all major
MSW categories, the containers and packaging category (bags, sacks, and wraps, other
packaging, PET bottles, jars and HDPE natural bottles, and other containers) has the most plastic
tonnage at 12.5 million tons in 2009 (Figure 8 and Table 7).
50
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 8. Plastics products generated in MSW, 2009
Durable goods
Nondurable goods
Bags, sacks and wraps
Other packaging
PET bottles & jars and
HOPE natural bottles
Other containers
0246
million tons
3 10 1
In durable goods, plastics are found in appliances, furniture, casings of lead-acid batteries,
and other products. (Note that plastics in transportation products other than lead-acid batteries 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.
51
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 7
PLASTICS IN PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2009
(In thousands of tons, and percent of generation by resin)
Product Category
Durable Goods
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Plastic Plates and Cups
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
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
Bottles and Jars**
PET
Natural Bottlesf
HOPE
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
410
1,190
360
900
2,630
710
4,450
10,650
20
170
710
900
230
770
1,000
400
410
330
1,390
890
580
750
4,750
400
640
330
2,180
1,060
1,290
750
6,650
2,570
760
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
(Percent
of Gen.)
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
400
3.8%
Neg.
Neg.
720
220
Neg.
28.0%
28.9%
10,250
20
170
710
900
230
770
1,000
400
410
330
1,390
890
580
750
4,750
400
640
330
2,180
1,060
1,290
750
6,650
1,850
540
HDPE = High density polyethylene PET = Polyethylene terephthalate PS = Polystyrene
LDPE = Low density polyethylene PP = Polypropylene PVC = Polyvinyl chloride
LLDPE = Linear low density polyethylene Neg. = negligible, less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent
* All other nondurables include plastics in disposable diapers, clothing, footwear, etc.
** Injection stretch blow molded PET containers as defined in the 2008 Report on Postconsumer PET Container Recycling
Activity Final Report. National Association for PET Container Resources.
t White translucent homopolymer bottles as defined in the 2007 United States National Postconsumer Plastics Bottles
Recycling Report. American Chemistry Council and the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
52
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 7 (continued)
PLASTICS IN
(In thousands of tons,
Product Category
Plastic Containers & Packaging, cont.
Other plastic containers
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
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
Total Plastics in Containers & Packaging,
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in Cont. & Packaging
Total Plastics in MSW, by resin
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in MSW
PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2009
and percent of generation by resin)
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
1,340
30
40
270
70
1,750
660
60
2,380
640
110
3,850
150
620
340
800
930
290
470
3,600
by resin
2,720
3,380
430
3,220
1,840
470
470
12,530
3,530
5,210
1,120
6,300
5,530
2,470
5,670
29,830
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
270
Neg.
Neg.
20
Neg.
290
40
320
360
10
60
Neg.
Neg.
30
20
10
130
730
590
320
50
20
10
1,720
730
590
320
50
20
410
2,120
(Percent
of Gen.)
20.1%
7.4%
16.6%
6.1%
13.4%
9.4%
6.7%
9.7%
3.2%
6.9%
2.1%
3.6%
26.8%
17.5%
9.9%
2.7%
4.3%
2.1%
13.7%
20.7%
11.3%
5.1%
0.9%
0.8%
7.2%
7.1%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
1,070
30
40
250
70
1,460
620
60
2,060
640
110
3,490
140
560
340
800
900
270
460
3,470
1,990
2,790
430
2,900
1,790
450
460
10,810
2,800
4,620
1,120
5,980
5,480
2,450
5,260
27,710
HDPE = High density polyethylene PET = Polyethylene terephthalate PS = Polystyrene
LDPE = Low density polyethylene PP = Polypropylene PVC = Polyvinyl chloride
LLDPE = Linear low density polyethylene NA = Not Available
Other plastic packaging includes coatings, closures, lids, caps, clamshells, egg cartons, produce baskets, trays, shapes,
loose fill, etc.
Some detail of recovery by resin omitted due to lack of data.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
53
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Plastics are found in such nondurable products as disposable diapers, trash bags, cups,
eating utensils, medical devices, and household items such as shower curtains. The plastic food
service items are generally made of clear or foamed polystyrene, while trash bags are made of
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or low-density polyethylene (LDPE). 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) beverage bottles, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles for
milk and water, and a wide variety of other resin types used in other plastic containers, bags,
sacks, wraps, and lids.
Generation. Production data on plastics resin use in products are taken from the
American Chemistry Council's annual resin reports. The basic data are adjusted for product
service life, fabrication losses, and net imports of plastic products to derive generation of plastics
in the various products in MSW.
Plastics made up an estimated 390,000 tons of MSW generation in 1960. The quantity has
increased relatively steadily to 29.8 million tons in 2009 (Figure 9). As a percentage of MSW
generation, plastics were less than one percent in 1960, increasing to 12.3 percent in 2009.
Recovery for Recycling. While overall recovery of plastics for recycling is relatively
small - 2.1 million tons, or 7.1 percent of plastics generation in 2009 (Table 7) - recovery of
some plastic containers is more significant. PET bottles and jars were recovered at a rate of 28.0
percent in 2009. Recovery of high-density polyethylene natural bottles was estimated at 28.9
percent in 2009. Significant recovery of plastics from polypropylene lead-acid battery casings
and from some other containers was also reported. The primary sources of data on plastics
recovery are annual product recovery surveys conducted for the American Chemistry Council and
the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR).
54
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Discards After Recovery. Discards of plastics in MSW after recovery were 27.7 million
tons, or 17.2 percent of total MSW discards in 2009 (Table 3).
Figure 9. Plastics generation and recovery, 1960 to 2009
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
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.
55
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Generation. Generation of rubber and leather in MSW has shown slow growth over the
years, increasing from 1.8 million tons in 1960 to 7.5 million tons in 2009. 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 percent for
many years.
Recovery for Recycling. The only recovery for recycling identified in this category is
rubber from tires, and that was estimated to be 1.1 million tons in 2009. This is 35.2 percent of
rubber in tires in 2009 (Table 8). (This recovery estimate does not include tires retreaded or
energy recovery from tires.) Overall, 14.3 percent of rubber and leather in MSW was recovered
in 2009.
Table 8
RUBBER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2009
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Product Category
Durable Goods
Rubber in Tires*
Other Durables**
Total Rubber & Leather
Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Clothing and Footwear
Other Nondurables
Total Rubber & Leather
Nondurable Goods
Total Rubber & Leather
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
3,040
3,390
6,430
790
270
1,060
7,490
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
1,070
Neg.
1,070
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
TOTO"
(Percent of
generation)
35.2%
Neg.
16.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
1,970
3,390
5,360
790
270
1,060
* 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, A Division of ERG
56
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Discards After Recovery. Discards of rubber and leather after recovery were 6.4 million
tons in 2009 (4.0 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 12.7 million tons of textiles were generated in 2009 or 5.2
percent of total MSW generation (Table 1). Significant amounts of textiles enter the reuse
market. However, the reused garments and wiper rags re-enter the waste stream eventually
becoming part of MSW generation. Since reuse occurs prior to generation, the amount of reused
textiles is not included in the generation estimates (or estimated separately).
Recovery for Recycling and Discards. It was estimated that 13.8 percent of textiles in
clothing and footwear and 17.1 percent of items such as sheets and pillowcases was recovered for
export or reprocessing in 2009 (1.4 million tons) (Table 16). The recovery rate for all textiles is
14.9 percent in 2009 (1.9 million tons) (Table 2).
Wood. The sources of wood in MSW include furniture, other durable goods (e.g.,
cabinets for electronic equipment), wood packaging (crates, pallets), and some other
miscellaneous products. Generation and recovery methodologies for wood pallets are based on
data from the Center for Forest Products Marketing and Management (Virginia Polytechnic
Institute).
Generation. Generation of wood in MSW was 15.8 million tons in 2009 (6.5 percent of
total MSW generation).
Recovery for Recycling and Discards. Wood pallet recovery for recycling (usually by
chipping for uses such as mulch or bedding material, but excluding wood combusted as fuel) was
estimated at 2.2 million tons in 2009.
57
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Accounting for recovery for recycling, wood discards were 13.6 million tons in 2009, or
8.5 percent of total MSW discards (Table 3).
Other Materials. Generation of "other materials" waste is mainly associated with
disposable diapers, which are discussed under Products in Municipal Solid Waste. The only other
significant sources of materials in this category are the electrolytes and other materials associated
with lead-acid batteries that are not classified as plastics or nonferrous metal.
Food Scraps
Food scraps included here consist of uneaten food and food preparation wastes from
residences, commercial establishments such as grocery stores and sit-down and fast food
restaurants, institutional sources such as school cafeterias, and industrial sources such as factory
lunchrooms. Preconsumer food waste generated during the manufacturing and packaging of food
products is considered industrial waste and therefore not included in MSW food scrap estimates.
Generation. No production data are available for food scraps. Food scraps from
residential and commercial sources were estimated using data from sampling studies in various
parts of the country in combination with demographic data on population, grocery store sales,
restaurant sales, numbers of employees, and numbers of prisoners, students, and patients in
institutions. Generation of food scraps was estimated to be 34.3 million tons in 2009 (14.1
percent of total generation) (Table 1). Food scrap generation has increased, from earlier versions
of this report, due to increased population and revised commercial sampling study data.
Significant amounts of food products are donated by residents and commercial
establishments (such as grocery stores and restaurants) to local food banks and charities. A good
portion of these food donations (in particular, the commercial establishment donations of
wholesome but not-for-retail food products) represents waste diversion by removing food scraps
that would otherwise need to be managed either through composting or disposal. Data on these
types of programs are limited. For example, Portland, Oregon reported 14,000 tons of food
58
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
products diverted from the commercial sector through donations. This diversion takes place prior
to generation and therefore is not included in the generation estimates presented in this report.
Recovery for Composting and Discards. Beginning in 1994 for this series of reports, a
significant amount of food scraps composting from commercial sources was identified. As the
data source (a survey published by BioCycle magazine) improved, it became apparent that some
other composted materials (e.g., industrial food processing wastes) had been included with food
scraps classified as MSW in the past. Beginning in 2004, BioCycle staff conducted more targeted
data gathering of MSW food waste composting from primary sources including state solid waste
officials, large-scale municipal and commercial composting facilities, and large generators (e.g.,
supermarkets and restaurants).
The targeted data gathering of MSW food scrap composting operations resulted in an
estimate of 560,000 tons food scraps composted in 2009 (an increase of 100,000 tons from
2008). A separate BioCycle publication estimated 290,000 tons of MSW composted in 2009 (a
decrease of 50,000 tons from 2008). MSW composting includes the composting of food scraps as
well as other organic materials found in MSW. The total - 850,000 tons of food scraps and other
organic materials composted in 2009 - is shown in the recovery tables.
Yard Trimmings
Yard trimmings2 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 basis), in the 1990s local and state governments started enacting legislation that
discouraged yard trimmings disposal in landfills.
2 Although limited data are 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.
59
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Legislation affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills was tabulated, using published
sources. In 1992, 11 states and the District of Columbia-accounting for more than 28 percent of
the nation's population-had legislation in effect that bans or discourages yard trimmings disposal
in landfills. The tabulation of current legislation shows 23 states-representing about 50 percent of
the nation's population have legislation affecting disposal of yard trimmings. In addition, some
local and regional jurisdictions regulate disposal of yard trimmings. This has led to an increase in
backyard composting and the use of mulching mowers to allow grass trimmings to remain in
place since the early 1990's. However, we are unable to estimate the influence of backyard
composting and use of mulching mowers on a yearly basis.
Using these facts, it was estimated that yard trimmings generation has declined since
1990. In the absence of significant new legislation, yard trimmings generation has been
increasing slightly since 2000 (i.e., increasing as natural population and residential dwelling units
increase). An estimated 33.2 million tons of yard trimmings were generated in MSW in 2009.
Recovery for Composting and Discards. Recovery for composting of yard trimmings
was estimated using information from state composting programs that estimated tonnages
composted or mulched in 2009. State reported composting tonnages may vary on a yearly basis
with the amount of storm debris composted. Analysis of this information resulted in an estimate
of 19.9 million tons of yard trimmings removed for composting or wood waste mulching in 2009
- a significant increase over the 2000 estimate of 15.8 million tons.
It should be noted that the estimated 19.9 million tons recovered for composting in 2009
does not include yard trimmings recovered for direct landspreading disposal. It also should be
noted that these recovery estimates do not account for backyard composting by individuals and
practices such as less bagging of grass clippings. These are source reduction activities taking
place onsite, while the yard trimmings recovery estimates are based on material sent off-site.
60
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
This relatively small category of MSW is 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 3.8
million tons of MSW in 2009. 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 243.0 million tons in 2009.
Over the years paper and paperboard has been the dominant material category generated
in MSW, accounting for 68 million tons (28.2 percent of generation) in 2009. Food scraps, the
second largest material component of MSW at 34.3 million tons (14.1 percent of MSW
generation) have increased in terms of MSW tonnage and percentage of total MSW. Yard
trimmings, the third largest material component of MSW at 33.2 million tons (13.7 percent of
generation) has declined as a percentage of MSW since 1990 due to state and local legislated
landfill disposal restrictions and increased emphasis on backyard composting and other source
reduction measures such as the use of mulching mowers.
61
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Metals account for 20.9 million tons (8.6 percent of MSW generation) and have remained
fairly constant as a source of MSW since 2000. Glass increased until the 1980s; decreasing in
tonnage and as a percent of MSW generation since the 1990s. Glass generation was 11.8 million
tons in 2009, 4.8 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 2009 (behind paper, food scraps, and yard trimmings) at 29.8
million tons, and account for 12.3 percent of MSW generation.
Figure 10. Generation of materials in MSW, 1960 to 2009
250
200
150
100
50 -
All Other" includes primarily wood, rubber and leather, and textiles
DAII other*
HYard
Q Food
0 Plastics
D Metals
H Glass
D Paper
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
62
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 from 1960 to
the 1980s, increasing only from 5.6 million tons (6.4 percent of generation) in 1960 to 14.5
million tons (9.6 percent) in 1980. 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 16.0 percent of generation (33.2 million tons), increasing to 69.5 million tons
(28.6 percent) in 2000, and 82 million tons (33.8 percent of generation) in 2009.
Figure 11. Recovery and discards of materials in MSW, 1960 to 2009
250
Discards including
combustion with
I*T- .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.-.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.• energy recovery
Generation minus recovery = discards
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Estimated recovery of materials (including composting) is shown in Figure 12. In 2009,
recovery of paper and paperboard dominated materials recovery at 51 percent of total tonnage
recovered, while yard trimmings contributed 24 percent of total recovery. Recovery of other
materials, while generally increasing, contributes much less tonnage, reflecting in part the
relatively smaller amounts of materials generated in those categories.
63
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 12. Materials recovery,* 2009
Plastics
3%
All other
9%
Metals
9%
Yard trimmings
24%
Paper & paperboard
51%
1 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 products
were 28.2 percent of MSW generated in 2009, but after recovery, paper and paperboard products
were 16.1 percent of discards. Materials that have less recovery exhibit a larger percentage of
MSW discards compared to generation. For example, plastic products were 12.3 percent of MSW
generated in 2009 and, after recovery, were 17.2 percent of discards.
64
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 13. Materials generated and discarded*
in municipal solid waste, 2009
(In percent of total generation and discards)
Other wastes
18.3%
Yard trimmings
13.7%
Plastics
12.3%
Generation
Paper & paperboard
28.2%
Glass
4.8%
X Metals
8.6%
Other wastes
23.6%
Yard trimmings
8QO/
.O 70
Food wastes
20.8%
Paper & paperboard
16.1%
Metals
8.5%
Plastics
17.2%
Discards
'Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery.
65
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
The Chapter 2 section above gave a breakdown of municipal solid waste by material. It
described how the 243 million tons of MSW were generated, recycled (including composted) and
disposed of. The following section breaks out the same 243 million tons of MSW by product.
PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
The purpose of this section is to show how the products that make up municipal solid
waste are generated, recycled (including composted) and discarded. For the analysis, products are
divided into three basic categories: durable goods, nondurable goods, and containers and
packaging. These three categories generally follow the definitions of the U.S. Department of
Commerce, one of EPA's data sources. By these definitions, durable goods, (e.g., appliances) are
those that last 3 years or more, while nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers and trash bags) last less
than 3 years. For this report, containers and packaging are assumed to be discarded the same year
the products they contain are purchased.
The following 15 tables (Tables 9 through 23) show generation, recycling (including
composting) and discards of municipal solid waste in the three categories-durable goods,
nondurable goods, and containers and packaging. Within these three categories, products are
listed by type - for instance, carpets and rugs, office paper, or aluminum cans. The material the
product is made of may be stated as well (for instance, glass beverage containers or steel cans), or
may be obvious (for instance, magazines are made of paper.) Some products, such as tires and
appliances, are made of several different material types.
At the bottom of each of these 15 tables (Tables 9 through 23) there is a section titled
"Other Wastes." This contains information on food scraps, yard trimmings, and miscellaneous
inorganic wastes. These wastes are not products that can be estimated through the materials flow
methodology, but they are estimated by other means, as described earlier.
66
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Within Tables 9 through 23, the first three tables - Tables 9 through 11 - serve as an
index to the other tables. Table 9 shows what tables to consult for detailed information on
generation; Table 10 shows what tables to consult for detailed information on recovery; and
Table 11 does the same for detailed information on discards. The tables on generation all have
the same "bottom line" - 242.96 million tons in 2009 - with detail provided in different
categories - durable goods, nondurable goods, or containers and packaging. For Table 10 and
related tables, the "bottom line" is MSW is recovered - 82.02 million tons; and for Table 11 and
related tables, the "bottom line" is MSW discarded - 160.94 million tons. The "bottom line" for
each of the quantity tables is calculated by adding the major category subtotal lines.
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, consumer electronics, and other miscellaneous durable goods (e.g., luggage, sporting
goods, miscellaneous household goods) (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 2009, 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 46.6 million tons in 2009 (19.2 percent of
total MSW generation). After recovery for recycling, 38.5 million tons of durable goods
remained as discards in 2009.
67
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 9
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
(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 Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
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 Scraps
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
1 2,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
1 21 ,060
1980
21 ,800
34,420
52,670
108,890
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
1 51 ,640
1990
29,810
52,170
64,530
146,510
23,860
35,000
2,900
61 ,760
208,270
2000
38,850
64,010
75,840
178,700
29,810
30,530
3,500
63,840
242,540
2005
44,650
63,650
76,330
184,630
31 ,990
32,070
3,690
67,750
252,380
2007
45,770
61 ,760
78,460
185,990
32,610
32,630
3,750
68,990
254,980
2008
46,400
58,690
75,910
181,000
33,340
32,900
3,780
70,020
251 ,020
2009
46,640
53,440
71,570
171,650
34,290
33,200
3,820
71,310
242,960
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%
100.0%
1980
14.4%
22.7%
34.7%
71 .8%
8.6%
18.1%
1 .5%
28.2%
100.0%
1990
14.3%
25.0%
31 .0%
70.3%
1 1 .5%
16.8%
1 .4%
29.7%
100.0%
2000
16.0%
26.4%
31 .3%
73.7%
1 2.3%
1 2.6%
1 .4%
26.3%
100.0%
2005
17.7%
25.2%
30.2%
73.2%
1 2.7%
1 2.7%
1 .5%
26.8%
100.0%
2007
18.0%
24.2%
30.8%
72.9%
1 2.8%
1 2.8%
1 .5%
27.1%
100.0%
2008
18.5%
23.4%
30.2%
72.1%
13.3%
13.1%
1 .5%
27.9%
100.0%
2009
19.2%
22.0%
29.5%
70.6%
14.1%
13.7%
1 .6%
29.4%
100.0%
Generation before materials recovery or combustion. 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, A Division of ERG
68
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 10
RECOVERY* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
(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, OtherA
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, OtherA
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
3,460
8,800
16,780
29,040
Neg.
4,200
Neg.
