MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN
THE UNITED STATES
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste (5306P)
EPA530-R-13-001
May 2013
www.epa.gov
-------
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN
THE UNITED STATES:
2011 FACTS AND FIGURES
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN THE UNITED STATES: 2011 FACTS AND FIGURES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
OVERVIEW 1
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE? 4
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN PERSPECTIVE 4
Trends Over Time 4
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN 2011 4
Materials in MSW 5
Products in MSW 8
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOURCES OF MSW 12
MANAGEMENT OF MSW 12
Overview 12
Source Reduction 13
Recycling 13
Combustion with Energy Recovery 14
Disposal 14
THE BENEFITS OF RECYCLING 15
THINKING BEYOND WASTE 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 23
The Two Methodologies for Characterizing MSW: Site-Specific Versus Materials Flow....23
Municipal Solid Waste Defined in Greater Detail 24
Other Subtitle D Wastes 25
Materials and Products Not Included in These Estimates 27
OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT 28
CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES 29
CHAPTER 2 CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BY WEIGHT 31
INTRODUCTION 31
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: CHARACTERIZED BY MATERIAL TYPE 32
Paper and Paperboard 36
iii
-------
Glass 40
Ferrous Metals 42
Aluminum 46
Other Nonferrous Metals 46
Plastics 47
Other Materials 51
Food Waste 53
Yard Trimmings 55
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 56
Summary of Materials in Municipal Solid Waste 56
PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 61
Durable Goods 62
Nondurable Goods 72
Containers and Packaging 80
Summary of Products in Municipal Solid Waste 90
SUMMARY 95
MSW Generation 95
MSW Recovery 96
Long Term Trends 97
CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES 99
CHAPTER 3 MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 125
INTRODUCTION 125
SOURCE REDUCTION 126
Source Reduction Through Redesign 128
Modifying Practices to Reduce Materials Use 129
Reuse of Products and Packages 130
Management of Organic Materials 131
Measuring Source Reduction 132
RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING (INCLUDING COMPOSTING) 133
Recyclables Collection 133
Recyclables Processing 137
COMBUSTION WITH ENERGY RECOVERY 142
RESIDUES FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES 143
LANDFILLS 144
RECYCLING AND JOB CREATION 145
SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MSW MANAGEMENT 146
CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES 149
APPENDIX A MATERIALS FLOW METHODOLOGY 157
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION 157
CONVERTING SCRAP 157
ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPORTS/EXPORTS 157
DIVERSION 157
ADJUSTMENTS FOR PRODUCT LIFETIME 158
RECOVERY 158
DISCARDS 158
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION, RECOVERY, AND DISCARDS 158
IV
-------
List of Tables
Table Page
ES-1 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with Energy Recovery, and
Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960-2011 2
ES-2 Generation, Recovery, and Discards of Materials in MSW, 2011 6
ES-3 Generation, Recovery, and Discards of Products in MSW by Material, 2011 10
ES-4 Greenhouse Gas Benefits Associated with Recovery of Specific Materials, 2011 16
Materials in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream, 1960 to 2011
1 Generated 33
2 Recovery 34
3 Discarded 35
Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 2011
4 Paper and Paperboard 37
5 Glass 40
6 Metal 44
7 Plastics 48
8 Rubber and Leather 52
Categories of Products in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream, 1960 to 2011
9 Generated 63
10 Recovery 64
11 Discarded 65
Products in MSW with Detail on Durable Goods, 1960 to 2011
12 Generated 67
13 Recovery 68
14 Discarded 69
Products in MSW with Detail on Nondurable Goods, 1960 to 2011
15 Generated 77
16 Recovery 78
17 Discarded 79
Products in MSW with Detail on Containers and Packaging, 1960 to 2011
18 Generated (by weight) 83
19 Generated (by percent) 84
20 Recovery (by weight) 85
21 Recovery (by percent) 86
22 Discarded (by weight) 87
23 Discarded (by percent) 88
-------
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
24 Selected Examples of Source Reduction Practices 128
25 Number and Population Served by Curbside Recyclables Collection Programs, 2011.... 134
26 Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF), 2011 137
27 Municipal Waste-to-Energy Projects, 2011 142
28 Landfill Facilities, 2011 144
29 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion, and Discards of Municipal
Solid Waste, 1960 to 2011 148
List of Figures
Figure Page
ES-1 MSW Generation Rates, 1960 to 2011 3
ES-2 MSW Recycling Rates, 1960 to 2011 3
ES-3 Materials Generation in MSW, 2011 - 250 Million Tons 5
ES-4 Materials Recovery in MSW, 2011 - 87 Million Tons 7
ES-5 Materials Discards in MSW, 2011 - 164 Million Tons 7
ES-6 Products Generated in MSW, 2011 - 250 Million Tons 8
ES-7 Containers and Packaging Generated in MSW, 2011 - 75.6 Million Tons 11
ES-8 Containers and Packaging Discarded in MSW, 2011 - 37.3 Million Tons 11
ES-9 Management of MSW in the U.S., 2011 15
1-A Municipal Solid Waste in the Universe of Subtitle D Wastes 26
1-B Definition of Terms 26
Materials Generated and Recovered in Municipal Solid Waste
2 Paper and Paperboard Products Generated in MSW, 2011 36
3 Paper and Paperboard Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2011 38
4 Glass Products Generated in MSW, 2011 41
5 Glass Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2011 42
6 Metal Products Generated in MSW, 2011 43
7 Metals Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2011 45
8 Plastics Products Generated in MSW, 2011 47
9 Plastics Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2011 51
10 Generation of Materials in MSW, 1960 to 2011 57
11 Recovery and Discards of Materials in MSW, 1960 to 2011 58
12 Materials Recovery, 2011 59
13 Materials Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2011 60
VI
-------
Products Generated and Recovered in Municipal Solid Waste
14 Generation of Products in MSW, 1960 to 2011 91
15 Nondurable Goods Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2011 92
16 Containers and Packaging Materials Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2011 93
17 Containers and Packaging Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2011 94
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
18 Diagram of Solid Waste Management 126
19 Population Served by Curbside Recycling, 2011 134
20 States With Bottle Deposit Rules 136
21 Estimated MRF Throughput, 2011 138
22 Mixed Waste Processing Estimated Throughput, 2011 139
23 MSW Composting Capacity, 2011 140
24 Yard Trimmings Composting Facilities, 2011 141
25 Municipal Waste-to-Energy Capacity, 2011 143
26 Number of Landfills in the U.S., 2011 145
27 Municipal Solid Waste Management, 1960 to 2011 147
Materials Flow Methodology
A-l Materials Flow Methodology for Estimating Generation of Products and Materials in
MSW 159
A-2 Materials Flow Methodology for Estimating Discards of Products and Materials in
MSW 160
Vll
-------
Executive Summary
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN THE UNITED STATES: 2011 FACTS AND FIGURES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
This report describes the national municipal solid waste (MSW) stream based on data
collected for 1960 through 2011. 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 250 million tons of MSW in 2011—six million tons less
than generated in 2007, which was a peak year for waste generation. Excluding composting, 66.2
million tons of MSW were recycled, an increase of 3 million tons from 2007. This is a 5 percent
increase in recycling of MSW. The tons of food waste and yard trimmings recovered for composting
were 20.7 million tons in 2011 compared to 21.7 million tons in 2007. This is a 5 percent decrease in
food waste and yard trimmings recovered for composting. The recovery rate for recycling (including
composting) was 34.7 percent in 2011, up from 33.1 percent in 2007. (See Table ES-1.)
MSW generation in 2011 declined to 4.40 pounds per person per day. This is a decrease of 6
percent from 2007 to 2011. The recycling rate in 2011 was 1.53 pounds per person per day compared
to 1.54 pounds per person per day in 2007. Discards sent for combustion with energy recovery
decreased about 12 percent from 0.58 pounds per person per day in 2007 to 0.51 pounds per person
per day in 2011. Discards sent to landfills after recycling and combustion with energy recovery
declined to 2.36 pounds per person per day in 2011. This is a decrease of 7 percent from 2007 to
2011.
Figure ES-1 shows a decrease in MSW generation in recent years. Figure ES-2 shows an
increase in recycling over time. 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.
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-1. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with
Energy Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 - 2011
(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
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
88,120
5,610
Neg.
5,610
82,510
0
82,510
1960
2.68
0.17
Neg.
0.17
2.51
0.00
2.51
179,979
1970
121,060
8,020
Neg.
8,020
113,040
400
112,640
1970
3.25
0.22
Neg.
0.22
3.03
0.01
3.02
203,984
1980
151,640
14,520
Neg.
14,520
137,120
2,700
134,420
1980
3.66
0.35
Neg.
0.35
3.31
0.07
3.24
227,255
1990
208,270
29,040
4,200
33,240
175,030
29,700
145,330
1990
4.57
0.64
0.09
0.73
3.84
0.65
3.19
249,907
2000
243,450
53,010
16,450
69,460
173,990
33,730
140,260
Pounds per
2000
4.74
1.03
0.32
1.35
3.39
0.66
2.73
281 ,422
2005
253,730
59,240
20,550
79,790
173,940
31 ,620
142,320
Person per
2005
4.69
1.10
0.38
1.48
3.21
0.58
2.63
296,410
2007
256,500
63,100
21,710
84,810
171,690
31,970
139,720
Day
2007
4.66
1.15
0.39
1.54
3.12
0.58
2.54
301,621
2009
244,270
61,640
20,750
82,390
161,880
29,010
132,870
2009
4.36
1.10
0.37
1.47
2.89
0.52
2.37
307,007
2010
250,500
64,960
20,170
85,130
165,370
29,260
136,110
2010
4.44
1.15
0.36
1.51
2.93
0.52
2.41
309,051
2011
250,420
66,200
20,700
86,900
163,520
29,260
134,260
2011
4.40
1.16
0.37
1.53
2.87
0.51
2.36
311,592
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%
16.0%
84.0%
14.2%
69.8%
2000
100.0%
21 .8%
6.7%
28.5%
71 .5%
13.9%
57.6%
2005
100.0%
23.3%
8.1%
31.4%
68.6%
12.5%
56.1%
2007
100.0%
24.6%
8.5%
33.1%
66.9%
12.5%
54.4%
2009
100.0%
25.2%
8.5%
33.7%
66.3%
1 1 .9%
54.4%
2010
100.0%
25.9%
8.1%
34.0%
66.0%
1 1 .7%
54.3%
2011
100.0%
26.4%
8.3%
34.7%
65.3%
11.7%
53.6%
(Jomposting otyard trimmings, tood waste and other MbW organic material. Does not include bacKyard composting.
** Includes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse-derived fuel form, and combustion with energyrecoveryof source separated
materials in MSW (e.g., wood pallets and tire-derived fuel). 2011 includes 25,930 MSW, 520 wood, and 2,810 tires (1,000 tons)
f Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy recovery.
Details maynot add to totals due to rounding.
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES-1. MSW Generation Rates, 1960 to 2011
300
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 22310
* Total MSW generation ^^ — Per capita generation
90 T
60
'50 • -
?? 40
30
15
20
10 •
Figure ES-2. MSW Recycling Rates, 1960 to 2011
r 50%
86.9
79.8
- • 40%
33.2 /
g.6% 10.1%
16.0%
6.4% 6.2%
16.7
14.5
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
* Total MSW recycling —• — Percent recycling
30%
- • 20% r
-• 10%
8.
0%
-------
Executive Summary
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 waste, newspapers, appliances, and
batteries. Not included are materials that also may be disposed of in landfills but are not generally
considered MSW, such as construction and demolition materials, municipal wastewater treatment
sludges, and non-hazardous industrial wastes.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN PERSPECTIVE
Trends Over Time
Over the last few decades, the generation, recycling, and disposal of MSW have changed
substantially (see Table ES-1 and Figures ES-1 and ES-2). Annual MSW generation continued to
increase from 1960, when it was 88 million tons, until 2007, when it was 257 million tons. After
2007, the tons of MSW generated started to decrease until 2011, when it was 250 million tons. 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 4.74 pounds per person per day in 2000, and decreased to 4.69 pounds per
person per day in 2005. Since 2005, MSW generation per capita rate has continued to decrease. The
generation rate was 4.40 pounds per person per day in 2011.
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 about 29 percent in 2000, and to over 34
percent in 2011. Disposal of waste to landfills has decreased from 94 percent of the amount generated
in 1960 to under 54 percent of the amount generated in 2011.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN 2011
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses two methods to characterize the 250
million tons of MSW generated in 2011. The first is by material (paper and paperboard, yard
trimmings, food waste, 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 waste; yard
trimmings; 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 2011 is provided in Figure ES-
3. Paper and paperboard made up the largest component of MSW generated (28.0 percent), food
waste was the second-largest component (14.5 percent) and yard trimmings were the third largest
(13.5 percent). Metals, plastics, and wood each constituted between 6 and 13 percent of the total
MSW generated. Rubber, leather, and textiles combined made up 8.2 percent of MSW, glass made up
4.6 percent, while other miscellaneous wastes made up 3.3 percent of the MSW generated in 2011.
Figure ES-3. Materials Generation in MSW, 2011
250 Million Tons (before recycling)
Other 3.3%
A portion of each material category in MSW was recycled or composted in 2011. The highest
rates of recovery were achieved with paper and paperboard, yard trimmings, and metals. Over 65
percent (45.9 million tons) of paper and paperboard was recovered for recycling in 2011. About 57
percent (19.3 million tons) of yard trimmings was recovered for composting or mulching in 2011.
This represents almost a five-fold increase since 1990. Recycling paper and paperboard and yard
trimmings alone diverted about 26 percent of municipal solid waste generated from landfills and
combustion facilities. In addition, about 7.5 million tons, or 34.2 percent, of metals were recovered
for recycling. Recycling rates for all materials categories in 2011 are listed in Table ES-2.
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-2. Generation, Recovery, and Discards of Materials in MSW, 2011
(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
70.02
11.47
Weight
Recovered
45.90
3.17
Recowry As
a Percent
of Generation
65.6%
27.6%
16.52
3.47
1.96
27.95
31.84
7.49
13.09
16.08
4.59
176.53
5.45
0.72
1.34
7.57
2.65
1.31
2.00
2.38
1.28
66.20
33.0%
20.7%
68.4%
34.2%
8.3%
17.5%
15.3%
14.8%
27.9%
37.5%
Weight
Discarded
24.12
8.30
11.07
2.75
0.62
14.44
29.19
6.18
11.09
13.70
3.31
110.33
36.31
33.71
3.87
73.89
250.42
1.40
19.30
Negligible
20.70
86.90
3.9%
57.3%
Negligible
28.0%
34.7%
34.91
14.41
3.87
53.19
163.52
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.
Figures ES-4 and ES-5 depict each material as a percent of total recovery and total discards,
respectively. As a percent of total recovery, paper and paperboard make up over half of the materials
recovered at 52.8 percent. Yard trimmings comprise the next largest portion of total materials
recovery at 22.2 percent. All other materials account for less than 10 percent each of total recovery.
Food waste is the largest material in discards at 21.3 percent. Plastic is next largest at 17.8
percent followed by paper and paperboard at 14.8 percent and rubber, leather, and textiles at 10.6
percent. As a percent of total discards, the other materials account for less than 10 percent each.
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES-4. Materials Recovery in MSW, 2011
87 Million Tons
Plastics 3.1%
Figure ES-5. Material Discards in MSW, 2011
164 Million Tons (after recycling and composting)
Other 4.4%
-------
Executive Summary
Products in MSW
The breakdown, by weight, of product categories generated in MSW in 2011 is shown in
Figure ES-6. Containers and packaging comprised the largest portion of products generated in MSW,
at 30.2 percent (75.6 million tons). Nondurable goods were the second-largest fraction, at 20.6
percent (51.6 million tons). The third-largest category of products is durable goods, which made up
19.7 percent (49.3 million tons) of total MSW generation.
Figure ES-6. Products Generated in MSW, 2011
250 Million Tons (before recycling)
Containers & packaging
30.2%
Yard
trimmings 13.5%
goods 20.6
.Other 1.5%
The generation and recovery of the product categories in MSW in 2011 are shown in Table
ES-3. Overall, durable goods were recovered at a rate of 18.4 percent in 2011. Nonferrous metals
other than aluminum had one of the highest recovery rates, at 68.4 percent, due to the high rate of
lead recovery from lead-acid batteries. Recovery of steel in all durable goods was 27.1 percent, with
high rates of recovery from appliances. Recovery of selected consumer electronic products was 24.9
percent.
Overall recovery of nondurable goods in MSW was 36.5 percent in 2011. Most of this
recovery comes from paper products such as newspapers and high-grade office papers (e.g., white
papers). Newspaper/mechanical papers constituted the largest portion of this recovery, with 72.5
percent of these paper products generated being recovered for recycling. Starting in 2010,
-------
Executive Summary
newspapers (including newsprint and groundwood inserts) were expanded to include directories and
other mechanical papers previously counted as Other Commercial Printing. An estimated 46.6 percent
of other nondurable paper products were recovered in 2011. Total nondurable paper and paperboard
product recovery is at 53.9 percent. The nondurable goods category also includes clothing and other
textile products—over 16 percent of these combined products were recovered for recycling or export
in 2011.
Table ES-3 shows that recovery of containers and packaging was the highest of the three
product categories—50.7 percent of containers and packaging generated in MSW in 2011 were
recovered for recycling. Over 54 percent of all aluminum cans in MSW was recovered (38.9 percent
of all aluminum packaging, including foil), while 72.0 percent of steel packaging (mostly cans) in
MSW was recovered. Paper and paperboard containers and packaging were recovered at a rate of
75.4 percent; corrugated containers accounted for most of that amount.
Approximately 34 percent of glass containers in MSW were recovered, while about 24
percent of wood packaging (mostly wood pallets removed from service) was recovered for recycling.
About 13 percent of plastic containers and packaging in MSW were recovered—mostly bottles and
jars. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles and jars were recovered at about 29 percent. Recovery
of high density polyethylene (HDPE) natural (white translucent) bottles was also estimated at about
29 percent.
The results of recovering containers and packaging are illustrated in Figures ES-7 and ES-8.