4,200
33,240
2000
6,580
17,560
28,870
53,010
680
1 5,770
Neg.
16,450
69,460
2005
8,040
19,770
31,500
59,310
690
19,860
Neg.
20,550
79,860
2007
8,220
20,970
33,900
63,090
810
20,900
Neg.
21,710
84,800
2008
8,360
19,310
34,080
61 ,750
800
21,300
Neg.
22,100
83,850
2009
8,160
18,890
34,220
61 ,270
850
19,900
Neg.
20,750
82,020
Percent of Generation of Each Category
1960
3.5%
13.8%
10.5%
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
1 1 .6%
16.9%
26.0%
19.8%
Neg.
1 2.0%
Neg.
6.8%
16.0%
2000
16.9%
27.4%
38.1%
29.7%
2.3%
51 .7%
Neg.
25.8%
28.6%
2005
18.0%
31.1%
41 .3%
32.1%
2.2%
61 .9%
Neg.
30.3%
31 .6%
2007
18.0%
34.0%
43.2%
33.9%
2.5%
64.1%
Neg.
31.5%
33.3%
2008
18.0%
32.9%
44.9%
34.1%
2.4%
64.7%
Neg.
31 .6%
33.4%
2009
17.5%
35.3%
47.8%
35.7%
2.5%
59.9%
Neg.
29.1%
33.8%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Other than food products.
A Includes recovery of paper and mixed MSW for composting.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
69
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 11
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
(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 - Weight
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 Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,570
14,940
24,500
49,010
12,200
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
26,350
43,370
47,750
117,470
23,860
30,800
2,900
57,560
175,030
2000
32,270
46,450
46,970
125,690
29,130
14,760
3,500
47,390
173,080
2005
36,610
43,880
44,830
125,320
31,300
12,210
3,690
47,200
172,520
2007
37,550
40,790
44,560
122,900
31,800
1 1 ,730
3,750
47,280
170,180
2008
38,040
39,380
41,830
119,250
32,540
1 1 ,600
3,780
47,920
167,170
2009
38,480
34,550
37,350
110,380
33,440
13,300
3,820
50,560
160,940
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%
24.8%
27.3%
67.1%
13.6%
17.6%
1 .7%
32.9%
100.0%
2000
18.6%
26.8%
27.1%
72.6%
16.8%
8.5%
2.0%
27.4%
100.0%
2005
21 .2%
25.4%
26.0%
72.6%
18.1%
7.1%
2.1%
27.4%
100.0%
2007
22.1%
24.0%
26.2%
72.2%
18.7%
6.9%
2.2%
27.8%
100.0%
2008
22.8%
23.6%
25.0%
71 .3%
19.5%
6.9%
2.3%
28.7%
100.0%
2009
23.9%
21 .5%
23.2%
68.6%
20.8%
8.3%
2.4%
31 .4%
100.0%
Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy 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, A Division of ERG
70
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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, Appliance Manufacturer
Shipments Forecasts, and Appliance Statistical Review. 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 25 years.
Generation of major appliances has increased very slowly over the years. In 2009,
generation was 3.8 million tons, or 1.5 percent of total MSW generation. In general, the number
of units of appliances has increased but average weight per unit has decreased over the years.
Ferrous metals (steel and iron) are the predominant materials in major appliances, but other
metals, plastics, glass, and other materials are also present.
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 2.5 million tons in 2009, leaving 1.3 million tons of appliances to be
discarded.
Small Appliances. This category includes items such as toasters, hair dryers, electric
coffee pots, and the like. Information on shipments of small appliances was obtained from
Department of Commerce data and Appliance Statistical Review. Information on weights and
materials composition of discarded small appliances was obtained through manufacturer
specifications and interviews. It was estimated that 1.6 million tons of small appliances were
generated in 2009. A small amount of ferrous metals in small appliances is recovered through
magnetic separation.
71
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 12
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Products
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Selected Consumer Electronics***
Other Miscellaneous Durables
Total Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 18)
Total Product Wastes}
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
Products
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Selected Consumer Electronics***
Other Miscellaneous Durables
Total Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product Wastes}
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2007
2008
2009
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
14,660
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
12,470
29,810
52,170
64,530
146,510
23,860
35,000
2,900
61,760
208,270
3,640
1,040
7,990
2,570
4,930
2,280
1,900
14,500
16,400
38,850
64,010
75,840
178,700
29,810
30,530
3,500
63,840
242,540
3,610
1,180
8,870
2,980
4,960
2,740
2,630
17,680
20,310
44,650
63,650
76,330
184,630
31 ,990
32,070
3,690
67,750
252,380
3,620
1,390
9,340
3,140
5,000
2,800
3,010
17,470
20,480
45,770
61 ,760
78,460
185,990
32,610
32,630
3,750
68,990
254,980
3,690
1,530
9,610
3,220
5,020
2,930
3,160
17,240
20,400
46,400
58,690
75,910
181,000
33,340
32,900
3,780
70,020
251 ,020
3,760
1,630
9,870
3,450
4,730
2,800
3,190
17,210
20,400
46,640
53,440
71 ,570
171,650
34,290
33,200
3,820
71,310
242,960
Percent of Total Generation
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2007
2008
2009
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 .7%
0.7%
6.0%
14.3%
25.0%
31.0%
70.3%
1 1 .5%
16.8%
1 .4%
29.7%
100.0%
1.5%
0.4%
3.3%
1.1%
2.0%
0.9%
0.8%
6.0%
6.8%
16.0%
26.4%
31.3%
73.7%
12.3%
12.6%
1 .4%
26.3%
100.0%
1 .4%
0.5%
3.5%
1 .2%
2.0%
1.1%
1 .0%
7.0%
8.0%
17.7%
25.2%
30.2%
73.2%
12.7%
12.7%
1 .5%
26.8%
100.0%
1.4%
0.5%
3.7%
1.2%
2.0%
1.1%
1.2%
6.9%
8.0%
18.0%
24.2%
30.8%
72.9%
12.8%
12.8%
1 .5%
27.1%
100.0%
1 .5%
0.6%
3.8%
1 .3%
2.0%
1 .2%
1 .3%
6.9%
8.1%
18.5%
23.4%
30.2%
72.1%
13.3%
13.1%
1 .5%
27.9%
100.0%
1 .5%
0.7%
4.1%
1 .4%
1 .9%
1 .2%
1 .3%
7.1%
8.4%
19.2%
22.0%
29.5%
70.6%
14.1%
13.7%
1 .6%
29.4%
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. *** Not estimated separately prior to 1999. Preliminary data; may undergo revision.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
72
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 13
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Products
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Selected Consumer Electronics***
Other Miscellaneous Durables
Total Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
Products
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Selected Consumer Electronics***
Other Miscellaneous Durables
Total Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2007
2008
2009
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
14,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
14,520
1,070
10
Neg.
Neg.
440
1,470
470
3,460
8,800
16,780
29,040
Neg.
4,200
Neg.
4,200
33,240
2,000
20
Neg.
190
1,290
2,130
190
760
950
6,580
17,560
28,870
53,010
680
1 5,770
Neg.
16,450
69,460
2,420
20
Neg.
250
1,720
2,630
360
640
1,000
8,040
1 9,770
31,500
59,310
690
1 9,860
Neg.
20,550
79,860
2,430
20
Neg.
280
1,770
2,690
550
480
1,030
8,220
20,970
33,900
63,090
810
20,900
Neg.
21,710
84,800
2,470
110
10
270
1,780
2,810
560
350
910
8,360
19,310
34,080
61 ,750
800
21,300
Neg.
22,100
83,850
2,510
110
10
270
1,670
2,680
600
310
910
8,160
18,890
34,220
61 ,270
850
19,900
Neg.
20,750
82,020
Percent of Generation of Each Product
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2007
2008
2009
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%
97.4%
3.8%
1 1 .6%
16.9%
26.0%
19.8%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
6.8%
16.0%
54.9%
1 .9%
Neg.
7.4%
26.2%
93.4%
1 0.0%
5.2%
5.8%
16.9%
27.4%
38.1%
29.7%
2.3%
51.7%
Neg.
25.8%
28.6%
67.0%
1 .7%
Neg.
8.4%
34.7%
96.0%
13.7%
3.6%
4.9%
18.0%
31.1%
41 .3%
32.1%
2.2%
61 .9%
Neg.
30.3%
31 .6%
67.1%
1 .4%
Neg.
8.9%
35.4%
96.1%
18.3%
2.7%
5.0%
18.0%
34.0%
43.2%
33.9%
2.5%
64.1%
Neg.
31 .5%
33.3%
66.9%
7.2%
0.1%
8.4%
35.5%
95.9%
17.7%
2.0%
4.5%
18.0%
32.9%
44.9%
34.1%
2.4%
64.7%
Neg.
31 .6%
33.4%
66.8%
6.7%
0.1%
7.8%
35.3%
95.7%
18.8%
1 .8%
4.5%
17.5%
35.3%
47.8%
35.7%
2.5%
59.9%
Neg.
29.1%
33.8%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990. *** Not estimated separately prior to 1999.
t 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, A Division of ERG
73
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 14
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Products
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Selected Consumer Electronics***
Other Miscellaneous Durables
Total Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
Products
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
Small Appliances**
Furniture and Furnishings
Carpets and Rugs**
Rubber Tires
Batteries, Lead-Acid
Miscellaneous Durables
Selected Consumer Electronics***
Other Miscellaneous Durables
Total Miscellaneous Durables
Total Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2007
2008
2009
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
40
12,000
26,350
43,370
47,750
117,470
23,860
30,800
2,900
57,560
175,030
1,640
1,020
7,990
2,380
3,640
150
1,710
13,740
15,450
32,270
46,450
46,970
125,690
29,130
14,760
3,500
47,390
173,080
1,190
1,160
8,870
2,730
3,240
110
2,270
17,040
19,310
36,610
43,880
44,830
125,320
31 ,300
12,210
3,690
47,200
172,520
1,190
1,370
9,340
2,860
3,230
110
2,460
16,990
19,450
37,550
40,790
44,560
122,900
31 ,800
1 1 ,730
3,750
47,280
170,180
1,220
1,420
9,600
2,950
3,240
120
2,600
16,890
19,490
38,040
39,380
41 ,830
119,250
32,540
1 1 ,600
3,780
47,920
167,170
1,250
1,520
9,860
3,180
3,060
120
2,590
16,900
19,490
38,480
34,550
37,350
110,380
33,440
13,300
3,820
50,560
160,940
Percent of Total Discards
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2007
2008
2009
2.0%
2.6%
1 .0%
Neg.
6.1%
1 1 .6%
18.1%
29.7%
59.4%
14.8%
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%
14.9%
21 .7%
32.2%
68.8%
9.5%
20.1%
1 .6%
31 .2%
1 00.0%
1 .3%
0.3%
3.9%
0.9%
1 .8%
0.0%
6.9%
15.1%
24.8%
27.3%
67.1%
13.6%
17.6%
1 .7%
32.9%
1 00.0%
0.9%
0.6%
4.6%
1 .4%
2.1%
0.1%
1 .0%
7.9%
8.9%
18.6%
26.8%
27.1%
72.6%
16.8%
8.5%
2.0%
27.4%
1 00.0%
0.7%
0.7%
5.1%
1 .6%
1 .9%
0.1%
1 .3%
9.9%
1 1 .2%
21.2%
25.4%
26.0%
72.6%
18.1%
7.1%
2.1%
27.4%
100.0%
0.7%
0.8%
5.5%
1 .7%
1 .9%
0.1%
1 .4%
10.0%
1 1 .4%
22.1%
24.0%
26.2%
72.2%
18.7%
6.9%
2.2%
27.8%
1 00.0%
0.7%
0.8%
5.7%
1 .8%
1 .9%
0.1%
1 .6%
10.1%
1 1 .7%
22.8%
23.6%
25.0%
71 .3%
19.5%
6.9%
2.3%
28.7%
100.0%
0.8%
0.9%
6.1%
2.0%
1 .9%
0.1%
1 .6%
10.5%
12.1%
23.9%
21 .5%
23.2%
68.6%
20.8%
8.3%
2.4%
31 .4%
100.0%
* Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery.
Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990. *** Not estimated separately prior to 1999. Preliminary data; may undergo revision.
f 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, A Division of ERG
74
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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. For example, factors are developed by applying sales growth
statistics (expressed as constant dollars) in household and office furniture, curtains, and
mattresses to textile consumption (in tons) in household and office furniture, curtains, and
mattresses manufacturing for those years where consumption data are available. These factors are
then applied to those years where sales statistics are available but consumption data are not
available. Adjustments are made for imports and exports and adjustments are made for the
lifetimes of the furniture.
Generation of furniture and furnishings represents products at the end-of-life (after
primary use and reuse by secondary owners). Generation of furniture and furnishings in MSW
has increased from 2.2 million tons in 1960 to 9.9 million tons in 2009 (4.1 percent of total
MSW). The only recovery of materials from furniture identified was mattress recovery.
According to an industry representative, mattress recovery is estimated at 10,000 tons. 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 pounds per
square yard factors developed for this report. In recent years, carpet sales from the Department of
Commerce Current Industrial Report Carpet and Rug series have been used. An estimated 3.5
million tons of carpets and rugs were generated in MSW in 2009, which was 1.4 percent of total
generation.
Recovery of carpet fiber, backing, and padding - estimated from industry data - was
270,000 tons in 2009 (7.8 percent of carpet generation).
75
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Vehicle Tires. The methodology for estimating generation of rubber tires for automobiles
and trucks is 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. Generation of rubber tires increased from 1.1 million tons
in 1960 to 4.7 million tons in 2009 (1.9 percent of total MSW). Since 2000, the generation of
rubber tires has remained fairly constant.
Data on recovery of tires are based on data from the Scrap Tire Management Council.
The tire recovery rate increased from 26.2 percent in 2000 to 35.3 percent in 2009. From 2005 to
2008, the quantity of tires generated and recovered through recycling remained relatively steady.
In 2009, the quantity of tires generated and recovered through recycling decreased; however, the
recycling rate remained about the same as 2008. After recovery, 3.1 million tons of tires were
discarded in 2009. (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 2.8 million tons of
lead-acid batteries from automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles were generated in MSW in 2009
(1.2 percent of total generation).
The Battery Council International provided the most recent data on recovery of batteries.
Recovery of batteries for recycling has fluctuated between 70 percent and 96 percent; recovery
has increased since 1980 as a growing number of communities have restricted batteries from
disposal at landfills or combustion facilities. In 2009, 95.7 percent of the lead in these batteries
was estimated to be recovered for recycling as well as substantial quantities of the polypropylene
76
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
battery casings. Discards after recycling of these batteries were 120,000 tons in 2009. (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 Durable Goods. Miscellaneous durable goods include consumer
electronics such as television sets, videocassette recorders, and personal computers; luggage;
sporting equipment; and the like. An estimated 20.4 million tons of these goods were generated
in 2009, amounting to 8.4 percent of MSW generated.
As in recent previous updates of this report, generation of selected consumer electronic
products was estimated as a subset of miscellaneous durable goods. In 2009, an estimated 3.2
million tons of these goods were generated. Of this, approximately 600,000 tons of selected
consumer electronics were collected for recycling. Selected consumer electronics include
products such as TVs, VCRs, DVD players, video cameras, stereo systems, telephones, and
computer equipment. EPA has analyzed television, computer products, and cell phone
management separately in the 2010 report Electronics Waste Management in the United States
Through 2009.
The miscellaneous durable goods category, as a whole, includes ferrous metals as well as
plastics, glass, rubber, wood, and other metals. An estimated 310,000 tons of ferrous metals were
estimated to have been recovered from this category through pre-combustion and post-
combustion magnetic separation at MSW combustion facilities in 2009, bringing total recovery
from this category to 910,000 tons. Discards of miscellaneous durable goods were 19.5 million
tons in 2009.
Nondurable Goods
The Department of Commerce defines nondurable goods as those products having a
lifetime of less than three years, and this definition was followed for this report to the extent
possible.
77
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 53.4 million tons in 2009 (22.0 percent of
total generation). Recovery of paper products in this category is quite significant, resulting in
18.9 million tons of nondurable goods recovered in 2009 (35.3 percent of nondurables
generation). This means that 34.5 million tons of nondurable goods were discarded in 2009 (21.5
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 2009 was shown earlier in Table 4. Generation of paper and paperboard nondurable products
declined from 47.8 million tons in 2000 to 33.5 million tons in 2009. Each of the paper and
paperboard product categories in nondurable goods is discussed briefly below.
• Newspapers are the largest single component of the paper products in the
nondurable goods category, at 7.8 million tons generated in 2009 (3.2 percent of
total MSW). In 2009, an estimated 6.8 million tons of newspapers generated were
recovered for recycling. Estimates of newspaper generation are broken down into
newsprint (the majority of the weight of the newspapers) and groundwood3 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 960,000 tons, or 0.4 percent of total MSW
generation, in 2009. Recovery of books is not well documented, but it was
estimated that approximately 320,000 tons of books were recovered in 2009.
Books are made of both groundwood and chemical pulp.
3 Groundwood papers, like newsprint, are made primarily from pulp prepared by a mechanical process. The
nature of the pulp (groundwood vs. chemical) affects the potential uses for the recovered paper.
78
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Magazines accounted for an estimated 1.5 million tons, or 0.6 percent of total
MSW generation, in 2009. Like books, recovery of magazines is not well
documented. It was estimated that 780,000 tons of magazines were recovered in
2009. Magazines are predominantly 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. Generation of these office papers was 5.4 million tons, or
2.2 percent of total MSW generation in 2009. 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 4.0
million tons of office-type papers were recovered in 2009.
Directories were estimated to generate 650,000 tons (0.3 percent of total MSW) in
2009. These directories are made of groundwood. It was estimated that 240,000
tons of directories were recovered in 2009.
Standard mail includes catalogs and other direct bulk mailings; these amounted to
an estimated 4.7 million tons, or 1.9 percent of MSW generation, in 2009. Both
groundwood and chemical pulps are used in these mailings. It was estimated that
3.0 million tons were recovered in 2009. The U.S. Postal Service has
implemented a program to increase recovery of bulk mail, and many curbside
collection programs also include mail.
Other commercial printing includes a wide range of paper items, including
brochures, reports, menus, and invitations. Both groundwood and chemical pulps
79
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
are used in these varied items. Generation was estimated at 3.5 million tons, or 1.4
percent of MSW generation, in 2009, with recovery estimated at 2.3 million tons.
• Tissue paper and towels generation includes facial and sanitary tissues and table
napkins, but not bathroom tissue, which is nearly all diverted from MSW into the
wastewater treatment system. Other examples include decorative and laminated
tissue papers and crepe papers. Tissue products are used in homes, restaurants,
other commercial establishments, and institutions such as hospitals. Tissue paper
and towels (not including bathroom tissue) amounted to 3.5 million tons (1.4
percent of total MSW generation) in 2009. No significant recovery of tissue
products for recycling was identified, although there is some composting of these
items.
• 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 1.2 million tons (0.4 percent of total MSW generation) in 2009. No significant
recovery for recycling of these products was identified, although there is some
composting of these items.
• Other nonpackaging papers-including posters, photographic papers, cards, and
games - accounted for 4.4 million tons (1.8 percent of total MSW generation) in
2009. No significant recovery for recycling of these papers was identified.
Overall, generation of paper and paperboard products in nondurable goods was 33.5
million tons in 2009 (Table 4). While newspapers were recovered at the highest rate, other paper
products, such as books, magazines, office papers, directories, standard mail, and other
commercial printing also were recovered for recycling, and the overall recovery rate for paper in
nondurables was 52.1 percent in 2009. Thus 16.1 million tons of paper in nondurables were
discarded in 2009.
80
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 15
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office-Type Papers
Directories**
Standard 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 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)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office-Type Papers***
Directories**
Standard 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 and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product Wastes^
Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,920
1970
14,660
1980
21,800
1990
29,810
2000
38,850
2005
44,650
2007
45,770
2008
46,400
2009
46,640
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
61,760
208,270
14,790
1,240
2,230
7,420
680
5,570
7,380
3,220
960
870
850
3,230
4,250
6,470
820
4,030
64,010
75,840
178,700
63,840
242,540
12,790
1,100
2,580
6,620
660
5,830
6,440
3,460
1,160
930
1,060
3,410
4,490
7,890
980
4,250
63,650
76,330
184,630
67,750
252,380
10,780
1,270
2,550
6,060
760
5,910
6,200
3,500
1,230
860
1,070
3,730
4,260
8,320
1,100
4,160
61,760
78,460
185,990
68,990
254,980
8,800
1,340
2,050
6,050
840
5,510
5,130
3,460
1,250
780
930
3,770
4,630
8,820
1,160
4,170
58,690
75,910
181,000
70,020
251 ,020
7,760
960
1,450
5,380
650
4,650
3,490
3,490
1,170
900
1,000
3,810
4,420
9,080
1,230
4,000
53,440
71 ,570
171,650
71,310
242,960
Percent of Total Generation
1960
1 1 .3%
1970
12.1%
1980
14.4%
1990
14.3%
2000
16.0%
2005
17.7%
2007
18.0%
2008
18.5%
2009
19.2%
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%
100.0%
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%
6.4%
0.5%
1 .4%
3.1%
0.3%
1 .8%
2.1%
1 .4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
1 .3%
1 .8%
1 .9%
0.3%
1 .6%
25.0%
31 .0%
70.3%
29.7%
100.0%
6.1%
0.5%
0.9%
3.1%
0.3%
2.3%
3.0%
1 .3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
1 .3%
1 .8%
2.7%
0.3%
1 .7%
26.4%
31 .3%
73.7%
26.3%
100.0%
5.1%
0.4%
1 .0%
2.6%
0.3%
2.3%
2.6%
1 .4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
1 .4%
1 .8%
3.1%
0.4%
1 .7%
25.2%
30.2%
73.2%
26.8%
1 00.0%
4.2%
0.5%
1 .0%
2.4%
0.3%
2.3%
2.4%
1 .4%
0.5%
0.3%
0.4%
1 .5%
1 .7%
3.3%
0.4%
1 .6%
24.2%
30.8%
72.9%
27.1%
100.0%
3.5%
0.5%
0.8%
2.4%
0.3%
2.2%
2.0%
1 .4%
0.5%
0.3%
0.4%
1 .5%
1 .8%
3.5%
0.5%
1 .7%
23.4%
30.2%
72.1%
27.9%
100.0%
3.2%
0.4%
0.6%
2.2%
0.3%
1 .9%
1 .4%
1 .4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
1 .6%
1 .8%
3.7%
0.5%
1 .6%
22.0%
29.5%
70.6%
29.4%
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.
*" High-grade paper such as printer paper; generated in both commercial and residential sources.
§ Not estimated separately prior to 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail and Standard (A) Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
f Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
j Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
81
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 16
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office-Type Papers
Directories**
Standard 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 and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product Wastes^
Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office-Type Papers***
Directories**
Standard 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 and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product Wastes^
Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
350
1970
940
1980
1,360
1990
3,460
2000
6,580
2005
8,040
2007
8,220
2008
8,360
2009
8,160
1,820
100
250
130
Neg.
Neg.
40
50
Neg.
2,390
2,870
5,610
Neg.
5,610
2,250
260
710
340
Neg.
Neg.
110
60
Neg.
3,730
3,350
8,020
Neg.
8,020
3,020
280
870
350
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
150
Neg.
4,670
8,490
14,520
Neg.
14,520
5,110
100
300
1,700
50
200
700
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
520
120
Neg.
8,800
16,780
29,040
4,200
33,240
8,720
240
710
4,090
120
1,830
810
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
900
140
Neg.
17,560
28,870
53,010
16,450
69,460
9,360
270
960
4,110
120
2,090
1,440
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,250
170
Neg.
19,770
31,500
59,310
20,550
79,860
8,550
360
1,010
4,300
140
2,380
2,790
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,250
190
Neg.
20,970
33,900
63,090
21,710
84,800
7,740
390
820
4,290
180
2,240
2,200
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,250
200
Neg.
19,310
34,080
61,750
22,100
83,850
6,840
320
780
3,990
240
2,950
2,310
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,250
210
Neg.
18,890
34,220
61,270
20,750
82,020
Percent of Generation of Each Product
1960
3.5%
1970
6.4%
1980
6.2%
1990
1 1 .6%
2000
16.9%
2005
18.0%
2007
18.0%
2008
18.0%
2009
17.5%
25.6%
5.2%
1 6.4%
1 0.3%
Neg.
Neg.
1 .5%
Neg.
Neg.
13.8%
10.5%
10.3%
Neg.
6.4%
23.7%
10.5%
26.8%
1 6.0%
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%
13.3%
Neg.
9.6%
38.0%
1 0.3%
10.6%
26.5%
8.2%
5.2%
1 5.7%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.0%
16.9%
Neg.
16.9%
26.0%
19.8%
6.8%
16.0%
59.0%
19.4%
31 .8%
55.1%
17.6%
32.9%
1 1 .0%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.9%
17.1%
Neg.
27.4%
38.1%
29.7%
25.8%
28.6%
73.2%
24.5%
37.2%
62.1%
1 8.2%
35.8%
22.4%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
15.8%
17.3%
Neg.
31.1%
41 .3%
32.1%
30.3%
31.6%
79.3%
28.3%
39.6%
71 .0%
18.4%
40.3%
45.0%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
15.0%
17.3%
Neg.
34.0%
43.2%
33.9%
31 .5%
33.3%
88.0%
29.1%
40.0%
70.9%
21 .4%
40.7%
42.9%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
14.2%
17.2%
Neg.
32.9%
44.9%
34.1%
31.6%
33.4%
88.1%
33.3%
53.8%
74.2%
36.9%
63.4%
66.2%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.8%
17.1%
Neg.
35.3%
47.8%
35.7%
29.1%
33.8%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
*" High-grade paper such as printer paper; generated in both commercial and residential sources.
§ Not estimated separately prior to 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail and Standard (A) Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
f Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
j Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
82
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 17
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
(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-Type Papers
Directories**
Standard 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 and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product Wastes^
Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office-Type Papers***
Directories**
Standard 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 and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product Wastes^
Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,570
1970
13,720
1980
20,440
1990
26,350
2000
32,270
2005
36,610
2007
37,550
2008
38,040
2009
38,480
5,290
1,820
1,270
1,130
1,090
270
Neg.
2,660
1,310
100
14,940
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
113,040
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
560
3,620
3,760
2,960
650
650
780
2,700
3,840
3,490
590
3,340
43,370
47,750
117,470
57,560
175,030
6,070
1,000
1,520
3,330
560
3,740
6,570
3,220
960
870
850
3,230
4,250
5,570
680
4,030
46,450
46,970
125,690
47,390
173,080
3,430
830
1,620
2,510
540
3,740
5,000
3,460
1,160
930
1,060
3,410
4,490
6,640
810
4,250
43,880
44,830
125,320
47,200
172,520
2,230
910
1,540
1,760
620
3,530
3,410
3,500
1,230
860
1,070
3,730
4,260
7,070
910
4,160
40,790
44,560
122,900
47,280
170,180
1,060
950
1,230
1,760
660
3,270
2,930
3,460
1,250
780
930
3,770
4,630
7,570
960
4,170
39,380
41,830
119,250
47,920
167,170
920
640
670
1,390
410
1,700
1,180
3,490
1,170
900
1,000
3,810
4,420
7,830
1,020
4,000
34,550
37,350
110,380
50,560
160,940
Percent of Total Discards
1960
1 1 .6%
1970
12.1%
1980
14.9%
1990
15.1%
2000
18.6%
2005
21.2%
2007
22.1%
2008
22.8%
2009
23.9%
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%
100.0%
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 .4%
2.7%
0.3%
2.1%
2.1%
1 .7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
1 .5%
2.2%
2.0%
0.3%
1 .9%
24.8%
27.3%
67.1%
32.9%
100.0%
3.5%
0.6%
0.9%
1 .9%
0.3%
2.2%
3.8%
1 .9%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
1 .9%
2.5%
3.2%
0.4%
2.3%
26.8%
27.1%
72.6%
27.4%
100.0%
2.0%
0.5%
0.9%
1 .5%
0.3%
2.2%
2.9%
2.0%
0.7%
0.5%
0.6%
2.0%
2.6%
3.8%
0.5%
2.5%
25.4%
26.0%
72.6%
27.4%
100.0%
1 .3%
0.5%
0.9%
1 .0%
0.4%
2.1%
2.0%
2.1%
0.7%
0.5%
0.6%
2.2%
2.5%
4.2%
0.5%
2.4%
24.0%
26.2%
72.2%
27.8%
100.0%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
1.1%
0.4%
2.0%
1 .8%
2.1%
0.7%
0.5%
0.6%
2.3%
2.8%
4.5%
0.6%
2.5%
23.6%
25.0%
71.3%
28.7%
100.0%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.9%
0.3%
1.1%
0.7%
2.2%
0.7%
0.6%
0.6%
2.4%
2.7%
4.9%
0.6%
2.5%
21 .5%
23.2%
68.6%
31 .4%
100.0%
* Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery.
Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
*" High-grade paper such as printer paper; generated in both commercial and residential sources.
§ Not estimated separately prior to 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail and Standard (A) Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
f Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
i 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, A Division of ERG
83
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 900,000 tons of these products were generated
in 2009, or 0.4 percent of total MSW (Table 15). No significant recovery for recycling was
identified in 2009.
Trash Bags. This category includes plastic trash bags made of high-density polyethylene
and low-density polyethylene for both indoor and outdoor use. Generation of plastic trash bags
amounted to 1.0 million tons in 2009 (0.4 percent of MSW generation). No significant recovery
for recycling was identified.
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 3.8 million tons of disposable
diapers were generated in 2009, or 1.6 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 2009.
Clothing and Footwear. Generation of clothing and footwear was estimated to be 9.1
million tons in 2009 (3.7 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 products included. Adjustments are made for net imports of these
products based on Department of Commerce data.
84
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
The Council for Textile Recycling has reported on recovery of textiles for exports,
reprocessing, and reuse. Based on their data, it was estimated that 1.3 million tons of textiles in
clothing were recovered for recycling in 2009. (Reuse occurs before generation and is not
included in the generation or recycling estimates.)
Towels, Sheets, and Pillowcases. An estimated 1.2 million tons of towels, sheets, and
pillowcases were generated in 2009. Generation was estimated using a methodology similar to
that for clothing. An estimated 210,000 tons of these textiles were recovered for export or
recycling in 2009.
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables. Generation of other miscellaneous nondurables was
estimated to be 4.0 million tons in 2009 (1.6 percent of MSW). The primary material component
of miscellaneous nondurables is plastics, although some aluminum, rubber, and textiles also are
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 by the American Chemistry Council. Generation of other materials in these
nondurable products is estimated based on information in past reports in this series.
Containers and Packaging
Containers and packaging make up a major portion of MSW, amounting to 71.6 million
tons of generation in 2009 (29.5 percent of total generation). Generation in this category has
recently trended downward; Table 18 shows a 3.3 percent decrease between 2007 and 2008
followed by a 5.7 percent decrease between 2008 and 2009 (to 71.6 million tons). Generation of
all packaging materials decreased (with the exception of wood) over this time period, with a
greater rate of reduced generation between 2008 and 2009.
85
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Steel packaging exhibited the greatest percentage decline; a 4.5 percent decrease between
2007 and 2008 and a 14.5 percent decrease between 2008 and 2009. Aluminum packaging
generation declined only 2.1 percent over the two year period 2007 to 2009.
Paper and paperboard packaging generation declined 4.1 percent between 2007 and 2008
and 8.7 percent between 2008 and 2009 (12.5 percent over the two year period). Plastic
packaging and glass packaging generation exhibited a slower rate of decline; plastic packaging
generation decreased 4.5 percent from 2007 and 2008 and 3.7 percent between 2008 and 2009
(8.1 percent decline over the two year period), and glass packaging generation declined 3.5
percent between 2007 and 2008 and 3.9 percent between 2008 and 2009 (7.2 percent between
2007 and 2009). 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 2009, 47.8 percent of containers and packaging generated was
recovered for recycling. Because of this recovery, containers and packaging comprised 23.2
percent of total MSW discards in 2009.
Containers and packaging in MSW are made of several materials: paper and paperboard,
glass, steel, 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 include
carbonated drinks and non-carbonated waters, teas, flavored drinks containing not more than 10
percent fruit juice and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails), wine and liquor bottles,
and bottles and jars for food, cosmetics, and other products. Prior to 2009, generation of glass
containers was estimated using Department of Commerce data. In 2009, the Glass Packaging
Institute provided production data. Adjustments are made for imports and exports of both empty
glass containers and containers holding products, e.g., imported beer.
86
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Generation of these glass containers was 9.7 million tons in 2009, or 4.0 percent of MSW
generation (Tables 18 and 19). This tonnage is lower than was generated in any of the previous
years.
An estimated 3.0 million tons of glass containers were recovered for recycling, or 31.1
percent of generation, in 2009. Glass container discards were 6.7 million tons in 2009, or 4.1
percent of total MSW discards.
Steel Containers and Packaging. Steel food and other cans, and other steel packaging
(e.g., strapping, crowns, and steel barrels and drums), totaled 2.3 million tons in 2009 (0.9
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 Reusable Industrial Packaging Association, and the Can Manufacturers Institute
(CMI). Estimates include adjustments for net imports.
The Steel Recycling Institute (SRI) provided recovery data for steel containers and
packaging. An estimated 1.5 million tons of steel packaging were recovered in 2009, or 66.2
percent of generation. The estimates include recovery from residential sources; pre-combustion
and post-combustion magnetic separation of steel cans and other ferrous products at MSW
combustion facilities; and recycling of drums and barrels not suitable for reconditioning.
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 (including semi rigid foil
containers, caps, closures, and flexible packaging). Aluminum can generation has been estimated
based on can shipments data from the Can Manufacturers Institute and the Aluminum
Association and can weight data from the Aluminum Association, while estimates of the net
import of unfilled aluminum cans is based on Department of Commerce data. Other aluminum
packaging is based on Aluminum Association data.
87
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Prior to 2000, the Can Manufacturers Institute published data on consumption of
beverages in aluminum cans. After 2000, the Aluminum Association provided consumption data.
The consumption data are adjusted for imports and exports of beverages in cans, and therefore
are more accurate for generation calculations than shipments alone. Total aluminum container
and packaging generation in 2009 was 1.8 million tons, or 0.8 percent of total MSW generation.
Aluminum can recovery data are provided by the Aluminum Association; the industry
association recovery number includes imported used beverage cans (UBC). The imported UBC
are subtracted from the tonnage of UBC reported by the Aluminum Association to have been
melted by U.S. end-users and recovered for export. Thus, the aluminum can recovery rate
reported here is somewhat less than that published by the Aluminum Association.
Recovery of aluminum beverage cans in 2009 was 690,000 tons, or 50.7 percent of
generation. Recovery data for the other aluminum packaging categories are not available for
2009. After recovery for recycling, 1.2 million tons of aluminum packaging were discarded in
2009.
88
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 18
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles**
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
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
Gable Top/Aseptic Cartons:):
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles and Jars
HOPE Natural Bottles
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks
Wraps
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastes}
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,920
17,330
1970
14,660
25,060
1980
21 ,800
34,420
1990
29,810
52,170
2000
38,850
64,010
2005
44,650
63,650
2007
45,770
61,760
2008
46,400
58,690
2009
46,640
53,440
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
121,060
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
1,230
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
2,470
2,040
6,900
8,180
150
64,530
146,510
23,860
35,000
2,900
61 ,760
208,270
5,710
1,910
3,420
1 1 ,040
Neg.
2,630
240
2,870
1,520
50
380
1,950
30,210
550
5,820
200
1,490
Neg.
1,670
39,940
1,720
690
1,740
1,650
2,550
4,200
2,840
11,190
8,610
240
75,840
178,700
29,810
30,530
3,500
63,840
242,540
6,540
1,630
2,290
10,460
Neg.
2,130
240
2,370
1,450
80
400
1,930
30,930
500
5,530
160
1,120
Neg.
1,400
39,640
2,540
800
1,420
1,640
2,810
4,450
3,210
12,420
9,230
280
76,330
184,630
31,990
32,070
3,690
67,750
252,380
6,760
1,620
2,030
10,410
Neg.
2,430
240
2,670
1,420
30
430
1,880
31,230
500
5,530
150
1,140
Neg.
1,390
39,940
2,840
820
1,910
1,010
3,180
4,190
3,870
13,630
9,610
320
78,460
185,990
32,610
32,630
3,750
68,990
254,980
6,350
1,610
2,090
10,050
Neg.
2,310
240
2,550
1,390
70
420
1,880
29,710
490
5,340
120
1,170
Neg.
1,460
38,290
2,680
750
1,900
940
3,020
3,960
3,720
13,010
9,820
310
75,910
181,000
33,340
32,900
3,780
70,020
251 ,020
6,000
1,710
1,950
9,660
Neg.
1,940
340
2,280
1,360
70
410
1,840
27,190
460
4,980
90
910
Neg.
1,310
34,940
2,570
760
1,750
660
3,190
3,850
3,600
12,530
10,040
280
71 ,570
171,650
34,290
33,200
3,820
71,310
242,960
' Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails.
t Other than food products.
t Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
89
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 19
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In percent of total generation)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles**
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
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
Gable Top/Aseptic Cartons:):
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles and Jars
HOPE Natural Bottles
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks
Wraps
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastes}
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
Percent of Total Generation
1960
1 1 .3%
19.7%
1970
12.1%
20.7%
1980
14.4%
22.7%
1990
14.3%
25.0%
2000
16.0%
26.4%
2005
17.7%
25.2%
2007
18.0%
24.2%
2008
18.0%
24.2%
2009
19.2%
22.0%
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%
16.0%
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%
17.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.6%
0.3%
0.6%
0.8%
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%
5.7%
0.1%
1 .2%
0.1%
1 .4%
0.7%
Neg.
0.2%
0.9%
1 1 .5%
0.2%
2.1%
0.1%
1 .2%
0.1%
0.5%
15.7%
0.2%
0.3%
0.7%
0.5%
0.7%
1 .2%
1 .0%
3.3%
3.9%
0.1%
31 .0%
70.3%
1 1 .5%
16.8%
1 .4%
29.7%
100.0%
2.4%
0.8%
1 .4%
4.6%
Neg.
1.1%
0.1%
1 .2%
0.6%
Neg.
0.2%
0.8%
12.5%
0.2%
2.4%
0.1%
0.6%
Neg.
0.7%
16.5%
0.7%
0.3%
0.7%
0.7%
1.1%
1 .7%
1 .2%
4.6%
3.5%
0.1%
31 .3%
73.7%
12.3%
12.6%
1 .4%
26.3%
100.0%
2.6%
0.6%
0.9%
4.1%
Neg.
0.8%
0.1%
0.9%
0.6%
Neg.
0.2%
0.8%
12.3%
0.2%
2.2%
0.1%
0.4%
Neg.
0.6%
15.7%
1 .0%
0.3%
0.6%
0.6%
1.1%
1 .8%
1 .3%
4.9%
3.7%
0.1%
30.2%
73.2%
12.7%
12.7%
1 .5%
26.8%
100.0%
2.7%
0.6%
0.8%
4.1%
Neg.
1 .0%
0.1%
1 .0%
0.6%
0.01%
0.2%
0.7%
12.2%
0.2%
2.2%
0.1%
0.4%
Neg.
0.5%
15.7%
1.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.4%
1 .2%
1 .6%
1 .5%
5.3%
3.8%
0.1%
30.8%
72.9%
12.8%
12.8%
1 .5%
27.1%
100.0%
2.7%
0.6%
0.8%
4.1%
Neg.
1 .0%
0.1%
1 .0%
0.6%
0.01%
0.2%
0.7%
12.2%
0.2%
2.2%
0.1%
0.4%
Neg.