Corrugated boxes account for 39 percent of total containers and packaging generation but, due to a
high recovery rate, only account for seven percent of discards. Wood packaging makes up 13 percent
of containers and packaging generation and 20 percent of discards. Plastic bags, sacks, and wraps are
five percent of generation and nine percent of discards. Although steel and aluminum containers and
packaging have high recovery rates (see Table ES-3), each account for two to three percent of
generation and discards. This is due to the relatively small amounts of these products generated.
One of the products with a very high recovery rate was lead-acid batteries, recovered at a rate
of about 96 percent in 2011. Other products with particularly high recovery rates were corrugated
boxes (91 percent), newspapers/mechanical papers (72.5 percent), steel packaging (72.0 percent),
major appliances (64.2 percent), aluminum cans (54.5 percent), yard trimmings (57.3), and mixed
paper (46.6 percent). About 45 percent of rubber tires in MSW were recovered for recycling. (Other
-------
Executive Summary
tires were retreaded, and shredded rubber tires were made into tire-derived fuel.) See Chapter 2 of
this report for additional detail on product recovery rates.
Table ES-3. Generation, Recovery, and Discards of Products in MSW by Material, 2011
(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
Recowred
Recowry as
a Percent
of Generation
Weight
Discarded
14.34
1.43
1.96
2.19
11.42
6.44
6.03
3.84
1.69
49.34
3.88
Negligible
1.34
Negligible
0.74
1.31
Negligible
0.52
1.28
9.07
27.1%
Negligible
68.4%
Negligible
6.5%
20.3%
Negligible
13.5%
75.7%
18.4%
10.46
1.43
0.62
2.19
10.68
5.13
6.03
3.32
0.41
40.27
31.99
6.52
1.05
8.95
3.10
51.61
17.24
0.11
Negligible
1.48
Negligible
18.83
53.9%
1.7%
Negligible
16.5%
Negligible
36.5%
2.18
1.85
9.28
38.02
13.90
10.00
0.35
75.58
1.57
0.72
3.17
28.66
1.80
2.38
Negligible
38.30
72.0%
38.9%
34.2%
75.4%
12.9%
23.8%
Negligible
50.7%
14.75
6.41
1.05
7.47
3.10
32.78
0.61
1.13
6.11
9.36
12.10
7.62
0.35
37.28
36.31
33.71
3.87
73.89
250.42
1.40
19.30
Negligible
20.70
86.90
3.9%
57.3%
Negligible
28.0%
34.7%
34.91
14.41
3.87
53.19
163.52
Includes waste fromresidential, 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
Figure ES-7. Containers and Packaging Generated in MSW, 2011
75.6 Million Tons (before recycling)
Wood Packaging
13% I
Wine and Liquor
Bottles 2%
Steel Packaging
3%
Plastic Bags,
Sacks, Wraps
5%
Aluminum
Packaging 2%
Beer and
.Soft Drink Bottles
7%
Other Plastic
Containers
3%
Other Glass
Bottles
and Jars
Non-Corrugated
3 /0 Paper Packaging
11%
Corrugated Boxes
39%
-HOPE Bottles
Natural
Miscellaneous i
-------
Executive Summary
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOURCES OF MSW
Sources of MSW, as characterized in this report, include residential waste (including waste
from apartment houses) and waste from commercial and institutional locations, such as businesses,
schools, and hospitals.
MANAGEMENT OF MSW
Overview
EPA's integrated waste management hierarchy, depicted below, includes the following four
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.
Waste Management Hierarchy
-%
-------
Executive Summary
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 the amount of
municipal solid waste generated is reduced or materials are reused rather than discarded, 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.
• 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 waste, 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.
13
-------
Executive Summary
• Recycling (including community composting) recovered 34.7 percent (86.9 million
tons) of MSW generation in 2011.
• There were over 9,800 curbside recycling programs in the United States in 2011.
• In 2011, about 3,090 yard trimmings composting programs were documented.
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 29.3 million tons in
2011 (11.7 percent of MSW generation) (see Table ES-1). The amount combusted with energy
recovery in 2011 (29.3 million tons) was less than the 29.7 million tons estimated in 1990.
Disposal
During 2011, 53.6 percent of MSW was landfilled, similar to the percentage landfilled in 2007
through 2010. At the national level, landfill capacity does not appear to be a problem, although
regional dislocations sometimes occur.
• The percentage of MSW landfilled decreased slightly between 2010 and 2011 from
54.3 percent to 53.6 percent. Over time, the tonnage of MSW landfilled has decreased.
In 1990, 145.3 million tons of MSW was landfilled (see Table ES-1), decreasing to
140.3 million tons in 2000. The tonnage increased to 142.3 million tons in 2005, then
declined to 134.3 in 2011. 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.
• In 2011, 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 2.73 pounds per person per day, and the 2007 rate was 2.54 pounds
per person per day (Table ES-1).
14
-------
Executive Summary
MSW management through recovery for recycling (including composting), combustion with
energy recovery, and discard to disposal in 2011 is shown in Figure ES-7. In 2011, 86.9 million tons
(34.7 percent) of MSW were recycled, 29.3 million tons (11.7 percent) were combusted with energy
recovery, and 134.3 million tons (53.6 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.)
Figure ES-9. Management of MSW in the United States, 2011
Recovery 34.7%
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. 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. Aside from reducing GHG emissions, which contribute to
global warming, recycling also provides significant economic and job creation impacts.
The energy and GHG benefits of recycling and composting shown in Table ES-4 are
calculated using the EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM). Please see: www.epa.gov/warm.
WARM calculates and totals GHG emissions of baseline and alternative waste management practices
including source reduction, recycling, composting, combustion, and landfilling. Paper and paperboard
15
-------
Executive Summary
recovery at 45.9 million tons resulted in a reduction of 134.5 MMTCO2E in 2011. This is equivalent
to removing 28 million cars from the road in one year.
In 2011, nationally, we recycled and composted 86.9 million tons of MSW. This provides an
annual benefit of more than 183 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reduced,
comparable to removing the emissions from over 34 million passenger vehicles.
Table ES-4. Greenhouse Gas Benefits Associated with Recovery of Specific Materials, 2011
(In millions of tons, MMTCC^E and in numbers of cars taken off the road per year)**
Material
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Metals
Steel
Aluminum
Other nonferrous metals f
Total metals
Plastics
Rubber and leather):
Textiles
Wood
Other wastes
Food, otherA
Yard trimmings
Weight Recovered
(millions of tons)
45.9
3.17
5.45
0.72
1.34
7.51
2.65
1.31
2
2.38
1.40
19.3
GHG Benefits
MMTCO2E
134.5
1
9
6.4
5.2
20.6
3.1
0.6
5.1
4.2
1.1
0.8
Numbers of Cars Taken Off
the Road per Year
28 million
210 thousand
1.9 million
1.3 million
1 million
4.2 million
640 thousand
130 thousand
1 million
1 million
230 thousand
170 thousand
* Includes materials fromresidential, commercial, and institutional sources.
** These calculations do not include an additional 1.28 million tons of MSW recovered that could not be
addressed in the WARM model. MMTCOiEis million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
t Includes lead from lead-acid batteries. Other nonferrous metals calculated in WARM as mixed metals.
$ Recovery only includes rubber from tires.
A Includes recovery of other MSW organics for composting.
Source: WARM model (www.epa.gov/warm)
THINKING BEYOND WASTE
EPA is helping change the way our society protects the environment and conserves resources
for future generations by thinking beyond recycling, composting, and disposal. Building on the
familiar concept of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, the Agency is employing a systemic approach that seeks
to reduce materials use and associated environmental impacts over their entire life cycle, called
sustainable materials management (SMM). This starts with extraction of natural resources and
material processing through product design and manufacturing then the product use stage followed by
collection/processing and final end of life (disposal). By examining how materials are used throughout
16
-------
Executive Summary
their life cycle, an SMM approach seeks to use materials in the most productive way with an emphasis
on using less; reducing toxic chemicals and environmental impacts throughout the material life cycle;
and assuring we have sufficient resources to meet today's needs and those of the future. Data on
municipal solid waste generation, recycling and disposal is an important starting point for the full
SMM approach. Viewing materials through an SMM lens changes how we think about our resources
for a better tomorrow. Our policy is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Rethink.
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 51-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. EPA's integrated waste management hierarchy,
depicted below, includes the following four components:
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.
Waste Management Hierarchy
\
Source Reduction & Reuse
Recycling / Composting
Energy Recovery
Treatment
f & Disposal
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. 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
19
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
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.
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 waste, 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.
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.
21
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
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
community or 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 waste
from restaurants.
• 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.
22
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
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).
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 waste 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
23
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
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.
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 waste, 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.
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
24
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
paper, bottles and cans, boxes, wood pallets, food waste, 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 waste 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 shown below.
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.
Sources and Examples Example Products
Residential (single-and multi-family Newspapers, clothing, disposable tableware, food
homes) packaging, cans and bottles, food waste, yard trimmings
Commercial (office buildings, retail and Corrugated boxes, food waste, office papers, disposable
wholesale establishments, restaurants) tableware, paper napkins, yard trimmings
Institutional (schools, libraries, Cafeteria and restroom trash can wastes, office papers,
hospitals, prisons) classroom wastes, yard trimmings
Industrial (packaging and Corrugated boxes, plastic film, wood pallets, lunchroom
administrative; not process wastes) wastes, office papers.
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
25
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
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 waste 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
Figure 1-B. Definition of Terms
The materials flow methodology produces an estimate of total municipal solid waste
generation in the United States, by material categories and by product categories.
The term generation as used in this report refers to the weight of materials and products as
they enter the waste management system from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial
sources and before materials recovery or combustion takes place. Preconsumer (industrial) scrap is
not included in the generation estimates. Source reduction activities (e.g., backyard composting of
yard trimmings) take place ahead of generation.
Source reduction activities reduce the amount or toxicity of wastes before they enter the
municipal solid waste management system. Reuse is a source reduction activity involving the recovery
or reapplication of a package, used product, or material in a manner that retains its original form or
identity. Reuse of products such as refillable glass bottles, reusable plastic food storage containers, or
refurbished wood pallets is considered 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 (including composting). For recovered
products, recovery equals reported purchases of postconsumer recovered material (e.g., glass cullet,
old newspapers) plus net exports (if any) of the material. Thus, recovery of old corrugated containers
(OCC) is the sum of OCC purchases by paper mills plus net exports of OCC. If recovery as reported
by a data source includes converting or fabrication (preconsumer) scrap, the preconsumer scrap is not
counted towards the recovery estimates in this report. 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.
26
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
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 (including composting). These
discards presumably would be combusted 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.
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
27
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
would be required to estimate these materials, which constitute a relatively small percentage of the
waste stream.
Some adjustments are made in this report to account for packaging of imported goods, but
there is little available documentation of these amounts.
OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT
Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 presents the results of the municipal solid
waste characterization (by weight). Estimates of MSW generation, recovery, and discards are
presented in a series of tables, with discussion. Detailed tables and figures summarizing 2011 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.
28
-------
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.
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., and A. Darnay. The Role of Nonpackaging Paper in Solid Waste Management, 1966
to 1976. Public Health Service Publication No. 2040. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1971.
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.
Resource Conservation Committee. Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Baseline.
May 16, 1979.
Resource Conservation Committee. Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Baseline:
Working Papers. May 16, 1979.
Resource Conservation Committee. Choices for Conservation: Final Report to the President and
Congress (SW-779). July 1979.
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. Second Report
to Congress: Resource Recovery and Source Reduction (SW-122). 1974.
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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States, 1960 to 2000. July 11, 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988). 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.
29
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
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.
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/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/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/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/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/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2009 Facts and
Figures. EPA530-R-10-012. December 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2009rpt.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.
30
-------
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 2011. The data presented also incorporate some revisions
to previously reported data for 2000 through 2010. 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 17. 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 waste, 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.
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 waste, recovery includes estimates of the material delivered to a
composting facility (not backyard composting).
31
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 2011 is provided in Figures 12
and 13. In the following sections, each material is discussed in detail.
32
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 1
MATERIALS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2011
(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 Waste
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 Waste
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
29,990
6,720
10,300
340
180
1 0,820
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
12,770
14,150
3,190
1,600
18,940
25,550
6,670
9,480
13,570
4,000
178,720
30,700
30,530
3,500
64,730
243,450
2005
84,840
12,540
15,210
3,330
1,860
20,400
29,380
7,290
11,510
14,790
4,290
185,040
32,930
32,070
3,690
68,690
253,730
2007
82,530
12,520
15,940
3,360
1,890
21,190
30,910
7,500
12,170
15,190
4,550
186,560
33,560
32,630
3,750
69,940
256,500
2009
68,430
11,780
15,860
3,440
1,900
21,200
30,050
7,350
12,940
15,590
4,640
171,980
35,270
33,200
3,820
72,290
244,270
2010
71,310
1 1 ,530
16,820
3,500
2,000
22,320
31 ,290
7,400
13,100
15,880
4,690
1 77,520
35,740
33,400
3,840
72,980
250,500
2011
70,020
11,470
16,520
3,470
1,960
21,950
31,840
7,490
13,090
16,080
4,590
176,530
36,310
33,710
3,870
73,890
250,420
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%
13.8%
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
36.0%
5.2%
5.8%
1.3%
0.7%
7.8%
10.5%
2.7%
3.9%
5.6%
1.6%
73.4%
12.6%
12.5%
1.4%
26.6%
100.0%
2005
33.4%
4.9%
6.0%
1 .3%
0.7%
8.0%
1 1 .6%
2.9%
4.5%
5.8%
1 .7%
72.9%
13.0%
12.6%
1 .5%
27.1%
100.0%
2007
32.2%
4.9%
6.2%
1.3%
0.7%
8.3%
12.1%
2.9%
4.7%
5.9%
1.8%
72.7%
13.1%
12.7%
1.5%
27.3%
100.0%
2009
28.0%
4.8%
6.5%
1 .4%
0.8%
8.7%
12.3%
3.0%
5.3%
6.4%
1 .9%
70.4%
14.4%
13.6%
1 .6%
29.6%
100.0%
2010
28.5%
4.6%
6.7%
1.4%
0.8%
8.9%
12.5%
3.0%
5.2%
6.3%
1.9%
70.9%
14.3%
13.3%
1.5%
29.1%
100.0%
2011
28.0%
4.6%
6.6%
1 .4%
0.8%
8.8%
12.7%
3.0%
5.2%
6.4%
1 .8%
70.5%
14.5%
13.5%
1 .5%
29.5%
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.
33
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 2
RECOVERY* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2011
(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 Waste
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.
Neq.
5,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
Neq.
5,610
1970
6,770
160
150
10
320
480
Neg.
250
60
Neg.
300
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
Neq.
8,020
1980
11,740
750
370
310
540
1,220
20
130
160
Neg.
500
14,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
Neq.
14,520
1990
20,230
2,630
2,230
1,010
730
3,970
370
370
660
130
680
29,040
Neg.
4,200
Neq.
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
Neq.
16,450
69,460
2005
41,960
2,590
5,020
690
1,280
6,990
1,780
1,050
1,830
1,830
1,210
59,240
690
19,860
Neq.
20,550
79,790
2007
44,480
2,880
5,280
730
1,300
7,310
2,110
1,140
1,920
2,020
1,240
63,100
810
20,900
Neq.
21,710
84,810
2009
42,500
3,000
5,310
690
1,300
7300
2,120
1,310
1,970
2,200
1,240
61,640
850
19,900
Neq.
20,750
82,390
2010
44,570
3,130
5,760
680
1,390
7,830
2,500
1,300
2,010
2,300
1,320
64,960
970
19,200
Neq.
20,170
85,130
2011
45,900
3,170
5,450
720
1,340
7,510
2,650
1,310
2,000
2,380
1,280
66,200
1,400
19,300
Neq.
20,700
86,900
Percent of Generation of Each Material
1960
16.9%
1 .5%
0.5%
Neg.
Neg.
0.5%
Neg.
17.9%
2.8%
Neg.
Neq.
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
Neq.
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.
Neq.
Neq.
6.6%
1980
21.3%
5.0%
2.9%
17.9%
46.6%
7.9%
0.3%
3.1%
6.3%
Neg.
19.8%
13.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
Neq.
9.6%
1990
27.8%
20.1%
17.6%
35.9%
66.4%
24.0%
2.2%
6.4%
1 1 .4%
1.1%
21.3%
19.8%
Neg.
12.0%
Neq.
6.8%
16.0%
2000
42.8%
22.6%
33.1%
27.0%
66.3%
34. 8%
5.8%
12.3%
13.9%
10.1%
24.5%
29.7%
2.2%
51.7%
Neq.
25.4%
28.5%
2005
49.5%
20.7%
33.0%
20.7%
68.8%
34.3%
6.1%
14.4%
15.9%
12.4%
28.2%
32.0%
2.1%
61 .9%
Neq.
29.9%
31 .4%
2007
53.9%
23.0%
33.1%
21.7%
68.8%
34.5%
6.8%
15.2%
15.8%
13.3%
27.3%
33.8%
2.4%
64.1%
Neq.
31.0%
33.1%
2009
62.1%
25.5%
33.5%
20.1%
68.4%
34.4%
7.1%
17.8%
15.2%
14.1%
26.7%
35.8%
2.4%
59.9%
Neq.
28.7%
33.7%
2010
62.5%
27.1%
34.2%
19.4%
69.5%
35. 1%
8.0%
17.6%
15.3%
14.5%
28.1%
36.6%
2.7%
57.5%
Neq.
27.6%
34.0%
2011
65.6%
27.6%
33.0%
20.7%
68.4%
34.2%
8.3%
17.5%
15.3%
14.8%
27.9%
37.5%
3.9%
57.3%
Neq.
28.0%
34.7%
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.
1 Includes recovery of paper and mixed MSW for composting.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
34
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 3
MATERIALS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2011
(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 Waste
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 Waste
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
24,910
6,620
10,250
340
180
70,770
390
1,510
1,710
3,030
70
49,010
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
82,510
1970
37,540
12,580
12,210
790
350
13,350
2,900
2,720
1,980
3,720
470
75,260
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
113,040
1980
43,420
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
175,030
2000
50,180
9,890
9,470
2,330
540
12,340
24,070
5,850
8,160
12,200
3,020
125,710
30,020
14,760
3,500
48,280
173,990
2005
42,880
9,950
10,190
2,640
580
13,410
27,600
6,240
9,680
12,960
3,080
125,800
32,240
12,210
3,690
48,140
173,940
2007
38,050
9,640
10,660
2,630
590
13,880
28,800
6,360
10,250
13,170
3,310
123,460
32,750
1 1 ,730
3,750
48,230
171,690
2009
25,930
8,780
10,550
2,750
600
13,900
27,930
6,040
10,970
13,390
3,400
110,340
34,420
13,300
3,820
51,540
161,880
2010
26,740
8,400
11,060
2,820
610
14,490
28,790
6,100
11,090
13,580
3,370
112,560
34,770
14,200
3,840
52,810
165,370
2011
24,120
8,300
1 1 ,070
2,750
620
14,440
29,190
6,180
1 1 ,090
13,700
3,310
110,330
34,910
14,410
3,870
53,190
163,520
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%
11.3%
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
28.8%
5.7%
5.4%
1.3%
0.3%
7.1%
13.8%
3.4%
4.7%
7.0%
1.7%
72.3%
17.3%
8.5%
2.0%
27.7%
100.0%
2005
24.7%
5.7%
5.9%
1 .5%
0.3%
7.7%
15.9%
3.6%
5.6%
7.5%
1 .8%
72.3%
18.5%
7.0%
2.1%
27.7%
100.0%
2007
22.2%
5.6%
6.2%
1 .5%
0.3%
8.1%
16.8%
3.7%
6.0%
7.7%
1 .9%
71 .9%
19.1%
6.8%
2.2%
28.1%
100.0%
2009
16.0%
5.4%
6.5%
1.7%
0.4%
8.6%
17.3%
3.7%
6.8%
8.3%
2.1%
68.2%
21.3%
8.2%
2.4%
31.8%
100.0%
2010
16.2%
5.1%
6.7%
1.7%
0.4%
8.8%
17.4%
3.7%
6.7%
8.2%
2.0%
68.1%
21 .0%
8.6%
2.3%
31 .9%
100.0%
2011
14.8%
5.1%
6.8%
1.7%
0.4%
8.8%
17.9%
3.8%
6.8%
8.4%
2.0%
67.5%
21.3%
8.8%
2.4%
32.5%
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.
35
-------
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, 2011
Corrugated boxes
Newspapers/Mechanical Papers
Gable top/aseptic and folding cartons
Off ice-type papers
Standard mail
Other papers
Tissue paper and towels
Commercial printing
Magazines
Other packaging
Paper plates and cups
Bags and sacks
Books
Total generation of paper and paperboard in MSW has grown from 30 million tons in 1960 to
70.0 million tons in 2011 (Table 1). Generation peaked in 2000 at approximately 88 million tons. 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 28.0 percent of total MSW generation in 2011.
s
s
s
s
il
s
s
9
s
9
s
s
s
.•.•.-.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.I
I
I
m
m
m
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
million tons
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.
36
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 4
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2011
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Generation
Recovery
Product Category
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers/Mechanical Papers!
Books
Magazines
Office-type Papers*
Standard Mail**
Other Commercial Printing
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Other Nonpackaging Paper***
Subtotal Nondurable Goods
excluding Newspaper/Mechanical Papers§
Total Paper and Paperboard
Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
Corrugated Boxes
(Thousand
tons)
9,150
930
1,510
5,100
3,750
2,710
3,510
1,340
3,940
22,790
31,940
29,440
(Thousand
tons)
6,630
(Percent of
generation)
72.5%
10,610 46.6%
17,240 54.0%
26,800
91.C
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
2,520
12,180
14,700
2,640
Gable Top/ Aseptic Cartons!
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Other Paper Packaging
Subtotal Containers and Packaging
excluding Corrugated Boxes8
Total Paper and Paperboard
Containers and Packaging
Total Paper and Paperboard*
540
5,540
80
750
1,670
8,580 1,860 21.7%
38,020 28,660 75.4%
69,960 45,900 65.6%
6,720
9,360
24,060
•j- Starting in 2010, newsprint and groundwood inserts expanded to include directories and other mechanical papers
previously counted as Other Commercial Printing.
* 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 paper in games and novelties, cards, etc.
§ Valid default values for separating out paper and paperboard sub-categories for recovery and discards were not
available.
$ 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 and 50,000 tons tissue in disposable diapers
(Table 1).
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
As Figure 3 illustrates, paper generation has generally increased since 1960, peaked at about
88 million tons in 2000, and declined after 2000 to 70.0 million tons in 2011.
37
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 3. Paper and paperboard generation and recovery, 1960 to 2011
10
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011
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 2005.
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.
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
38
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 2011. 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.
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, 91 percent of all corrugated boxes were
recovered for recycling in 2011; this is up from 67.3 percent in 2000 (Table 21). Newspapers/
mechanical papers were recovered at a rate of 72.5 percent. Recovery of other paper and paperboard
products is estimated as mixed paper; 46.6 percent of mixed nondurable paper products and 21.7
percent of mixed paper containers and packaging were recovered. Approximately 46 million tons of
postconsumer paper were recovered in 2011-65.6 percent of total paper and paperboard generation.
This is up from 42.8 percent in 2000 (Table 2). Starting in 2010, newspapers (including newsprint and
39
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
groundwood inserts) were expanded to include directories and other mechanical papers previously
counted as Other Commercial Printing.
Discards After Recovery. After recovery of paper and paperboard for recycling, discards
were 24.1 million tons in 2011, or 14.8 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.
Table 5
GLASS PRODUCTS IV MSW, 2011
(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
* Glass as a component of appliances, furniture,
** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonate
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
2,190
5,520
1,770
1,990
9,280
11,470
consumer electronics, etc.
d water, teas, flavored drin
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
Neg.
2,270
600
300
3,170
3,170
iks. and readv-t
(Percent of
generation)
Neg.
41.1%
33.9%
15.1%
34.2%
27.6%
o-drink
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
2,190
3,250
1,170
1,690
6,110
8,300
alcoholic coolers and cocktails.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
40
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 4. Glass products generated in MSW, 2011
Beer & soft drink bottles*
Durable goods
Other bottles & jars
Wine & liquor bottles
* Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored
drinks,
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
million tons
4.00
5.00
6.00
Generation. Estimated glass container generation is based on Glass Packaging Institute
statistics on glass container shipments. 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 11.5 million tons in 2011.
Glass was 10 percent of MSW generation in 1980, declining to 4.6 percent in 2011.
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. Recovery of
glass containers is based on a combination of data from the Glass Packaging Institute and state
environmental agencies. Recovery of glass containers was estimated at 3.2 million tons in 2011, up
from an estimated 2.9 million tons in 2007.
41
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Discards After Recovery. Recovery for recycling lowered discards of glass to 8.3 million
tons in 2011 or 5.1 percent of total MSW discards (Table 3).
Figure 5. Glass generation and recovery, 1960 to 2011
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2011
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 metals in MSW from 1960 to 2011 are shown in Figure 7.
42
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Durables
Packaging
Nondurables
Figure 6. Metal products generated in MSW, 2011
QFerrous metals QAIuminum E Other nonferrous
10
12
14
16
18
20
million tons
Generation. Based on industry data, including statistics from the Steel Recycling Institute,
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 16.5 million tons in 2011 (Table 1). The percentage of ferrous metals
generation in total MSW has declined from 11.7 percent in 1960 to 6.6 percent in 2011.
43
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 6
METAL PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2011
(In thousands of tons and per cent of generation)
Product Category
Durable Goods
Ferrous Metals*
Aluminum**
Leadt
Other Nonferrous Metals:}:
Total Metals in Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Aluminum
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
14,340
1,430
1,390
570
17,730
190
Recowry
(Thousand (Percent of
tons) generation)
27.1%
Neg.
Neg.
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
10,460
1,430
50
570
12,510
190
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
*
**
t
t
§
1,800
380
2,180
1,320
70
460
1,850
4,030
21,950
16,520
3,470
1,960
1,270
300
1,570
720
NA
NA
720
2,290
7,510
5,450
720
1,340
70.6%
78.9%
72.0%
54.5%
38.9%
56.8%
34.2%
33.0%
20.7%
68.4%
530
80
610
600
70
460
1,130
1,740
14,440
11,070
2,750
620
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.
Aluminum can recovery does not include used beverage cans imported to produce new beverage cans.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. NA = Not Available
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
44
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure?. Metals generation and recovery, 1960 to 2011
Generation
Recovery
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2011
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 2011. Recovery of all materials in
appliances (including ferrous metals) was estimated at 64.2 percent (Table 13). Overall recovery of
ferrous metals from durable goods (large and small appliances, furniture, and tires) was estimated to
be 27.1 percent (3.9 million tons) in 2011 (Table 6).
Steel cans were estimated to be recovered at a rate of 70.6 percent (1.3 million tons) in 2011.
Approximately 300,000 tons of other steel packaging, including strapping, crowns, and drums, were
estimated to have been recovered for recycling in 2011. Recovery of ferrous metals includes material
collected through recycling programs as well as metal recovered at combustion facilities.
Discards After Recovery. In 2011, discards of ferrous metals after recovery were 11.1
million tons, or 6.8 percent of total discards (Table 3).
45
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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. Estimated aluminum generation is based on Aluminum Association industry
statistics. In 2011, 1.9 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-3.5 million
tons-was 1.4 percent of total MSW generation in 2011 (Table 1). Aluminum generation was only
340,000 tons (0.4 percent of MSW generation) in 1960.
Recovery. Similar to generation, recovery of aluminum beverage containers is based on
industry data from the Aluminum Association. Aluminum beverage containers were recovered at a
rate of 54.5 percent of generation (0.7 million tons) in 2011, and 38.9 percent of all aluminum in
containers and packaging (beverage containers, food containers, foil, and other aluminum packaging)
was recovered for recycling in 2011.
Discards After Recovery. In 2011, about 2.8 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 2.0 million tons in 2011.
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 2011, with most
of this being lead recovered from batteries. It was estimated about 96 percent of battery lead was
recovered in 2011.
46
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Discards After Recovery. In 2011, 620,000 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 13.9
million tons in 2011 (Figure 8 and Table 7).
Durable goods
Nondurable goods
Other packaging
Bags, sacks and wraps
PET bottles & jars and
HDPE natural bottles
Other containers
0.0
Figure 8. Plastics products generated in MSW, 2011
2.0
4.0
6.0
milliontons
8.0
10.0
12.0
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.
47
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table?
PLASTICS EN PRODUCTS EN MSW, 2011
(Li thousands of tons, and percent of generation by resin)
Product Category
Durable Goods
PET
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other res ins
Total Plastics in Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods*
Plastic Plates and Cups§
LDPE/LLDPE
PLA
PP
PS
Subtotal Plastic Plates and Cups
Trash Bags
HDPE
LDPE/LLDPE
Subtotal Trash Bags
All other nondurables *
PET
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PLA
PP
PS
Other res ins
Subtotal All Other Nondurables
Total Plastics in Nondurable Goods, by resin
PET
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PLA
PP
PS
Other res ins
Total Plastics in Nondurable Goods
Plastic Containers & Packaging
Bottles and Jars**
PET
Natural Bottlest
HDPE
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
270
1,270
240
2,000
3,820
630
3,190
11,420
20
10
160
840
1,030
220
790
1,010
480
500
260
1,190
30
1,240
200
580
4,480
480
720
260
2,000
40
1,400
1,040
580
6,520
2,740
770
Recowry
(Thousand
tons)
(Percent
of Gen.)
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
740
6.5%
Neg.
Neg.
10,680
20
10
160
840
1,030
220
790
1,010
110
2.5%
4,370
110
1.7%
800 29.2%
220 28.6%
6,410
1,940
550
t Nondurable goods other than containers and p ackaging
Due to source data aggregation, PET cups are included in "Other Plastic Packaging".
* All other nondurables include plastics in disposable diapers, clothing, footwear, etc.
** Injection stretch blow molded PET containers as defined in the 2070 Report on Postconsumer PET Container Recycling Activity Final
Report. National Association for PET Container Resources.
Recovery includes caps, lids, and other material collected with PET bottles and jars.
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.
Neg = negligible, less than 5,000 tons
48
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table? (continued)
PLASTICS IN PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2011
(In thousands of tons, and percent of general! on by resin)
Product Category
Plastic Containers & Packaging, cont.
Other plastic containers
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Subtotal Other Containers
Bags, sacks, & wraps
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, & Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging:):
PET
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PLA
PP
PS
Other resins
Subtotal Other Packaging
Total Plastics in Containers & Packaging, by resin
PET
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PLA
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in Cont. & Packaging
Total Plastics in MSW, by resin
PET
HDPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PLA
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in MSW
Generation
(Thousand
tons)
1,480
30
30
240
90
1,870
700
50
2,350
660
120
3,880
790
650
320
1,140
10
1,060
290
380
4,640
3,530
3,600
400
3,520
10
1,960
500
380
13,900
4,280
5,590
900
7,520
50
7,180
2,170
4.150
31,840
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
270
Neg.
Neg.
20
Neg.
290
60
370
430
30
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
10
20
Neg.
60
830
550
Neg.
370
Neg.
30
20
Neg.
1,800
830
550
370
30
20
850
2,650
(Percent
of Gen.)
18.2%
8.3%
15.5%
8.6%
15.7%
11.1%
3.8%
0.9%
6.9%
1.3%
23.5%
15.3%
10.5%
1.5%
4.0%
12.9%
19.4%
9.8%
4.9%
0.4%
0.9%
20.5%
8.3%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
1,210
30
30
220
90
1,580
640
50
1,980
660
120
3,450
760
650
320
1,140
10
1,050
270
380
4,580
2,700
3,050
400
3,150
10
1,930
480
380
12,100
3,450
5,040
900
7,150
50
7,150
2,150
3,300
29,190
PS = Polystyrene
PVC = Potyvinyl chloride
HDPE = High density polyethylene PET = Polyethylene terephthalate
LDPE = Low density polyethylene PLA = Polylactide
LLDPE = Linear low density polyethylene PP = Polypropylene
Other plastic packaging includes coatings, closures, lids, PET cups, caps, clamshells, egg cartons, produce baskets, trays, shapes, loose fill, etc.
PP caps and lids recovered with PET bottles and jars are included in the recovery estimate for PET bottles and jars.
Other resins include commingled/undefined plastic packaging recovery.
Some detail of recovery by resin omitted due to lack of data.
49
-------
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 31.8 million tons in 2011 (Figure 9). As a percentage of MSW
generation, plastics were less than one percent in 1960, increasing to 12.7 percent in 2011.
Recovery for Recycling. While overall recovery of plastics for recycling is relatively small -
2.7 million tons, or 8.3 percent of plastics generation in 2011 (Table 7) - recovery of some plastic
containers is more significant. PET bottles and jars were recovered at a rate of 29.2 percent in 2011.
Recovery of high-density polyethylene natural bottles was estimated at 28.6 percent in 2011.
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).
Discards After Recovery. Discards of plastics in MSW after recovery were 29.2 million tons,
or 17.9 percent of total MSW discards in 2011 (Table 3).
50
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 9. Plastics generation and recovery, 1960 to 2011
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011
Other Materials
Rubber and Leather. The predominant source of rubber in MSW is rubber tires from
automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles (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. Note that only tires from passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles are included. Tires used in
large equipment, aviation, or industrial applications are not included.
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 2011. 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.
51
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Recovery for Recycling. The only recovery for recycling identified in this category is rubber
from tires, and that was estimated to be 1.3 million tons in 2011. This is 44.6 percent of rubber in
tires in 2011 (Table 8). (This recovery estimate does not include tires retreaded or energy recovery
from tires.) Overall, 17.5 percent of rubber and leather in MSW was recovered in 2011.
Table 8
RUBBER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS IV MSW, 2011
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Product Category
Durable Goods
Rubber in Hres*
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)
2,940
3,500
6,440
800
250
1,050
7,490
Recovery
(Thousand
tons)
1,310
Neg.
1,310
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,310
(Percent of
generation)
44.6%
Neg.
20.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
17.5%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
1,630
3,500
5,130
800
250
1,050
6,180
* 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.
Discards After Recovery. Discards of rubber and leather after recovery were 6.2 million tons
in 2011 (3.8 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 13.1 million tons of textiles were generated in 2011 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).
52
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Recovery for Recycling and Discards. It was estimated that 13.9 percent of textiles in
clothing and footwear and 17.6 percent of items such as sheets and pillowcases was recovered for
export or reprocessing in 2011 (1.5 million tons) (Table 16). The recovery rate for all textiles is 15.3
percent in 2011 (2.0 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 16.1 million tons in 2011 (6.4 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 2.4 million tons in 2011.
Accounting for recovery for recycling, wood discards were 13.7 million tons in 2011, or 8.4
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 Waste
Food waste 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 waste estimates.
Generation. No production data are available for food waste. Food waste 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,
53
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
numbers of employees, and numbers of prisoners, students, and patients in institutions. Seventeen
residential food waste measurement studies provided the basis for the average per capita generation
factor (0.357 pounds per person per day) applied to population. Numerous food waste retail and
institutional measurement studies provided the factors applied to appropriate economic data for the
commercial portion of the food waste generation estimate. Generation of residential and commercial
food waste was estimated to be 36.3 million tons in 2011 (14.5 percent of total generation) (Table 1).
Food waste generation has increased, from earlier versions of this report, due to increased population
and revised residential 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 waste 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 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 waste 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 waste
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). Starting in 2010, food waste composting data published by state environmental
agencies are used to estimate the tonnage of food waste composted. The quantity of food waste
reported as recovered will vary up or down from year-to-year due to data availability.
The targeted data gathering of MSW food waste composting operations resulted in an
estimate of 900,000 tons of food waste composted in 2011. A separate BioCycle publication
estimated 500,000 tons of MSW composted in 2011. MSW composting includes the composting of
54
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
food waste as well as other organic materials found in MSW. The total - 1.4 million tons of food
waste and other organic materials composted in 2011 - 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.
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 22 states—representing about 40 percent of the
nation's population—has 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 33.7
million tons of yard trimmings were generated in MSW in 2011.
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 2011. 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 19.3 million tons of
55
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
yard trimmings removed for composting or wood waste mulching in 2011 - a significant increase
over the 2000 estimate of 15.8 million tons.
It should be noted that the estimated 19.3 million tons recovered for composting in 2011 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.
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 3.9 million
tons of MSW in 2011. 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 250.4 million tons in 2011.