0.5%
15.7%
1.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.4%
1 .2%
1 .6%
1 .5%
5.3%
3.8%
0.1%
30.8%
72.9%
12.8%
12.8%
1 .5%
27.1%
100.0%
2.5%
0.7%
0.8%
4.0%
Neg.
0.8%
0.1%
0.9%
0.6%
0.03%
0.2%
0.8%
1 1 .2%
0.2%
2.0%
0.0%
0.4%
Neg.
0.5%
14.4%
1.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.3%
1 .3%
1 .6%
1 .5%
5.2%
4.1%
0.1%
29.5%
70.6%
14.1%
13.7%
1 .6%
29.4%
100.0%
Generation before materials recovery or combustion.
** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails.
t Other than food products.
t Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
90
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 20
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles**
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
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
Gable Top/Aseptic Cartonst
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles and Jars
HOPE Natural Bottles
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks
Wraps
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
Thousands of Tons
1960
350
2,390
1970
940
3,730
1980
1,360
4,670
1990
3,460
8,800
2000
6,580
17,560
2005
8,040
19,770
2007
8,220
20,970
2008
8,360
19,310
2009
8,160
18,890
90
10
Neg.
100
10
20
Neg.
30
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
2,520
220
2,740
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
2,870
5,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
5,610
140
10
Neg.
150
20
60
Neg.
80
10
Neg.
Neg.
10
2,760
350
3,110
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
3,350
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
8,020
730
20
Neg.
750
50
150
Neg.
200
320
Neg.
Neg.
320
6,390
Neg.
520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
300
7,210
10
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
10
Neg.
Neg.
8,490
14,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
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
60
20
260
130
Neg.
16,780
29,040
Neg.
4,200
Neg.
4,200
33,240
1,530
430
920
2,880
Neg.
1,530
160
1,690
830
Neg.
30
860
20,330
Neg.
410
Neg.
300
Neg.
Neg.
21,040
380
210
170
180
90
1,030
1,370
Neg.
28,870
53,010
680
15,770
Neg.
16,450
69,460
2,000
250
340
2,590
Neg.
1,340
160
1,500
650
Neg.
40
690
22,100
Neg.
1,190
Neg.
320
Neg.
Neg.
23,610
590
230
140
230
90
1,280
1,830
Neg.
31 ,500
59,310
690
19,860
Neg.
20,550
79,860
2,340
240
300
2,880
Neg.
1,570
160
1,730
690
Neg.
40
730
22,980
Neg.
1,550
Neg.
420
Neg.
Neg.
24,950
700
230
190
380
90
1,590
2,020
Neg.
33,900
63,090
810
20,900
Neg.
21,710
84,800
2,260
240
310
2,810
Neg.
1,450
160
1,610
670
10
40
720
22,760
Neg.
1,880
Neg.
440
Neg.
Neg.
25,080
730
220
280
370
130
1,730
2,130
Neg.
34,080
61 ,750
800
21 ,300
Neg.
22,100
83,850
2,340
310
350
3,000
Neg.
1,280
230
1,510
690
NA
NA
690
22,100
30
2,490
Neg.
450
Neg.
Neg.
25,070
720
220
290
360
130
1,720
2,230
Neg.
34,220
61,270
850
19,900
Neg.
20,750
82,020
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails.
f Other than food products.
t Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. NA = Not Available
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
91
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 21
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
(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)
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles**
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
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
Gable Top/Aseptic Cartonst
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles and Jars
HOPE Natural Bottles
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks
Wraps
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product I/Vastest
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
Percent of Generation of Each Product
1960
3.5%
1 3.8%
1970
6.4%
14.9%
1980
6.2%
13.6%
1990
1 1 .6%
16.9%
2000
16.9%
27.4%
2005
18.0%
31.1%
2007
1 8.0%
34.0%
2008
1 8.0%
32.9%
2009
17.5%
35.3%
6.4%
Neg.
Neg.
1 .6%
1 .6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
34.4%
7.5%
1 9.4%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
10.5%
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.4%
2.5%
Neg.
Neg.
1 .3%
1 .3%
1 .7%
Neg.
1 .5%
10.0%
Neg.
Neg.
1 .8%
21 .6%
9.2%
14.5%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
7.7%
9.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.6%
10.8%
Neg.
Neg.
5.4%
9.6%
5.3%
Neg.
5.5%
37.6%
Neg.
Neg.
25.2%
37.4%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
35.3%
27.4%
3.8%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
16.1%
1 3.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
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%
2.4%
1 .0%
3.8%
1 .6%
Neg.
26.0%
1 9.8%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
6.8%
16.0%
26.8%
22.5%
26.9%
26.1%
Neg.
58.2%
66.7%
58.9%
54.6%
Neg.
7.9%
44.1%
67.3%
Neg.
7.0%
Neg.
20.1%
Neg.
Neg.
52.7%
22.1%
30.4%
9.8%
4.3%
3.2%
9.2%
15.9%
Neg.
38.1%
29.7%
2.3%
51 .7%
Neg.
25.8%
28.6%
30.6%
15.3%
14.8%
24.8%
Neg.
62.9%
66.7%
63.3%
44.8%
Neg.
10.0%
35.8%
71 .5%
Neg.
21 .5%
Neg.
28.6%
Neg.
Neg.
59.6%
23.2%
28.8%
9.9%
5.2%
2.8%
10.3%
19.8%
Neg.
41.3%
32.1%
2.2%
61 .9%
Neg.
30.3%
31 .6%
34.6%
1 4.8%
14.8%
27.7%
Neg.
64.6%
66.7%
64.8%
48.6%
Neg.
9.3%
38.8%
73.6%
Neg.
28.0%
Neg.
36.8%
Neg.
Neg.
62.5%
24.6%
28.0%
9.9%
9.1%
2.3%
1 1 .7%
21.0%
Neg.
43.2%
33.9%
2.5%
64.1%
Neg.
31.5%
33.3%
35.6%
1 4.9%
14.8%
28.0%
Neg.
62.8%
66.7%
63.1%
48.2%
14.3%
9.5%
38.3%
76.6%
Neg.
35.2%
Neg.
37.6%
Neg.
Neg.
65.5%
27.2%
29.3%
1 4.7%
9.3%
3.5%
1 3.3%
21.7%
Neg.
44.9%
34.1%
2.4%
64.7%
Neg.
31.6%
33.4%
39.0%
18.1%
17.9%
31.1%
Neg.
66.0%
67.6%
66.2%
50.7%
NA
NA
37.5%
81 .3%
6.5%
50.0%
Neg.
49.5%
Neg.
Neg.
71 .8%
28.0%
28.9%
16.6%
9.4%
3.6%
13.7%
22.2%
Neg.
47.8%
35.7%
2.5%
59.9%
Neg.
29.1%
33.8%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails.
f Other than food products.
t Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. NA = Not Available
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
92
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 22
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
(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
14,940
1970
13,720
21,330
1980
20,440
29,750
1990
26,350
43,370
2000
32,270
46,450
2005
36,610
43,880
2007
37,550
40,790
2008
38,040
39,380
2009
38,480
34,550
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles**
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
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
Gable Top/ Aseptic Cartons:):
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles and Jars
HOPE Natural Bottles
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks
Wraps
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
1,310
1,070
3,710
6,090
630
3,740
260
4,630
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
1,890
4,440
1 1 ,770
1,550
3,480
270
5,300
90
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
113,040
6,010
2,430
4,780
13,220
470
2,700
240
3,410
530
40
380
950
10,690
790
3,300
230
3,380
200
550
19,140
250
230
890
1,230
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
2,410
2,020
6,640
8,050
150
47,750
117,470
23,860
30,800
2,900
57,560
175,030
4,180
1,480
2,500
8,160
Neg.
1,100
80
1,180
690
50
350
1,090
9,880
550
5,410
200
1,190
Neg.
1,670
18,900
1,340
480
1,570
4,020
2,750
10,160
7,240
240
46,970
125,690
29,130
14,760
3,500
47,390
173,080
4,540
1,380
1,950
7,870
Neg.
790
80
870
800
80
360
1,240
8,830
500
4,340
160
800
Neg.
1,400
16,030
1,950
570
1,280
4,220
3,120
11,140
7,400
280
44,830
125,320
31,300
12,210
3,690
47,200
172,520
4,420
1,380
1,730
7,530
Neg.
860
80
940
730
30
390
1,150
8,250
500
3,980
150
720
Neg.
1,390
14,990
2,140
590
1,720
3,810
3,780
12,040
7,590
320
44,560
122,900
31 ,800
1 1 ,730
3,750
47,280
170,180
4,090
1,370
1,780
7,240
Neg.
860
80
940
720
60
380
1,160
6,950
490
3,460
120
730
Neg.
1,460
13,210
1,950
530
1,620
3,590
3,590
1 1 ,280
7,690
310
41,830
119,250
32,540
1 1 ,600
3,780
47,920
167,170
3,660
1,400
1,600
6,660
Neg.
660
110
770
670
70
410
1,150
5,090
430
2,490
90
460
Neg.
1,310
9,870
1,850
540
1,460
3,490
3,470
10,810
7,810
280
37,350
110,380
33,440
13,300
3,820
50,560
160,940
* Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery.
Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes.
** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails.
f Other than food products.
$ Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
93
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 23
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
(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%
18.9%
1980
14.9%
21 .7%
1990
15.1%
24.8%
2000
18.6%
26.8%
2005
21 .2%
25.4%
2007
22.1%
24.0%
2008
22.8%
23.6%
2009
23.9%
21 .5%
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles**
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
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
Gable Top/Aseptic Cartons:):
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles and Jars
HOPE Natural Bottles
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks
Wraps
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
1 .6%
1 .3%
4.5%
7.4%
0.8%
4.5%
0.3%
5.6%
Neg.
Neg.
0.2%
0.2%
5.8%
4.7%
3.3%
13.8%
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%
0.3%
2.0%
0.2%
2.5%
0.4%
Neg.
0.3%
0.7%
7.8%
0.6%
2.4%
0.2%
2.5%
0.1%
0.4%
14.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.6%
0.9%
0.6%
2.5%
2.9%
0.1%
32.2%
68.8%
9.5%
20.1%
1 .6%
31 .2%
100.0%
2.1%
1 .0%
2.1%
5.3%
0.1%
1.1%
0.1%
1 .3%
0.3%
Neg.
0.2%
0.5%
7.1%
0.3%
2.3%
0.2%
1 .3%
0.1%
0.6%
1 1 .8%
0.2%
0.3%
0.8%
1 .4%
1 .2%
3.8%
4.6%
0.1%
27.3%
67.1%
13.6%
17.6%
1 .7%
32.9%
100.0%
2.4%
0.9%
1 .4%
4.7%
Neg.
0.6%
0.0%
0.7%
0.4%
Neg.
0.2%
0.6%
5.7%
0.3%
3.1%
0.1%
0.7%
Neg.
1 .0%
10.9%
0.8%
0.3%
0.9%
2.3%
1 .6%
5.9%
4.2%
0.1%
27.1%
72.6%
16.8%
8.5%
2.0%
27.4%
100.0%
2.6%
0.8%
1.1%
4.6%
Neg.
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.5%
Neg.
0.2%
0.7%
5.1%
0.3%
2.5%
0.1%
0.5%
Neg.
0.8%
9.3%
1.1%
0.3%
0.7%
2.4%
1 .8%
6.5%
4.3%
0.2%
26.0%
72.6%
18.1%
7.1%
2.1%
27.4%
100.0%
2.6%
0.8%
1 .0%
4.4%
Neg.
0.5%
0.0%
0.6%
0.4%
Neg.
0.2%
0.7%
4.8%
0.3%
2.3%
0.1%
0.4%
Neg.
0.8%
8.8%
1 .3%
0.3%
1 .0%
2.2%
2.2%
7.1%
4.5%
0.2%
26.2%
72.2%
18.7%
6.9%
2.2%
27.8%
100.0%
2.4%
0.8%
1.1%
4.3%
Neg.
0.5%
0.0%
0.6%
0.4%
Neg.
0.2%
0.7%
4.2%
0.3%
2.1%
0.1%
0.4%
Neg.
0.9%
7.9%
1 .2%
0.3%
1 .0%
2.1%
2.1%
6.7%
4.6%
0.2%
25.0%
71 .3%
19.5%
6.9%
2.3%
28.7%
100.0%
2.3%
0.9%
1 .0%
4.1%
Neg.
0.4%
0.1%
0.5%
0.4%
Neg.
0.3%
0.7%
3.2%
0.3%
1 .5%
0.1%
0.3%
Neg.
0.8%
6.1%
1.1%
0.3%
0.9%
2.2%
2.2%
6.7%
4.9%
0.2%
23.2%
68.6%
20.8%
8.3%
2.4%
31 .4%
100.0%
* Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery.
Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes.
** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails.
t Other than food products.
t Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
94
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Paper and Paperboard Containers and Packaging. Corrugated boxes are the largest
single product category of MSW at 27.2 million tons generated, or 11.2 percent of total
generation, in 2009. Corrugated boxes also represent the largest single category of product
recovery; at 22.1 million tons of recovery in 2009, 81.3 percent of boxes generated were
recovered. After recovery, 5.1 million tons of corrugated boxes were discarded, or 3.2 percent of
MSW discards in 2009.
Other paper and paperboard packaging in MSW includes gable top and aseptic cartons
(includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic
cartons), folding cartons (e.g., cereal boxes, frozen food boxes, some department store boxes),
bags and sacks, wrapping papers, and other paper and paperboard packaging (primarily set-up
boxes such as shoe, cosmetic, and candy boxes). Overall, paper and paperboard containers and
packaging totaled 34.9 million tons of MSW generation in 2009, or 14.4 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 about
3.0 million tons in 2009). The overall recovery rate for paper and paperboard packaging in 2009
was 71.8 percent. Other paper packaging such as cartons 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
and water bottles, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) milk and water jugs, film products
(including bags and sacks) made of low-density polyethylene (LDPE), and other containers and
other packaging (including clamshells, trays, caps, lids, egg cartons, loose fill, produce baskets,
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 the American Chemistry Council's annual plastics resin survey.
95
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 12.5 million tons in 2009
(5.2 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 Chemistry Council supplemented with additional industry data. PET bottles and jars
were estimated to have been recovered at a 28.0 percent rate in 2009 (720,000 tons). Recovery of
HDPE natural bottles (e.g., milk and water bottles) was estimated to have been 220,000 tons, or
28.9 percent of generation. Overall, recovery of plastic containers and packaging was estimated
to be 1.7 million tons, or 13.7 percent in 2009. Discards of plastic packaging thus were 10.8
million tons in 2009, or 6.7 percent of total MSW generation.
Wood Packaging. Wood packaging includes wood crates and pallets (mostly pallets).
Data on production of wood packaging are from the National Wood Pallet and Container
Association, and more recently, the USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station and
Virginia Polytechnic Institute. In 2009, 10.0 million tons of wood pallets and other wood
packaging were estimated to have been generated, or 4.1 percent of total MSW generation.
Wood pallet recovery for recycling (usually by chipping for uses such as mulch or
bedding material, but excluding wood combusted as fuel) was estimated at 2.2 million tons in
2009.
Accounting for pallet reuse and recovery for recycling, wood packaging discards were 7.8
million tons in 2009, or 4.9 percent of total MSW discards.
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; it was estimated that 280,000 tons were generated in 2009.
96
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Summary of Products in Municipal Solid Waste
The materials composition of municipal solid waste generation by product category is
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.
Figure 14. Generation of products in MSW, 1960 to 2009
250
200
150
100
50 -
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995 2000
2005
97
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
The materials composition of nondurable goods in 2009 is shown in Figure 15. Paper and
paperboard made up 62.7 percent of nondurables in MSW generation, with plastics contributing
12.4 percent, and textiles 16.8 percent. Other materials contributed lesser percentages. After
recovery for recycling, paper and paperboard were 46.5 percent of nondurable discards, with
plastics being 19.2 percent, and textiles 21.8 percent.
The materials composition of containers and packaging in MSW in 2009 is shown in
Figure 16. By weight, paper and paperboard products made up 48.8 percent of containers and
packaging generation; plastics accounted for 17.5 percent. Glass was 13.5 percent, wood was
14.4 percent, and metals were 5.8 percent.
The percentage of materials discards from containers and packaging is affected by
recovery for recycling. After recovery for recycling, paper and paperboard dropped to 26.4
percent of discards. Glass containers accounted for 17.8 percent of discards of containers and
packaging, plastics were 28.9 percent, wood was 21.7 percent, and metals were 5.2 percent.
98
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 15. Nondurable goods generated and discarded*
in municipal solid waste, 2009
(In percent of total generation and discards)
Textiles
16.8% >
Rubber & leather
2.0%
Plastics
12.4%
Other
6.1%
Paper & paperboard
62.7%
Generation
Textiles /
21.8%
Rubber & leather
3.1%
Plastics
19.2%
Paper & paperboard
46.5%
Discards
*Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery.
99
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 16. Containers and packaging generated and discarded*
in municipal solid waste, 2009
(In percent of total generation and discards)
Wood, other
14.4%
Plastics
17.5%
Metals
5.8%
Glass
13.5%
Paper & paperboard
48.8%
Generation
Wood, other
21.7%
Plastics
28.9%
Paper & paperboard
26.4%
/ Glass
17.8%
Metals
5.2%
Discards
'Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery.
100
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
SUMMARY
The data presented in this chapter can be summarized by the following observations:
MSW Generation
• Total generation of municipal solid waste in 2009 was 243 million tons, which
was similar to 2000 when 242.5 million tons were generated. This compares to
1990, when total generation of MSW was 208.3 million tons.
• Paper and paperboard products made up the largest percentage of all the materials
in MSW, at 28.2 percent of total generation. Generation of paper and paperboard
products declined from 87.7 million tons in 2000 to 68.4 million tons in 2009.
Generation of newspapers has been declining since 2000, and this trend is
expected to continue, partly due to decreased page size, but also due to increased
use of electronic communication of news. Generation of office-type (high grade)
papers also has been in decline, due at least partially to increased use of electronic
transmission of reports, etc. Paper and paperboard products have ranged between
34 and 28 percent of generation since 2005.
• Yard trimmings comprised the third largest material category, estimated at 33.2
million tons, or 13.7 percent of total generation, in 2009. This compares to 35.0
million tons (16.8 percent of total generation) in 1990. The decline in yard
trimmings generation since 1990 is largely due to state legislation discouraging
yard trimmings disposal in landfills, including source reduction measures such as
backyard composting and leaving grass trimmings on the yard.
101
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
• Plastic products generation in 2009 was 29.8 million tons, or 12.3 percent of
generation. This was a decrease of 920,000 tons from 2007 to 2009. This decrease
in plastics generation came mostly from the containers and packaging category.
Although plastics generation has grown from 8.2 percent of generation in 1990 to
12.3 percent in 2009, plastic generation as a percent of total generation has
remained fairly steady over the past few years.
MSW Recovery
• Recovery of materials in MSW increased from 5.6 million tons in 1960 (6.4
percent of total generation) to 69.5 million tons in 2000 (28.6 percent of
generation) to 82.0 million tons in 2009 (33.8 percent of generation).
• Although recovery of products and other wastes (food scraps and yard trimmings)
in MSW decreased 1.8 million tons from 2008 to 2009, generation also decreased
(8 million tons from 2008 to 2009). The result is an increase in the recovery rate
from 33.4 percent in 2008 to 33.8 percent in 2009.
• Recovery of paper and paperboard products, the largest component of recovery,
increased from 55.5 percent in 2008 to 62.1 percent in 2009.
• The increase in recovery of paper and paperboard products over the longer term
has been due to increases in recovery, over time, from all categories: newspapers,
books, magazines, office papers, directories, Standard mail (advertisements,
circulars, etc.), and other commercial printing. Between 2008 and 2009, all paper
products showed increased recovery rates.