Over the years paper and paperboard has been the dominant material category generated in
MSW, accounting for 70.0 million tons (28.0 percent of generation) in 2011. Food waste, the second
largest material component of MSW at 36.3 million tons (14.5 percent of MSW generation) has
increased in terms of MSW tonnage and percentage of total MSW. Yard trimmings, the third largest
material component of MSW at 33.7 million tons (13.5 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.
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.
56
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Metals account for 22 million tons (8.8 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 11.5 million tons in 2011, 4.6
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 2011
(behind paper, food waste, and yard trimmings) at 31.8 million tons, and account for 12.7 percent of
MSW generation.
Figure 10. Generation of materials in MSW, 1960 to 2011
All other*
Yard
Trimmings
All other" includes primarily wood, rubber and leather, and textiles
Plastics
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011
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 33.2
million tons (16.0 percent of generation), increasing to 69.5 million tons (28.5 percent) in 2000, and
86.9 million tons (34.7 percent of generation) in 2011.
57
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 11. Recovery and discards of materials in MSW, 1960 to 2011
250
200
150
100
50
0
Generation
Discards including:
combustion with ;
energy recovery
; Generation minus recovery = discards
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011
Estimated recovery of materials (including composting) is shown in Figure 12. In 2011,
recovery of paper and paperboard dominated materials recovery at 52.8 percent of total tonnage
recovered, while yard trimmings contributed 22.2 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.
58
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 12. Materials recovery in MSW,* 2011
87 Million tons
Food
Wood waste
2.7%, 1.6%. 5'3,/0
Metals
8.6%
Yard trimmings
22.2%
Papers paperboard
52.8%
* 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 28.0 percent of
MSW generated in 2011, but after recovery, paper and paperboard products were 14.8 percent of
discards. Materials that have less recovery exhibit a larger percentage of MSW discards compared to
generation. For example, plastic products were 12.7 percent of MSW generated in 2011 and, after
recovery, were 17.9 percent of discards.
59
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 13. Materials generated and discarded"
in municipal solid waste, 2011
(In percent of total generation and discards)
Other
3.3%
Food waste
14.5
Yard trimmings
13.5%
6.4%
Rubber, leathers
textiles
8.2%
Food waste
21.3%
Yard trimmings
8.8%
Wood
8.4%
Papers
paperboard
28.0%
Glass
4.6%
Metals
8.8%
VPIastics
12.7%
Generation
Other Papers
4.4% ^"^^ paperboard
14.8%
Glass
5.1%
Metals
8.8%
Plastics
17.8%
Rubber, leathers.
textiles
10.6% Discards
*Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery.
60
-------
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 250.4 million tons of MSW were generated, recycled (including composted) and
disposed of. The following section breaks out the same 250.4 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 waste, 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.
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" - 250.4
million tons in 2011 - 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
61
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
- 86.9 million tons; and for Table 11 and related tables, the "bottom line" is MSW discarded - 163.5
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 2011, 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 49.3 million tons in 2011 (19.7 percent of total
MSW generation). After recovery for recycling, 40.3 million tons of durable goods remained as
discards in 2011.
62
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 9
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2011
(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 Waste
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 Waste
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,920
17,330
27,370
54,620
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
88,120
1970
14,660
25,060
43,560
83,280
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
121,060
1980
21,800
34,420
52,670
108,890
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
151,640
1990
29,810
52,170
64,530
146,510
23,860
35,000
2,900
61,760
208,270
2000
38,870
64,010
75,840
178,720
30,700
30,530
3,500
64,730
243,450
2005
45,060
63,650
76,330
185,040
32,930
32,070
3,690
68,690
253,730
2007
46,430
61,760
78,370
186,560
33,560
32,630
3,750
69,940
256,500
2009
47,220
53,440
71,320
171,980
35,270
33,200
3,820
72,290
244,270
2010
48,680
53,200
75,640
177,520
35,740
33,400
3,840
72,980
250,500
2011
49,340
51,610
75,580
176,530
36,310
33,710
3,870
73,890
250,420
Percent of Total Generation
1960
11.3%
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%
26.3%
31.2%
73.4%
12.6%
12.5%
1.4%
26.6%
100.0%
2005
17.8%
25.1%
30.1%
72.9%
13.0%
12.6%
1 .5%
27.1%
100.0%
2007
18.1%
24.1%
30.6%
72.7%
13.1%
12.7%
1.5%
27.3%
100.0%
2009
19.3%
21.9%
29.2%
70.4%
14.4%
13.6%
1.6%
29.6%
100.0%
2010
19.4%
21.2%
30.2%
70.9%
14.3%
13.3%
1.5%
29.1%
100.0%
2011
19.7%
20.6%
30.2%
70.5%
14.5%
13.5%
1.5%
29.5%
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.
63
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 10
RECOVERY* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2011
(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.
Neq.
5,610
1970
940
3,730
3,350
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
8,020
1980
1,360
4,670
8,490
14,520
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
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
15,770
Neg.
16,450
69,460
2005
7,970
19,770
31,500
59,240
690
19,860
Neg.
20,550
79,790
2007
8,230
20,970
33,900
63,100
810
20,900
Neg.
21,710
84,810
2009
8,540
18,890
34,210
61,640
850
19,900
Neg.
20,750
82,390
2010
9,070
19,190
36,700
64,960
970
19,200
Neg.
20,170
85,130
2011
9,070
18,830
38,300
66,200
1,400
19,300
Neg.
20,700
86,900
Percent of Generation of Each Category
1960
3.5%
13.8%
10.5%
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
6.4%
1970
6.4%
14.9%
7.7%
9.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
6.6%
1980
6.2%
13.6%
16.1%
13.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neq.
9.6%
1990
11.6%
16.9%
26.0%
19.8%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
6.8%
16.0%
2000
16.9%
27.4%
38.1%
29.7%
2.2%
51.7%
Neg.
25.4%
28.5%
2005
17.7%
31.1%
41.3%
32.0%
2.1%
61.9%
Neg.
29.9%
31.4%
2007
17.7%
34.0%
43.3%
33.8%
2.4%
64.1%
Neg.
31.0%
33.1%
2009
18.1%
35.3%
48.0%
35.8%
2.4%
59.9%
Neg.
28.7%
33.7%
2010
18.6%
36.1%
48.5%
36.6%
2.7%
57.5%
Neg.
27.6%
34.0%
2011
18.4%
36.5%
50.7%
37.5%
3.9%
57.3%
Neg.
28.0%
34.7%
* 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.
64
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 11
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2011
(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 Waste
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 Waste
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
32,290
46,450
46,970
125,710
30,020
14,760
3,500
48,280
173,990
2005
37,090
43,880
44,830
125,800
32,240
12,210
3,690
48,140
173,940
2007
38,200
40,790
44,470
123,460
32,750
11,730
3,750
48,230
171,690
2009
38,680
34,550
37,110
110,340
34,420
13,300
3,820
51,540
161,880
2010
39,610
34,010
38,940
112,560
34,770
14,200
3,840
52,810
165,370
2011
40,270
32,780
37,280
110,330
34,910
14,410
3,870
53,190
163,520
Percent of Total Discards
1960
11.6%
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%
11.3%
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%
26.7%
27.0%
72.3%
17.3%
8.5%
2.0%
27.7%
100.0%
2005
21.3%
25.2%
25.8%
72.3%
18.5%
7.0%
2.1%
27.7%
100.0%
2007
22.2%
23.8%
25.9%
71.9%
19.1%
6.8%
2.2%
28.1%
100.0%
2009
23.9%
21.3%
22.9%
68.2%
21.3%
8.2%
2.4%
31.8%
100.0%
2010
24.0%
20.6%
23.5%
68.1%
21.0%
8.6%
2.3%
31.9%
100.0%
2011
24.6%
20.0%
22.8%
67.5%
21.3%
8.8%
2.4%
32.5%
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.
65
-------
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 2011, generation
was 4.1 million tons, or 1.6 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 2.6 million tons in 2011, leaving 1.5 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 1.8 million tons of small appliances were generated in 2011. A small amount of ferrous
metals in small appliances is recovered through magnetic separation. Small appliance 2010 generation
was revised from the 2010 version of this report due to revisions in the import data available from
data sources used in developing these estimates.
66
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 12
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2011
(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 Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Waste
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 Wastesf
Other Wastes
Food Waste
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
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
8,120
2,460
4,930
2,280
1,900
14,500
16,400
38,870
64,010
75,840
178,720
30,700
30,530
3,500
64,730
243,450
3,610
1,180
9,340
2,960
4,910
2,750
2,630
17,680
20,310
45,060
63,650
76,330
185,040
32,930
32,070
3,690
68,690
253,730
3,620
1,390
9,930
3,170
5,020
2,820
3,010
17,470
20,480
46,430
61,760
78,370
186,560
33,560
32,630
3,750
69,940
256,500
3,760
1,630
10,500
3,550
4,570
2,810
3,190
17,210
20,400
47,220
53,440
71,320
171,980
35,270
33,200
3,820
72,290
244,270
4,020
1,720
10,820
3,720
4,600
2,990
3,320
17,490
20,810
48,680
53,200
75,640
177,520
35,740
33,400
3,840
72,980
250,500
4,080
1,770
11,130
3,830
4,600
2,890
3,410
17,630
21 ,040
49,340
51,610
75,580
176,530
36,310
33,710
3,870
73,890
250,420
Percent of Total Generation
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
1.8%
2.4%
1.3%
Neg.
5.7%
11.3%
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%
11.5%
16.8%
1.4%
29.7%
100.0%
1 .5%
0.4%
3.3%
1 .0%
2.0%
0.9%
0.8%
6.0%
6.7%
16.0%
26.3%
31 .2%
73.4%
12.6%
12.5%
1 .4%
26.6%
100.0%
1.4%
0.5%
3.7%
1.2%
1.9%
1.1%
1.0%
7.0%
8.0%
17.8%
25.1%
30.1%
72.9%
13.0%
12.6%
1.5%
27.1%
100.0%
1 .4%
0.5%
3.9%
1 .2%
2.0%
1.1%
1.2%
6.8%
8.0%
18.1%
24.1%
30.6%
72.7%
13.1%
12.7%
1.5%
27.3%
100.0%
1 .5%
0.7%
4.3%
1 .5%
1 .9%
1 .2%
1 .3%
7.0%
8.4%
19.3%
21 .9%
29.2%
70.4%
14.4%
13.6%
1 .6%
29.6%
100.0%
1 .6%
0.7%
4.3%
1 .5%
1 .8%
1 .2%
1 .3%
7.0%
8.3%
19.4%
21.2%
30.2%
70.9%
14.3%
13.3%
1 .5%
29.1%
100.0%
1.6%
0.7%
4.4%
1.5%
1.8%
1.2%
1.4%
7.0%
8.4%
19.7%
20.6%
30.2%
70.5%
14.5%
13.5%
1.5%
29.5%
100.0%
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process
wastes, or certain other wastes.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
f Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Not estimated separately prior to 1999. For more information on consumer electronics see
the website http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm which
references the report Electronics Management in the U.S. Through 2009. This 2009
electronics report shows a lower generation tonnage for consumer electronics than does
the table above, due to examining a smaller selection of types of electronics.
67
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 13
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2011
(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 Waste
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 Waste
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
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
15,770
Neg.
16,450
69,460
2,420
20
Neg.
250
1,640
2,640
360
640
1,000
7,970
19,770
31,500
59,240
690
19,860
Neg.
20,550
79,790
2,430
20
Neg.
280
1,770
2,700
550
480
1,030
8,230
20,970
33,900
63,100
810
20,900
Neg.
21,710
84,810
2,510
110
10
260
2,040
2,700
600
310
910
8,540
18,890
34,210
61,640
850
19,900
Neg.
20,750
82,390
2,610
120
10
270
2,050
2,880
650
480
1,130
9,070
19,190
36,700
64,960
970
19,200
Neg.
20,170
85,130
2,620
120
10
270
2,050
2,780
850
370
1,220
9,070
18,830
38,300
66,200
1,400
19,300
Neg.
20,700
86,900
Percent of Generation of Each Product
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
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%
11.6%
16.9%
26.0%
19.8%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
6.8%
16.0%
54.9%
1 .9%
Neg.
7.7%
26.2%
93.4%
10.0%
5.2%
5.8%
16.9%
27.4%
38.1%
29.7%
2.2%
51 .7%
Neg.
25.4%
28.5%
67.0%
1 .7%
Neg.
8.4%
33.4%
96.0%
13.7%
3.6%
4.9%
17.7%
31.1%
41 .3%
32.0%
2.1%
61 .9%
Neg.
29.9%
31 .4%
67.1%
1 .4%
Neg.
8.8%
35.3%
95.7%
18.3%
2.7%
5.0%
17.7%
34.0%
43.3%
33.8%
2.4%
64.1%
Neg.
31 .0%
33.1%
66.8%
6.7%
0.1%
7.3%
44.6%
96.1%
18.8%
1.8%
4.5%
18.1%
35.3%
48.0%
35.8%
2.4%
59.9%
Neg.
28.7%
33.7%
64.9%
7.0%
0.1%
7.3%
44.6%
96.3%
19.6%
2.7%
5.4%
18.6%
36.1%
48.5%
36.6%
2.7%
57.5%
Neg.
27.6%
34.0%
64.2%
6.8%
0.1%
7.0%
44.6%
96.2%
24.9%
2.1%
5.8%
18.4%
36.5%
50.7%
37.5%
3.9%
57.3%
Neg.
28.0%
34.7%
* Recoveryofpostconsumerwastes;
does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Notestimated separately prior to 1990.
f Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
' Notestimated separately prior to 1999. For more information on consumer electronics
see the website http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm which
references the report Electronics Management in the U.S. Through 2009. The EPAwebsite
referenced above and the 2009 electronics report show a higher recovery rate for
consumer electronics than does the table above, due to examining a smaller selection of
types of electronics.
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 14
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2011
(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 Waste
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 Waste
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
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
8,120
2,270
3,640
150
1,710
13,740
15,450
32,290
46,450
46,970
125,710
30,020
14,760
3,500
48,280
173,990
1,190
1,160
9,340
2,710
3,270
110
2,270
17,040
19,310
37,090
43,880
44,830
125,800
32,240
12,210
3,690
48,140
173,940
1,190
1,370
9,930
2,890
3,250
120
2,460
16,990
19,450
38,200
40,790
44,470
123,460
32,750
1 1 ,730
3,750
48,230
171,690
1,250
1,520
10,490
3,290
2,530
110
2,590
16,900
19,490
38,680
34,550
37,110
110,340
34,420
13,300
3,820
51,540
161,880
1,410
1,600
10,810
3,450
2,550
110
2,670
17,010
19,680
39,610
34,010
38,940
112,560
34,770
14,200
3,840
52,810
165,370
1,460
1,650
11,120
3,560
2,550
110
2,560
17,260
19,820
40,270
32,780
37,280
110,330
34,910
14,410
3,870
53,190
163,520
Percent of Total Discards
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
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%
100.0%
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%
100.0%
0.9%
0.6%
4.7%
1 .3%
2.1%
0.1%
1 .0%
7.9%
8.9%
18.6%
26.7%
27.0%
72.3%
17.3%
8.5%
2.0%
27.7%
100.0%
0.7%
0.7%
5.4%
1 .6%
1 .9%
0.1%
1 .3%
9.8%
11.1%
21 .3%
25.2%
25.8%
72.3%
18.5%
7.0%
2.1%
27.7%
100.0%
0.7%
0.8%
5.8%
1 .7%
1 .9%
0.1%
1 .4%
9.9%
1 1 .3%
22.2%
23.8%
25.9%
71 .9%
19.1%
6.8%
2.2%
28.1%
100.0%
0.8%
0.9%
6.5%
2.0%
1 .6%
0.1%
1 .6%
10.4%
12.0%
23.9%
21 .3%
22.9%
68.2%
21 .3%
8.2%
2.4%
31 .8%
100.0%
0.9%
1 .0%
6.5%
2.1%
1 .5%
0.1%
1 .6%
10.3%
1 1 .9%
24.0%
20.6%
23.5%
68.1%
21 .0%
8.6%
2.3%
31 .9%
100.0%
0.9%
1.0%
6.8%
2.2%
1.6%
0.1%
1.6%
10.6%
12.1%
24.6%
20.0%
22.8%
67.5%
21.3%
8.8%
2.4%
32.5%
100.0%
Discards after materials and com post recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
' Not estimated separately prior to 1999. For more information on consumer electronics seethe
website http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm which references
the report Electronics Management in the U.S. Through 2009. This 2009 electronics report
shows a lower discards tonnage for consumer electronics than does the table above, due to
examining a smaller selection of types of electronics.
69
-------
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 11.1 million tons in 2011 (4.4 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 3.8 million tons of
carpets and rugs were generated in MSW in 2011, which was 1.5 percent of total generation.
Recovery of carpet fiber, backing, and padding - estimated from industry data - was 270,000
tons in 2011 (7.0 percent of carpet generation). Carpet and rug generation and recovery estimates
were revised from previous versions of this report due to revisions in the data available from data
sources used in developing these estimates.
Vehicle Tires. The methodology for estimating generation of rubber tires for automobiles,
trucks, and motorcycles 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.
70
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 4.6
million tons in 2011 (1.8 percent of total MSW). Since 2000, the generation of rubber tires has
remained fairly constant; decreasing slightly since 2007. Note that only tires from passenger cars,
trucks, and motorcycles are included. Tires used in large equipment, aviation, or industrial
applications are not included.
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 44.6 percent in 2011. From 2005 to 2009,
the quantity of tires generated and recovered through recycling remained relatively steady. Starting in
2009, the quantity of tires generated decreased and recovery through recycling increased. After
recovery, 2.6 million tons of tires were discarded in 2011. (Tires going to combustion facilities as fuel
are included in the combustion estimates in Chapter 3.) Tire 2005 through 2010 generation and 2009
and 2010 recovery estimates were revised from previous versions of this report due to revisions in the
numbers of deregistered vehicles and the quantity of tires recycled from data sources used in
developing these estimates.
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 2.9 million tons of lead-
acid batteries from automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles were generated in MSW in 2011 (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 2011, 96.2 percent of the lead in these batteries was estimated to
be recovered for recycling as well as substantial quantities of the polypropylene battery casings.
Discards after recycling of these batteries were 110,000 tons in 2011. (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.)
71
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Battery 2009 and 2010 generation and recovery estimates were revised from previous
versions of this report due to revisions in replacement batteries import data and numbers of
deregistered vehicles available from data sources used in developing these estimates.
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 21.0 million tons of these goods were generated in 2011,
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 2011, an estimated 3.4 million
tons of these goods were generated. Of this, 850,000 tons of selected consumer electronics were
collected for recycling (24.9 percent recovery rate). This is up from the 2010 recovery rate for
selected consumer electronics, which was 19.6 percent. The higher rate for the 2011 figure is due
primarily to better data, rather than a sudden growth in 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 2010 EPA report examines a smaller selection of electronic products which results in lower
quantity estimates and different recycling rates than are shown in Tables 12 through 14.
The miscellaneous durable goods category, as a whole, includes ferrous metals as well as
plastics, glass, rubber, wood, and other metals. An estimated 170,000 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 2011, bringing total recovery from this category
to 1.2 million tons. Discards of miscellaneous durable goods were 19.8 million tons in 2011.
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.
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
72
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
products; disposable diapers; clothing and footwear; linens; and other miscellaneous products. (See
Tables 15 through 17.)
Generation of nondurable goods in MSW was 51.6 million tons in 2011 (20.6 percent of total
generation). Recovery of paper products in this category is quite significant, resulting in 18.8 million
tons of nondurable goods recovered in 2011 (36.5 percent of nondurables generation). This means
that 32.8 million tons of nondurable goods were discarded in 2011 (20.0 percent of total 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
2011 was shown earlier in Table 4. Generation of paper and paperboard nondurable products declined
from 47.8 million tons in 2000 to 31.9 million tons in 2011. Each of the paper and paperboard
product categories in nondurable goods is discussed briefly below.
• Newspapers/mechanical papers are the largest single component of the paper products
in the nondurable goods category, at 9.2 million tons generated in 2011 (3.7 percent of
total MSW). In 2011, an estimated 6.6 million tons of newspapers/mechanical papers
generated were recovered for recycling. Starting in 2010, newspapers (including
newsprint and groundwood3 inserts) were expanded to include directories and other
mechanical papers previously counted as Other Commercial Printing.
• Books amounted to approximately 930,000 tons, or 0.4 percent of total MSW
generation, in 2011. Books are made of both groundwood and chemical pulp.
• Magazines accounted for an estimated 1.5 million tons, or 0.6 percent of total MSW
generation, in 2011. 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 5.1 million tons, or 2.0 percent
of total MSW generation in 2011. These papers are almost entirely made of uncoated
chemical pulp, although some amounts of groundwood are also used. It should be
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.
73
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
• Standard mail includes catalogs and other direct bulk mailings; these amounted to an
estimated 3.8 million tons, or 1.5 percent of MSW generation, in 2011. Both
groundwood and chemical pulps are used in these mailings. 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 are used in
these varied items. Generation was estimated at 2.7 million tons, or 1.1 percent of
MSW generation, in 2011.
• With the exception of newspapers/mechanical papers recovery, other nondurable paper
product recovery, by individual products, is not well documented. Industry provided
nondurable goods recovered paper estimates are presented as a total for books,
magazines, office-type papers, standard mail, and other commercial printing. Total
recovery (excluding newspapers/mechanical papers) was estimated at 10.6 million
tons, or 46.6 percent of nondurable goods paper generation (Table 4).
• 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 2011. No significant recovery of tissue products for recycling
was identified, although there is some composting of these items.
74
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
• 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
1.3 million tons (0.5 percent of total MSW generation) in 2011. 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 3.9 million tons (1.6 percent of total MSW generation) in 2011. No
significant recovery for recycling of these papers was identified.
Overall, generation of paper and paperboard products in nondurable goods was 31.9 million
tons in 2011 (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 54.0
percent in 2011. Thus 14.7 million tons of paper in nondurables were discarded in 2011 (Table 4).
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 1.0 million tons of these products were generated in
2011, or 0.4 percent of total MSW (Table 15). No significant recovery for recycling was identified in
2011.
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 2011 (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 3.6 million tons of disposable diapers
were generated in 2011, or 1.4 percent of total MSW generation. (This tonnage includes an
adjustment for the urine and feces contained within the discarded diapers.) The materials portion of
75
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 2011. Diaper 2010 generation was revised from the previous version of this report due to revisions
in the data available from the Census Bureau used in developing these estimates.
Clothing and Footwear. Generation of clothing and footwear was estimated to be 9.0 million
tons in 2011 (3.6 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.
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 2011. (Reuse occurs before generation and is not included in
the generation or recycling estimates.) Clothing and footwear 2010 generation was revised from the
previous version of this report due to revisions in the data available from the Census Bureau used in
developing these estimates.
Towels, Sheets, and Pillowcases. An estimated 1.3 million tons of towels, sheets, and
pillowcases were generated in 2011. Generation was estimated using a methodology similar to that
for clothing. An estimated 230,000 tons of these textiles were recovered for export or recycling in
2011.
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables. Generation of other miscellaneous nondurables was
estimated to be 3.7 million tons in 2011 (1.5 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.
76
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 15
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2011
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers/Mechanical Papersf
Directories-)-**
Other Paper Nondurable Goods
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office-Type Papers***
Standard Mail§
Other Commercial Printing!
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Total Other Paper Nondurable Goods
Disposable Diapers
Plastic Plates and Cups§
Trash Bags**
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 18)
Total Product I/Vastest
Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weiqht
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers/Mechanical Papersf
Directories-)-**
Other Paper Nondurable Goods
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office-Type Papers***
Standard Mail§
Other Commercial Printingf
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Total Other Paper Nondurable Goods
Disposable Diapers
Plastic Plates and Cups§
Trash Bags**
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product I/Vastest
Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,920
1970
14,660
1980
21,800
1990
29,810
2000
38,870
2005
45,060
2007
46,430
2009
47,220
2010
48,680
2011
49,340
7,110
1,920
1,520
1,260
1,090
270
2,700
Neg.
1,360
100
17,330
27,370
54,620
33,500
88,120
9,510
2,470
2,650
2,130
2,080
420
3,630
350
1,620
200
25,060
43,560
83,280
37,780
121,060
11,050
3,390
4,000
3,120
2,300
630
4,230
1,930
190
2,170
1,410
34,420
52,670
108,890
42,750
151,640
13,430
610
970
2,830
6,410
3,820
4,460
2,960
650
3,840
2,700
650
780
4,010
710
3,340
52,170
64,530
146,510
61,760
208,270
14,790
680
1,240
2,230
7,420
5,570
7,380
3,220
960
4,250
3,230
870
850
6,470
820
4,030
64,010
75,840
178,720
64,730
243,450
12,790
660
1,100
2,580
6,620
5,830
6,440
3,460
1,160
4,490
3,410
930
1,060
7,890
980
4,250
63,650
76,330
185,040
68,690
253,730
10,780
760
1,270
2,550
6,060
5,910
6,200
3,500
1,230
4,260
3,730
860
1,070
8,320
1,100
4,160
61,760
78,370
186,560
69,940
256,500
7,760
650
960
1,450
5,380
4,650
3,490
3,490
1,170
4,420
3,810
900
1,000
9,080
1,230
4,000
53,440
71,320
171,980
72,290
244,270
9,880
-
990
1,590
5,260
4,340
2,480
3,490
1,350
4,190
23,690
3,700
890
980
9,050
1,290
3,720
53,200
75,640
177,520
72,980
250,500
9,150
-
930
1,510
5,100
3,750
2,710
3,510
1,340
3,940
22,790
3,630
1,030
1,010
9,020
1,310
3,670
51,610
75,580
176,530
73,890
250,420
Percent of Total Generation
1960
11.3%
1970
12.1%
1980
14.4%
1990
14.3%
2000
16.0%
2005
17.8%
2007
18.1%
2009
19.3%
2010
19.4%
2011
19.7%
8.1%
2.2%
1 .7%
1 .4%
1.2%
0.3%
3.1%
Neg.
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%
3.0%
0.3%
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%
2.8%
1.3%
0.1%
1 .4%
0.9%
22.7%
34.7%
71 .8%
28.2%
100.0%
6.4%
0.3%
0.5%
1 .4%
3.1%
1 .8%
2.1%
1 .4%
0.3%
1 .8%
1.3%
0.3%
0.4%
1 .9%
0.3%
1.6%
25.0%
31.0%
70.3%
29.7%
100.0%
6.1%
0.3%
0.5%
0.9%
3.0%
2.3%
3.0%
1.3%
0.4%
1 .7%
1.3%
0.4%
0.3%
2.7%
0.3%
1 .7%
26.3%
31.2%
73.4%
26.6%
100.0%
5.0%
0.3%
0.4%
1.0%
2.6%
2.3%
2.5%
1.4%
0.5%
1.8%
1.3%
0.4%
0.4%
3.1%
0.4%
1.7%
25.1%
30.1%
72.9%
27.1%
100.0%
4.2%
0.3%
0.5%
1.0%
2.4%
2.3%
2.4%
1.4%
0.5%
1.7%
1.5%
0.3%
0.4%
3.2%
0.4%
1.6%
24.1%
30.6%
72.7%
27.3%
100.0%
3.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.6%
2.2%
1 .9%
1 .4%
1 .4%
0.5%
1 .8%
1.6%
0.4%
0.4%
3.7%
0.5%
1.6%
21 .9%
29.2%
70.4%
29.6%
100.0%
3.9%
-
0.4%
0.6%
2.1%
1.7%
1.0%
1.4%
0.5%
1.7%
9.5%
1.5%
0.4%
0.4%
3.6%
0.5%
1.5%
21.2%
30.2%
70.9%
29.1%
100.0%
3.7%
-
0.4%
0.6%
2.0%
1.5%
1.1%
1.4%
0.5%
1.6%
9.1%
1.4%
0.4%
0.4%
3.6%
0.5%
1.5%
20.6%
30.2%
70.5%
29.5%
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.
f Starting in 2010, newsprint and groundwood inserts expanded to include directories and other mechanical papers previously counted as Other Commercial Printing.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
*** High-grade paper such as printer paper; generated in both commercial and residential sources.
§ Standard Mail: Not estimated separately prior to 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail and Standard (A) Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
§ Plastic Plates and Cups: Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
t Other than food products.
- Detailed data not available. Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
77
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 16
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2011
(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/Mechanical Papersf
Directories"!"**
Other Paper Nondurable Goods
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office-Type Papers***
Standard Mail§
Other Commercial Printingf
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Total Other Paper Nondurable Goods
Disposable Diapers
Plastic Plates and Cups§
Trash Bags**
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/Mechanical Papersf
Directories")"**
Other Paper Nondurable Goods
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office-Type Papers***
Standard Mail§
Other Commercial Printingf
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Total Other Paper Nondurable Goods
Disposable Diapers
Plastic Plates and Cups§
Trash Bags**
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
7,970
2007
8,230
2009
8,540
2010
9,070
2011
9,070
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
50
100
300
1,700
200
700
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
520
120
Neg.
8,800
16,780
29,040
4,200
33,240
8,720
120
240
710
4,090
1,830
810
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
900
140
Neg.
17,560
28,870
53,010
16,450
69,460
9,360
120
270
960
4,110
2,090
1,440
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,250
170
Neg.
19,770
31 ,500
59,240
20,550
79,790
8,550
140
360
1,010
4,300
2,380
2,790
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,250
190
Neg.
20,970
33,900
63,100
21,710
84,810
6,840
240
320
780
3,990
2,950
2,310
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,250
210
Neg.
18,890
34,210
61,640
20,750
82,390
7,070
-
-
-
-
-
-
10,650
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,250
220
Neg.
19,190
36,700
64,960
20,170
85,130
6,630
-
-
-
-
-
-
10,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,250
230
110
18,830
38,300
66,200
20,700
86,900
Percent of Generation of Each Product
1960
3.5%
1970
6.4%
1980
6.2%
1990
1 1 .6%
2000
16.9%
2005
17.7%
2007
17.7%
2009
18.1%
2010
18.6%
2011
18.4%
25.6%
5.2%
16.4%
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
1 .5%
Neg.
Neg.
13.8%
10.5%
10.3%
Neg.
6.4%
23.7%
10.5%
26.8%
16.0%
Neg.
Neg.
3.0%
Neg.
Neg.
14.9%
7.7%
9.6%
Neg.
6.6%
27.3%
8.3%
21 .8%
1 1 .2%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.6%
16.1%
13.3%
Neg.
9.6%
38.0%
8.2%
10.3%
10.6%
26.5%
5.2%
15.7%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.0%
16.9%
Neg.
16.9%
26.0%
19.8%
6.8%
16.0%
59.0%
17.6%
19.4%
31 .8%
55.1%
32.9%
1 1 .0%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.9%
17.1%
Neg.
27.4%
38.1%
29.7%
25.4%
28.5%
73.2%
18.2%
24.5%
37.2%
62.1%
35.8%
22.4%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
15.8%
17.3%
Neg.
31.1%
41 .3%
32.0%
29.9%
31 .4%
79.3%
18.4%
28.3%
39.6%
71 .0%
40.3%
45.0%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
15.0%
17.3%
Neg.
34.0%
43.3%
33.8%
31 .0%
33.1%
88.1%
36.9%
33.3%
53.8%
74.2%
63.4%
66.2%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.8%
17.1%
Neg.
35.3%
48.0%
35.8%
28.7%
33.7%
71 .6%
-
-
-
-
45.0%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.8%
17.1%
Neg.
36.1%
48.5%
36.6%
27.6%
34.0%
72.5%
-
-
-
-
46.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.9%
17.6%
Neg.
36.5%
50.7%
37.5%
28.0%
34.7%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
f Starting in 2010, newsprint and groundwood inserts expanded to include directories and other mechanical papers previously counted as Other Commercial Printing.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
*** High-grade paper such as printer paper; generated in both commercial and residential sources.
§ Standard Mail: Not estimated separately prior to 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail and Standard (A) Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
§ Plastic Plates and Cups: Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
t Other than food products.
- Detailed data not available. Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
78
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 17
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2011
(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers/Mechanical Papersf
Directories-)-**
Other Paper Nondurable Goods
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office-Type Papers***
Standard Mail§
Other Commercial Printing!
Tissue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Total Other Paper Nondurable Goods
Disposable Diapers
Plastic Plates and Cups§
Trash Bags**
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product I/Vastest
Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weiqht
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers/Mechanical Papersf
Directories-)-**
Other Paper Nondurable Goods
Books and Magazines
Books**
Magazines**
Office-Type Papers***
Standard Mail§
Other Commercial Printing-t-
issue Paper and Towels
Paper Plates and Cups
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Total Other Paper Nondurable Goods
Disposable Diapers
Plastic Plates and Cups§
Trash Bags**
Clothing and Footwear
Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases**
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product I/Vastest
Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,570
1970
13,720
1980
20,440
1990
26,350
2000
32,290
2005
37,090
2007
38,200
2009
38,680
2010
39,610
2011
40,270
5,290
1,820
1,270
1,130
1,090
270
2,660
Neg.
1,310
100
14,940
24,500
49,010
33,500
82,510
7,260
2,210
1,940
1,790
2,080
420
3,520
350
1,560
200
21,330
40,210
75,260
37,780
113,040
8,030
3,110
3,130
2,770
2,300
630
4,230
1,930
190
2,020
1,410
29,750
44,180
94,370
42,750
137,120
8,320
560
870
2,530
4,710
3,620
3,760
2,960
650
3,840
2,700
650
780
3,490
590
3,340
43,370
47,750
117,470
57,560
175,030
6,070
560
1,000
1,520
3,330
3,740
6,570
3,220
960
4,250
3,230
870
850
5,570
680
4,030
46,450
46,970
125,710
48,280
173,990
3,430
540
830
1,620
2,510
3,740
5,000
3,460
1,160
4,490
3,410
930
1,060
6,640
810
4,250
43,880
44,830
125,800
48,140
173,940
2,230
620
910
1,540
1,760
3,530
3,410
3,500
1,230
4,260
3,730
860
1,070
7,070
910
4,160
40,790
44,470
123,460
48,230
171,690
920
410
640
670
1,390
1,700
1,180
3,490
1,170
4,420
3,810
900
1,000
7,830
1,020
4,000
34,550
37,110
110,340
51,540
161,880
2,810
-
-
-
-
13,040
3,700
890
980
7,800
1,070
3,720
34,010
38,940
112,560
52,810
165,370
2,520
-
-
-
-
12,180
3,630
1,030
1,010
7,770
1,080
3,560
32,780
37,280
110,330
53,190
163,520
Percent of Total Discards
1960
11.6%
1970
12.1%
1980
14.9%
1990
15.1%
2000
18.6%
2005
21.3%
2007
22.2%
2009
23.9%
2010
24.0%
2011
24.6%
6.4%
2.2%
1.5%
1.4%
1.3%
0.3%
3.2%
Neg.
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%
3.1%
0.3%
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%
3.1%
1.4%
0.1%
1.5%
1.7%
21.7%
32.2%
68.8%
31.2%
100.0%
4.8%
0.3%
0.5%
1.4%
2.7%
2.1%
2.1%
1.7%
0.4%
2.2%
1.5%
0.4%
0.4%
2.0%
0.3%
1.9%
24.8%
27.3%
67.1%
32.9%
100.0%
3.5%
0.3%
0.6%
0.9%
1.9%
2.1%
3.8%
1.9%
0.6%
2.4%
1.9%
0.5%
0.5%
3.2%
0.4%
2.3%
26.7%
27.0%
72.3%
27.7%
100.0%
2.0%
0.3%
0.5%
0.9%
1 .4%
2.2%
2.9%
2.0%
0.7%
2.6%
2.0%
0.5%
0.6%
3.8%
0.5%
2.4%
25.2%
25.8%
72.3%
27.7%
100.0%
1.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.9%
1.0%
2.1%
2.0%
2.0%
0.7%
2.5%
2.2%
0.5%
0.6%
4.1%
0.5%
2.4%
23.8%
25.9%
71 .9%
28.1%
100.0%
0.6%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.9%
1.1%
0.7%
2.2%
0.7%
2.7%
2.4%
0.6%
0.6%
4.8%
0.6%
2.5%
21.3%
22.9%
68.2%
31.8%
100.0%
1 .7%
-
-
-
-
-
7.9%
2.2%
0.5%
0.6%
4.7%
0.6%
2.2%
20.6%
23.5%
68.1%
31.9%
100.0%
1.5%
-
-
-
-
-
7.4%
2.2%
0.6%
0.6%
4.8%
0.7%
2.2%
20.0%
22.8%
67.5%
32.5%
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. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
f Starting in 2010, newsprint and groundwood inserts expanded to include directories and other mechanical papers previously counted as Other Commercial Printing.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
*** High-grade paper such as printer paper; generated in both commercial and residential sources.
§ Standard Mail: Not estimated separately prior to 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail and Standard (A) Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
§ Plastic Plates and Cups: Not estimated separately prior to 1980.
t Other than food products.