• The newspaper recovery rate increased from 88.0 percent to 88.1 percent between
2008 and 2009. Newspaper generation decreased from 8.8 million tons in 2008 to
7.8 million tons in 2009. As generation of newspapers declines, this raises a
102
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
question as to whether much increase in tonnage of newspapers recovered can be
achieved.
• Containers and packaging recovery increased from 34.1 million tons in 2008 to
34.2 million tons in 2009; percentage recovery increased from 44.9 percent to
47.8 percent. Nondurable goods recovery decreased from 19.3 million tons in
2008 to 18.9 million tons in 2009. However, due to decreased generation, the
percentage recovery of nondurable goods increased from 32.9 percent to 35.3
percent.
• Measured by tonnage, the most recovered products and materials in 2009 were
corrugated boxes (22.1 million tons), yard trimmings (19.9 million tons),
newspapers (6.8 million tons), high grade office papers (4.0 million tons),
standard mail (3.0 million tons), glass containers (3.0 million tons), lead-acid
batteries (2.7 million tons), major appliances (2.5 million tons), folding cartons
(2.5 million tons), other commercial printing (2.3 million tons), wood packaging
(2.2 million tons), tires (1.7 million tons), and steel cans (1.3 million tons).
Collectively, these products accounted for 90 percent of total MSW recovery in
2009.
• Measured by percentage of generation, products with the highest recovery rates in
2009 were lead-acid batteries (95.7 percent), newspapers (88.1 percent),
corrugated boxes (81.3 percent), office-type papers (74.2 percent), major
appliances (66.8 percent), steel packaging (66.2 percent), yard trimmings (59.9
percent), other commercial printing (66.2 percent), aluminum cans (50.7 percent),
standard mail (63.4 percent), magazines (53.8 percent), folding cartons (50.0
percent), tires (35.3 percent), and glass packaging (31.1 percent).
103
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Long Term Trends
• Generation of MSW has increased (except in recession years), from 88.1 million
tons in 1960 to 243 million tons in 2009. Due to the depressed economy,
generation decreased in 2008 and again in 2009.
• Generation of paper and paperboard, the largest material component of MSW,
fluctuates from year to year, but has decreased from 87.7 million tons in 2000 to
68.4 million tons in 2009. Generation of yard trimmings has increased since 2000.
Generation of other material categories also fluctuates from year to year, but
overall MSW generation increased from 1960 to 2007, with the trend reversing
after 2007.
• 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 (33.8 percent) reflects a rapid increase in the infrastructure for
recovery and expansion of domestic and foreign markets over the last decade.
• Recovery (as a percentage of generation) of most materials in MSW has increased
dramatically over the last 39 years. Some examples:
1970 1980 1990 2000 2009
Paper and paperboard 15% 21% 28% 43% 62%
Glass 1% 5% 20% 23% 26%
Metals 4% 8% 24% 35% 35%
Plastics Neg. <1% 2% 6% 7%
Yard trimmings Neg. Neg. 12% 52% 60%
Selected Consumer
Electronics 10% 19%
Lead-acid batteries 76% 70% 97% 93% 96%
Neg. = less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
104
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
CHAPTER 2
REFERENCES
GENERAL
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. KEPT-15-3490-00. NTIS PB87-178323/WEP. July
1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1997 Update. EPA/530-R-98-007. May 1998.
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.
105
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2005 Facts
and Figures. EPA530-R-06-011. October 2006. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/
pubs/mswchar05 .pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and
Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003. EPA530-F-05-003. April 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2001 Facts
and Figures. EPA/530-R-03-011. October 2003. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/
muncipal/pubs/msw2001 .pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2000 Facts
and Figures. EPA/530-R-02-001. June 2002. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/
pubs/report-OO.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 1999 Facts
and Figures. EPA/530-R-01-014. July 2001.
ALUMINUM CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING
The Aluminum Association. Aluminum Statistical Review. Various years.
The Aluminum Association, www.aluminum.org.
Can Manufacturers Institute. Can Shipments Report. Various years.
Personal Communication with a representative of the Can Manufacturers Institute. February
2006.
Resource Recycling Container Recycling Update. Various issues.
106
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Closures for
Containers." MQ34H. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Merchandise Trade (7602.00.0030 -
Aluminum Used Beverage Container Scrap SEC 9100).
CARPETS AND RUGS
Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE). Annual Report. Various years.
www.carpetrecovery.org.
Modern Plastics. "Resin Statistics." January issue. Various years.
Personal communication with a representative of the Carpet and Rug Institute. July 2002.
Personal communication with a representative of the Polyurethane Foam Association (PEA). The
Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI). July 2007-2010.
Rauch Associates, Inc. The Ranch Guide to the U.S. Adhesives and Sealants Industry. ISBN O-
932157-05-X.
The Carpet and Rug Institute. Carpet & Rug Industry Review. Various years.
The Carpet and Rug Institute. Sustainability Report 2000. 2001.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Carpets and
Rugs." MA22Q. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Carpets and
Rugs." MA314Q. Various years.
107
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
Alster, Norm. "Are Old PC's Poisoning Us?" Business Week. June 2000.
"Annual and Monthly Buying Guide." Consumer Reports. Various Issues 1984 - 1995.
Best Buy website, www.bestbuy.com
Canon Communications LLC. U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review: 1999 to 2008.
Appliance Magazine. Market Research Report. July 2009.
www.ApplianceMagazine.com/MarketResearch
Consumer Electronics Association. Fast Facts Data. Various years.
Dana Chase Publications, Inc. Appliance Statistical Review. Various years.
Dann, Carolyn. End-of-Life Electronics Equipment Pilot Collection Program Summary Report -
Alachua County, Florida. October 1999. Center for Environmental Communications.
Franklin County Solid Waste Management District Consumer Electronics Collection Report
DEP Technical Assistance Grant. October 1998. Franklin County, MA. Average age of products
recovered.
Jun Fujimoto, Tetsuya Tamura, et al. NEC Corporation. A New Era Computer Product Focused
on Environmentally Relevant Factors. 1995 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and
the Environment. May 1995. Composition of notebook-type computers.
108
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Lehman, Richard L., Reggie Caudill, Julian Kliokis. Processes and Products for Utilization of
Reclaimed CRT Glass. Presentation at Demanufacturing of Electronic Equipment for Reuse and
Recycling [DEER2] Information Exchange. October 26 - 27, 1999. Center for Ceramics
Research. Rutgers University.
Materials for The Future Foundation. The Monitor of Electronics Recycling Issues. CRT
Smelting. January 2002. www.materials4future.org.
Materials for The Future Foundation. The Monitor of Electronics Recycling Issues. CRT Glass to
CRT Glass Recycling. September 2001. www.materials4future.org.
Matthews, H. Scott, Francis C. McMichael, et al. Disposition and End-of-Life Options for
Personal Computers. Green Design Initiative Technical Report #97-10. Carnegie Mellon
University.
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Management of waste electronic appliances.
August 1995.
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Recycling Used Electronics. Report on
Minnesota's Demonstration Project. July 2001.
National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. Contracting for Proper Recovery
and Recycling of Electronic Products. March 2, 2000. www.nrc-recycle.org/programs
National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. Proper Management of End-of-
Life Electronic Products (other than CRTs). January 27, 2000. www.nrc-recycle.org/programs
National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. State and Local Policy Initiative
and Voluntary Programs. December 2, 1999. www.nrc-recycle.org/programs
109
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. Trends in Electronics Recycling
in the United States. November 3, 1999. www.nrc-recycle.org/programs
National Safety Council. Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report. May
1999.
Northeast Recycling Council. Setting Up & Operating Electronics Recycling/Reuse Programs: A
Manual for Municipalities & Counties. March 2002. www.nerc.org.
Pasco County and Center for Environmental Communications. The Recycling and
Demanufacturing of Computers and Electronic Equipment in Pasco County, Florida. April 2000.
Pitts, Greg. Computer and Electronics Disposition Eco-Industrial Park. Presentation at
Demanufacturing of Electronic Equipment for Reuse and Recycling [DEER2] Information
Exchange. October 26 - 27, 1999.
Southern Waste Information exchange, Inc. SWIX. Used TV & Computer Recycling &
Management in Florida: A Resource Guide. September 1999.
U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Economics and Statistics Administration.
Economic Census. Industry Series. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. EC97M-3343A.
Various years.
U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Current Industrial Report: Communication
Equipment. Various years.
U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Current Industrial Report: Computers and
Office and Accounting Machines. Various years.
U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Current Industrial Report: Consumer
Electronics. Various years.
110
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Tariff and trade
online database. http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Electronics Waste Management in the United States
Approach 1. (Revised baseline report.) July 2008. EPA530-R-08-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Electronics Waste Management in the United States
Approach 1. April 2007. EPA530-R-07-004a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Electronics Waste Management in the United States
Approach 2. April 2007. EPA530-R-07-004a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Energy and Greenhouse Gas Factors for Personal
Computers. Franklin Associates, Ltd. August 7, 2002. Contract No. 68-W-99-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
Electronics Waste Management in the United States Through 2009. Final Report. 2010.
DISPOSABLE DIAPERS
Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG. Industry data. September 2007 and
previous years.
Kimberly-Clark. Annual Report. Various years.
Ninner, N.R., A.M. Sterling, and A.R. Liss. Female Incontinence. 1980.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
National Center for Health Statistics. Various years.
Ill
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
National Vital Statistics Reports. "Births: Preliminary Data for 2008, Volume 58, Number 16."
April 6, 2010.
FOOD SCRAPS
Allegheny County, PA. Establishing a Pre-Consumer Food Waste Collection and Composting
Pilot Program in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. RW Beck. January 30, 2003.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for
Selected Industry Groups. Cascadia Consulting Group. June 2006.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. Waste Disposal Rates for Business Types.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/DispRate.htm.
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Faststats - Nursing Home Care.
www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/nursingh.htm
City of San Clemente, CA. Pilot Food Waste Project. "CR&R Waste & Recycling Services."
http://san-clemente.org/sc/Services/Environmental/SolidWaste/PilotFoodWasteProjectJulylO.pdf
City of Wayzata, MN. Curbside Collection of Source-Separated Organics in the City ofWayzata
Final Report - Phase 1. January 2005.
City ofWayzata, MN. Curbside Collection Of Source-Separated Organics in the City ofWayzata
Final Report - Phase 2. June 2005. http://wayzata.govoffice.com
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Garbage Gazette. Jan/Feb, 2002.
112
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Identifying, Quantifying, and Mapping
Food Residuals from Connecticut Businesses and Institutions. Draper/Lennon, Inc. September,
2001.
Farrell, Molly. "Evaluating Residential Organics Collection Pilot." BioCycle. March 2001.
Food Manufacturers Institute. "Reducing Waste Disposal Costs: How to Evaluate the Benefits of
Composting in the Supermarket Industry." Composting Workbook. 1994.
Food Service Director. College Census Report. "Performance report for top colleges." 2008 and
2009. http://www.fsdmag.com/census-reports.html
Food Service Director. Hospital Census Report. "Performance report for top 50 hospitals." 2009.
http://www.fsdmag.com/census-reports.html
Food Service Director. Long-term Care Census Report. "Performance report for top 75 long-term
care chains." 2008. http://www.fsdmag.com/census-reports.html
Food Service Director. VA Martinsburg Wins Sustainability Award. June 15, 2010.
http://www.leanpath.com/docs/martinsburg.pdf
Goldstein, Nora. "National Trends in Food Residuals Composting Part I." BioCycle. July 1997.
Goldstein, Nora. Unpublished analyses of the food waste composting industry. August 2006,
August 2007, and August 2008.
Goldstein, Nora and Dave Block. "Nationwide Inventory of Food Residuals Composting Part II."
BioCycle. August 1997.
Goldstein, Nora, Jim Glenn, and Kevin Gray. "Nationwide Overview of Food Residuals
Composting." BioCycle. August 1998.
113
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
Kim, T., Shanklin, C.W., Su, A.Y., Hackes, B.L. and Ferris, D. 1997. "Comparison of waste
composition in a continuing-care retirement community." J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 97, 396-400.
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Solid Waste Division. 2003 King
County Residential Food Scrap Collection Final Report. May 2004.
Kroger. 2010 Sustainability Report. June 2010.
http://www.thekrogerco.com/documents/KrogerSustainReport2010.pdf
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.
Michaels, Karen. "Mapping the Density of Food Residuals Generation." BioCycle. June 2003.
Newell, Ty, Elizabeth Markstahler, and Matthew Snyder. "Commercial Food Waste from
Restaurants and Grocery Stores." Resource Recycling. February 1993.
114
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
North Carolina, Orange County. Solid Waste Management Department. FY2010 food waste
collection data received July, 2010.
Personal communication with Andrew Shakman President and Co-Founder. LeanPath, Inc.
August 2010.
Personal communication with Brian Mathews Senior Program Manager StopWaste.org. Alameda
County, CA. January 2008.
Personal communication with Bruce Bowers Environmental Manager. Harley-Davidson Motor
Company Operations, LLC. August 2010.
Personal communication with Jeff Senne Director of Performance, Sustainability and CSR.
Sodexo, Inc. August 2010.
Personal communication with Jennifer Erickson. Metro Regional Government Resource
Conservation & Recycling. Portland, Oregon. August 2010.
Personal communication with Mike Geller PSA Sustainability Coordinator. Providence Health &
Services. Portland, OR. August 2010
Personal communication with Nicole Chardoul Resource Recycling Systems. August 2010.
www.recycle.com
Personal communication with Rachel Warner Marketing Director. National Association of
College and Universities Food Services. August 2010.
Personal communication with Rick Robson Environmental Chemist - Sustainability. Hallmark
Cards, Inc. August 2010.
115
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
San Francisco Department of the Environment. Waste Characterization Study. Environmental
Science Associates (ESA). August 2005.
Savage, George M. "The History and Utility of Waste Characterization Studies." MSW
Management. May/June 1994.
Shanklin, Carol W. "Targeting the Food Service Sector." BioCycle. April 2001.
Tucker, Marvin. "Examining Collection of all Residential Organics." Resource Recycling.
November 2001.
Tufts University. Wind and Waste Diversifying Boston's Renewable Energies. Prepared by
graduate students from the Tufts University Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and
Planning. 2009.
http://ase.tufts.edu/UEP/Degrees/field_project_reports/2009/Team_2_Final_Report.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. "Characteristics of the Group Quarters Population
by Group quarters Type. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates." S2601B.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STSelectServlet? ts=298394730199
U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Estimating and Addressing America's Food Losses."
Economic Research Service, www.ers.usda.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. Current Population Reports. Various
years.
116
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Monthly Retail Trade." Current Business
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.
U.S. Department of Education. National Center For Educational Statistics. "Table 167.
Minimum amount of instructional time per year and policy on textbook selection, by state: 2000,
2006, and 2008." http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/xls/tabnl67.xls
U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics
database. May 2009 http://data.bls.gov:8080/oes/search.jsp?data_tool=OES
U.S. EPA. "Quantification of Food Residual Composted - 2004 and 2005." Summary report.
Nora Goldstein, JG Press. October 2006.
University of North Carolina Health Care System 2009 Annual Report. Financials and Statistics.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, http://www.unchealthcare.org/site/aboutus/annualreport2009.pdf
Walsh, Patrick, Wayne Pferdehirt, and Phil O'Leary. "Collection of Recyclables from
Multifamily Housing and Businesses." Waste Age. April 1993.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Composting Feasibility Study for the
Randolph-Macon College Dining Facility. Fall 2008.
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/recycle/pdf/CompostingStudyRMC2009.pdf
Walmart. Integrated Organic Diversion Program. Bobby Fanning, Sr. Manager, Solid Waste and
Recycling. Presentation from Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) 2010 Workshop. March
2010. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/rcc/resources/meetings/rcc-2010/fanning.pdf
117
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
WRAP. United Kingdom. Food Waste Report The Food We Waste. April 2008.
http://wrap.s3.aniazonaws.com/the-food-we-waste.pdf
FURNITURE AND FURNISHINGS
Consumer Product Safety Commission. "Status Report: Peer Reviewed CPSC Staff Research
Reports on Upholstered Furniture Flammability." December 2006.
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/foia07/brief/ufiiml.pdf
Smith, F.L. A Solid Waste Estimation Procedure: Material Flows Approach. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA/530-SW-147. May 1974.
Spendlove, MJ. "A Profile of the Nonferrous Secondary Metals Industry." U.S. Bureau of
Mines. Proceedings of the Second Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium. 1970.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Average
Weight and Width of Broadwoven Fabrics (Gray)." MC-22T. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Average
Weight and Width of Broadwoven Fabrics (Gray)." MQ313T various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Office
Furniture." MA-25H. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Economic Census of Manufactures and
Annual Survey of Manufactures. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Tariff and trade
online database, http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user set.asp
118
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
GLASS CONTAINERS
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. "State of Recycling in Arkansas 2007-2008."
January 2009. http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/solwaste/branch recvcling/default.htm
Bingham, T.H., et al. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost of Regulatory and Fiscal
Policy Instruments on Product Packaging. Research Triangle Institute for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management. March 1974.
Brewers Almanac. Various years.
Cal Recycle. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. "Biannual Report of Beverage
Container Sales, Returns, Redemption, and Recycling Rates." May 10, 2010.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Rates/BiannualRpt/default.htm
California Department of Conservation. Biannual Report of Beverage Container Sales, Returns,
Redemption, and Recycling Rates. May 9, 2008
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dor/Notices/Documents/Biannual.pdf
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Division of Hazardous Materials and
Waste Management. "2009 Annual Report to the Colorado General Assembly On the Status of
the Solid Waste and Material Management Program In Colorado." February 1, 2010.
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/recycle/data.htm
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Materials Management &
Compliance Assurance. "Estimates of Connecticut Municipal Solid Waste Generated (MSW),
Disposed, and Recycled FY2008."
http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/reduce_reuse_recycle/data/average_state_msw_statistics_fy2008.p
df
119
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. The Recycling Public
Advisory Council. "The Eighth Annual Report of the Recycling Public Advisory Council."
November 2009.
http://www.awm.delaware.gov/Recvcling/Documents/The%20Eighth%20Annual%20Report%20
RPAC%20Nov2009.pdf
Egan, Katherine. "Glass Recycling Rate Drops Seven Percent in 1997." Waste Age's Recycling
Times. June 1, 1998.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. "Solid Waste Management in Florida 2008
Annual Report." Appendix B: Recycling and Waste Reduction. Table 3-B.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/08 data.htm
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Baseline. Prepared
for the Resource Conservation Committee. May 16, 1979.
Franklin, W.E., et al. Base Line Forecasts of Resource Recovery, 1972 to 1990. Midwest
Research Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs. March 1975.
Glass Packaging Institute. Annual Report. Various years.
Glass Packaging Institute. "Glass Bottles Reaching 50% Recycled Content." Joe Cattaneo
presentation at Virginia Recycling Association Annual Conference, Virginia Beach, VA. May 18,
2010. http://www.vrarecycles.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=jP3bJOxHPuo%3D&tabid=58
Glass Packaging Institute. "Glass Container Recycling Market Trends." Bryan Vickers
presentation at Iowa Recycling & Solid Waste Management Conference Waterloo, IA October 6,
2009.
120
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Glass Packaging Institute. U.S. Glass Container Shipment and Production Report. 2009 and
2010.
Hawaii Department of Health. "Report to the Twenty-Fifth Legislature State of Hawaii 2009."
November 2008.
http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/waste/sw/hi5/support/2009ReportToLeg.pdf
Maine State Planning Office. "Solid Waste Generation & Disposal Capacity Report for Calendar
Year 2008." March 2010. http://www.state.me.us/spo/recycle/docs/gencapdraft040110final.pdf
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. "2008 Solid Waste Data Update on the
Beyond 2000 Solid Waste Master Plan." April 2010. Table 4 and Figure 2.
http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/priorities/08swdata.pdf
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. "Recycling in Minnesota, The SCORE Report. Recycling
and solid waste data." 2008. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/environmental-
data/score/recycling-and-solid-waste-data.html
Nevada. Division of Environmental Protection. 2009 Recycling Rate in Nevada
http://nevadarecycles.gov/doc/nvrateQ9.pdf
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Joe Davis, Recycling & Planning.