- Detailed data not available. Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
79
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Containers and Packaging
Containers and packaging make up a major portion of MSW, amounting to 75.6 million tons
of generation in 2011 (30.2 percent of total generation). Table 18 shows generation trended
downward by 9 percent between 2007 and 2009, followed by a 6 percent increase between 2009 and
2011 (to 75.6 million tons). Generation of most types of packaging declined from 2007 to 2009 due
to the economic downturn. Between 2009 and 2011 generation of some types of packaging continued
to decline while others increased.
Glass packaging generation declined 7.2 percent between 2007 and 2009 and another 3.9
percent between 2009 and 2011. Steel packaging exhibited the greatest percentage decline; a 16.1
percent decrease between 2007 and 2009 and a 2.7 percent decrease between 2009 and 2011.
Aluminum packaging generation declined only 1.6 percent over the four year period 2007 to 2011.
Paper and paperboard packaging generation declined 12.5 percent between 2007 and 2009
and increased 8.8 percent between 2009 and 2011. Plastic packaging generation decreased 8.1
percent from 2007 and 2009 and increased 10.9 percent between 2009 and 2011.
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 2011, 50.7 percent of containers and packaging generated was recovered for recycling.
Because of this recovery, containers and packaging comprised 22.8 percent of total MSW discards in
2011.
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 and juices, cosmetics, and other products. Prior to 2009, generation of glass
containers was estimated using Department of Commerce data. Beginning in 2009, the Glass
80
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
Generation of these glass containers was 9.3 million tons in 2011, or 3.7 percent of MSW
generation (Tables 18 and 19). This tonnage is lower than was generated in almost all of the previous
years.
An estimated 3.2 million tons of glass containers were recovered for recycling, or 34.2 percent
of generation, in 2011. Glass container discards were 6.1 million tons in 2011, or 3.7 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 2.2 million tons in 2011 (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). Estimates
include adjustments for net imports.
The Steel Recycling Institute also provided recovery data for steel containers and packaging.
An estimated 1.6 million tons of steel packaging were recovered in 2011, or 72.0 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 the Aluminum
Association data on number of cans consumed domestically and average can weight, 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.
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
81
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
generation calculations than shipments alone. Total aluminum container and packaging generation in
2011 was 1.9 million tons, or 0.7 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 2011 was 720,000 tons, or 54.5 percent of
generation. Recovery data for the other aluminum packaging categories are not available for 2011.
After recovery for recycling, 1.1 million tons of aluminum packaging were discarded in 2011.
Paper and Paperboard Containers and Packaging. Corrugated boxes are the largest single
product category of MSW at 29.4 million tons generated, or 11.8 percent of total generation, in 2011.
Corrugated boxes also represent the largest single category of product recovery; at 26.8 million tons
of recovery in 2011, 91.0 percent of boxes generated were recovered. After recovery, 2.6 million tons
of corrugated boxes were discarded, or 1.6 percent of MSW discards in 2011.
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
38.0 million tons of MSW generation in 2011, or 15.2 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 1.9
million tons in 2011). The overall recovery rate for paper and paperboard packaging in 2011 was 75.4
percent. Other paper packaging such as cartons and sacks is mostly recovered as mixed papers.
82
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 18
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2011
(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
Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Gable Top/ Aseptic Cartonst
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Subtotal Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
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 & Pkq
Total Product Wastes}
Other Wastes
Food Waste
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
38,870
64,010
2005
45,060
63,650
2007
46,430
61 ,760
2009
47,220
53,440
2010
48,680
53,200
2011
49,340
51,610
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
11,920
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
11,830
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
11,040
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
178,720
30,700
30,530
3,500
64,730
243,450
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
185,040
32,930
32,070
3,690
68,690
253,730
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
9,520
320
78,370
186,560
33,560
32,630
3,750
69,940
256,500
6,000
1,710
1,950
9,660
Neg.
1,880
360
2,240
1,360
60
460
1,880
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
9,790
280
71 ,320
171,980
35,270
33,200
3,820
72,290
244,270
5,670
1,700
1,990
9,360
Neg.
2,300
440
2,740
1,370
70
460
1,900
29,050
540
5,470
90
1,040
Neg.
1,490
8,630
37,680
2,670
800
1,830
770
3,160
3,930
4,450
13,680
9,940
340
75,640
177,520
35,740
33,400
3,840
72,980
250,500
5,520
1,770
1,990
9,280
Neg.
1,800
380
2,180
1,320
70
460
1,850
29,440
540
5,540
80
750
Neg.
1,670
8,580
38,020
2,740
770
1,870
3,880
4,640
13,900
10,000
350
75,580
176,530
36,310
33,710
3,870
73,890
250,420
* 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.
$ 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.
- Detailed data not available.
83
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 19
PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2011
(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 Packaqinq
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
Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Gable Top/Aseptic Cartonst
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Subtotal Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
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-f
Other Wastes
Food Waste
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%
26.3%
2005
17.8%
25.1%
2007
18.1%
24.1%
2009
19.3%
21.9%
2010
19.4%
21 .2%
2011
19.7%
20.6%
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%
11.3%
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%
2.3%
0.8%
1.4%
4.5%
Neg.
1.1%
0.1%
1.2%
0.6%
Neg.
0.2%
0.8%
12.4%
0.2%
2.4%
0.1%
0.6%
Neg.
0.7%
16.4%
0.7%
0.3%
0.7%
0.7%
1.0%
1.7%
1.2%
4.6%
3.5%
0.1%
31.2%
73.4%
12.6%
12.5%
1.4%
26.6%
100.0%
2.6%
0.6%
0.9%
4.1%
Neg.
0.8%
0.1%
0.9%
0.6%
Neg.
0.2%
0.8%
12.2%
0.2%
2.2%
0.1%
0.4%
Neg.
0.6%
15.6%
1 .0%
0.3%
0.6%
0.6%
1.1%
1 .8%
1 .3%
4.9%
3.6%
0.1%
30.1%
72.9%
13.0%
12.6%
1 .5%
27.1%
100.0%
2.6%
0.6%
0.8%
4.1%
Neg.
0.9%
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%
15.6%
1.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.4%
1 .2%
1 .6%
1 .5%
5.3%
3.7%
0.1%
30.6%
72.7%
13.1%
12.7%
1 .5%
27.3%
100.0%
2.5%
0.7%
0.8%
4.0%
Neg.
0.8%
0.1%
0.9%
0.6%
0.02%
0.2%
0.8%
11.1%
0.2%
2.0%
0.0%
0.4%
Neg.
0.5%
14.3%
1.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.3%
1.3%
1.6%
1.5%
5.1%
4.0%
0.1%
29.2%
70.4%
14.4%
13.6%
1.6%
29.6%
100.0%
2.3%
0.7%
0.8%
3.7%
Neg.
0.9%
0.2%
1.1%
0.5%
0.03%
0.2%
0.8%
11.6%
0.2%
2.2%
0.0%
0.4%
Neg.
0.6%
3.4%
15.0%
1.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.3%
1 .3%
1 .6%
1 .8%
5.5%
4.0%
0.1%
30.2%
70.9%
14.3%
13.3%
1 .5%
29.1%
100.0%
2.2%
0.7%
0.8%
3.7%
Neg.
0.7%
0.2%
0.9%
0.5%
0.03%
0.2%
0.7%
1 1 .8%
0.2%
2.2%
0.0%
0.3%
Neg.
0.7%
3.4%
15.2%
1.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1 .5%
1 .9%
5.6%
4.0%
0.1%
30.2%
70.5%
14.5%
13.5%
1 .5%
29.5%
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.
£ 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.
- Detailed data not available.
84
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 20
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2011
(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 Packaqinq
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
Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Gable Top/ Aseptic Cartonst
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Subtotal Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
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 Waste
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
7,970
19,770
2007
8,230
20,970
2009
8,540
18,890
2010
9,070
19,190
2011
9,070
18,830
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
59,240
690
19,860
Neg.
20,550
79,790
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
63,100
810
20,900
Neg.
21,710
84,810
2,340
430
230
3,000
Neg.
1,240
290
1,530
690
NA
NA
690
22,100
30
2,490
Neg.
450
Neg.
Neg.
25,070
720
220
290
360
130
1,720
2,200
Neg.
34,210
61,640
850
19,900
Neg.
20,750
82,390
2,350
540
240
3,130
Neg.
1,540
350
1,890
680
NA
NA
680
24,690
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,160
26,850
780
220
300
450
100
1,850
2,300
Neg.
36,700
64,960
970
19,200
Neg.
20,170
85,130
2,270
600
300
3,170
Neg.
1,270
300
1,570
720
NA
NA
720
26,800
-
-
-
1,860
28,660
800
220
290
430
60
1,800
2,380
Neg.
38,300
66,200
1,400
19,300
Neg.
20,700
86,900
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** 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. NA= Not Available
- Detailed data not available.
85
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 21
RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2011
(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
Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Gable Top/ Aseptic Cartonst
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Subtotal Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
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 Waste
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered- %
Percent of Generation of Each Product
1960
3.5%
13.8%
1970
6.4%
14.9%
1980
6.2%
13.6%
1990
11.6%
16.9%
2000
16.9%
27.4%
2005
17.7%
31.1%
2007
17.7%
34.0%
2009
18.1%
35.3%
2010
18.6%
36.1%
2011
18.4%
36.5%
6.4%
Neg.
Neg.
1 .6%
1 .6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
34.4%
7.5%
19.4%
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%
13.3%
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%
19.8%
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%
2.2%
51.7%
Neg.
25.4%
28.5%
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%
32.0%
2.1%
61.9%
Neg.
29.9%
31.4%
34.6%
14.8%
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%
11.7%
21 .2%
Neg.
43.3%
33.8%
2.4%
64.1%
Neg.
31 .0%
33.1%
39.0%
25.1%
11.8%
31.1%
Neg.
66.0%
80.6%
68.3%
50.7%
NA
NA
36.7%
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%
22.5%
Neg.
48.0%
35.8%
2.4%
59.9%
Neg.
28.7%
33.7%
41 .4%
31.8%
12.1%
33.4%
Neg.
67.0%
79.5%
69.0%
49.6%
NA
NA
35.8%
85.0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
25.0%
71 .3%
29.2%
27.5%
16.4%
1 1 .5%
2.2%
13.5%
23.1%
Neg.
48.5%
36.6%
2.7%
57.5%
Neg.
27.6%
34.0%
41.1%
33.9%
15.1%
34.2%
Neg.
70.6%
78.9%
72.0%
54.5%
NA
NA
38.9%
91 .0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
21 .7%
75.4%
29.2%
28.6%
15.5%
11.1%
1.3%
12.9%
23.8%
Neg.
50.7%
37.5%
3.9%
57.3%
Neg.
28.0%
34.7%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails.
t 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. NA= Not Available
- Detailed data not available.
86
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 22
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2011
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In thousands of tons)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaqinq
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
Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Gable Top/ Aseptic Cartonst
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Subtotal Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
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 & Pka
Total Product Wastes-/-
Other Wastes
Food Waste
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
Thousands of Tons
1960
9,570
14,940
1970
13,720
21 ,330
1980
20,440
29,750
1990
26,350
43,370
2000
32,290
46,450
2005
37,090
43,880
2007
38,200
40,790
2009
38,680
34,550
2010
39,610
34,010
2011
40,270
32,780
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
11,770
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
125,710
30,020
14,760
3,500
48,280
173,990
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
125,800
32,240
12,210
3,690
48,140
173,940
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
7,500
320
44,470
123,460
32,750
1 1 ,730
3,750
48,230
171,690
3,660
1,280
1,720
6,660
Neg.
640
70
710
670
60
460
1,190
5,090
430
2,490
90
460
Neg.
1,310
9,870
1,850
540
1,460
3,490
3,470
10,810
7,590
280
37,110
110,340
34,420
13,300
3,820
51,540
161,880
3,320
1,160
1,750
6,230
Neg.
760
90
850
690
70
460
1,220
4,360
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,470
10,830
1,890
580
1,530
3,480
4,350
1 1 ,830
7,640
340
38,940
112,560
34,770
14,200
3,840
52,810
165,370
3,250
1,170
1,690
6,110
Neg.
530
80
610
600
70
460
1,130
2,640
-
-
-
6,720
9,360
1,940
550
1,580
3,450
4,580
12,100
7,620
350
37,280
110,330
34,910
14,410
3,870
53,190
163,520
* 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. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails.
t 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.
- Detailed data not available.
87
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 23
PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2011
(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
(In percent of total discards)
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
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
Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Gable Top/ Aseptic Cartonst
Folding Cartons
Other Paperboard Packaging
Bags and Sacks
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Subtotal Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
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 Waste
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded- %
Percent of Total Discards
1960
11.6%
18.1%
1970
12.1%
18.9%
1980
14.9%
21.7%
1990
15.1%
24.8%
2000
18.6%
26.7%
2005
21 .3%
25.2%
2007
22.2%
23.8%
2009
23.9%
21 .3%
2010
24.0%
20.6%
2011
24.6%
20.0%
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%
11.3%
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%
11.8%
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%
5.8%
4.2%
0.1%
27.0%
72.3%
17.3%
8.5%
2.0%
27.7%
100.0%
2.6%
0.8%
1.1%
4.5%
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%
9.2%
1.1%
0.3%
0.7%
2.4%
1 .8%
6.4%
4.3%
0.2%
25.8%
72.3%
18.5%
7.0%
2.1%
27.7%
100.0%
2.6%
0.8%
1 .0%
4.4%
Neg.
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.4%
Neg.
0.2%
0.7%
4.8%
0.3%
2.3%
0.1%
0.4%
Neg.
0.8%
8.7%
1 .2%
0.3%
1 .0%
2.2%
2.2%
7.0%
4.4%
0.2%
25.9%
71 .9%
19.1%
6.8%
2.2%
28.1%
100.0%
2.3%
0.8%
1.1%
4.1%
Neg.
0.4%
0.0%
0.4%
0.4%
Neg.
0.3%
0.7%
3.1%
0.3%
1 .5%
0.1%
0.3%
Neg.
0.8%
6.1%
1.1%
0.3%
0.9%
2.2%
2.1%
6.7%
4.7%
0.2%
22.9%
68.2%
21 .3%
8.2%
2.4%
31 .8%
100.0%
2.0%
0.7%
1.1%
3.8%
Neg.
0.5%
0.1%
0.5%
0.4%
Neg.
0.3%
0.7%
2.6%
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.9%
6.5%
1.1%
0.4%
0.9%
2.1%
2.6%
7.2%
4.6%
0.2%
23.5%
68.1%
21.0%
8.6%
2.3%
31.9%
100.0%
2.0%
0.7%
1.0%
3.7%
Neg.
0.3%
0.0%
0.4%
0.4%
Neg.
0.3%
0.7%
1 .6%
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.1%
5.7%
1.2%
0.3%
1.0%
2.1%
2.8%
7.4%
4.7%
0.2%
22.8%
67.5%
21.3%
8.8%
2.4%
32.5%
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. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails.
t 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.
- Detailed data not available.
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 (PVC), polystyrene (PS), polypropylene (PP), and other resins.
Estimates of generation of plastic containers and packaging are based on resin sales data by end use,
published annually by the American Chemistry Council's annual plastics resin survey.
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 13.9 million tons in 2011 (5.6
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 29.2 percent rate in 2011 (800,000 tons). Recovery of HDPE
natural bottles (e.g., milk and water bottles) was estimated to have been 220,000 tons, or 28.6
percent of generation. Overall, recovery of plastic containers and packaging was estimated to be 1.8
million tons, or 12.9 percent in 2011. Discards of plastic packaging thus were 12.1 million tons in
2011, or 7.4 percent of total MSW generation.
The plastic container and packaging recycling estimates, similar to other product estimates in
this report, may include other recyclable and nonrecyclable materials. For example, the quantity of
PET bottles recovered includes caps, lids, labels and adhesives collected along with the bottles.
Although NAPCOR, the industry association supplying the data for this report, has sufficient detail to
separate the non-PET materials from the PET, statistics from other industry sources do not have the
same level of detail. To maintain consistency across material categories, the "gross" recycling rate is
used instead of the "net" recycling rate throughout this report.
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
the USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station and Virginia Polytechnic Institute. In 2011, 10.0
89
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
million tons of wood pallets and other wood packaging were estimated to have been generated, or 4.0
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 2.4 million tons in 2011.
Accounting for pallet reuse and recovery for recycling, wood packaging discards were 7.6
million tons in 2011, or 4.7 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 350,000 tons were generated in 2011.
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.
The materials composition of nondurable goods in 2011 is shown in Figure 15. Paper and
paperboard made up 62.2 percent of nondurables in MSW generation, with plastics contributing 12.7
percent, and textiles 17.4 percent. Other materials contributed lesser percentages. After recovery for
recycling, paper and paperboard were 46.7 percent of nondurable discards, with plastics being 19.7
percent, and textiles 22.9 percent.
The materials composition of containers and packaging in MSW in 2011 is shown in Figure
16. By weight, paper and paperboard products made up 50.3 percent of containers and packaging
generation; plastics accounted for 18.4 percent. Glass was 12.3 percent, wood was 13.7 percent, and
metals were 5.3 percent.
90
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 14. Generation of products in MSW, 1960 to 2011
250
200
150
100
50 -
Yard Trimmings
mmmm.
:;i Food Waste
1960
1965 1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005 2011
The percentage of materials discards from containers and packaging is affected by recovery
for recycling. After recovery for recycling, paper and paperboard dropped to 25.1 percent of discards.
Glass containers accounted for 16.4 percent of discards of containers and packaging, plastics were
32.5 percent, wood was 21.4 percent, and metals were 4.7 percent.
Additional containers and packaging detail is shown in Figure 17. Corrugated boxes account
for 39 percent of total containers and packaging generation but, due to a high recovery rate, only
account for seven percent of discards. Wood packaging makes up 13 percent of containers and
packaging generation and 20 percent of discards. Plastic bags, sacks, and wraps are five percent of
generation and nine percent of discards. Although steel and aluminum containers and packaging have
high recovery rates (see Table 17), each account for two to three percent of generation and discards.
This is due to the relatively small amounts of these products generated.
91
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 15. Nondurable goods generated and discarded*
in municipal solid waste, 2011
(In percent of total generation and discards)
Textiles
17.4%
Rubbers leather
2.0%
Plastics
12.7%
Other
5.7%
Papers
paperboard
62.2%
Generation
8.9%
Textiles
22.9%
Papers
paperboard
46.7%
Rubbers leather
3.2%
Plastics
19.7%
Discards
'Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery.
92
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 16. Containers and packaging materials generated and discarded4
in municipal solid waste, 2011
(In percent of total generation and discards)
Wood, other
13.7%
Plastics
18.4% \
Metals
5.3%
Glass ^^
1230/0 Generation
Paper&
paperboard
50.3%
Wood, other
21.4%
Plastics
32.5%
Paper&
paperboard
25.1%
Glass
16.4%
Metals
4.7%
Discards
*Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery.
93
-------
Chapter 2
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 17. Containers and packaging generated and discarded*
in municipal solid waste, 2011
(In percent of total generation and discards)
Wood Packaging
13%
Plastic Bags, Sacks, Wraps
5% A
HOPE Bottles- Natural
1%
Aluminum Packaging
2%
Steel Packaging
3%
Other Bottles and Jars
3%
Wine and Liquor Bottles
2%
PET Bottles and Jars
4%
Other Plastic Packaging
6%
Other Plastic Containers
3%
Miscellaneous Packaging
1%
I
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
7%
.Corrugated Cardboard
39%
Non-Corrugated Paper
Packaging
11%
Generation
Wood Packaging
20%
Plastic Bags, Sacks, Wraps
9%
HOPE Bottles - Natural
2%
Aluminum Packaging
3%
Steel Packaging
2%
Other Bottles and Jars
5%
Miscellaneous Packaging
1%
.Corrugated Cardboard
7%
r
Non-Corrugated Paper
Packaging
18%
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
9%
Other Plastic Containers
4%
Other Plastic Packaging
12%
Wine and Liquor Bottles
3%
PET Bottles and Jars
5%
Discards*
-------
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 2011 was 250.4 million tons, which was
less than the 253.6 million tons generated in 2005. 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 28.0 percent of total generation. Generation of paper and paperboard
products declined from 87.7 million tons in 2000 to 70.0 million tons in 2011.
Generation of newspapers has been declining since 2000, and this trend is expected to
continue, partly due to decreased page size, but mainly 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 36 and 28 percent
of generation since 2000.
• Yard trimmings comprised the third largest material category, estimated at 33.7 million
tons, or 13.5 percent of total generation, in 2011. 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.
• Plastic products generation in 2011 was 31.8 million tons, or 12.7 percent of
generation. This was an increase of 930,000 tons from 2007 to 2011. This increase in
plastics generation came from durable goods and the containers and packaging
categories. Although plastics generation has grown from 8.2 percent of generation in
1990 to 12.7 percent in 2011, plastic generation as a percent of total generation has
remained fairly steady over the past three years.
95
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
• In 2011, an estimated 3.4 million tons of selected consumer electronics were
generated. This represents less than 2 percent of MSW generation. Selected consumer
electronics include products such as TVs, VCRs, DVD players, video cameras, stereo
systems, telephones, and computer equipment.
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 (28.5 percent of generation) to 86.9
million tons in 2011 (34.7 percent of generation).
• Recovery of paper and paperboard products, the largest component of recovery,
increased from 16.9 percent in 1960 to 42.8 percent in 2000 to 65.6 percent in 2011.
• 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.
• Newspaper/mechanical paper recovery rate increased from 71.6 percent to 72.5
percent between 2010 and 2011. Prior to 2010, newspaper recovery was reported
separately from mechanical papers (and therefore not comparable to earlier years).
Newspaper/mechanical paper generation decreased from 9.9 million tons to 9.2 million
tons from 2010 to 2011.
• Containers and packaging recovery increased from 33.9 million tons in 2007 to 38.3
million tons in 2011; percentage recovery increased from 43.3 percent to 50.7 percent.
• Nondurable goods recovery decreased from 21 million tons in 2007 to 18.8 million
tons in 2011. However, due to decreased generation, the percentage recovery of
nondurable goods increased from 34.0 percent to 36.5 percent.
• Selected consumer electronics recovery increased to 850,000 tons (24.9 percent
recovery rate). This is up from the 2010 recovery rate for selected consumer
electronics, which was 19.6 percent. The higher rate for the 2011 figure is due
primarily to better data, rather than a sudden growth in recycling.
96
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
• Measured by tonnage, the most recovered products and materials in 2011 were
corrugated boxes (26.8 million tons), yard trimmings (19.3 million tons), mixed
nondurable paper products (10.6 million tons), newspapers/mechanical papers (6.6
million tons), glass containers (3.2 million tons), lead-acid batteries (2.8 million tons),
major appliances (2.6 million tons), wood packaging (2.4 million tons), tires (2.1
million tons), and mixed paper containers and packaging (1.9 million tons).
Collectively, these products accounted for 90 percent of total MSW recovery in 2011.
• Measured by percentage of generation, products with the highest recovery rates in
2011 were lead-acid batteries (96.2 percent), corrugated boxes (91.0 percent),
newspapers/mechanical papers (72.5 percent), steel packaging (72.0 percent), major
appliances (64.2 percent), yard trimmings (57.3 percent), aluminum cans (54.5
percent), mixed nondurable paper products (46.6 percent), tires (44.6 percent), and
glass packaging (34.2 percent).
Long Term Trends
• Generation of MSW has increased (except in recession years), from 88.1 million tons
in 1960 to 250.4 million tons in 2011. After 2007, generation decreased due to the
depressed economy. Generation decreased 4.8 percent between 2007 and 2009
followed by a rise in generation of 2.5 percent from 2009 to 2011.
• 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 70.0
million tons in 2011. 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
(34.7 percent) reflects an increase in the infrastructure for recovery and expansion of
domestic and foreign markets over the last decade.
97
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
• Recovery (as a percentage of generation) of most materials in MSW has increased
dramatically over the last 41 years. Some examples:
1970 1980 1990 2000 2011
Paper and paperboard 15% 21% 28% 43% 66%
Glass 1% 5% 20% 23% 28%
Metals 4% 8% 24% 35% 34%
Plastics Neg. <1% 2% 6% 8%
Yard trimmings Neg. Neg. 12% 52% 57%
Selected Consumer
Electronics 10% 25%
Lead-acid batteries 76% 70% 97% 93% 96%
Neg. = less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
98
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
CHAPTER 2
REFERENCES
GENERAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988). EPA/530-SW-88-033. NTIS PB88-232780/WEP. March 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States, 1960 to 2000. 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.
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 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/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.
ALUMINUM CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING
The Aluminum Association. Aluminum Statistical Review. Various years.
99
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
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 (PFA). 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.
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.
100
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Dann, Carolyn. End-of-Life Electronics Equipment Pilot Collection Program Summary Report -
Alachua County, Florida. October 1999. Center for Environmental Communications.
Daoud, David. Inside the U.S. Electronics Recycling Industry. IDC 2011.
http://www.isri.org/ISRI/_Government_Relations/Electronics_Recycling/ISRI/_Government_Relatio
ns
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.
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. w w w. materials4future. o r g.
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
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.
101
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
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.
102
-------
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 WASTE
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.
www.ciwmb.ca.gov/.
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.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Identifying, Quantifying, and Mapping Food
Residuals from Connecticut Businesses and Institutions. Draper/Lennon, Inc. September, 2001.
Davis Joint Unified School District Food Waste Diversion Project: Final Report. July 6, 2001.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/Food/CaseStudies/Contracts/2000/Davis2.pdf
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.
103
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
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." BioCycle. July 1995.
Marion, James, New York State Department of Corrections. Presentation at the BioCycle conference.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1994.
Massachusetts DEP. Identification, Characterization, and Mapping of Food Waste and Food Waste
Generators In Massachusetts, Final Report September 2002.
Mecklenburg County, NC. Food Waste Diversion Study Final Report March 2012.
http://charmeck.org/mecklenburg/county/SolidWaste/homecomposting/Documents/Food%20Waste%
20Divers
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.
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.
104
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Personal communication with Brian Mathews Senior Program Manager StopWaste.org. Alameda
County, CA. January 2008.
Personal communication with Bruce Bowers Environmental Manager. Barley-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.
San Francisco Department of the Environment. Waste Characterization Study. Environmental
Science Associates (ESA). August 2005.
San Franciso Recycling Program. School Study. 2000-2001. Final Report. IWM-C9061B
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/Food/CaseStudies/Contracts/2000/sanfran2.pdf
Savage, George M. "The History and Utility of Waste Characterization Studies." MSW Management.
May/June 1994.
Segelken, Roger. "Helping clear the air on food-scrap composting". Cornell Chronicle Vol. 28,
Number 10. October 24, 1996.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/96/10.24.96/food_composting.html
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
Union County, PA. Technical Assistance Project. April 1, 2005.
http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Waste/Recycling/RecyclingPortalFiles/union.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
105
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
U.S. Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. "Characteristics of the Group Quarters Population by
Group Quarters Type. 2011 American Community Survey." S2601B.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Estimating and Addressing America's Food Losses." Economic
Research Service, www.econ.ag.gov/. July 1997.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1996." Economic
Research Service. Judith Jones Putnam. April 1996.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Combined Annual and Revised Monthly
Retail Trade." Current Business Reports. BR/95-RV.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports. Various years.
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. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics
Database. May 2011. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_721100.htm#00-0000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5. Best Management Practices in Food Scraps
Programs. December 2010.
http://www.foodscrapsrecovery.com/EP A_FoodWasteReport_EI_Region5_vll_Final.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "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
106
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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
WRAP. United Kingdom. Food Waste Report The Food We Waste. April 2008.
http://wrap.s3.amazonaws.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/ufurnl.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
GLASS CONTAINERS
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. "State of Recycling in Arkansas 2007-2008."
January 2009. http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/solwaste/branch recycling/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
107
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.pdf
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/Recycling/Documents/The%20Eighth%20Annual%20Report%20RP
AC%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, 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.
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
108
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Nevada. Division of Environmental Protection. 2009 Recycling Rate in Nevada
http://nevadarecycles.gov/doc/nvrate09.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
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.orange.nc.us/recycling/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.aspx7fileticket=7 dqcFOrOZgO%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. "OI NA 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 Conservation Committee. Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Baseline.
May 16, 1979.
Resource Recycling, Container Recycling Update. Various issues.
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/lwm/recycle/pubs/swm09_small.pdf
109
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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
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/recycle/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.
Miller, Chaz. Lead-Acid Batteries. Waste 360 online. April 1, 2009.
http://waste360.com/Recycling_And_Processing/lead-acid-batteries-most-recycled-product-200904
Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. Motorcycle Statistical Annual. Various years.
110
-------
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 Automobile Dealers Association. NADA. Data 2011. State of the Industry Report.
http://www.nada.org/NR/rdonlyres/0798BE2A-9291-44BF-A126-
OD372FC89B 8 A/O/NAD A_DATA_08222011.pdf
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
U.S. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Various years.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/
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
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Products Containing Lead and
Cadmium in Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000. EPA/530-SW-89-015A.
NTIS PB89-151039/WEP. January 1989.
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.
Ill
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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. 1971 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.
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.
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.
112
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
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.
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.
Recycling Advisory Council. Special Task Force on Standards and Definitions Recycled Paper
Committee. Evaluation of Proposed New Recycled Paper Standards and Definitions. January 27,
1992.
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 Thermo setting &
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.plasticbagrecycling.Org/08.0/2006Report.pdf
American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. 2008 National Postconsumer Report on Non-Bottle
Rigid Plastic Recycling. http://www. americanchemistry. com/s plastics/index, asp
American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. 2008 United States National Postconsumer Plastics
Bottle Recycling Report, http://www.americanchemistry.eom/s plastics/index.asp
American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. Plastic Packaging Resins. March 2007.
113
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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
Modem 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 Aaron Aragon, Program Manager, U.S. Department of Justice,
UNICOR Federal Prison Industries. September 30, October 24 and October 27, 2008.
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.
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.
SWICO Recycling 2010 Activity Report.
http://www.swicorecycling.ch/pdf/SWI_Taetigkeitsbericht_e_10.pdf
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.
International Tire and Rubber Association, Inc. formerly American Retreader's Association, Inc.
Louisville, Kentucky.
114
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
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/
Modem Tire Dealer. "2011 Was a Great Year for Retreading." January 17, 2012.
http://www.moderntiredealer.com/news/story/2012/01/2011-was-a-great-year-for-retreading-
still, aspx
National Automobile Dealers Association. NADA. Data 2011. State of the Industry Report.
http://www.nada.org/NR/rdonlyres/0798BE2A-9291-44BF-A126-
OD372FC89B 8 A/O/NAD A_DATA_08222011.pdf
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. U.S. Scrap Tire Management Summary 2005 -2009. October
2011. http://www.rma.org/scrap_tires/scrap_tire_markets/2009_summary.pdf
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.
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.
115
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
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."
116
-------
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.
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.
117
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
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.
Buchlmann U, Araman PA, Bush RJ. "Pallet Re-Use and Recycling Saves High Value Material from
Landfills." Engagement Matters, Virginia Cooperative Extension Journal, Virginia 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
118
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
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 2008.pd
f
California Integrated Waste Management Board. "Detailed Characterization of Commercial Self-Haul
and Drop-box Waste" Cascadia Consulting Group. June 2006.
119
-------
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.
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 recycle/data/average state msw statistics fy2008.pdf
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/Recycling/Documents/The%20Eighth%20Annual%20Report%20RP
AC%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
120
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
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 II." 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." RWBeck. October 1998.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment. "State of Kansas Waste Characterization Study."
Engineering Solutions & Design, Inc. March 2003.
Keep America Beautiful, Inc. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the
Year 2000. Appendix J and Appendix K. September 1994.
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. "Statewide Solid Waste Management Report - 2008
Update." http://waste.ky.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.
121
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Matt Flechter, Recycling/Composting
Coordinator.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Lisa Mojsiej, BIT.
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
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.
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/recovery/materialrecovery.htm
122
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
Personal communication with selected State Officials and state websites. Various years.
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.
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/docs/es/docs/recycle/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 II." BioCycle. May 1995.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America, Part II." 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.hazardouswaste.utah.gov/Solid Waste Section/Adobe/SolidWaste/Compost List.pdf
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/recycle/documents/AnnualReport-RRR2008Final.pdf
Wake County, N.C. Solid Waste Management. "Wake County Waste Characterization Study." RW
Beck. April 1999.
123
-------
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Washington Department of Ecology. "Generation, Recycling and Per Capita data (1986-2008)."
2009. http://www.ecy.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/recycle/recycleldfrept/index.html
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. "Wisconsin Statewide Waste Characterization Study."
Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. May 2003.
124
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
CHAPTER 3
MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
INTRODUCTION
EPA's integrated waste management hierarchy, depicted below, includes the following four
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.
Waste Management Hierarchy
Source Reduction & Reuse
Recycling / Composting
Treatment
<• & Disposal
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. The
four components are put into context in Figure 18.
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.
125
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 18. Diagram of solid waste management
Changes in
package
design
t ,
I
Changes in
purchasing
habits
!,
I
Generation
of waste for
management
Changes in
industrial
practices
A
i
Backyard Increased Other
composting, reuse changes in
grasscycling use patterns
Recovery for
recycling (including
composting)
t ,.
i
Combustion
with energy
recovery
SOURCE REDUCTION
Landfill/Other
disposal
WASTE REDUCTION
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 4.40 pounds
per day. An effective way to stop this trend is by preventing waste from being generated in the first
place.
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
126
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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 waste, yard trimmings) through backyard
composting or other on-site alternatives to disposal.
127
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 24
SELECTED EXAMPLES OF SOURCE REDUCTION PRACTICES
Source Reduction Practice
Durable
Goods
MSW Product Categories
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
• Concentrates
• Regular servicing
• Look at warranties
• Extend warranties
• 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
concentrated products
• Purchasing
products in bulk
• Reusable bags
• Food donation
Reuse ;iiKlililililililililiiiiiiiiii^^
By design
Secondary
• Modular design
• Borrower rent for
temporary use
• Give to charity
• Buyorsell 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
Q • /~ii.-.,»M:~—
Food scraps
Yard trimmings
• Backyard composting
• Verm i-com posting
• Backyard composting
•Grasscycling
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 2011, an
128
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
aluminum beverage can weighs 0.462 ounces; down from 0.546 ounces per can in 1996 (over a 15
percent reduction).
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.
Dining services across the country are finding significant reductions in food waste simply by
going trayless. Trayless dining has on average, reduced post-consumer plate waste by 30 percent.
129
-------
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 manufacture,
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 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.
130
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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. According to a 2011 USA Today article, hundreds of
brewpubs, breweries and even grocery stores are cashing in on the growing popularity 64-ounce
refillable glass bottles called growlers.4
Another example in this category is the use of refurbished wood pallets for shipping palletized
goods. It is estimated that over 10 million tons of wood pallets were refurbished and returned to
service in 2011. 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.
Management of Organic Materials
Food waste and yard trimmings combined made up about 28 percent of MSW generation in
2011, 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,
4 Canfield, Clarke. "Reusable 'growlers' grow popular for carrying draft beer." October, 18, 2011. USA Today.
131
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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, 11 states and the District of Columbia (amounting to
over 28 percent of the nation's population) had in effect legislation affecting management of yard
trimmings. By 2011, 22 states (amounting to about 40 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.
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.
132
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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 2011, more than 9,800 curbside recyclables collection
programs were reported in the United States. As shown in Table 25 and Figure 19, the extent of
residential curbside recycling programs varies by geographic region, with the most extensive curbside
collection occurring in the Northeast.
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 65 percent of curbside recyclables collection
programs were single-stream in 2010.5 These programs require that the materials be taken to a
materials recovery facility (MRF) for processing.
In 2011, over 70 percent of the U.S. population had access to curbside recyclables collection
programs (based on data from states representing 71.2 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.6 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 59 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.