New Mexico Environment Department. Solid Waste Bureau. Connie Pasteris. Personal
communication. July 2010.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. "Beverage Container Deposit and
Redemption Statistics October 1, 2005 - September 30, 2006."
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials minerals pdf/0506rcarpt.pdf
121
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
North Carolina. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Solid Waste Management
Annual Report. July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008
http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us/swhome/AR07_08/AR07_08.pdf
North Carolina, Orange County. Solid Waste Management Department. 2007-2008 Statistics.
http://www.co.oranae.nc.us/recvclinq/index.asp
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management.
"State Solid Waste Management Plan 2009." March 3, 2010. Table 2-3.
http://www.epa.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7dqcFOrOZgO%3d&tabid=2613
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. "2008 Oregon Material Recovery and Waste
Generation Rates Report. Land Quality Division." September 2009.
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/2008MRWGRatesReport.pdf
Owens Corning. "OINA Gullet Report on Market Conditions". Paul J Smith Sourcing Manager
- Gullet presentation to Federation of New York Solid Waste Associations. May 6, 2009.
http://www.nyfederation.org/pdf2009/73smithpaul.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Lawrence Holley, Division Chief, Waste
Minimization and Planning. Telephone call July 7, 2010.
Personal communication with Kevin Dietly of Northbridge Environmental Management
Consultants. May 2006.
Personal communication with representative of Glass Packaging Institute. July 2010.
Personal communication with a representative of Strategic Materials. 2000 and 2005.
Personal communication with a representative of Waste Management. July 2007.
Resource Recycling, Container Recycling Update. Various issues.
122
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. "South Carolina Solid Waste
Management Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2009." Section 6 page 38.
http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/! wm/recycle/pubs/swm09_small.pdf
Texas Department of Transportation. "Recycling Summary." Roadway Recycled Materials and
Products Placed in FY09.
http://www.txdot.gov/business/contractors_consultants/recycling/performance.htm
The ULS Report. "A Study of Packaging Efficiency as it Relates to Waste Prevention". February
2007. http://www.americanchemistry.com/plastics/doc.asp?CID=1593&DID=6072
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Glass
Containers." M32G. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. National Trade Data Bank. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Exports, Schedule B Commodity by Country - Domestic
Merchandise. FT 447. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports for Consumption. FT 247. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports of Merchandise for Consumption. FT 110 and FT
125. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Tariff and trade
online database, http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user set.asp
123
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. "The Virginia Annual Recycling Rate Report.
Calendar Year 2008 Summary." November 2009.
http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/recycle/documents/AnnualReport-
RRR2008Final.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology. "Generation, Recycling and Per Capita data (1986-
2008)."http://www.ecy. wa.gov/programs/swfa/solidwastedata/recyclin.asp
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. "Annual Reports from Responsible Units." Table 1
Recyclable Materials Collected by Wisconsin Responsible Units (1999-2008).
http://www.wnrmag.com/org/aw/wm/recvcle/recycleldfrept/tablelru.pdf
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. Lead-acid Battery Shipments 1937-2007.
http://www.batterycouncil.org/LeadAcidBatteries/tabid/54/Default.aspx
Battery Council International. National Recycling Rate Study. Various years.
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.
124
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
National Automobile Dealers Association. NADA Data: Vehicles in Operation and Scrappage,
http://www.nada.org/Publications/NADADATA/ as of Dec.6, 2007.
National Automobile Dealers Association. NADA. Data 2006. Economic Impact of America's
New-Car and New-Truck Dealers, http://www.nada.org/
National Automobile Dealers Association. NADA. Data 2010. Dealership and Industry Review.
www.nada.org/nadadata
National Petroleum News. Market Facts. Various years.
Personal communication with a representative of R. L. Polk & Company.
Rubber Manufacturers Association. Scrap Tire Markets. July 2004. www.rma.org.
Teck Cominco Market Research. The Lead Market, www.teckcominco.com.
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.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Tariff and trade
online database, http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user set.asp
U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey. USGS Minerals Yearbook: Lead.
January 2008. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lead/mybl-2006-lead.pdf
125
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
U.S. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Transportation
Statistics 2005.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/csv/table_04_54.csv
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Highway Statistics. "State
Motor Vehicle Registrations." Various years.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/hsspubs.cfm
Ward Communications, Inc. Ward's Motor Vehicle Facts & Figures. 2001.
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.
Appliance Manufacturer. "Shipments Forecasts." Various years.
Appliance Recycling Information Center. INFOBulletin #1, #2, and #7. July 2001.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Trends and Forecasts. 1911 to 1988.
Best Buy website, www.bestbuy.com.
Canon Communications. 58th Annual Appliance Industry Forecast. February 2010.
Canon Communications. U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review: 1999 to 2008. July 2009.
126
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Dana Chase Publications, Inc. Appliance Statistical Review. Various years.
Electrical Merchandising. January 1951.
Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association. Statistical Highlights. Various years.
Maytag Corporation, www.amana.com.
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. Various years.
Rheem Manufacturing Company, www.rheem.com.
Sears, Roebuck and Co. Spring and Fall Retail Catalogs and website www.sears.com. Various
years.
Steel Recycling Institute, www.recycle-steel.org.
Target Brands, Inc. www.target.com.
University of Illinois Extension. Disaster Resources. "Energy Guide Labels"
web.extension.uiuc.edu/disaster/replace/energy.html
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.
127
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Various years.
U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity Summaries. "Iron and Steel Scrap." Various years.
Wal-Mart website, www.walmart.com
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
American Forest & Paper Association. Monthly Statistical Report. Various issues.
American Forest & Paper Association. Paper, Paperboard, Pulp Capacity and Fiber
Consumption. Various years.
American Forest & Paper Association, Paper Recycling Group. Annual Statistical Summary
Waste Paper Utilization. Various years.
American Forest & Paper Association. Statistics of Paper, Paperboard & Wood Pulp. Various
years.
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.
Mies, Will, Editor. Pulp & Paper Global Fact & Price Book, 2005. Paperloop, Inc. 2005.
Personal communication with Amy Healy, Director Public Policy, of the Yellow Pages
Association. February, April, June 2010.
128
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Personal communication with Cathy Foley, Paper Division Vice President and Stan Lancey,
Chief Economist, of the American Paper & Forest Association. July and August 2010.
Personal communication with Ed Klein, Executive Director, of the Carton Council. July 2010.
Personal communication with Jeff Fielkow, Vice President of Recycling, of the Carton Council.
July 2010.
U.S. Postal Service. Annual Report of the Postmaster General. Various years.
Yellow Pages Publishers Association. Yellow Pages Publishers Environmental Network:
Progress Report for the Year 1996. March 1997.
PLASTICS
Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers. EPS Recycling Report. Various years.
www.epspackaging.org.
Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers. "Recycled Content in Expandable Polystyrene Foam
Protective Packaging." Technical Bulletin. Fall 2001.
American Chemistry Council. "Production and Sales & Captive Use of Thermosetting &
Thermoplastic Resins." Various years.
American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. 2008 National Postconsumer Recycled Plastic
Bag and Film Report, http://www.americanchemistry.eom/s plastics/index.asp
American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. 2006 National Post-Consumer Recycled Plastic
Bag and Film Report.
http://www.plasticbagrecvcling.Org/08.0/2006Report.pdf
129
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. 2008 National Postconsumer Report on Non-
Bottle Rigid Plastic Recycling, http://www.americanchemistry.eom/s plastics/index.asp
American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. 2008 United States National Postconsumer
Plastics Bottle Recycling Report. http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/index.asp
American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. Plastic Packaging Resins. March 2007.
American Plastics Council, Inc. "Production and Sales & Captive Use of Thermo setting &
Thermoplastic Resins." Various years.
Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers and the American Chemistry Council. United
States National Postconsumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report. 2006
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/sec_content.asp?CID=1593&did=7094
Modern Plastics. Resin Statistics. January and February issues. Various years.
National Association of PET Container Resources (NAPCOR). "Report on Post Consumer PET
Container Recycling Activity." Various years, www.napcor.com
Patty Moore, Moore Recycling Associates, Inc. Presentation to the Association of Oregon
Recyclers June 22, 2007.
http://www.aorr. org/Docs/2007_Conference_Presentations/Markets%20Panel%20Plastics.pdf
Personal communication with Patty Moore, Moore Recycling Associates, Inc. August 2009 and
September 2010.
Personal communication with various industry representatives. August 2006, August 2007,
August 2008, and September 2009.
Plastics Recycling Update. January 2004.
130
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
R.W. Beck and Associates. "Postconsumer Plastics Recycling Rate Study." American Plastics
Council. Various years.
Schedler, Mike.. "A PET Bottle Recycling Status Report." Resource Recycling. February 2006.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). International
Trade Statistics. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Online database.
http ://dataweb .usitc .gov/scripts/user_set. asp
U.S. Department of Commerce. Value of Product Shipments. Various years.
RUBBER
American Automobile Manufacturers Association. AAMA Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures.
Various years.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Markets for Scrap Tires. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA/530-SW-90-07A. October 1991.
International Tire and Rubber Association, Inc. formerly American Retreader's Association, Inc.
Louisville, Kentucky.
International Tire and Rubber Association, Inc. The Tire Retreading/Repair Journal. April 1997.
McRee, Robert E. "Recap - Recapture: Incineration of Rubber for Energy Recovery" Presented
at the Joint NTDRA/RMA International Symposium. Washington, DC. October 22, 1982.
131
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Modern Tire Dealer. "Retail Tire Distribution." January 2008.
Modern Tire Dealer. "Tip-top shape America's largest retreaders continue to expand. Just look at
Snider Tire." Bob Ulrich and Mike Manges. 2009. http://www.moderntiredealer.com/Stats/
National Petroleum News Market Facts. Mid-June issue. Various years.
Personal communication with a representative of RL Polk Company. 2000.
Personal communication with the Scrap Tire Management Council. September 1996.
Retreader's Journal. April 1987.
Rubber Manufacturers Association. Newsroom. Year 2009 Press Releases. "2009 Tire
Shipments Revised to Drop Sixteen Percent." November 2, 2009.
http://www.rma.org/newsroom/
Rubber Manufacturers Association. Newsroom. Year 2010 Press Releases. "2010 Tire
Shipments to Increase Three Percent." (Article contains 2009 data.) March 12, 2010.
http://www.rma.org/newsroom/
Rubber Manufacturers Association. Passenger Replacement Shipments To Set Record In 2005.
December 7, 2005.
Rubber Manufacturers Association. Scrap Tire Markets in the United States Various years.
Rubber Manufacturers Association, www.rma.org/scraptires/characteristics.html.
www.rma.org/scraptires/facts figures.html.
132
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 years.
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. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Online database.
http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user set.asp
U.S. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Transportation
Statistics. Motor Vehicles Scrapped. Table 4-54. Various years.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Markets for Scrap Tires. EPA/530-SW-90-074A.
October 1991.
133
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Wards. Motor Vehicle Facts & Figures. Various years.
SMALL APPLIANCES
58th Annual Appliance Industry Forecasts. "Appliance Market Research Report." February 2010.
Best Buy website, www.bestbuy.com.
Dana Chase Publications, Inc. Appliance Statistical Review. Various years.
Environmental Product Declaration (EPD): Floor Vacuum Cleaner ETA 1450 Proximo. March
2005. www.environdec.com/reg/epde26e.pdf
Sears, Roebuck and Co. Spring and Fall Retail Catalogs and website www.sears.com. Various
years.
Swedish Environmental Management Council. "Composition Vacuum Cleaners: Environmental
Product Declaration (EPD): Floor Vacuum Cleaner ETA 1450 Proximo."
www.environdec.com/reg/epde26e.pdf
U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review: 1999-2008. "Appliance Market Research Report."
July 2009.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Electric
Housewares and Fans MA36E and MA335E." Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission. Tariff and Trade Data.
"U.S. Imports, Annual Data." 2009 and earlier years."
134
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Commission. Tariff and Trade Data. "U.S.
Domestic Exports, Annual Data." 2009 and earlier years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Online database.
http ://dataweb .usitc .gov/scripts/user_set. asp
Wal-Mart website, www.walmart.com
STEEL 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, July 2006, and July 2008.
Personal communication with a representative of the Reusable Industrial Packaging Association.
September 2004 and July 2008.
Personal communications with representatives of the Steel Recycling Institute. Various years.
Resource Recycling. Container Recycling Report. Various issues.
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.
135
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Steel Barrels
and Drums." MA34K, MA332K. Various years.
TEXTILES AND FOOTWEAR
American Apparel and Footwear Association. Shoe Stats. 2008 and earlier years.
http://www.apparelandfootwear.org/Statistics.asp
American Apparel and Footwear Association. Trends: An Annual Compilation of Statistical
Information on the U.S. Apparel & Footwear Industries. 2005 Edition. June 2006.
www.apparelandfootwear.org.
Council for Textile Recycling. Textile Recycling Fact Sheet. Various years.
Global Clothing Industries, LLC website. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "Your cast-offs their
profits. Items donated to Goodwill and Salvation Army often end up as part of a $1 billion-a-year
used-clothing business." December, 24, 2006. http://www.gciatl.com/media.html
J.C. Penney's Catalog. 1990 and 2000.
National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers. Fact Sheet. Various years.
Nike Reuse-A-Shoe website. August 2010. http://www.nikereuseashoe.com/faqs.
Riggle, David. "Tapping Textile Recycling." BioCycle. February 1992.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Apparel."
MA23A, MA23E, MA23G, MQ315A, MQ315D, MA315Q. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Bed and
Bath Furnishings." MQ314X. Various years.
136
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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,
MQ31A, MA23E, MA23G, and MA23A. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Textiles:
Sheets, Towels, and Pillowcases. MA313Q. 2009.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Data Bank.
Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission. Tariff and Trade Data.
"U.S. Domestic Exports, Annual Data, 2009 and earlier years."
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission. Tariff and Trade Data.
"U.S. Imports, Annual Data, 2009."
Spiegel Catalog. Fall/winter 1997.
WOOD PACKAGING
Araman, Phillip, and Robert Bush. "An Update on the Pallet Industry." Brooks Forest Products
Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
Araman, Phillip, and Robert Bush. "Use of New Wood Pallets, Containers is Stagnant to
Declining." Pallet Enterprise. September 1997.
137
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Buchlmann U, Araman PA, Bush RJ. "Pallet Re-Use and Recycling Saves High Value Material
from Landfills." Engagement Matters, Virginia Cooperative Extension Journal, Virgina Tech and
Virginia State University. Volume 2, Issue 1: January/February 2010.
Bush RJ, Araman PA. "Material Use and Production Changes in the U.S. Wood Pallet and
Container Industry: 1992 to 2006." Pallet Enterprise. June 2009.
Bush RJ, Araman PA. "Pallet Recovery, Repair and Remanufacturing in a Changing Industry:
1992 to 2006." Pallet Enterprise. August 2009.
http://www.palletenterprise.com/articledatabase/view. asp?articleID=2906
Bush, Robert, Phillip Araman, and E. Brad Hager. "Recovery, Reuse and Recycling by the
United States Wood Packaging Industry: 1993 to 2006." Environmental Planning, Management,
and Sustainability Studies. February 26, 2007. www.srs4702.forprod.vt.edu/pubsubj/pdf/07t5.pdf
Clarke, John W., Marshall S. White, and Philip A. Araman. "Comparative Performance of New,
Repaired, and Remanufactured 48- by 40-inch GMA-style Wood Pallets". Forest Products
Journal. December 2005.
Eshbach, Ovid, Ed. Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals. Second Edition. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Hardwood Market Report. February 28, 1998.
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.
138
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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
and October 2002.
RPM Technologies, Inc. - Plastic Pallets. "Annual Report 2006."
http://www.rpmplasticpallets.com/investor-relations.htm.
The Freedonia Group/IBIS Market Research Report. "Pallets - US Industry Study with Forecasts
for 2012 & 2017." June 2008.
The Freedonia Group. Market Research Abstracts. "Freedonia Focus on Pallets." June 1, 2008.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. Wood Used in U.S.
Manufacturing Industries, 1977. December 1983.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southern Research Center and Brooks Forest
Products Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, www.srs4702.forprod.vt.edu/pallets/new.asp.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook. "Wood Products." Various years.
YARD TRIMMINGS
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. "State of Recycling in Arkansas 2007-2008."
January 2009.
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/solwaste/branch recycling/pdfs/report state of recycling 2007 200
8.pdf
California Integrated Waste Management Board. "Detailed Characterization of Commercial Self-
Haul and Drop-box Waste" Cascadia Consulting Group. June 2006.
139
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
California Integrated Waste Management Board. "Second Assessment of California's Compost-
and Mulch-Producing Infrastructure." May 2004.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. "Statewide Waste Characterization Study."
Cascadia Consulting Group. December 2004.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. "Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for
Selected Industry Groups." Cascadia Consulting Group. June 2006.
City & County of Honolulu's Department of Environmental Services. "Recycling and Landfill
Diversion." Oahu Recycling 2009. http://www.opala.org/solid waste/archive/facts2.html
City of Mesa, Arizona. "Solid Waste Management Department Annual Report FY 2008/2009."
http://www.mesaaz.gov/waste/pdf/sw_annual_report_08_09.pdf
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Division of Hazardous Materials and
Waste Management. "2009 Annual Report to the Colorado General Assembly on the Status of
the Solid Waste and Material Management Program in Colorado." February 1, 2010.
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/sw/1002011egrpt.pdf
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. "Solid Waste Managed in
Virginia During Calendar Year 2008." June 2009.
http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/waste/pdf/swreport2008.pdf
Composting Council. Fact Sheet. "Yard Waste Legislation: Disposal Bans and Similar Bills as of
July, 1993." July 1993.
Composting Council Research and Education Foundation. "1995 Compost Capacity Survey."
James Butler and Associates. October 1996.
140
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Materials Management &
Compliance Assurance. "Estimates of Connecticut MSW Generated, Disposed, and Recycled FY
2008."
http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/reduce reuse recvcle/data/average state msw statistics fy2008.p
df
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. "State Solid Waste Management Plan."
Appendix D: "Current Waste Diversion Practices, Preliminary Draft." RW Beck. 2006.
County of Hawai'i. "Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan The Path to Zero
Waste. Section 2. Waste Stream Assessment." December 2009. http://www.hawaii-
county.com/env mng/swm/iswmp/Final/Section2WasteStreamAssessment.pdf
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. "The Eighth Annual
Report of the Recycling Public Advisory Council." November 2009.
http://www.awm.delaware.gov/Recvcling/Documents/The%20Eighth%20Annual%20Report%20
RPAC%20Nov2009.pdf
Delaware Solid Waste Authority. "Analysis of the Impact of a Yard Waste Ban on Landfill
Quantities and Household Costs." DSM Environmental Services, Inc. September 15, 2004.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. "Solid Waste Annual Report Data." 2008 and
earlier years. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/08 data.htm
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. WasteCalc solid waste model. Franklin
Associates, Ltd. subcontractor to TIA. Background model worksheet. Analysis of state and
county sampling data. 2000.
Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG. Survey of Selected State Officials and state websites.
Various years.
141
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Survey of Selected State Officials and state websites. Various years.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the
Year 2000. Appendix J and Appendix K. Keep America Beautiful, Inc. September 1994.
Georgia Department of Community Affairs. "Georgia Statewide Waste Characterization Study."
RW Beck. June 2005.
Glenn, Jim. "The State of Garbage in America Part I." BioCycle. April 1998.
Goldstein, Nora. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. December 2002.
Goldstein, Nora. "The State of Garbage in America Part II." BioCycle. November 2000.
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 U." BioCycle. May 1997.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. "Nonhazardous Solid Waste Management and
Landfill Capacity in Illinois: 2008." December 2009. http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/landfill-
capacity/2008/report.pdf
Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Michelle Weddle, Senior Environmental
Manager.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Waste Management Assistance Division. "Iowa Solid
Waste Characterization Study." RW Beck. October 1998.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment. "State of Kansas Waste Characterization Study."
Engineering Solutions & Design, Inc. March 2003.
142
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. "Statewide Solid Waste Management Report - 2008
Update." http://waste.kv.gov/RLA/Documents/2008SolidWasteSummaryReport.pdf
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Solid Waste Division. "2003 Annual
Report Blueprint for the Future." September 2003
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Solid Waste Division. "Waste
Monitoring Program. 2002/2003 Comprehensive Waste Stream Characterization and Transfer
Station Customer Surveys - Final Report." Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. April 2004.
Maine State Planning Office. "Solid Waste Generation & Disposal Capacity Report for Calendar
Year 2008." March 2010. http://www.state.me.us/spo/recycle/docs/gencapdraft040110final.pdf
Maryland Department of the Environment. "County Recyclables by Commodity in Tons for
Calendar Year 2008". http://www.mde.maryland.gov/assets/document/recycling_chart.pdf
Massachusetts DEP Residential Organic Waste Management Study. October 1999. Research
International/Cambridge.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Matt Flechter,
Recycling/Composting Coordinator.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Lisa Mojsiej, EFT.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, Office of
Environmental Assistance. "Statewide MSW Composition Study." RW Beck. March 2000.
Montana Department of Environmental Quality. "Compost Business in Montana." November
2009. www.deq.mt.gov/Recycle/pdf/MontanaComposters.pdf
143
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Nevada. Division of Environmental Protection. "2009 Recycling Rate in Nevada." 2009.
http://nevadarecycles.gov/doc/nvrate09.pdf
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. "Solid Waste Report to the Legislature
2007." October 2008.
http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/publications/wmd/documents/r-wmd-08-3.pdf
New Jersey Department of Environment. "Draft Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan 2005."
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Joseph Davis, Bureau of Recycling and
Planning.
New Mexico Environment Department Solid Waste Bureau. 2004 and 2005 Landfill Summary
Report. Received May 2006.
New Mexico Environment Department Solid Waste Bureau. Connie Pasteris, Outreach Section.
"Solid Waste Facility Annual Report." 2009 and earlier years.
http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swb/AnnualReportsandForms.htm
"New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Part 360 Permitted Composting
Facilities." June 10, 2009. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/compweb.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Scott Mouw. "North
Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Report FY 2008-2009. Local Government Yard
Waste Management FY08 and FY09."
http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us/swhome/AR08 09/AR08 09.pdf
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recycling & Litter Prevention. "What's In
Our Garbage?: Ohio's Waste Characterization Study Executive Summary." Engineering
Solutions & Design, Inc. 2005.
144
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management.
"State Solid Waste Management Plan 2009." March 3, 2010.
http://www.epa.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7dqcFOrOZgO%3d&tabid=2613
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. "2002 Oregon Solid Waste Characterization and
Composition." Sky Valley Associates. 2002.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. "Oregon Material Recovery and Waste
Generation Rates Report." Various years.
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/recoverv/materialrecovery.htm
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Lawrence Holley, Division Chief, Waste
Minimization and Planning. July 7, 2010.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. "Statewide Waste Composition Study."
RW Beck. April 2003.
Raymond Communications. "State Recycling Laws Update." Various years.
Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation, Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management. "Rhode Island Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan May 24, 2005
Draft."
San Francisco Department of the Environment. "Waste Characterization Study". Environmental
Science Associates (ESA). August 2005.
Savage, George M. "The History and Utility of Waste Characterization Studies." MSW
Management. May/June 1994.
Simmons, Phil, et al. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. April 2006.
145
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. "South Carolina Solid Waste
Management Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2009." March 15, 2010.
http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/recycle/pubs/swm09_small.pdf
St. Charles County Division of Environmental Services. "Recycling Facts."
www. scchealth. org/doc s/es/doc s/recvcle/recycling facts .html
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America, Part I." BioCycle. April 1995.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America, Part H." BioCycle. May 1995.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America, Part H." BioCycle. May 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Region 7 MSW Generation, Recycling (including
Composting), and Disposal." Eastern Research Group, Inc. September 2005.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality. "2010 Utah Compost Facility Inventory (Calendar
2009 Data)."
http://www.haz ardouswaste.Utah.gov/Solid_Waste_Section/Adobe/SolidWaste/Compost_List.pd
f
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. "Solid Waste Management Annual Solid
Waste Diversion & Disposal Reports."
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/solid/pubs/DiversionDisposalReportTable2.pdf
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. "The Virginia Annual Recycling Rate Report.
Calendar Year 2008 Summary." November 2009.
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/recvcle/documents/AnnualReport-
RRR2008Final.pdf
146
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Wake County, N.C. Solid Waste Management. "Wake County Waste Characterization Study."
RW Beck. April 1999.
Washington Department of Ecology. "Generation, Recycling and Per Capita data (1986-2008)."
2009. http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/swfa/solidwastedata/recyclin.asp
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Sudhir Patel, Division of Water &
Waste Management.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000 annual recycling data. Staff document.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. "Annual Reports from Responsible Units." Table 1
Recyclable Materials Collected by Wisconsin Responsible Units (1999-2008).
http://www.wnrmag.com/org/aw/wm/recvcle/recycleldfrept/index.html
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. "Wisconsin Statewide Waste Characterization
Study." Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. May 2003.
147
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
CHAPTER 3
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
INTRODUCTION
EPA's tiered integrated waste management strategy includes the following components:
• Source reduction (or waste prevention), including reuse of products and on-site
(or backyard) composting of yard trimmings.
• Recycling, including off-site (or community) composting.
• Combustion with energy recovery.
• Disposal through landfilling.
The four components are put into context in Figure 17.
This chapter addresses the major activities within an integrated waste management
system: source reduction, recycling (including composting), combustion with energy recovery,
and disposal. Source reduction activities have the effect of reducing MSW generation, while
other management alternatives deal with MSW once it is generated.
148
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 17. Diagram of solid waste management
Changes in Changes in
package purchasing
design habits
t t
i 1
Generation
of waste for
management
Changes in
industrial
practices
t
1
Backyard Increased Other
composting, reuse
grasscycling
1
changes in
use patterns
Recovery for
recycling (including
composting)
t , ,
r
Combustion
with energy
recovery
1
SOURCE REDUCTION
1
1
Landfill/Other
disposal
WASTE REDUCTION
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
Estimates of the historical recovery of materials for recycling, including composting, are
presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 discusses the current MSW management infrastructure.
Current solid waste collection, processing, combustion with energy recovery, and disposal
programs and facilities are highlighted with tables and figures. It also presents estimates for
quantities of waste landfilled, which are obtained by subtracting the amounts recovered for
recycling and composting and the amounts combusted with energy recovery from total MSW
generation.
SOURCE REDUCTION
Since 1960, the amount of waste each person creates has increased from 2.68 to 4.34
pounds per day. An effective way to stop this trend is by preventing waste from being generated
in the first place.
149
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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 their 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 pickup, or if it is taken by the
generator to another site for recycling (including composting) or disposal.
Source reduction encompasses a very broad range of activities by private citizens,
communities, commercial establishments, institutional agencies, and manufacturers and
distributors. Examples of source reduction actions (Table 24) 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.
• Managing non-product organic wastes (food scraps, yard trimmings) through
backyard composting or other on-site alternatives to disposal.
150
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 24
SELECTED EXAMPLES OF SOURCE REDUCTION PRACTICES
Source Reduction Practice
MSW Product Categories
Durable
Goods
Nondurable
Goods
Containers &
Packaging
Organics
Redesign
Materials reduction
Materials substitution
Lengthen life
• Downgauge metals in
appliances
• Use of composites
in appliances and
electronic circuitry
• High mileage tires
• Electronic components
reduce moving parts
• Paperless purchase
orders
• Regular servicing
• Look at warranties
• Extend warranties
• Concentrates
• Container lightweighting
• Cereal in bags
• Coffee brick
• Multi-use products
• Design for secondary
uses
• Xeriscaping
Consumer Practices
• Purchase long lived
products
• Repair
• Duplexing
• Sharing
• Reduce unwanted
mail
• Purchasing:
products in bulk,
concentrates
• Reusable bags
Reuse
By design
Secondary
• Modular design
• Borrow or rent for
temporary use
• Give to charity
• Buy or sell at
garage sales
• Envelopes
• Clothing
• Waste paper
scratch pads
• Reusable pallets
• Returnable secondary
packaging
• Loosefill
• Grocery sacks
• Dairy containers
• Glass and plastic jars
Reduce/Eliminate Toxins
• Eliminate RGBs
• Soy ink, waterbased
• Waterbased solvents
• Reduce mercury
• Replace lead foil on
wine bottles
Reduce Organics
Food scraps
Yard trimmings
• Backyard composting
• Vermi-composting
• Backyard composting
• Grasscycling
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
Source Reduction Through Redesign
Since source reduction of products and packages can save money by 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. An example of materials reduction is the lightweighting of aluminum beverage cans.
In 2009, an aluminum beverage can weighs 0.0291 pounds; down from 0.0341 pounds per can in
1996 (close to a 15 percent reduction in weight).
151
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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 also may 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 product enters the municipal waste
stream. The responsibility for lengthening product life lies partly with manufacturers and partly
with consumers. Manufacturers can design products 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 also must be willing to care for and repair products.
Modifying Practices to Reduce Materials Use
Businesses and individuals often can 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 also can
reduce packaging requirements. The use of reusable shopping bags reduces the quantity of plastic
and paper bags produced.
152
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Reuse of Products and Packages
Similar to lengthening product life, reuse of products and packaging 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, and clothing). 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 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. Individuals resell other goods at garage sales, flea
markets, and the like. Borrowing and sharing items like tools can also reduce the number of
products ultimately discarded. 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 often are 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, and other such products, instead of the disposable variety. (This will
153
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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,
and reconditioned printer cartridges.
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 bottles can be collected, washed, and refilled for use again. Some years ago
large numbers of refillable glass soft drink bottles were used, but single-use glass bottles, plastic
bottles, and aluminum cans have largely replaced these. 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 eight trips (refillings) per bottle.
Another example in this category is the use of refurbished wood pallets for shipping
palletized goods. It is estimated that over 9 million tons of wood pallets were refurbished and
returned to service in 2009. It is also common practice to recondition steel drums and barrels for
reuse.
Many other containers and packages can be recycled, but are not often reused, although
this practice can achieve a notable source reduction in packaging. As an 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 shippers 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 specific activities affect the waste stream.
154
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Management of Organic Materials
Food scraps and yard trimmings combined made up about 28 percent of MSW generation
in 2009, so source reduction measures aimed at these products can have an important effect on
waste generation. Composting is the usual methodology 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 recycling activity. Estimates for these off-site composting activities are
included in this chapter.
There are several types of source reduction that take place at the point of generation (e.g.,
the yard of a home or business). The backyard composting of yard trimmings and certain food
discards is a growing source reduction practice. There also is a trend toward leaving grass
clippings on lawns, often through the use of mulching mowers. Other actions contributing to
reduced organics disposal are: establishment of variable fees for collection of wastes (also known
as unit-based pricing or Pay-As-You-Throw), which encourage residents to reduce the amount of
wastes set out; improved technology (mulching mowers); xeriscaping (landscaping with plants
that use minimal water and generate minimal waste); and certain legislation such as bans on
disposal of yard trimmings in landfills.
Part of the impetus for source reduction and recycling of yard trimmings is the large
number of state regulations discouraging landfilling or other disposal of yard trimmings. The
Composting Council and other sources reported 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 2009, 23 states (amounting to about 50 percent of the nation's population) had
legislation discouraging the disposal of yard trimmings. In addition, some local and regional
jurisdictions regulate disposal of yard trimmings.
155
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Measuring Source Reduction
Although source reduction has been an increasingly important aspect of municipal solid
waste programs since the late 1980s, the goal of actually measuring how much source reduction
has taken place—how much waste prevention there has been—has proved elusive. Early attempts
by localities and states often consisted of measuring a single waste stream in a single community.
In time, additional research enabled proxy, or estimated values, to be developed for specific
waste streams, to use on a state-wide or national level. EPA's Source Reduction Program
Potential Manual and planning packet, published in 1997 (EPA530-E-97-001) provides an
example of this approach. Unlike recycling, where there are actual materials to weigh all through
the process, measuring source reduction means trying to measure something that no longer exists.
The November 1999 National Source Reduction Characterization Report for Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States (EPA 530-R-99-034) provides additional information including
an explanation of a methodology that has been used to generate source reduction estimates.
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 2009, more than 9,000 curbside recyclables
collection programs were reported in the United States. As shown in Table 25 and Figure 18, the
extent of residential curbside recycling programs varies by geographic region, with the most
extensive curbside collection occurring in the Northeast.
156
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Curbside collection programs commonly require residents to do at least some sorting of
the recyclable materials put at the curb. In recent years, however, there has been a trend toward
single-stream curbside collections programs, in which no sorting is required of the residents. The
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) estimated that 50 percent of curbside
recyclables collection programs were single-stream in 2007.4 These programs require that the
materials be taken to a materials recovery facility (MRF) for processing.
In 2009, over 70 percent of the U.S. population had access to curbside recyclables
collection programs (based on data from states representing 48 percent of the U.S. population
and shown in Table 25). In comparison, a 2009 American Beverage Association study estimated
that 74 percent of the U.S. population had access to curbside recycling programs.5 The Northeast
region had the largest population served - 47 million persons. In the Northeast, 85 percent of the
population had access to curbside recyclables collection, while in the West 68 percent of the
population had access to curbside recycling. The largest numbers of programs were located in the
Northeast and Midwest regions of the country.
Table 25
NUMBER AND POPULATION SERVED BY
CURBSIDE RECYCLABLES COLLECTION PROGRAMS, 2009
Number of Population* Population Served
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
Total
Total U.S. Population
Programs
3,619
1,157
3,286
1,004
9,066
(in thousands)
55,284
26,936
37,768
27,307
147,296
307,007
(in thousands)
47,120
17,870
20,720
18,650
104,360
Percent**
85%
66%
55%
68%
71%
* Population in states reporting population served data.
** Percent of population served by curbside programs was calculated using
population of states reporting data.
Sources:
U.S. Census Bureau, BioCycle preliminary State of Garbage data received August 2010, BioCycle The State of Garbage in America.
April 2006, and data from the following websites Connecticut Department of Enviornmental Protection, Delaware Solid Waste Management
Authority, Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Maine State Planning Office, North Dakota Department of Health Division of Waste
Mangaement, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
4 AF&PA. "2007 AF&PA Community Survey Executive Summary." June 2008. This report also estimated that 62
percent of the U.S. population is served by curbside recyclables collection.
5 American Beverage Association. "2008 ABA Community Survey. Final Report. September 2009.
157
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 18. Population served by curbside recycling, 2009
Qfl _
80 -
70 -
I 60 -
cfl
13
percent of po
-^ Ol
o o
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -I
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
U.S. Census Bureau, BioCycle preliminary State of Garbage data received August 2010, BioCycle The State of Garbage in America. April 2006, and data fromthe following
websites Connecticut Department of Enviornmental Protection, Delaware Solid Waste Management Authority, Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Maine State Panning Office,
North Dakota Department of Health Dvision of Waste Mangaement, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
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.
It is difficult to quantify drop-off centers in the United States. It is estimated that there
were 12,694 programs in 1997, according to a BioCycle survey. In 2007, the "2007 AF&PA
Community Survey Executive Summary" estimated over 20,000 communities have drop-off
centers. The 2009 American Beverage Association study estimated 83 percent of the U.S.
population has access to drop-off collection programs. Both of these studies stated that many
communities have access to both curbside and drop-off recyclables collection. In some areas,
158
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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 programs.
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. Eleven states have container deposit systems: California, Connecticut,
Delaware6, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont
(Figure 19). 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. In California, beverage
distributors also pay a per container fee. In addition to these fees, handling fees are also assessed
in most of the states listed.
Deposit systems generally target beverage containers, which account for about 5 percent
of total MSW generation (dairy products are typically excluded). The 2007 version of this report
series estimated that about 35 percent of all recovery of beverage containers comes from ten of
the eleven deposit states mentioned above, and an additional 20 percent of recovered beverage
containers comes from California. (Note: These recovery estimates reflect not only containers
redeemed by consumers for deposit, but also 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.)
6 Delaware deposit legislation was repealed by Senate Bill 234. Deposit collection will cease on December 1,
2010. http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/usa/delaware.htm
159
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 19. States With Bottle Deposit Rules
Source: Container Recycling Institute, 2006.
Commercial Recyclables Collection. The largest 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 paper, 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. These commercial waste haulers may handle recycling at multi-family dwellings
(typically five or more units) as well.
160
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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 categories at the curb,
such as a paper category and a container category, with additional sorting at a facility (MRF).
There is a more recent trend towards MRFs that can sort recyclable materials that are picked up
unsorted (single-stream recycling). Mixed waste can also be processed to pull out recyclable and
compostable materials.
Materials Recovery Facilities. Materials recovery facilities vary widely across the
United States, depending on the incoming materials and the technology and labor used to sort the
materials. In 2009, 578 MRFs were operating in the United States, with an estimated total daily
throughput of over 86,000 tons per day (Table 26). The most extensive recyclables processing
throughput occurs in the Northeast and Midwest (Figure 20).
Table 26
MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITIES, 2009
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
U.S. Total
Number
147
161
144
126
578
Estimated
Throughput
(tpd)
23,769
19,699
21,320
21,565
86,353
Source: Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc.
161
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 20. Estimated MRF throughput, 2009
(Tons per day per million persons)
500
400
03
C
o
Q)
Q.
300
E
"5
Q.
_C
D)
200
(C
T3
"i
O
100
0
Northeast South Midwest
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc.
West
Many 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. However, high technology MRFs usually include some
manual sorting, reducing the distinction between high and low technology MRFs.
162
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Mixed Waste Processing. Mixed waste processing facilities are less common than
conventional MRFs, but there are several facilities in operation in the United States, as illustrated
in Figure 21. Mixed waste processing facilities receive mixed solid waste (including recyclable
and non-recyclable materials), which is then loaded on conveyors. Using both mechanical and
manual (high and low technology) sorting, recyclable materials are removed for further
processing. In 2009, there were reported 25 mixed waste processing facilities in the U.S.,
handling about 23,000 tons of waste per day. The Western region has the largest concentration of
these processing facilities (representing over 80 percent of the daily throughput).
Figure 21. Mixed waste processing estimated throughput 2009
(tons per day per million persons)
300
03
C
o
.
c
g
o
(C
Q.
(C
O
>,
(C
T3
150
100
50
Northeast South Midwest
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc.
West
163
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Mixed Waste Composting. Mixed waste composting starts with unsorted MSW. Large
items are removed, as well as ferrous and other metals, depending on the type of operation.
Mixed waste composting takes advantage of the high percentage of organic components of
MSW, such as paper, food scraps and yard trimmings, wood, and other materials. In 2009, there
were 12 mixed waste composting facilities, four less than was reported in 2007.
Nationally, mixed waste composting facilities handled about 1,100 tons per day in 2009,
down from 1,500 tons per day in 2007. In 2009, the highest processing capacity per million
persons was found in the West and Midwest, as shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22. MSW composting capacity, 2009
(Capacity in tons per day per million persons)
o c;
(/) vj
o>
Q.
1 4
o>
Q.
S 3
Q.
ro
o
S1
c
o
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; BloCycle, November 2009.
164
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Yard Trimmings Composting. Yard trimmings composting is much more prevalent
than mixed waste composting. On-site management of yard trimmings (back yard composting) is
discussed earlier in this chapter, and is classified as source reduction, not recycling. In 2009,
about 2,900 yard trimmings composting programs were documented from a search of state
environmental websites. In 2009, about 50 percent of these programs were in the Midwest
region, as shown in Figure 23. Based on 19.9 million tons of yard trimmings recovered for
composting in the United States (Table 2, Chapter 2), yard trimmings composting facilities
handled approximately 54,500 tons per day in 2009.
Figure 23. Yard trimmings composting programs, 2009
(In number of programs)
1,600 -i
1,400
1,200
1 1,000
05
D)
5 800
o
600
400
200
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Source: Internet search: includes data cited by 41 state environmental websites.
165
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
COMBUSTION WITH ENERGY RECOVERY
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 solely 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 2009 design capacity of 94,721 tons per day. There were 87 WTE facilities in
2009 (Table 27), down from 102 in 2000. In tons of capacity per million persons, the Northeast
region had the most MSW combustion capacity in 2009 (Figure 24).
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, rubber tires
have been used as fuel in cement kilns, utility boilers, pulp and paper mills, industrial boilers,
and dedicated scrap tire-to-energy facilities. 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 3.1 million tons of MSW were combusted in this
manner in 2009, with tires contributing a majority of the total.
166
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 27
MUNICIPAL WASTE-TO-ENERGY PROJECTS, 2009
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
U.S. Total*
Number
Operational
40
23
16
8
87
Design
Capacity
(tpd)
46,537
31,131
10,912
6,141
94,721
* Projects on hold or inactive were not included.
WTE includes mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived
fuel combustion facilities.
Source: "The IWSA Directory of Waste-To-Energy Plants."
Integrated Waste Services Association, 2007. Latest report available.
Figure 24. Municipal waste-to-energy capacity, 2009
(Capacity in tons per million persons)
3VJVJ -
800 -
£ /UU
o
C/)
| 600 -
o
| 500 -
o>
Q.
if 400 -
to
Q.
to
>. 300 -
03
T3
C/)
o 200 -
100 -
0 -
1 1 1
Northeast South Midwest West
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Integrated Waste Services Association 2007. Latest report available.
167
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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 is managed separately7. (There are
a number of efforts underway to reuse ash.) As a general "rule of thumb," MSW combustor ash
amounts to about 25 percent (by 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.
LANDFILLS
In 2009, there were 1,908 municipal solid waste landfills reported in the United States.
Table 28 and Figure 25 show the number of landfills in each region. The South and West had the
largest number of landfills. Thirty-eight percent of the landfills are located in the West, 35
percent in the South, and 21 percent in the Midwest. Less than 7 percent are located in the
Northeast.
7 Note that many combustion facilities do magnetic separation of residues to recover ferrous metals, e.g., steel
cans and steel in other miscellaneous durable goods. This recovered steel is included in the total recovery of
ferrous metals in MSW reported in Chapter 2.
168
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
T3
CO
800
600
400
200
Table 28
LANDFILL FACILITIES, 2009
Number of
Landfills
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
U.S. Total
128
668
394
718
1,908
Source: S/oCyc/e October 2010.
Figure 25. Number of landfills in the U.S., 2009
Northeast
Source: B/oCyc/e October 2010.
South
Midwest
West
169
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MSW MANAGEMENT
This summary provides some perspective on historical and current municipal solid waste
management practices in the United States. The results are summarized in Table 29 and Figure
26.
Historically, municipal solid waste generation has grown steadily (from 88 million tons in
1960 to 243 million tons at present). 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 for volume reduction.
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
26 shows, discards of MSW to landfill or other disposal apparently peaked in 1990 and then
began to decline as materials recovery and combustion with energy recovery increased.
170
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 29
GENERATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING, COMBUSTION,
AND DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
(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 with
energy recovery**
Discards to landfill,
other disposalf
1960
88,120
5,610
Neg.
5,610
82,510
0
82,510
1970
121,060
8,020
Neg.
8,020
113,040
400
112,640
1980
151,640
14,520
Neg.
14,520
137,120
2,700
134,420
1990
208,270
29,040
4,200
33,240
175,030
29,700
145,330
2000
242,540
53,010
16,450
69,460
173,080
33,730
139,350
2005
252,380
59,310
20,550
79,860
172,520
31,620
140,900
2007
254,980
63,090
21,710
84,800
170,180
31 ,970
138,210
2008
251 ,020
61 ,750
22,100
83,850
167,170
31 ,550
135,620
2009
242,960
61,270
20,750
82,020
160,940
29,010
131,930
Pounds per Person per Day
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after recovery
Combustion with
energy recovery**
Discards to landfill,
other disposalf
Population (thousands)
1960
2.68
0.17
Neg.
0.17
2.51
0.00
2.51
179,979
1970
3.25
0.22
Neg.
0.22
3.03
0.01
3.02
203,984
1980
3.66
0.35
Neg.
0.35
3.31
0.07
3.24
227,255
1990
4.57
0.64
0.09
0.73
3.84
0.65
3.19
249,907
2000
4.72
1.03
0.32
1.35
3.37
0.66
2.71
281,422
2005
4.67
1.10
0.38
1.48
3.19
0.58
2.61
296,410
2007
4.63
1.15
0.39
1.54
3.09
0.58
2.51
301 ,621
2008
4.52
1.11
0.40
1.51
3.01
0.57
2.44
304,060
2009
4.34
1.09
0.37
1.46
2.88
0.52
2.36
307,007
Percent of Total Generation
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after recovery
Combustion with
energy recovery**
Discards to landfill,
other disposalf
1960
100.0%
6.4%
Neg.
6.4%
93.6%
0.0%
93.6%
1970
100.0%
6.6%
Neg.
6.6%
93.4%
0.3%
93.1%
1980
100.0%
9.6%
Neg.
9.6%
90.4%
1 .8%
88.6%
1990
100.0%
14.0%
2.0%
1 6.0%
84.0%
14.2%
69.8%
2000
100.0%
21 .9%
6.7%
28.6%
71 .4%
13.9%
57.5%
2005
1 00.0%
23.5%
8.1%
31 .6%
68.4%
12.5%
55.9%
2007
100.0%
24.8%
8.5%
33.3%
66.7%
1 2.5%
54.2%
2008
100.0%
24.6%
8.8%
33.4%
66.6%
1 2.6%
54.0%
2009
100.0%
25.2%
8.6%
33.8%
66.2%
1 1 .9%
54.3%
Composting of yard trimmings, food scraps and other MSW organic material. Does not include backyard composting.
** Includes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse-derived fuel form, and combustion with energy recovery of source separated
materials in MSW (e.g., wood pallets and tire-derived fuel). 2009 includes 25,930 MSW, 520 wood, and 2,560 tires (1,000 tons)
t Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy recovery.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
171
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 26. Municipal solid waste management, 1960 to 2009
300
250
c 150
Recovery of the composting
component of recycling
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
Recovery has increased steadily. Combustion with energy recovery, as a percentage of
generation, has been declining (11.9 percent of generation in 2009). MSW discards to landfills
rose to about 141 million tons in 2005, and then declined to 132 million tons in 2009. As a
percentage of total MSW generation, discards to landfills or other disposal has consistently
decreased-from 89 percent of generation in 1980 to about 54 percent in 2009.
172
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
CHAPTER 3
REFERENCES
GENERAL
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Solid Waste Management at the Crossroads. December 1997.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Various years.
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: 1997 Update. EPA/530-R-98-007. May 1998.
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-945-001. March 1996.
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.
173
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2005 Facts
and Figures. EPA530-R-06-011. October 2006. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncpl/pubs/mswchar05 .pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2001 Facts
and Figures. EPA/530-R-03-011. October 2003. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncpl/pubs/msw2001 .pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2000 Facts
and Figures. EPA/530-R-02-001. June 2002. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncpl/pubs/report-OO.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1999 Facts
and Figures. EPA/530-R-01-014. July 2001.
SOURCE REDUCTION
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.
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.
Rattray, Tom. "Source Reduction—An Endangered Species?" Resource Recycling. November
1990.
174
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Raymond Communications Inc. State Recycling Laws Update Year-End Edition 1998.
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.
RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Waste Remediation Programs.
http://www.adem.state.al.us/programs/land/default.cnt
American Beverage Association. 2008 ABA Community Survey Final Report Rev. 02 September
2009. http://flrecycling.org/Resources/Downloads/American-Beverage-Association-
Communitv-Recycling-Survey
American Forest &Paper Association 2007 Community Survey Executive Summary.
http://www.paperrecycles.org/news/exec_summ.html
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. Arkansas Recycling Marketing Directory.
www.adeq.state.ar.us/solwaste/branch market dev/mkt dev.asp#Search
Arsova, Ljupka, et al. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. December 2008
Block, Dave, and Nora Goldstein. "Solid Waste Composting Trends in the U.S." BioCycle.
November 2000.
Businesses & Environmentalists Allied for Recycling (BEAR). Understanding Beverage
Container Recycling. October 2001.
175
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Solid Waste
Information System (SWIS). Facility Site Listing.
http://www.calrecvcle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/SearchList/List?FAC=Disposal&OPSTAT
US=Active®STATUS=Permitted
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Final Report on Inventory and
Database of Colorado Diversion Activity.
www.cdphe.state.co.us/oeis/p2 program/grantreports/sowBfinalreport.pdf
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management Division. HSRF Year-to-Date Cubic Yards Reported 2008.
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/swreport/hsrf2008.pdf
Colorado Municipal League. Municipal Residential Curbside Recycling Services.
http://www.coloradocurbside.com/survevtables/curbsidecityservice.html
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Active Leaf Composting Facilities.
www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2718&q=325374&depNav GID=1645
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Summer 2008 CT DEP Municipal Solid
Waste Management Full cost Accounting Survey. Curbside Pickup of Residential Bottles, Cans,
& Paper (BCP) for Recycling.
http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/reduce reuse recycle/muni state agency/muni full cost acct su
rvey report 2 section 2.pdf
Container Recycling Institute. 2006. www.container-recycling.org/
Container Recycling Institute. 2010. Bottle Bill Resource Guide. Bottle Bills in the USA.
http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/usa/delaware.htm
County of Maui Hawaii, http://www.co.maui.hi.us/
176
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Yard Waste in
Delaware, http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/yardwaste/Pages/Default.aspx
Delaware Solid Waste Management Authority. Reports. 2010 Statewide Solid Waste
Management Plan. Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan for Delaware: Moving Toward Zero
Waste.
http://dswa.com/pdfs/Statewide%20Solid%20Waste%20Mgmt%20PlanAdopted42210.pdf
District of Columbia Department of Public Works. http://dpw.dc.gov/DC/DPW/
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Yard Trash Processing Facilities Database.
www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/solid_waste/pages/yardtrash.htm
Georgia Department of Community Affairs. 2009 Solid Waste Management Annual Report.
2009 Solid Waste and Recyclable Collection. Solid Waste & Recycling Collection 2009 Update.
http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/research/programs/downloads/SWAR2009Collection.pd
f
Glenn, Jim. "MSW Composting in the United States." BioCycle. November 1997.
Glenn, Jim. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. April 1998.
Goldstein, Nora. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. October 2010.
Goldstein, Nora. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. December 2001.
Goldstein, Nora, and Celeste Madtes. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. November
2000.
177
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Governmental Advisory Associates. 7997 Update to the Materials Recycling and Processing
Industry in the United States. 1997.
Governmental Advisory Associates. Custom report. 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009.
Governmental Advisory Associates. Personal communication with Eileen Berenyi. 1998, 2002.
Governmental Advisory Associates. The Materials Recycling and Processing Industry in the
United States: 1995-96 Yearbook, Atlas, and Directory. 1995.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Waste, http://www.deq.idaho.gov/waste/
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Annual Landfill Capacity Report.
www.epa.state.il.us/land/landfill-capacity/2007/index.html
Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Recycle Indiana. Composting.
www.in.gov/recycle/5725.htm
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Organics and Composting.
www.iowadnr.gov/waste/recycling/organics/index.html
Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Waste Management.
http://publicl.kdhe.state.ks.us/Landfills/Landfills.nsf7Opendatabase
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Waste Management. Recycling
and Local Assistance Branch. http://waste.ky.gov/RLA/Pages/default.aspx
Kreith, Frank. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1994.
Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Remediation & Waste Management.
File Room / Reports Generated from Databases, www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/data/
178
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Maine State Planning Office. Report: Residential Recycling Year: 2008.
http://www.maine.gov/spo/recvcle/docs/data/2008data/ResidentRecycling.pdf
Maryland Department of the Environment. Land Publications & Reports. Recycling.
http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/LandPrograms/Recycling/publications/
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Landfills, Transfer Stations & Compost
Sites, www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/solid/swfacil.htm
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/DEQ-WHMD-
List Registered Compost Sites 230193 7.pdf
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Compost.
www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/compost.html#pbrsites
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. Recycling Directories.
www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/Recvcling_RecvclingDirectories?OpenDocument
Montana Department of Environmental Quality.
http://www.deq.mt.gov/Recycle/Montana Recyclables new.mcpx
Municipality of Anchorage Alaska.
http://www.muni.org/departments/sws/recycle/Pages/default.aspx
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Integrated Waste Management. List of
Permitted Facilities, www.deq.state.ne.us/IntList.nsf/Web+List?OpenView&Start=l&Count= 125
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Nevada Solid Waste Landfills.
http://ndep.nv.gov/BWM/landfill.htmtfsolid nevada
179
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Composting Facilities in New
Hampshire, http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/waste/swrtas/composters.htm
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. NJDEP Approved Operating Commercial
Sanitary Landfills, www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw/lrm/aocslf.htm
New Jersey. Department of Environmental Protection. Recycling Markets Directory.
www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw/recvcling/recvmkts_directory.htm
New Mexico Recycling Coalition, http://www.recyclenewmexico.com/index.htm
New York State. Department of Environmental Conservation. List of Compost Facilities in New
York State, www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/55447.html
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Waste
Management. www.wastenotnc.org/DATARPTS2003 3ColA.HTM
North Dakota Department of Health - Division of Waste Management. 2010 Curbside Pick-Up
Programs. http://www.ndhealth.gov/WM/Publications/CommunitvRecvclingInNorthDakota.pdf
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management.
http://www.epa.ohio.gov/Default.aspx?alias=www.epa.ohio.gov/dsiwm
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/disposal/permittedfacilities.htm
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Fact Sheet. Recycling Awareness Week: Facts
and Figures. http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/FactsFiguresRAW.pdf
180
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Recycling Works.
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/recvcle/recvwrks/recvwrks3.htm
Pennsylvania Recycling Markets Center, www.parmc.org/
Personal communication with California Integrated Waste Management staff. August 2006.
Personal communication with a representative of the Illinois Recycling Association. August
2006.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Permitted Facilities.
www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/waste/pdf/swfacs.pdf
Simmons, Phil, et al. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. April 2006.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Solid Waste Annual Reports.
http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/recycle/
Spencer, Robert, Rhodes Yepsen and Nora Goldstein. BioCycle Nationwide Survey. "Mixed
MSW Composting in Transition." November 2007.
State of Hawaii Department of Health Solid Waste Section. Landfill Database - Neighbor
Islands.
http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/environmental/waste/sw/pdf/neighborlandfills.pdf
State of Hawaii Department of Health Solid Waste Section. Landfill Database Oahu.
http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/environmental/waste/sw/pdf/oahulandfills.pdf
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Municipal Solid Waste in Texas: A Year in
Review FY 2008 Data Summary and Analysis. October 2009.
www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/comm exec/pubs/as/187 09.pdf
181
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
The Composting Council. "MSW Composting Facilities." Fall 1995.
U.S. Census Bureau. Population Division. Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population
for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico. April, 2000 to July 1, 2009.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Various years.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste.
http://www.haz ardouswaste.Utah.gov/Solid_Waste_Section/SolidWasteSection.htm#DisposalFac
ilities
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, www.deq.virginia.gov/waste/pdf/allava.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology, www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0807061.pdf
West Virginia Department of Commerce, http://wvcommerce.org/energy/default.aspx
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Facility Lists.
http://dnr.wi. gov/org/aw/wm/faclists/WisLic_SWCompost_bvCntv_withWaste.pdf
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Solid & Hazardous Waste Division.
http://deq.state.wy.us/shwd/Recycling/
Yepsen, Rhodes. "2009 MSW Composting Update. BioCycle Nationwide Survey. Mixed Waste
Composting Review." BioCycle. November 2009.
Yepsen, Rhodes and Nora Goldstein. Biocycle Nationwide Survey. "Source Separated
Residential Composting in the U.S." December 2007.
182
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
COMBUSTION WITH ENERGY RECOVERY
"1991-1992 Energy-From-Waste Report." Solid Waste & Power. HCI Publications. October
1991, December 1990.
Arsova, Ljupka, et al. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. December 2008.
Goldstein, Nora. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. October 2010. Prepublication
data.
Integrated Waste Services Association. "High Court Rules Ash Not Exempt from Subtitle C
Regulation." Update. Summer 1994.
Integrated Waste Services Association. The IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants. Various
years.
Kiser, Jonathan V.L. "A Comprehensive Report on the Status of Municipal Waste Combustion."
Waste Age. November 1990.
Kiser, Jonathan V.L. "Municipal Waste Combustion in North America: 1992 Update." Waste
Age. November 1992.
Kiser, Jonathan V.L. "The 1992 Municipal Waste Combustion Guide." National Solid Wastes
Management Association. February 1992.
Kiser, Jonathan V.L. "The IWSA Municipal Waste Combustion Directory: 1993." Integrated
Waste Services Association. February 1994.
Kiser, Jonathan V.L., and John Menapace. "The 1996 IWSA Municipal Waste Combustion
Directory of United States Facilities." Integrated Waste Services Association. March 1996.
183
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Kiser, Jonathan V.L., and John Menapace. "The 1995 IWSA Municipal Waste Combustion
Directory of United States Facilities." Integrated Waste Services Association. March 1995.
Levy, Steven J. Municipal Waste Combustion Inventory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste, Municipal & Industrial Solid Waste Division. November 22, 1991.
Michaels, Ted. "The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants." Integrated Waste
Services Association. October 27, 2007
National Solid Wastes Management Association. "The 1992 Municipal Waste Combustion
Guide." Waste Age. November 1992.
Rigo, Greg and Maria Zannes. "The 1997-1998 IWSA Waste-to-Energy Director of United
States Facilities." Integrated Waste Services Association. November 1997.
Simmons, Phil, et al. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. April 2006.
"The 1991 Municipal Waste Combustion Guide." Waste Age. November 1991.
184
-------
Appendix A Materials Flow Methodology
APPENDIX A
MATERIALS FLOW METHODOLOGY
The materials flow 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 industry
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, recovered 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.
185
-------
Appendix A Materials Flow Methodology
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.
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.
RECOVERY
Data on recovery of materials and products for recycling are compiled using industry data
adjusted, when appropriate, with U.S. Department of Commerce import/export data. Recovery
estimates of yard trimmings or food scraps for composting are developed from data provided by
state officials and processors of these materials.
186
-------
Appendix A Materials Flow Methodology
DISCARDS
Mathematically, discards equal that portion of generation remaining after recovery for
recycling and composting. Discards can be disposed through combustion with or without energy
recovery or landfilling. The amount of MSW consumed at combustion facilities with energy
recovery is estimated, and the difference between total discards and the amount sent to
combustion for energy recovery is assumed to be landfilled or combusted without energy
recovery. (This assumption is not quite accurate, as some MSW is littered or disposed on-site,
e.g., by backyard burning. These amounts are believed to be a small fraction of total discards.)
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION, RECOVERY, 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.
187
-------
Appendix A
Materials Flow Methodology
Domestic Production
of
Materials/Products
Imports
of
Materials/Products
Conversion/
fabricating
Scrap
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.
188
-------
Appendix A
Materials Flow Methodology
MSW
Generation
Recovery
for
Recycling
Recovery
for
Composting
T
Discards
after
Recycling
and
Composting
Recovery for
Combustion
with
Energy
Recover
1
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.
189
-------
-------
nmental Protection Agency
o
United States Envir
CD
3
C
CD
<£,
1200 Pennsylvania
,-— x
Q.
CD
O
CO
ID
o
CD
"^f"
Washington, DC 20
Official Business
o
o
CO
CD
— )
Penalty for Private 1
CN
O
O
oi
O
CO
Q.
LU
December 2010
CD
www.epa.gov/wast
------- |