AF&PA. "2010AF&PA Community Survey Executive Summary." This report also estimated that 63 percent of the
U.S. population is served by curbside recyclables collection.
6 American Beverage Association. "2008 ABA Community Survey. Final Report." September 2009.
133
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 25
NUMBER AND POPULATION SERVED BY
CURBSIDE RECYCLABLES COLLECTION PROGRAMS, 2011
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
Total
Total U.S. Population
Number of
Programs
3,465
1,692
3,706
1,004
9,867
Population*
(in thousands)
47,380
91 ,374
40,019
43,215
221,989
311,592
Population Served
(in thousands)
40,430
71,950
23,850
25,630
161,860
Percent**
85%
79%
60%
59%
73%
* Fbpulation 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 State of Garbage data received August 2010, BioCycle The State of Garbage in America.
October 2010, and data from the following state agency websites: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Figure 19. Population served by curbside recycling, 2011
100
90
80
70
60
r 50
40
30
20
10
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
U.S. Census Bureau, BioCycle State of Garbage data received August 2010, BioCycle The State of Garbage in America. October 2010, and data from the following state agency
websites: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington,and Wisconsin.
134
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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 2010, the "2010 AF&PA Community
Survey Executive Summary" estimated over 21,000 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, 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. Ten states have container deposit systems: California, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont (Figure 20). 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
states with deposit legislation7, and an additional 20 percent of recovered beverage containers come
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.
7 Delaware deposit legislation was repealed by Senate Bill 234. Deposit collection ceased on December 1, 2010.
http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/usa/delaware.htm
135
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Containers recovered through these programs eventually are credited to the distributor and counted
towards the redemption rate.)
Figure 20. States With Bottle Deposit Rules
Source: Container Recycling Institute, 2011.
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.
136
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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.
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 2011, 633 MRFs were operating in the United States, with an estimated total daily throughput of
over 98,000 tons per day (Table 26). The most extensive recyclables processing throughput occurs in
the Northeast and Midwest (Figure 21).
Table 26
MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITIES (MRF), 2011
Estimated
Throughput
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
U.S. Total
Number
153
195
153
132
633
(tpd)
27,186
24,754
23,118
23,391
98,449
Source: Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. Data provided
July 2011.
137
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 21. Estimated MRF throughput, 2011
(Tons per day per million persons)
DUU •
cnn -
DUU
C/3
£=
O
C3 /inn -
ns/daythroughput/million pe
I\D CO -t
O O C
O O C
100 -
o -
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. Data provided July 2011.
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.
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 22. Mixed waste processing facilities receive mixed solid waste (including recyclable and non-
138
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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 2011, there
were reported 43 mixed waste processing facilities in the U.S., handling about 46,700 tons of waste
per day. The Western region has the largest concentration of these processing facilities (representing
almost 90 percent of the daily throughput).
Figure 22. Mixed waste processing estimated throughput, 2011
(tons per day per million persons)
600
C/3
O
® 400
2L 300
a.
en
03
T3
200
100
0
Northeast South Midwest West
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. Data provided July 2011.
139
-------
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 waste and yard trimmings, wood, and other materials. In 2011, there were 12 mixed waste
composting facilities, the same number of facilities reported in 2009.
Nationally, mixed waste composting facilities handled about 1,400 tons per day in 2011, up
from 1,100 tons per day in 2009. In 2011, the highest processing capacity per million persons was
found in the West and Midwest, as shown in Figure 23.
Figure 23. MSW composting capacity, 2011
(Capacity in tons per day per million persons)
8
£ 6
o
£2
CD
CL
£= C
°
A
CL 4
^*,
1
CL
2 3
o
c o
o 2
o
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; BioCycle, November2011, Medina County, Ohio
and WestWendover, Nevada websites.
140
-------
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 2011, about 3,090 yard
trimmings composting programs were documented from a search of state environmental websites. In
2011, about 50 percent of these programs were in the Midwest region, as shown in Figure 24. Based
on 19.3 million tons of yard trimmings recovered for composting in the United States (Table 2,
Chapter 2), yard trimmings composting facilities handled approximately 52,900 tons per day in 2011.
Figure 24. Yard trimmings composting facilities, 2011
(In number of facilities)
1,600
1,400
1,200
» 1,000
o
03
CD
-Q
E
800
600
400
200
0
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Source: Internet search: includes data for 47 states and the District of Columbia.
141
-------
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 2011 design capacity of about 96,200 tons per day. There were 86 WTE facilities
in 2011 (Table 27), down from 102 in 2000. In tons of capacity per million persons, the Northeast
region had the most MSW combustion capacity in 2011 (Figure 25).
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 3.3 million tons of MSW were combusted in this manner in 2011, with tires
contributing a majority of the total.
Table 27
MUNICIPAL WASTE-TO-ENERGY PROJECTS, 2011
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
t/.S. Total*
Number
Operational
40
22
16
8
86
Design
Capacity
(tpd)
46,704
31,896
1 1 ,393
6,171
96,164
* Projects on hold or inactive were not included.
WTE includes mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived
fuel combustion facilities.
Source: "The 2010 ERG Directory of Waste-to-Energy Hants." Energy Recovery Council
(ERG). December 2010.
142
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 25. Municipal waste-to-energy capacity, 2011
(Capacity in tons per million persons)
auu
800 -
700 -
01 ' UU
c
o
c/>
a. 600 •
C
g
1 500 -
05
Q.
^ 400 •
1
to
£ 300 -
to
T3
1 20° •
1 nn -
I UU
o •
Northeast South Midwest West
Source: U.S.Census Bureau, Energy Recovery Council (ERG). December 2010.
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
143
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
counted as MSW in this report because it generally is managed separately8. (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 2011, there were 1,908 municipal solid waste landfills reported in the United States. Table
28 and Figure 26 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.
Table 28
LANDFILL FACILITIES, 2011
Number of
Landfills
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
U.S. Total
128
668
394
718
1,908
Source: BioCycle October 2010. Latest report available.
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.
144
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 26. Number of landfills in the U.S., 2011
800
600
T3
03
400
_Q
E
200
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Source: BioCycle October 2010. Latest report available.
RECYCLING AND JOB CREATION
A recent Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) report noted that the scrap recycling
industry in 2011, indirectly and directly created 459,140 jobs with $26 billion in wages and $90.1
billion in economic activity. That amounts to 137,640 direct jobs by the manufacturing and brokerage
operations of the scrap recycling industry in the United States that includes purchasing, processing
and brokering of scrap materials made of ferrous and nonferrous metals, paper, electronics, rubber,
plastics, glass and textiles. These jobs paid an average wage and benefits of $66,704.
The Tellus Institute prepared the 2011 More Jobs, Less Pollution: Growing the Recycling
Economy in the U.S. that noted a possible 1.5 million more jobs could be created with the doubling of
the recycling rate over the next two decades. In the late 1990's and early 2000's, EPA carried out the
U.S. Recycling Economic Information Project to establish the Jobs through Recycling and recycling
economic analysis efforts across the country. From early EPA community case study efforts, the
Institute for Local Self Reliance developed these initial job creation estimates:
145
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Jobs per
Type of Operation 10.000 TPY
Product Reuse
Computer Reuse 296
Textile Reclamation 85
Misc. Durables Reuse 62
Wooden Pallet Repair 28
Recycling-based Manufacturers 25
Paper Mills 18
Glass Product Manufacturers 26
Plastic Product Manufacturers 93
Conventional Materials Recovery Facilities 10
Composting 4
Landfill and Incineration 1
Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Washington, DC. 1997.
The estimation of economic impacts of recycling and source reductions has been carried on by
various states and regional entities completing their own studies since EPA's seminal work.
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 27.
Historically, municipal solid waste generation has grown steadily (from 88.1 million tons in
1960 to 250.4 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 27 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.
146
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 27. Municipal solid waste management, 1960 to 2011
300
250
200
150
100
50 -
Recovery of the composting
component of recycling
Combustion
with energy-tgcoyery
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011
Recovery has increased steadily. Combustion with energy recovery, as a percentage of
generation, has been declining (11.7 percent of generation in 2011). MSW discards to landfills rose to
about 142.3 million tons in 2005, and then declined to 134.3 million tons in 2011. As a percentage of
total MSW generation, discards to landfills or other disposal has consistently decreased-from 88.6
percent of generation in 1980 to 53.6 percent in 2011.
147
-------
Chapter 3
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 29
GENERATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING, COMBUSTION,
AND DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2011
(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 disposal!
1960
88,120
5,610
5,610
82,510
0
82,510
1970
1 21 ,060
8,020
8,020
113,040
400
112,640
1980
151,640
14,520
14,520
137,120
2,700
134,420
1990
208,270
29,040
4,200
33,240
175,030
29,700
145,330
2000
243,450
53,010
16,450
69,460
173,990
33,730
140,260
2005
253,730
59,240
20,550
79,790
173,940
31,620
142,320
2007
256,500
63,100
21,710
84,810
171,690
31 ,970
139,720
2009
244,270
61 ,640
20,750
82,390
161,880
29,010
132,870
2010
250,500
64,960
20,170
85,130
165,370
29,260
136,110
2011
250,420
66,200
20,700
86,900
163,520
29,260
134,260
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 disposal!
Population (thousands)
1960
2.68
0.17
0.17
2.51
0.00
2.51
179,979
1970
3.25
0.22
0.22
3.03
0.01
3.02
203,984
1980
3.66
0.35
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
4.74
1.03
0.32
1.35
3.39
0.66
2.73
281,422
2005
4.69
1.10
0.38
1.48
3.21
0.58
2.63
296,410
2007
4.66
1.15
0.39
1.54
3.12
0.58
2.54
301,621
2009
4.36
1.10
0.37
1.47
2.89
0.52
2.37
307,007
2010
4.44
1.15
0.36
1.51
2.93
0.52
2.41
309,051
2011
4.40
1.16
0.37
1.53
2.87
0.51
2.36
311,592
Percent of Total Generation
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after recovery
1960
100.0%
6.4%
6.4%
93.6%
1970
100.0%
6.6%
6.6%
93.4%
1980
100.0%
9.6%
9.6%
90.4%
1990
100.0%
14.0%
2.0%
16.0%
84.0%
2000
100.0%
21 .8%
6.7%
28.5%
71.5%
2005
100.0%
23.3%
8.1%
31 .4%
68.6%
2007
100.0%
24.6%
8.5%
33.1%
66.9%
2009
100.0%
25.2%
8.5%
33.7%
66.3%
2010
100.0%
25.9%
8.1%
34.0%
66.0%
2011
100.0%
26.4%
8.3%
34.7%
65.3%
Combustion with
energy recovery**
Discards to landfill,
other disposal!
93.6%
93.1%
88.6%
57.6%
56.1%
54.4%
54.4%
54.3%
53.6%
Composting of yard trimmings, food waste 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). 2011 includes 25,930 MSW, 520 wood, and 2,810 tires (1,000 tons)
Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy recovery.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
148
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
CHAPTER 3
REFERENCES
GENERAL
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Solid Waste Management at the Crossroads. December 1997.
Institute of Scrap Recyclers Industries, Inc. (ISRI), Economic Impact Study U.S.-Based Scrap
Recycling Industry 2011, http://www.isri.org/2011scrapjobstudy
Institute for Self Reliance. Recycling Means Business. February 1, 2002.
http://www.ilsr.org/recycling-means-business/
Tellus Institute with Sound Resource Management for Recycling Works!, More Jobs, Less Pollution:
Growing the Recycling Economy in the U.S., 2011
http://www.recyclingworkscampaign.org/2011/11/more-jobs-less-pollution/
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.
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.
149
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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.
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. Materials Technology: Packaging
Design and the Environment. April 1991.
Council on Packaging in the Environment. "COPE Backgrounder: Source Reduction." March 1995.
Keep America Beautiful, Inc. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the
Year 2000. 1994.
Rattray, Tom. "Source Reduction—An Endangered Species?" Resource Recycling. November 1990.
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/pro grams/land/default. cnt
American Beverage Association. 2008 ABA Community Survey Final Report Rev. 02 September
2009. http://flrecycling.org/Resources/Downloads/American-Beverage-Association-Community-
Recycling-Survey
American Forest &Paper Association (AF&PA). 2007 AF&PA Community Survey Executive
Summary.
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). 2010 AF&PA Community Survey Executive
Summary, http://paperrecycles.0rg//news/exec summ 2010.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.
150
-------
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.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/SearchList/List?FAC=Disposal&OPSTATUS=
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/surveytables/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 survey
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/
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Yard Waste in Delaware.
http ://www. dnrec. delaware. go v/yardwaste/Pages/Default. aspx
Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination. Delaware's Municipalities.
http://stateplanning.delaware.gov/information/municipalities.shtml
District of Columbia Department of Public Works, http://dpw.dc.gov/DC/DPW/
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Florida Recycling Availability by County and
Municipality 2011.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick topics/publications/shw/recycling/2009AnnualReport/10B.pdf
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.pdf
Glenn, Jim. "MSW Composting in the United States." BioCycle. November 1997.
151
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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.
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, 2011.
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.
Hawaii Department of Health. "Report to the Twenty-Fifth Legislature State of Hawaii 2010."
December 2009.
http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/waste/sw/hi5/support/support/2010ReportToLeg.pdf
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
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Waste Management. Statewide Solid
Waste Management Report - 2010 Update.
http://waste.ky.gov/RLA/Documents/2010%20Solid%20Waste%20Summary%20Report.pdf
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/
Maine State Planning Office. Report: Residential Recycling Year: 2008.
http://www.maine.gov/spo/recvcle/docs/data/2008data/ResidentRecvcling.pdf
152
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Maine State Planning Office. Report: Single Stream Municipalities - 2010.
http://www.maine.gov/spo/recycle/docs/single%20stream/SStreamTownList.pdf
Maryland Department of the Environment. Land Publications & Reports. Recycling.
http ://www. mde. state. md .us/Pro grams/LandPro grams/Recycling/publications/
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Landfills, Transfer Stations & Compost
Sites, www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/solid/swfacil.htm
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Waste & Recycling. Massachusetts Draft
2010-2020 Solid Waste Master Plan Appendices.
http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/solid/dswmplOa.pdf
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/Recycling RecyclingDirectories?OpenDocument
Montana Department of Environmental Quality.
http://www.deq.mt.gov/Recycle/Montana Recyclables new.mcpx
Moore Recycling Associates, Inc. Plastic Recycling Collection: National Reach Study. May 2011.
http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/National-Reach-Study
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
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/recycling/recymkts 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
153
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. North Carolina Solid Waste and
Materials Management Annual Report FY 2010-2011.
http://portal.ncdenr.0rg/c/document library/get file?p 1 id=4649434&folderId=4667253&name=DL
FE-46021.pdf
North Dakota Department of Health - Division of Waste Management. 2010 Curbside Pick-Up
Programs. http://www.ndhealth.gov/WM/Pubncations/CommunityRecyclingInNorthDakota.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
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Land Protection Division. Recycling Information.
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/Recyclingindex.htm
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
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Recycling Works.
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/recycle/recywrks/recywrks3.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 Curbside Recycling Program - Earth911.com.
Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation. Rhode Island Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan, April 12, 2007 through April 12, 2012.
http://www.rirrc.org/content/index.php?id=school/links-and-fact-sheets/
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. South Carolina Solid Waste
Management Annual Report Fiscal Year 2011.
http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/recycle/annual report.htm#solidwastereport
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
154
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Sullivan, Dan. BioCycle Nationwide Survey. "Mixed Waste Composting Facilities Review."
BioCycle. November 2011.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2011 County Recycling Rankings.
http://www.tn.gov/environment/recycle/county recycling.shtml
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
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Time to Recycle - Current Residential Recycling
Programs in North Central Texas, http://www.timetorecycle.com/residential/programs.asp
The Composting Council. "MSW Composting Facilities." Fall 1995.
Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Metropolitan Environmental Trust (MET). Curbside Recycling Programs.
http://metrecycle.com/recycling/curbside/
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.hazardouswaste.utah.gov/Solid Waste Section/SolidWasteSection.htm#DisposalFacilities
van Haaren, Rob, et al. The State of Garbage in America. BioCycle October 2010.
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/SOG2010.pdf
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
Washington State Department of Ecology. Beyond Waste. Population with Access to Curbside
Recycling, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/beyondwaste/bwprog swCurbsideRecycling.html
West Virginia Department of Commerce, http://wvcommerce.org/energy/default.aspx
West Wendover, Nevada. City Residents' Guide.
http://www.westwendovercity.com/resguide/resguide.php
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Facility Lists.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/wm/faclists/WisLic SWCompost byCnty withWaste.pdf
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Responsible unit (RU) requirements.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Recycling/ru.html
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.
155
-------
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Yepsen, Rhodes and Nora Goldstein. BioCyde Nationwide Survey. "Source Separated Residential
Composting in the U.S." December 2007.
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.
Energy Recovery Council. 2010 Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants in the United States.
http://energyrecoverycouncil.org/waste-energy-resources-a2985
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.
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.
156
-------
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.
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.
157
-------
Appendix A Materials Flow Methodology
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 waste for composting are developed from data provided by state
officials and processors of these materials.
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.
158
-------
Appendix A
Materials Flow Methodology
Domestic Production
of
Materials/Products
Imports
of
Materials/Products
^£&£&K>S^fifi£&fifiS^B_
Conversion/
fabricating
Scrap
Exports
of
Materials/Products
m-f^rv-^r-f-f-f-i-^-f-f-f-f-f-f-i-^-f-s-f-f-f-f-i-^'rv
Diversion
of
Materials/Products
Municipal
Solid Waste
Generation
Temporary
Diversion
Permanent
Diversion
Figure A-1. Material flows methodology for estimating
generation of products and materials in municipal solid waste.
159
-------
Appendix A
Materials Flow Methodology
MSW
Generation
Recovery
for
Recycling
Recovery
for
Composting
T
Discards
after
Recycling
and
Composting
Recovery for
Combustion
with
Energy
Recovery
™»fc™»»!—»«
»•••••»•••
1
Recovery for
Combustion
without
Energy Recovery
mmmammmmmmmmmimmmm*z
Discards
to Landfill
and
Other
Disposal
Figure A-2. Material flows methodology for estimating
discards of products and materials in municipal solid waste.
160
-------
-------
oEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
(5306P)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |