Advancing Sustainable Materials
Management: Facts and Figures 2013
Assessing Trends in Material Generation,
Recycling and Disposal in the United States
June 2015
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (5306P)
EPA530-R-15-002
June 2015
www.epa.gov
-------
Table of Contents
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 1
OVERVIEW OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 2
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE? 5
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN PERSPECTIVE 5
Trends Over Time 5
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN 2013 5
Materials in MSW 5
Products in MSW 9
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOURCES OF MSW 13
MANAGEMENT OF MSW 13
Overview 13
Source Reduction 13
Recycling 14
Combustion with Energy Recovery 14
Disposal 14
THE BENEFITS OF RECYCLING 16
MSW GENERATION AND HOUSEHOLD SPENDING 17
C&D DEBRIS GENERATION RESULTS 18
THINKING BEYOND WASTE 21
RESOURCES 21
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 21
ENDNOTES 22
1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 23
INTRODUCTION 23
BACKGROUND 23
The Solid Waste Management Hierarchy 23
Overview of the Methodology 24
HOW THIS REPORT CAN BE USED 25
CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: IN PERSPECTIVE 27
The Two Methodologies for Characterizing MSW: Site-Specific Versus Materials Flow 27
Municipal Solid Waste Defined in Greater Detail 28
Other Subtitle D Wastes 28
Materials and Products Not Included in the MSW Estimates 30
OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT 30
CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES 31
2. CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BY WEIGHT 33
INTRODUCTION 33
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: CHARACTERIZED BY MATERIAL TYPE 34
Paper and Paperboard 38
Glass 42
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 i i
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
Ferrous Metals 43
Aluminum 46
Other Nonferrous Metals 46
Plastics 47
Other Materials 52
Food 53
Yard Trimmings 54
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 55
Summary of Materials in Municipal Solid Waste 55
PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 59
Durable Goods 60
Nondurable Goods 69
Containers and Packaging 78
Summary of Products in Municipal Solid Waste 87
SUMMARY 92
MSW Generation 92
MSW Recovery 92
Long Term Trends 93
CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES 95
General 95
Aluminum Containers and Packaging 96
Carpets and Rugs 96
Consumer Electronics 96
Disposable Diapers 99
Food 99
Furniture and Furnishings 103
Glass Containers 104
Lead-Acid Batteries 107
Major Appliances 108
Paper And Paperboard 110
Plastics 110
Rubber 112
Small Appliances 114
Steel Containers and Packaging 114
Textiles And Footwear 115
Wood Packaging 116
Yard Trimmings 117
3. MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 122
INTRODUCTION 122
SOURCE REDUCTION 123
Source Reduction through Redesign 126
Modifying Practices to Reduce Materials Use 128
Reuse of Products and Packages 128
Management of Organic Materials 130
Measuring Source Reduction 131
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 i i i
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING 131
Recyclables Collection 131
Recyclables Processing 134
COMBUSTION WITH ENERGY RECOVERY 138
RESIDUES FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES 139
LANDFILLS 140
RECYCLING AND JOB CREATION 141
SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MSW MANAGEMENT 142
CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES 145
General 145
Source Reduction 146
Recovery for Recycling and Composting 148
Combustion with Energy Recovery 154
APPENDIX A: MATERIALS FLOW METHODOLOGY 156
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION 156
CONVERTING SCRAP 156
ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPORTS/EXPORTS 156
DIVERSION 156
ADJUSTMENTS FOR PRODUCT LIFETIME 157
RECOVERY 157
DISCARDS 157
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION, RECOVERY, AND DISCARDS 157
APPENDIX B: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS GENERATION 160
INTRODUCTION 160
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS GENERATION 160
C&D Debris Generation Methodology 161
HISTORICAL CONSUMPTION DATA 166
Portland Cement Concrete 166
Wood Products 168
Gypsum Drywall and Plasters 169
Steel 169
Bricks and Clay Floor and Wall Tile 169
Asphalt Shingles 169
Asphalt Concrete 170
C&D DEBRIS GENERATION RESULTS 170
C&D GENERATION COMPOSITION 172
CONCLUSIONS 173
REFERENCES 173
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 iv
-------
List of Tables
Page
Table ES-1. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with Energy Recovery, and
Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 - 2013 3
Table ES-2. Generation, Recovery, and Discards of Materials in MSW, 2013 7
Table ES-3. Generation, Recovery, and Discards of Products in MSW by Material, 2013 11
Table ES-4. Greenhouse Gas Benefits Associated with Recovery of Specific Materials, 2013 17
Table ES-5. C&D Debris Generation by Material and Activity (million tons) 19
Table ES-6. C&D Debris Generation by Source (million tons) 20
Table 1. Materials Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013 35
Table 2. Recovery* of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013 36
Table 3. Materials Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013 37
Table 4. Paper And Paperboard Products In MSW, 2013 39
Table 5. Glass Products in MSW, 2013 42
Table 6. Metal Productions in MSW, 2013 45
Table 7. Plastics in Products In MSW, 2013 48
Table 8. Rubber And Leather Products In MSW, 2013 52
Table 9. Categories of Products Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013 61
Table 10. Recovery* of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013 62
Table 11. Categories of Products Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013 63
Table 12. Products Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013 (With Detail On
Durable Goods) 65
Table 13. Recovery* of Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013 (With Detail on Durable
Goods) 66
Table 14. Products Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2014 (With Detail on
Durable Goods) 67
Table 15. Products Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013 (With Detail on
Nondurable Goods) 72
Table 16. Recovery* of Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013 (With Detail on
Nondurable Goods) 74
Table 17. Products Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013 (With Detail on
Nondurable Goods) 76
Table 18. Products Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013 (With Detail on
Containers and Packaging) 80
Table 19. Products Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013 (With Detail on
Containers and Packaging) 81
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
List of Tables
List of Tables (Continued)
Page
Table 20. Recovery* of Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013 (With Detail on Containers
and Packaging) 82
Table 21. Recovery* of Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013 (With Detail on Containers
and Packaging) 83
Table 22. Products Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013 (With Detail on
Containers and Packaging) 84
Table 23. Products Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013 (With Detail on
Containers and Packaging) 85
Table 24. Selected Examples of Source Reduction Practices 124
Table 25. Residential Food Collection and Composting Programs in the U.S., 2013 132
Table 26. Material Recovery Facilities (MRF), 2013 135
Table 27. Municipal Waste-To-Energy Projects, 2013 139
Table 28. Landfill Facilities, 2013 140
Table 29. Jobs Created through Reuse, Recycling, and Disposal 142
Table 30. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion, and Discards of Municipal
Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013 144
Table B-l. Percent of Material Discarded during Construction 162
Table B-2. Lifespan of Construction Materials by Source (Years) 162
Table B-3. U.S. Annual C&D Brick Debris Generation using Cochran and Townsend's (2010) Method
to Calculate Demolition Debris Generation (Tons) 164
Table B-4. U.S. Annual C&D Debris Generation from Bricks using Average Demolition Debris
Generation over the Range of Material's Useful Life (Tons) 165
Table B-5. C&D Debris Generation by Source (Tons) 171
Table B-6. C&D Debris Generation by Material and Activity (Tons) 172
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 vi
-------
List of Figures
Page
Figure ES-1. MSW Generation Rates, 1960 to 2013 4
Figure ES-2. MSW Recycling Rates, 1960 to 2013 4
Figure ES-3. Materials Generation in MSW, 2013 6
Figure ES-4. Materials Recovery in MSW, 2013 8
Figure ES-5. Material Discards* in MSW, 2013 8
Figure ES-6. Containers and Packaging Generated in MSW, 2013 12
Figure ES-7. Containers and Packaging Discarded* in MSW, 2013 12
Figure ES-8. National Landfill Tipping Fees, 1982-2013 ($2013 per ton) 15
Figure ES-9. Management of MSW in the United States, 2013 16
Figure ES-10. Indexed MSW Generated and Real PCE overTime (1960-2013) 18
Figure ES-11. C&D Generation Composition by Material, 2013 19
Figure ES-12. Contribution of Construction and Demolition Phases to Total 2013 C&D Generation 20
Figure 1-A. Municipal Solid Waste in the Universe of Subtitle D Wastes 29
Figure 1-B. Definition of Terms 29
Figure 2. Paper and Paperboard Products Generated in MSW, 2013 38
Figure 3. Paper and Paperboard Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2013 40
Figure 4. Glass Products Generated in MSW, 2013 42
Figure 5. Glass Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2013 43
Figure 6. Metal Products Generated in MSW, 2013 44
Figure 7. Metals Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2013 46
Figure 8. Plastics Products Generated in MSW, 2013 47
Figure 9. Plastics Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2013 51
Figure 10. Generation of Materials in MSW, 1960 to 2013 56
Figure 11. Recovery and Discards of Materials in MSW, 1960 to 2013 57
Figure 12. Materials Recovery in MSW,* 2013 58
Figure 13. Materials Generated and Discarded* in MSW, 2013 59
Figure 14. Generation of Products in MSW, 1960 to 2013 88
Figure 15. Nondurable Goods Generated and Discarded* in MSW, 2013 89
Figure 16. Containers and Packaging Materials Generated, Recovered, and Discarded* in Municipal
Solid Waste, 2013 90
Figure 17. Containers and Packaging Generated, Recovered, and Discarded* in Municipal Solid
Waste, 2013 91
Figure 18. Diagram of Solid Waste Management 123
Figure 19. States with Bottle Deposit Rules 134
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 vi i
-------
List of Figures
List of Figures (Continued)
Page
Figure 20. Estimated MRF Throughput, 2013 135
Figure 21. Mixed Waste Processing Estimated Throughput, 2013 136
Figure 22. MSW Composting Capacity, 2013 137
Figure 23. Yard Trimmings Composting Facilities, 2013 138
Figure 24. Municipal Waste-To-Energy Capacity, 2013 139
Figure 25. Number of landfills in the U.S., 2013 141
Figure 26. Municipal Solid Waste management, 1960 to 2013 143
Figure A-l. Materials Flow Methodology for Estimating Generation of Products and Materials in
Municipal Solid Waste 158
Figure A-2. Materials Flow Methodology for Estimating Discards of Products and Materials in
Municipal Solid Waste 159
Figure B-l. Materials Flow Diagram for Construction, Renovation, and Demolition 161
Figure B-2. Comparison of Total C&D Debris Generation for Bricks 166
Figure B-3. C&D Debris Generated in 2013 by Material and Source 171
Figure B-4. Contribution of Construction and Demolition Phases to Total 2013 C&D Debris
Generation 172
Figure B-5. C&D Generation Composition by Material 173
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 viii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has collected and reported data on the generation and
disposal of waste in the United States for more than 30 years. We use this information to measure the
success of waste reduction and recycling programs across the country. These facts and figures are
current through calendar year 2013.
Formerly called Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: Facts and Figures, this report's new name
emphasizes the importance of Sustainable Materials Management (SMM). The new name also reflects
continuing efforts to expand, improve, and enhance the report with new information on source
reduction (waste prevention), historical landfill tipping fees for municipal solid waste (MSW), and
construction and demolition (C&D) debris generation.
EPA's 2009 report, Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land
Management Practices, shows that approximately 42 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
are associated with materials management. This includes the extraction or harvest of materials and
food, production and transport of goods, provision of services, and end of life management. These
GHG emissions can be reduced through materials recovery. In 2013, the 87 million tons of MSW
recycled and composted provided an annual reduction of 186 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions, comparable to the annual emissions from over 39 million passenger cars.
As the new name for our annual report suggests, EPA is thinking beyond waste. We are transitioning
from focusing on waste management to focusing on Sustainable Materials Management. SMM refers
to the use and reuse of materials in the most productive and sustainable way across their entire life
cycle. SMM conserves resources, reduces waste, slows climate change, and minimizes the
environmental impacts of the materials we use.
In an era of limitless business ingenuity but limited resources, the sustainable management of natural
capital is increasingly at the forefront of international dialogue about how to achieve economic growth
without compromising human health and the environment upon which that growth depends. By
looking across the life cycle, businesses can find opportunities that enhance and sustain their value
proposition and reduce risk through sustainably managing materials.
According to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), "Humans are consuming resources and
producing waste at a greater scale than ever before and per capita consumption levels are projected to
increase with continued development." For every 1 percent increase in GDP, resource use has risen 0.4
percent.1 Data indicate that global material resource use during the 20th century rose at about twice
the rate of population. The growth rate in materials use was still lower than the pace of growth of the
world economy. Despite some decoupling of economic growth and materials use, questions remain
about the extent to which economic and environmental policies have impacted this decoupling.2
Nevertheless, resource use is still on a steep rise and this decoupling is insufficient to overcome the
even higher demands we face in the future given projections around future world population growth,
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 1
-------
Executive Summary
economic growth and energy and material consumption.3 The United States consumed 46 percent
more materials on a per capita basis in the year 2000 than in 1975 (see Figure ES-1). In the global
context, the total volume of material resources extracted or harvested worldwide reached nearly 60
billion metric tons per year in 2007, with nonrenewable resource extraction accounting for 60 percent
of global extraction.4 According to the World Resources Institute, "one half to three quarters of annual
resource inputs to industrial economies is returned to the environment as wastes within just one
year."5
While EPA is currently updating the U.S. Recycling Economic Information (REI) Study which is due out
later this year, our 2001 study showed we have domestic capacity to process 2 billion pounds of soda
bottles, yet currently we only collect 1.4 billion annually. And there is growing demand for more
recycled plastic. The aluminum industry is eager for more aluminum cans - yet in the U.S. we dispose
of nearly half of our cans, which by the way are valued at nearly $1 billion.6 Glass recycling capacity
exceeds supply. Paper recycling is available to 96 percent of Americans.7 The structure is in place for
steel can recycling. All of the materials collected are used in recycling, and the forecast is for this
demand to increase.
Overview of Municipal Solid Waste
In the United States, we generated 254 million tons (U.S. short tons unless specified) of MSW in 2013—
3 million tons more than generated in 2012. MSW generation in 2013 increased to 4.40 pounds per
person per day. This is an increase of less than 1 percent from 2012 to 2013.
About 87 million tons of MSW were recycled and composted. Excluding composting, 65 million tons of
MSW were recycled, similar to the tons recycled in 2012. The tons of food and yard trimmings
recovered for composting were 22 million tons in 2013, an increase of 1 million tons compared to
2012. The recovery rate for recycling (including composting) was 34.3 percent in 2013, slightly lower
than the 34.5 percent in 2012. (See Table ES-1.) The recycling rate in 2013 (including composting) was
1.51 pounds per person per day. This is 1.12 pounds per person per day for recycling and 0.39 pounds
per person per day for composting.
Three materials whose recycling rates rose from 2012 to 2013 are yard trimmings, selected consumer
electronics, and food. In 2013, the rate of yard trimmings composting was 60.2 percent (20.60 million
tons), up from 57.7 percent (19.59 million tons). This translates to 130 pounds per person per year of
yard trimmings composted in 2013. In 2013, the rate of selected consumer electronics recovery was
40.4 percent (1.27 million tons) up from 30.6 percent in 2012 (1.00 million tons). This translates to 8
pounds per person per year recovered in 2013. In 2013, the rate of food recovery was 5.0 percent (1.84
million tons), up from 4.8 percent in 2012 (1.74 million tons). This translates to 12 pounds per person
per year composted in 2013. Over the last few years, EPA has been heavily invested in these areas.
Figures ES-1 and ES-2 show a decrease in MSW generation and an increase in recycling from 2000 to
2013. 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-1. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with
Energy Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 - 2013
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
I Thousands of Tons
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2009 2011 2012 2013
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for
composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after recovery
Combustion with
energy recovery**
Discards to landfill,
other disposal^
88,120
5,610
Neg.
5,610
82,510
0
82,510
^^^•^H
| | 1960
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for
composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after recovery
Combustion with
energy recovery**
Discards to landfill,
other disposal^
Population (thousands)
2.68
0.17
Neg.
0.17
2.51
0.00
2.51
179,979
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
151,640
14,520
Neg.
14,520
137,120
2,700
134,420
208,270
29,040
4,200
33,240
175,030
29,700
145,330
243,450
53,010
16,450
69,460
173,990
33,730
140,260
253,730
59,240
20,550
79,790
173,940
31,620
142,320
244,600
61,890
20,750
82,640
161,960
29,010
132,950
250,540
66,400
20,570
86,970
163,570
31,800
131,770
251,040
65,240
21,330
86,570
164,470
32,200
132,270
254,110
64,740
22,440
87,180
166,930
32,660
134,270
Pounds per Person per Day |
1980 1990 2000 2005 2009 2011 2012 2013
3.66
0.35
Neg.
0.35
3.31
0.07
3.24
227,255
4.57
0.64
0.09
0.73
3.84
0.65
3.19
249,907
4.74
1.03
0.32
1.35
3.39
0.66
2.73
281,422
4.69
1.10
0.38
1.48
3.21
0.58
2.63
296,410
4.37
1.10
0.37
1.47
2.90
0.52
2.38
307,007
4.41
1.17
0.36
1.53
2.88
0.56
2.32
311,592
4.38
1.14
0.37
1.51
2.87
0.56
2.31
313,914
4.40
1.12
0.39
1.51
2.89
0.57
2.32
316,129
1 Percent of Total Generation
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2009 2011 2012 2013
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for
composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after recovery
Combustion with
100.0%
6.4%
Neg.
6.4%
93.6%
100.0%
6.6%
Neg.
6.6%
93.4%
energy recovery** 0.0% | 0.3%
Discards to landfill,
other disposal^
93.6%
93.1%
100.0%
9.6%
Neg.
9.6%
90.4%
1.8%
88.6%
100.0%
14.0%
2.0%
16.0%
84.0%
14.2%
69.8%
100.0%
21.8%
6.7%
28.5%
71.5%
13.9%
57.6%
100.0%
23.3%
8.1%
31.4%
68.6%
12.5%
56.1%
100.0%
25.3%
8.5%
33.8%
66.2%
11.9%
54.4%
100.0%
26.5%
8.2%
34.7%
65.3%
100.0%
26.0%
8.5%
34.5%
65.5%
100.0%
25.5%
8.8%
34.3%
65.7%
12.7% 12.8% 12.9%
52.6%
52.7%
52.8%
* Composting of yard trimmings, food 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). 2013 includes 29,500 MSW, 510 wood, and 2,650 tires (1,000 tons)
t Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy recovery.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES-1. MSW Generation Rates, 1960 to 2013
300, ,10
0
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013
Total MSW generation
•Per capita generation
Figure ES-2. MSW Recycling Rates, 1960 to 2013
3
o
1
01
01
0>
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013
Total MSW recycling ~H~ Percent recycling
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Executive Summary
What is Included in Municipal Solid Waste?
Our trash, or MSW, is comprised of various items Americans commonly throw away after being used.
These items include packaging, food, grass clippings, sofas, computers, tires, and refrigerators. Not
included are materials that also may be disposed in landfills but are not generally considered MSW,
such as C&D debris, municipal wastewater treatment sludges, and non-hazardous industrial wastes.
New this year, information on C&D debris generation is included in this Executive Summary and
Appendix B.
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 2005. After 2005, the tons of MSW generated started to decrease
until 2009 when the tons of MSW generated started to increase. 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. The
generation rate was 4.40 pounds per person per day in 2013 - one of the lowest generation rates since
1980. 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
2013. Disposal of waste to landfills has decreased from 94 percent of the amount generated in 1960 to
under 53 percent of the amount generated in 2013.
Municipal Solid Waste in 2013
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses two methods to characterize the 254 million tons of
MSW generated in 2013. The first is by material (paper and paperboard, yard trimmings, food, 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; yard trimmings; and other materials. See Figure 1-
B in Chapter 1 for product category definitions.
Materials in MSW
A breakdown, by weight, of the MSW materials generated in 2013 is provided in Figure ES-3. Paper and
paperboard made up the largest component of MSW generated (27.0 percent), food was the second-
largest component (14.6 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. Glass
made up 4.5 percent, rubber, leather, and textiles combined made up 9.0 percent of MSW, while other
miscellaneous wastes made up 3.3 percent of the MSW generated in 2013.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES-3. Materials Generation in MSW, 2013
254 Million Tons (before recycling)
Other 3,3%
Rubber,
& textiles
3r, leather ^^^^B
xtiles 9%
A portion of each material category in MSW was recycled or composted in 2013. The highest rates of
recovery were achieved with paper and paperboard, yard trimmings, and metals. Over 63 percent
(43.4 million tons) of paper and paperboard was recovered for recycling in 2013. About 60 percent
(20.6 million tons) of yard trimmings was recovered for composting or mulching in 2013. This
represents almost a five-fold increase since 1990. Recycling paper and paperboard and yard trimmings
alone diverted about 25 percent of municipal solid waste generated from landfills and combustion
facilities. In addition, about 7.9 million tons, or 34.1 percent, of metals were recovered for recycling.
Recycling rates for all materials categories in 2013 are listed in Table ES-2.
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 made up over half of the materials
recovered at 49.8 percent. Yard trimmings comprised the next largest portion of total materials
recovery at 23.6 percent. All other materials accounted for less than 10 percent each of total recovery.
Food was the largest material in discards at 21.1 percent. Plastic was next largest at 17.7 percent
followed by paper and paperboard at 15.1 percent and rubber, leather, and textiles at 11.6 percent. As
a percent of total discards, the other materials accounted for less than 10 percent each.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
6
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-2. Generation, Recovery, and Discards of Materials in MSW, 2013
(In millions of tons and percent of generation of each material)
Material
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Metals
Steel
Aluminum
Other nonferrous metalst
Total metals
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Textiles
Wood
Other materials
Total materials in products
Other wastes
Food, othert
Yard trimmings
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
Total other wastes
Total municipal solid waste
Weight
Generated
68.60
11.54
17.55
3.50
2.01
23.06
32.52
7.72
15.13
15.77
4.58
178.92
37.06
34.20
3.93
75.19
254.11
Weight
Recovered
43.40
3.15
5.80
0.70
1.37
7.87
3.00
1.24
2.30
2.47
1.31
64.74
1.84
20.6
Negligible
22.44
87.18
Recovery as Percent
of Generation
63.3%
27.3%
33.0%
20.0%
68.2%
34.1%
9.2%
16.1%
15.2%
15.7%
28.6%
36.2%
5.0%
60.2%
Negligible
29.8%
34.3%
Weight Discarded
25.20
8.39
11.75
2.80
0.64
15.19
29.52
6.48
12.83
13.30
3.27
114.18
35.22
13.60
3.93
52.75
166.93
* Includes waste from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
t Includes lead from lead-acid batteries.
t Includes recovery of other MSW organics for composting.
Details might not add to totals due to rounding. Negligible = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES-4. Materials Recovery in MSW, 2013
87 Million Tons
Wood 2.8% Food 2.1%
Plastics 3.5%
Figure ES-5. Material Discards* in MSW, 2013
167 Million Tons (after recycling and composting)
^^ 4.4%
Rubber, leather
& textiles 11.6%
Food 21.1%
*Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
8
-------
Executive Summary
Products in MSW
The breakdown of the 254 million tons of MSW generated in 2013 by product category follows.
Containers and packaging comprised the largest portion of products generated in MSW, at 29.8
percent (75.8 million tons). Nondurable goods and durable goods each made up about 20.3 percent
(over 51 million tons) each. Food made up 14.6 percent (37 million tons), yard trimmings made up 13.5
percent (34 million tons), and other wastes made up 1.5 percent (4 million tons).
The generation and recovery of the product categories in MSW in 2013 are shown in Table ES-3.
Overall, durable goods were recovered at a rate of 18.0 percent in 2013. Nonferrous metals other than
aluminum had one of the highest recovery rates, at 68.2 percent, due to the high rate of lead recovery
from lead-acid batteries. Recovery of steel in all durable goods was 26.8 percent, with high rates of
recovery from appliances. Durable goods textile recovery at 12.2 percent is mostly from tires and
carpets and rugs.
Overall recovery of nondurable goods in MSW was 31.8 percent in 2013. Most of this recovery comes
from paper products such as newspapers and high-grade office papers (e.g., white papers).
Newspapers/mechanical papers constituted the largest portion of this recovery, with 67.0 percent of
these paper products generated being recovered for recycling. Starting in 2010, newspapers (including
newsprint and groundwood inserts) were expanded to include directories and other mechanical papers
previously counted as Other Commercial Printing. An estimated 41.3 percent of other nondurable
paper products were recovered in 2013. Total nondurable paper and paperboard product recovery is at
48.1 percent. The nondurable goods category also includes clothing and other textile products—almost
17 percent of these combined products were recovered for recycling or export in 2013.
Table ES-3 shows that recovery of containers and packaging was the highest of the three product
categories—51.5 percent of containers and packaging generated in MSW in 2013 were recovered for
recycling. Over 55 percent of all aluminum cans in MSW was recovered (38.9 percent of all aluminum
packaging, including foil), while 72.5 percent of steel packaging (mostly cans) in MSW was recovered.
Paper and paperboard containers and packaging were recovered at a rate of 75.1 percent; corrugated
containers accounted for most of that amount.
Thirty-four percent of glass containers in MSW were recovered, while 26.1 percent of wood packaging
(mostly wood pallets removed from service) was recovered for recycling. Over 14 percent of plastic
containers and packaging in MSW were recovered—mostly bottles and jars.
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles and jars were recovered in 2013 at over 31 percent. Recovery
of high density polyethylene (HOPE) natural (white translucent) bottles was estimated at over 28
percent.
The results of recovering containers and packaging are illustrated in Figures ES-6 and ES-7. Corrugated
boxes accounted for 40 percent of total containers and packaging generation but, due to a high
recovery rate, only accounted for nine percent of discards. Wood packaging made up 12 percent of
containers and packaging generation and 19 percent of discards. Plastic bags, sacks, and wraps were
five percent of generation and nine percent of discards. Although steel and aluminum containers and
packaging had high recovery rates (see Table ES-3), each accounted for two to three percent of
generation and discards. This is due to the relatively small amounts of these products generated.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 9
-------
Executive Summary
One of the products with a very high recovery rate was lead-acid batteries, recovered at a rate of
about 99 percent in 2013. Other products with particularly high recovery rates were corrugated boxes
(88.5 percent), steel packaging (72.5 percent), newspapers/mechanical papers (67.0 percent), major
appliances (58.6 percent), aluminum cans (55.1 percent), mixed paper (41.3 percent), and selected
consumer electronics (40.4 percent). About 41 percent of rubber tires in MSW were recovered for
recycling. (Other 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 10
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-3. Generation, Recovery, and Discards of Products
in MSWby Material, 2013
(In millions of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Products
Weight
Generated
Weight
Recovered
Recovery as Percent
of Generation
Weight Discarded
Durable goods
Steel
Aluminum
Other non-ferrous metals"1"
Glass
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Wood
Textiles
Other materials
Total durable goods
15.15
1.51
2.01
2.28
12.07
6.66
6.31
3.86
1.70
51.55
4.06
Not Available
1.37
Negligible
0.83
1.24
Negligible
0.47
1.31
9.28
26.8%
Not Available
68.2%
Negligible
6.9%
18.6%
Negligible
12.2%
77.5%
18.0%
11.09
1.51
0.64
2.28
11.24
5.42
6.31
3.39
0.39
42.27
Nondurable goods
Paper and paperboard
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Textiles
Other materials
Total nondurable goods
30.03
6.47
1.06
10.96
3.08
51.60
14.45
0.13
Negligible
1.83
Negligible
16.41
48.1%
2.0%
Negligible
16.7%
Negligible
31.8%
15.58
6.34
1.06
9.13
3.08
35.19
intainersand packaging
Steel
Aluminum
Glass
Paper and paperboard
Plastics
Wood
Other materials
Total containers and packaging
2.40
1.80
9.26
38.56
13.98
9.46
0.31
75.77
1.74
0.70
3.15
28.95
2.04
2.47
Negligible
39.05
72.5%
38.9%
34.0%
75.1%
14.6%
26.1%
Negligible
51.5%
0.66
1.10
6.11
9.61
11.94
6.99
0.31
36.72
er wastes
Food, other*
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
otal municipal solid waste
Includes waste from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
t Includes lead from lead-acid batteries.
t Includes recovery of other MSW organics for composting.
Details might not add to totals due to rounding. Negligible = less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
11
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES-6. Containers and Packaging Generated in MSW, 2013
75.8 Million Tons (before recycling)
Plastic Bags, Sacks,
Wraps 5%
HOPE Bottles-Natural 1%
Aluminum Packaging
2%
Steel Packaging 3%
Other Glass Bottles
and Jars 3%
Glass Wine and Liquor
Bottles 2%
PET Bottles and
Jars 4%
Other Plastic Packaging
6%
Other Plastic Containers
2%
Miscellaneous Packaging
2%
Glass Beer and Soft
Drink Bottles 7%
Non-Corrugated
Paper Packaging 11%
Figure ES-7. Containers and Packaging Discarded* in MSW, 2013
36.7 Million Tons (after recycling)
Miscellaneous Packaging-
1%
HOPE Bottles - Natural
1%
Aluminum Packaging
3%
Steel Packaging 2%
Other Glass Bottles
and Jars 5%
L
Wood Packaging
19%
Plastic Bags,
Sacks, Wraps 9%
Corrugated
Cardboard
9%
Non-Corruga
Paper Packaging
17%
Glass Beer and Soft
Drink Bottles
\
Glass Wine and Liquor
Bottles 3%
Other Plastic
Containers
4%
PET Bottles and Jars 5%
*Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
12
-------
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
Source Reduction & Reuse
Recycling / Composting
Energy Recovery
Although we encourage the use of strategies that emphasize the top of the hierarchy whenever
possible, all four components remain important within an integrated waste management system.
Source Reduction
Our waste management hierarchy emphasizes the importance of reducing the amount of waste
created, reusing whenever possible, and then recycling whatever is left. When 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:
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 13
-------
Executive Summary
• 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.
• Removing unnecessary layers of packaging and using right-sized packaging.
• 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, yard trimmings) through backyard composting
or other on-site alternatives to disposal.
Realizing the value of our resources, both financial and material, we have continued in our efforts to
reduce waste generation.
Recycling
The second component of our waste management hierarchy is recycling, including off-site (or
community) composting. Residential and commercial recycling turns materials and products that
would otherwise become waste into valuable resources. Materials like glass, metal, plastics, paper, and
yard trimmings are collected, separated, and sent to facilities that can process them into new materials
or products.
• Recycling (including community composting) recovered 34.3 percent (87.2 million tons) of
MSW generation in 2013.
• About 3,560 community composting programs were documented in 2013, an increase from
3,227 in 2002.
• Over 2.7 million households were served with food composting collection programs in 2013.
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 remained between 29.0 million tons and 32.7 million tons (12.9
percent of MSW generation in 2013). Discards sent for combustion with energy recovery were 0.57
pounds per person per day (see Table ES-1).
Disposal
During 2013, 52.8 percent of MSW was landfilled, similar to the percentage landfilled in 2011 and
2012. At the national level, landfill capacity does not appear to be a problem, although regional
dislocations sometimes occur.
• Over time, the tonnage of MSW landfilled has decreased. In 1990, 145.3 million tons of
MSW were landfilled (see Table ES-1), decreasing to 140.3 million tons in 2000. The tonnage
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 14
-------
Executive Summary
increased to 142.3 million tons in 2005, then declined to 134.3 in 2013. 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 2013, the net per capita discard rate (after materials recovery and combustion with
energy recovery) was 2.32 pounds per person per day. The net per capita discard rate has
decreased since 1990. The 1990 rate was 3.19 pounds per person per day, the 2000 rate
was 2.73 pounds per person per day, the 2005 rate was 2.63 pounds per person per day,
and the 2013 rate was 2.32 pounds per person per day (Table ES-1).
From 1985 to 1995 there was a rapid rise in the cost to manage MSW going to landfills
followed by a steady decrease from 1995 to 2004. Since 2004, there has been a steady
increase in landfill tipping fees (see Figure ES-8). The tipping fees are expressed in constant
2013 dollars.
Figure ES-8. National Landfill Tipping Fees, 1982-2013 ($2013 per ton)
60
50
40
Ol
£ 30
01
20
10
9.21
49.99
• 45.46
43.70 43.55
43.64
arc,
45.64
47-°°
149.78
45.55
4684
42,29
37.65
•
33.04
23.21
19.48
17.75
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010 2013
Year
National mean annual landfill tipping fees normalized to constant $2013 using the consumer price index (CPI) from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics to allow meaningful comparisons. This figure shows an average increase from 1985 to 1995 of $3.15 per year
followed by a steady decrease of $0.77 per year followed by an increase of $0.83 from 2004 to 2013.
Sources: National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facts. October 2011. Data from
1985 to 2010. Waste & Recycling News, 2013 Landfill Tipping Fee Survey. Spring 2013. Data for 2012 and 2013.
MSW management through recovery for recycling (including composting), combustion with energy
recovery, and discards to disposal in 2013 is shown in Figure ES-9. In 2013, 87.2 million tons (34.3
percent) of MSW were recycled, 32.7 million tons (12.9 percent) were combusted with energy
recovery, and 134.3 million tons (52.8 percent) were landfilled or otherwise disposed. (Relatively small
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
15
-------
Executive Summary
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, 2013
254 Million Tons
Combustion with
Energy Recovery
12.9%
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, Americans can each do
their part to make recycling - including composting ~ work. Aside from reducing GHG emissions, which
contribute to global warming, recycling (including composting) 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 recovery at about 43 million
tons resulted in a reduction of 149 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in 2013.
This is equivalent to removing 31 million cars from the road in one year.
In 2013, Americans recycled and composted over 87 million tons of MSW. This provides an annual
reduction of more than 186 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, comparable to
removing the emissions from over 39 million passenger vehicles from the road in one year.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 16
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-4. Greenhouse Gas Benefits Associated with
Recovery of Specific Materials, 2013
(In millions of tons, MMTCO2E and in numbers of cars taken off the road per year)*
Material
Weight Recovered GHG Benefits MMTCO2E Numbers of Cars Taken
(millions of tons) Off the Road per Year
Paper and paperboard
lass
3.2
31 million
210 thousand
Metals
Steel
5.8
9.5
2 million
Aluminum
0.7
6.4
1.3 million
Other nonferrous metalst
1.37
5.9
1.2 million
Total metals
7.87
21.8
4.5 million
Plastics
3.6
760 thousand
Rubber and leather^
1.24
0.6
127 thousand
Textiles
2.3
5.8
1.2 million
Wood
2.47
3.8
798 thousand
Other wastes
Food, otherA
1.84
1.7
308 thousand
Yard trimmings
20.6
1.04
220 thousand
Includes materials from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
These calculations do not include an additional 1.32 million tons of MSW recovered that could not be addressed in the WARM model.
Recently WARM assumptions and data have been revised. MMTC02E is million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
t Includes lead from lead-acid batteries. Other nonferrous metals calculated in WARM as mixed metals.
t Recovery only includes rubber from tires.
A Includes recovery of other MSW organics for composting.
Source: WARM model (www.epa.gov/warm)
MSW Generation and Household Spending
Over the years, the change in the amount of MSW generated has typically imitated trends in how much
money American households spend on goods and services. Personal Consumer Expenditures (PCE)
measure U.S. household spending on goods and services such as food, clothing, vehicles, and
recreation services. PCE accounts for approximately 70 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product, a key
indicator of economic growth. PCE adjusted for inflation is referred to as real PCE. This is a more useful
metric in making comparisons over time because it normalizes the value of a dollar by considering how
much a dollar could purchase in the past versus today. Figure ES-10 explores the relationship between
MSW generated and real PCE since 1960.
Figure ES-10 is an indexed graph showing the relative changes in real PCE, MSW generated, and MSW
generated per capita over time. It is indexed to allow all three of these metrics to be shown on the
same graph and compare their relative rates of change since 1960. The indexed value indicates the
change in the value of the data since 1960. For example, if for a given year the value is three, then the
data value for that year would be three times the 1960 value. In this case, if the 1960 value was 200
then the resulting year's value would be 600. The 2013 MSW per capita generation indexed value is
1.6, which means MSW per capita generation has increased by 60 percent since 1960.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
17
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES-10 shows that real PCE has increased at a faster rate than MSW generation, and the disparity
has become even more distinct since the mid 1990s. This indicates the amount of MSW generated per
dollar spent is falling. In other words, our economy has been able to enjoy dramatic increases in
household spending on consumer goods and services without this being at the expense of the societal
impact of similarly increasing MSW generation rates. This figure also shows that the MSW generated
per capita leveled off in the early- to-mid-2000s and has since fallen. This is important because as
population continues to grow, it will be necessary for MSW generated per capita to continue to fall to
maintain or decrease the total amount of MSW generated as a country.
Figure ES-10. Indexed MSW Generated and Real PCE over Time (1960-2013)
6.00
o>
_3
rc
x
Ol
5.00-
4.00-
3.00
2.00-
1.00
0.00
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013
Year
-«-Real PCE -•- MSW Generated -*- MSW Generated per Capita
C&D Debris Generation Results
C&D debris is a type of waste which is not included in MSW. Materials included in C&D are steel, wood
products, drywall and plaster, brick, clay tile, asphalt shingles, asphalt concrete, and Portland cement
concrete. These materials are used in building as well as road and bridge sectors. Our generation
estimate represents C&D amounts from construction, renovation, and demolition activities for
buildings, roads, and bridges.
In 2013, 530 million tons of C&D debris were generated. Figure ES-11 shows the 2013 generation
composition for C&D. Portland cement concrete is the largest portion (67 percent), followed by
asphalt concrete (18 percent). Wood products make up eight percent and the other products account
for seven percent combined. The 2013 generation estimates are presented in more detail in Table ES-
5. As shown in Figure ES-12, demolition represents over 90 percent of total C&D debris generation as
opposed to construction which represents under 10 percent.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES-11. C&D Generation Composition by Material, 2013
530 Million Tons (before recycling)
Asphalt Shingles
2%
Brick and Clay Tile2%
Steel 1%
Drywall and Plasters
2%
Portland Cement Concrete
67%
Table ES-5. C&D Debris Generation by Material and Activity (million tons)
Waste During
Construction
Demolition Debris
Total C&D Debris
Portland Cement Concrete
Wood Products
Drywall and Plasters
Steel1
Brick and Clay Tile
Asphalt Shingles
Asphalt Concrete
17.5
2.5
3.1
0
0.3
1.0
0
335.4
37.7
9.9
4.3
11.8
11.5
95.1
352.9
40.2
13.1
4.3
12.1
12.6
95.1
Total 24.4 505.9 530.3
1. Steel consumption in buildings also includes steel consumed for the construction of roads and bridges. Data were not available
to allocate steel consumption across different sources.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
19
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-6 displays the amount of C&D debris generation from buildings, roads and bridges, and other
structures for each material. The other structures category includes communication, power,
transportation, sewer and waste disposal, water supply, conservation and development, and
manufacturing infrastructure. In 2013 roads and bridges contributed significantly more to C&D debris
generation than buildings and other structures, and Portland cement concrete makes up the largest
share of C&D debris generation for all three categories.
Figure ES-12. Contribution of Construction and Demolition Phases to Total 2013
C&D Generation
o>
01
re
Ol
v_>
^_
Ol
Portland Wood Products Drywall
Cement Concrete and Plasters
Steel
Products
During Construction
Brick and Asphalt
Clay Tile Shingles
Demolition
Asphalt
Concrete
Total
Table ES-6. C&D Debris Generation by Source (million tons)
Portland Cement Concrete
Wood Products
Drywall and Plasters
Steel1
Brick and Clay Tile
Asphalt Shingles
Asphalt Concrete
Buildings
2013
79.9
40.2
13.1
4.3
12.1
12.6
Roads and Bridges
2013
148.4
95.1
2013
124.5
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 162.2 243.5 124.5 ^^^_
1. Steel consumption in buildings also includes steel consumed for the construction of roads and bridges. Data were not available
to allocate steel consumption across different sources.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
20
-------
Executive Summary
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
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.
Resources
The data summarized in this fact sheet characterizes the MSW stream as a whole by using a materials
flow methodology that relies on a mass balance approach. For example, to determine the amounts of
paper recycled, information is gathered on the amounts processed by paper mills and made into new
paper on a national basis plus recycled paper exported, instead of counting paper collected for
recycling on a state-by-state basis. Using data gathered from industry associations, businesses, and
government sources, such as the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau, we
estimate tons of materials and products generated, recycled, and discarded. Other sources of data,
such as waste characterization and research reports performed by governments, industry, or the press,
supplement these data. The data on C&D debris generated summarized in this report is also
developed using a materials flow methodology (see Appendix B).
The benefits of MSW recycling and composting, such as elimination of GHG emissions, are calculated
using EPA's WARM methodology. WARM calculates and totals GHG emissions of baseline and
alternative waste management practices including source reduction, recycling, composting,
combustion, and landfilling. The model calculates emissions in metric tons of carbon equivalent
(MTCE), metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTC02E), and energy units (million Btu) across a
wide range of material types commonly found in MSW. EPA developed GHG emissions reduction
factors through a life-cycle assessment methodology. Please see: www.epa.gov/warm.
For Further Information
This report and related additional data are available on the Internet at
www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 21
-------
Executive Summary
Endnotes
1. Circular Advantage: Innovative Business Models and Technologies to Create Value in a World without
Limits to Growth. Accenture (2014). http://www.accenture.com/us-en/Pages/insight-circular-
advantage-innovative-business-models-value-growth.aspx
2. Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth. A Report of
the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. Fischer-Kowalski, M., M.
Swilling, E.U. von Weizsacker, Y. Ren, Y. Moriguchi, W. Crane, F. Krausmann, N. Eisenmenger, S.
Giljum, P. Hennicke, P. Romero Lankao, A. Siriban Manalang, S. Sewerin, S, United Nations
Environment Programme (2011).
http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/decoupling/files/pdf/decoupling report english.pdf
3. Idem.
4. Resource Productivity in the G8 and the Of CD: A Report in the Framework of the Kobe 3R Action
Plan. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/env/waste/resourceproductivityintheg8andtheoecd.htm
5. Weight of Nations: Material Outflows from Industrial Economies. World Resources Institute (2000).
http://pdf.wri.org/weight of nations.pdf
6. "Recycling Take-Away Facts." The Aluminum Association. Last modified 2015.
http://www.aluminum.org/industries/production/recycling
7. "Ninety-six Percent of Americans Have Access to Community Paper Recycling." American Forest &
Paper Association Media (2015). http://www.afandpa.org/media/news/2015/03/10/ninety-six-
percent-of-americans-have-access-to-communitv-paper-recycling
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 22
-------
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 53-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:
• 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
23
-------
Chapter 1—Introduction and Methodology
Waste Management Hierarchy
Source Reduction & Reuse
Recycling I Composting
Energy Recovery
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. As
done in previous versions of this report, combustion with energy recovery is shown as discards in the
Chapter 2 tables and figures.
Overview of the Methodology
Readers should note that this report characterizes the municipal solid waste stream of the nation as a
whole. Data in this report can be used at the national level. The report can also be used to address
state, regional, and local situations, where more detailed data are not available or would be too
expensive to gather. More detail on uses for this information in this report for both national and local
purposes is provided later in this chapter.
At the state or local level, recycling rates often are developed by counting and weighing all the
recyclables collected, and then aggregating these data to yield a state or local recycling rate. At the
national level, we use instead a materials flow methodology, which relies heavily on a mass balance
approach. Using data gathered from industry associations, key businesses, and similar industry sources,
and supported by government data from sources such as the Department of Commerce and the U.S.
Census Bureau, we estimate tons of materials and products generated, recycled, or discarded. Other
sources of data, such as waste characterizations and surveys performed by governments, industry, or
the press, supplement these data.
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, grass clippings, clothing, furniture, appliances, automobile tires, consumer
electronics, and batteries.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 24
-------
Chapter 1—Introduction and Methodology
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 (C&D), 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. C&D debris generation is also
addressed in Appendix B of this report. 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.
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 overtime. 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
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 25
-------
Chapter 1—Introduction and Methodology
factors as local and regional availability of suitable landfill space, proximity of markets for recovered
materials, population density, commercial and industrial activity, and climatic and groundwater
variations all may motivate each community to make its own plans.
Specific reasons for regional differences may include:
• Variations in climate and local waste management practices, which greatly influence
generation of yard trimmings. For instance, yard trimmings exhibit strong seasonal
variations in most regions of the country. Also, the level of backyard composting in a
community or region will affect generation of yard trimmings.
• Differences in the scope of waste streams. That is, a local landfill may be receiving other
waste such as industrial non-hazardous process wastes in addition to MSW, but Chapters 1,
2, and 3 of this report address MSW only. Appendix B addresses C&D.
• 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 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.
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).
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 26
-------
Chapter 1—Introduction and Methodology
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste: in
Perspective
The Two Methodologies for Characterizing MSW: Site-
Specific Versus Materials Flow
There are two basic approaches to estimating quantities of municipal solid waste at the local, state, or
national levels—site-specific and materials flow. This report is based on the materials flow approach
because site-specific approaches are problematic for national estimates.
Site-specific studies. In the first methodology, which is site-specific, sampling, sorting, and weighing
the individual components of the waste stream could be used. This methodology is useful in defining a
local waste stream, especially if large numbers of samples are taken over several seasons. Results of
sampling also increase the body of knowledge about variations due to climatic and seasonal changes,
population density, regional differences, and other factors. In addition, quantities of MSW components
such as yard trimmings and food can only be estimated through sampling and weighing studies.
A disadvantage of sampling studies based on a limited number of samples is that they may be skewed
and misleading if, for example, atypical circumstances were experienced during the sampling. These
circumstances could include an unusually wet or dry season, delivery of some unusual wastes during
the sampling period, or errors in the sampling methodology. Any errors of this kind will be greatly
magnified when a limited number of samples are taken to represent a community's entire waste
stream for a year. Magnification of errors could be even more serious if a limited number of samples
was relied upon for making the national estimates of MSW. Also, extensive sampling would be
prohibitively expensive for making the national estimates. An additional disadvantage of sampling
studies is that they do not provide information about trends unless performed in a consistent manner
over a long period of time.
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 C&D debris.) Adjustments are also made for the lifetimes of products. Finally, food, yard
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 27
-------
Chapter 1—Introduction and Methodology
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 paper, bottles and
cans, boxes, wood pallets, food, 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, yard trimmings, food, 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 homes)
Newspapers, clothing, disposable tableware, food
packaging, cans and bottles, food, yard trimmings
Commercial (office buildings, retail and
wholesale establishments, restaurants)
Corrugated boxes, food, office papers, disposable
tableware, paper napkins, yard trimmings
Institutional (schools, libraries, hospitals,
prisons)
Cafeteria and restroom trash can wastes, office papers,
classroom wastes, yard trimmings
Industrial (packaging and administrative; not
process wastes)
Corrugated boxes, plastic film, wood pallets, lunchroom
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 C&D debris
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
28
-------
Chapter 1—Introduction and Methodology
along with MSW, but these other kinds of wastes are not included in the MSW estimates presented in
Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of this report. Information on C&D debris generation is presented in the Executive
Summary and Appendix B of 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 and yard trimmings.
Subtitle D Wastes not included in this report are:
• Municipal sludges
• Industrial nonhazardous process wastes
• Construction and demolition debris (except as
noted above)
• Land clearing debris
Transportation parts and equipment
Agricultural wastes
Oil and gas wastes
Mining wastes
Auto bodies
Fats, grease, and oils
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.
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.
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
29
-------
Chapter 1—Introduction and Methodology
For the analysis of municipal solid waste, products are divided into three basic categories: durable
goods, nondurable goods, and containers and packaging. The durable goods and nondurable goods categories
generally follow the definitions of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Durable goods are those products that last 3 years or more. Products in this category include major
and small appliances, furniture and furnishings, carpets and rugs, tires, lead-acid batteries, consumer
electronics, and other miscellaneous durables.
ne
tn\
Nondurable goods are those products that last less than 3 years. Products in this category include
wspapers, 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.
de
nd
'S
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 the MSW Estimates
As noted earlier, other Subtitle D wastes (illustrated in Figure 1-A) are not included in the MSW
estimates, even though some may be managed along with MSW (e.g., by combustion or landfilling).
Household hazardous wastes, while generated as MSW with other residential wastes, are not
identified separately in this report. Transportation parts and equipment (including automobiles and
trucks) are not included in the wastes characterized in this report.
Certain other materials associated with products in MSW are often not accounted for because the
appropriate data series have not yet been developed. These include, for example, inks and other
pigments and some additives associated with packaging materials. Considerable additional research
would be required to estimate these materials, which constitute a relatively small percentage of the
waste stream.
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 2013 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. C&D debris generation estimates are detailed in Appendix B.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 30
-------
Chapter 1—Introduction and Methodology
Chapter 1 References
Darnay, A., and W.E. Franklin, The Role of Packaging in Solid Waste Management, 1966 to 1976. Public
Health Service Publication No. 1855. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1969.
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 31
-------
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 32
-------
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 2013. The data presented also incorporate some revisions to
previously reported data for 2009 through 2012. 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 by product 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, 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, recovery includes estimates of the material delivered to a composting facility
(not backyard composting).
Under these definitions, residues from a materials recovery facility (MRF) or other waste processing
facility are counted as generation (and, of course, discards), since they are not purchased by an end
user. Residues from an end user facility (e.g., sludges from a paper deinking mill) are considered to be
industrial process wastes that are no longer part of the municipal solid waste stream.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
33
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 2013 is provided in Figures 12 and 13. In the
following sections, each material is discussed in detail.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 34
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 1. Materials Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Materials
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
1960 1 1970
29,990
6,720
44,310
12,740
Thousands of Tons |
1980 1 1990 1 2000 1 2005 1 2009 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013
55,160
15,130
72,730
13,100
87,740
12,770
84,840
12,540
68,430
11,780
69,950
11,490
68,620
11,590
68,600
11,540
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other**
Total Materials in Products
10,300
340
180
10,820
390
1,840
1,760
3,030
70
54,620
12,360
800
670
13,830
2,900
2,970
2,040
3,720
770
83,280
Other Wastes
Food 12,200 12,800
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
20,000
1,300
12,620
1,730
1,160
15,510
6,830
4,200
2,530
7,010
2,520
108,890
13,000
23,200 1 27,500
1,780 | 2,250
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
14,150
3,190
1,600
18,940
25,550
6,670
9,480
13,570
4,000
178,720
15,210
3,330
1,860
20,400
29,380
7,290
11,510
14,790
4,290
185,040
30,700 32,930
30,530
3,500
32,070
3,690
15,900
3,440
1,930
21,270
30,070
7,500
12,990
15,590
4,680
172,310
35,270
33,200
3,820
16,540
3,520
2,020
22,080
31,970
7,600
13,130
15,780
4,650
176,650
36,310
33,710
3,870
16,800
3,510
1,980
22,290
31,940
7,570
14,340
15,820
4,580
176,750
36,430
33,960
3,900
17,550
3,500
2,010
23,060
32,520
7,720
15,130
15,770
4,580
178,920
37,060
34,200
3,930
Total Other Wastes l33£00j^37780j^42750|(>1760l(>4730l(>8^
Total MSW Generated - Weight 88,120 121,060 151,640 208,270 243,450 253,730 244,600 250,540 251,040 254,110
Percent of Total Generation
Materials
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2009 2011 2012 2013
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
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
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%
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%
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%
34.9%
6.3%
6.1%
1.3%
0.5%
7.9%
8.2%
2.8%
2.8%
5.9%
1.5%
70.3%
11.5%
16.8%
1.4%
29.7%
100.0%
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%
33.4%
4.9%
6.0%
1.3%
0.7%
8.0%
11.6%
2.9%
4.5%
5.8%
1.7%
72.9%
13.0%
12.6%
1.5%
27.1%
100.0%
28.0%
4.8%
6.5%
1.4%
0.8%
8.7%
12.3%
3.1%
5.3%
6.4%
1.9%
70.4%
14.4%
13.6%
1.6%
29.6%
100.0%
27.9%
4.6%
6.6%
1.4%
0.8%
8.8%
12.8%
3.0%
5.2%
6.3%
1.9%
70.5%
14.5%
13.5%
1.5%
29.5%
100.0%
27.3%
4.6%
6.7%
1.4%
0.8%
8.9%
12.7%
3.0%
5.7%
6.3%
1.8%
70.4%
14.5%
13.5%
1.6%
29.6%
100.0%
27.0%
4.5%
6.9%
1.4%
0.8%
9.1%
12.8%
3.0%
6.0%
6.2%
1.8%
70.4%
14.6%
13.5%
1.5%
29.6%
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
35
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 2. Recovery* of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each material)
Materials
1960
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
5,080
100
1970 1980
6,770
160
11,740
750
Thousands of Tons |
1990 2000 2005 2009 2011 2012 2013
20,230
2,630
37,560
2,880
41,960
2,590
42,500
3,000
45,900
3,180
44,360
3,210
43,400
3,150
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other**
Total Materials in Products
50
Neg.
Neg.
50
Neg.
330
50
Neg.
Neg.
5,610
150
10
320
480
Neg.
250
60
Neg.
300
8,020
370
310
540
1,220
20
130
160
Neg.
500
14,520
2,230
1,010
730
3,970
370
370
660
130
680
29,040
4,680
860
1,060
6,600
1,480
820
1,320
1,370
980
53,010
5,020
690
1,280
6,990
1,780
1,050
1,830
1,830
1,210
59,240
5,330
690
1,380
7,400
2,130
1,370
1,980
2,200
1,310
61,890
5,450
720
1,430
7,600
2,660
1,330
2,010
2,350
1,370
66,400
5,530
710
1,390
7,630
2,800
1,270
2,230
2,410
1,330
65,240
5,800
700
1,370
7,870
3,000
1,240
2,300
2,470
1,310
64,740
Other Wastes
Food
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
5,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
8,020
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
14,520
Neg.
4,200
Neg.
4,200
33,240
680
15,770
Neg.
16,450
69,460
690
19,860
Neg.
20,550
79,790
850
19,900
Neg.
20,750
82,640
1,270
19,300
Neg.
20,570
86,970
1,740
19,590
Neg.
21,330
86,570
1,840
20,600
Neg.
22,440
87,180
. ( Percent of Generation of Each Material
1960 1 1970 1 1980 1990 2000 2005 2009 2011 2012 2013
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
16.9%
1.5%
15.3%
1.3%
21.3%
5.0%
27.8%
20.1%
42.8%
22.6%
49.5%
20.7%
62.1%
25.5%
65.6%
27.7%
64.6%
27.7%
63.3%
27.3%
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other**
Total Materials in Products
0.5%
Neg.
Neg.
0.5%
Neg.
17.9%
2.8%
Neg.
Neg.
10.3%
1.2%
1.3%
47.8%
3.5%
Neg.
8.4%
2.9%
Neg.
39.0%
9.6%
2.9%
17.9%
46.6%
7.9%
0.3%
3.1%
6.3%
Neg.
19.8%
13.3%
17.6%
35.9%
66.4%
24.0%
2.2%
6.4%
11.4%
1.1%
21.3%
19.8%
33.1%
27.0%
66.3%
34. 8%
5.8%
12.3%
13.9%
10.1%
24.5%
29.7%
33.0%
20.7%
68.8%
34.3%
6.1%
14.4%
15.9%
12.4%
28.2%
32.0%
33.5%
20.1%
71.5%
34.8%
7.1%
18.3%
15.2%
14.1%
28.0%
35.9%
33.0%
20.5%
70.8%
34.4%
8.3%
17.5%
15.3%
14.9%
29.5%
37.6%
32.9%
20.2%
70.2%
34.2%
8.8%
16.8%
15.6%
15.2%
29.0%
36.9%
33.0%
20.0%
68.2%
34.1%
9.2%
16.1%
15.2%
15.7%
28.6%
36.2%
Other Wastes
Food, OtherA
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.4%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
9.6%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
6.8%
16.0%
2.2%
51.7%
Neg.
25.4%
28.5%
2.1%
61.9%
Neg.
29.9%
31.4%
2.4%
59.9%
Neg.
28.7%
33.8%
3.5%
57.3%
Neg.
27.8%
34.7%
4.8%
57.7%
Neg.
28.7%
34.5%
5.0%
60.2%
Neg.
343%
Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
Recovery of electrolytes in batteries; probably not recycled.
Neg = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Includes recovery of paper and mixed MSW for composting.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
36
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 3. Materials Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
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
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
24,910
6,620
10,250
340
180
10,770
390
1,510
1,710
3,030
70
49,010
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
82,510
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
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
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
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
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
25,930
8,780
10,570
2,750
550
13,870
27,940
6,130
11,010
13,390
3,370
110,420
34,420
13,300
3,820
51,540
161,960
24,050
8,310
11,090
2,800
590
14,480
29,310
6,270
11,120
13,430
3,280
110,250
35,040
14,410
3,870
53,320
163,570
24,260
8,380
11,270
2,800
590
14,660
29,140
6,300
12,110
13,410
3,250
111,510
34,690
14,370
3,900
52,960
164,470
25,200
8,390
11,750
2,800
640
15,190
29,520
6,480
12,830
13,300
3,270
114,180
35,220
13,600
3,930
52,750
166,930
1 | Percent of Total Discards |
MatenaS 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2009 2011 2012 2013
Paper and Paperboard
Glass
30.2%
8.0%
33.2%
11.1%
31.7%
10.5%
30.0%
6.0%
28.8%
5.7%
24.7%
5.7%
16.0%
5.4%
14.7%
5.1%
14.8%
5.1%
15.1%
5.0%
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous
Total Metals
Plastics
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Wood
Other**
Total Materials in Products
12.4%
0.4%
0.2%
13.1%
0.5%
1.8%
2.1%
3.7%
0.1%
59.4%
10.8%
0.7%
0.3%
11.8%
2.6%
2.4%
1.8%
3.3%
0.4%
66.6%
8.9%
1.0%
0.5%
10.4%
5.0%
3.0%
1.7%
5.1%
1.5%
68.8%
5.9%
1.0%
0.2%
7.2%
9.6%
3.1%
2.9%
6.9%
1.4%
67.1%
5.4%
1.3%
0.3%
7.1%
13.8%
3.4%
4.7%
7.0%
1.7%
72.3%
5.9%
1.5%
0.3%
7.7%
15.9%
3.6%
5.6%
7.5%
1.8%
72.3%
6.5%
1.7%
0.3%
8.6%
17.3%
3.8%
6.8%
8.3%
2.1%
68.2%
6.8%
1.7%
0.4%
8.9%
17.9%
3.8%
6.8%
8.2%
2.0%
67.4%
6.9%
1.7%
0.4%
8.9%
17.7%
3.8%
7.4%
8.2%
2.0%
67.8%
7.0%
1.7%
0.4%
9.1%
17.7%
3.9%
7.7%
8.0%
2.0%
68.4%
Other Wastes
Food
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
14.8%
24.2%
1.6%
40.6%
100.0%
11.3%
20.5%
1.6%
33.4%
100.0%
9.5%
20.1%
1.6%
31.2%
100.0%
13.6%
17.6%
1.7%
32.9%
100.0%
17.3%
8.5%
2.0%
27.7%
100.0%
18.5%
7.0%
2.1%
27.7%
100.0%
21.3%
8.2%
2.4%
31.8%
100.0%
21.4%
8.8%
2.4%
32.6%
100.0%
21.1%
8.7%
2.4%
32.2%
100.0%
21.1%
8.1%
2.4%
31.6%
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
37
-------
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, 2013
Corrugated boxes
Newspapers/Mechanical Papers
Gable top/aseptic and folding cartons
Office-type papers
Standard mail
Other papers
Tissue paper and towels
Commercial printing
Other packaging
Magazines
Paper plates and cups
Books
Bags and sacks
16
million tons
Total generation of paper and paperboard in MSW has grown from 30 million tons in 1960 to 68.6
million tons in 2013 (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 27.0 percent of total MSW generation in 2013.
1 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 38
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 4. Paper And Paperboard Products In MSW, 2013
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Generation
Product Category
Recovery Discards
(Thousand (Thousand (Percent of (Thousand
tons) tons) generation) tons)
Nondurable Goods
Newspapers/Mechanical Paperst
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
8,050
850
1,410
4,770
4,150
1,870
3,620
1,320
3,940
21,930
5,390
9,060
67.0%
41.3%
2,660
12,870
Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
Corrugated Boxes
29,980
30,050
14,450
26,590
48.2% 15,530
88.5%
3,460
Gable Top/Aseptic Cartonst
550
Folding Cartons
5,370
Other Paperboard Packaging
70
Bags and Sacks
830
Other Paper Packaging
Subtotal Containers and Packaging
excluding Corrugated Boxes§
1,690
8,510
2,360
Total Paper and Paperboard
Containers and Packaging
Total Paper and PaperboardA
38,560
28,950
43,400
27.7%
75.1%
63.3%
6,150
9,610
25,140
t 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.
t 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
39
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
As Figure 3 illustrates, paper generation has generally increased since 1960, peaked at about 88 million
tons in 2000, and declined after 2000 to less than 69.0 million tons in 2013.
Figure 3. Paper and Paperboard Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2013
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20102013
Generation — Recovery
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 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).
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 2013. 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, over 88 percent of all corrugated boxes were recovered
for recycling in 2013; this is up from 67.3 percent in 2000 (Table 21). Newspapers/ mechanical papers
were recovered at a rate of 67.0 percent. Recovery of other paper and paperboard products is
estimated as mixed paper; 41.3 percent of mixed nondurable paper products and 27.7 percent of
mixed paper containers and packaging were recovered. Approximately 43.4 million tons of
postconsumer paper and paperboard were recovered in 2013-63.3 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 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 25.1
million tons in 2013, or 15.1 percent of total MSW discards (Table 3).
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 41
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 in MSW, 2013
Generation Recovery
Product Category (Thousand (Thousand (Percent of
tons) tons) generation)
Durable Goods* 2,280 Neg. Neg.
Containers and Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles**
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Other Bottles and Jars
Total Glass Containers
5,420
1,740
2,100
9,260
2,240
600
310
3,150
41.3%
34.5%
14.8%
34.0%
Total Glass 11,540 3,150 27.3%
Discards
(Thousand
tons)
2,280
3,180
1,140
1,790
6,110
8,390
Glass as a component of appliances, furniture, consumer electronics, etc.
Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and
cocktails.
Neg.= Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Figure 4. Glass Products Generated in MSW, 2013
* Includes carbonated drinks and
non-carbonated water, teas,
flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink
alcoholic coolers and cocktails
Wine & liquor bottles
Other bottles & jars
Durable goods
Beer & soft drink bottles*
million tons
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
42
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
After 2000, glass generation trended downward from 12.8 to 11.5 million tons in 2013. Glass was 10
percent of MSW generation in 1980, declining to 4.5 percent in 2013.
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 2013, up
from an estimated 2.6 million tons in 2005.
Discards After Recovery. Recovery for recycling lowered discards of glass to 8.4 million tons in 2013 or
5.0 percent of total MSW discards (Table 3).
Figure 5. Glass Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2013
20
16
12
2
o
'E
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20102013
Generation Recovery
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 2013 are shown in Figure 7.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
43
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 6. Metal Products Generated in MSW, 2013
Durables
• Ferrous metals
Packaging ] • Aluminum
• Other nonferrous
Nondurables
0 5 10 15 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 grown from about 12.4 million tons
in 1970 to 17.6 million tons in 2013 (Table 1). The percentage of ferrous metals generation in total
MSW has declined from 11.7 percent in 1960 to 6.9 percent in 2013.
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 82 percent in 2013. Recovery of all materials in appliances
(including ferrous metals) was estimated at 58.6 percent (Table 13). Overall recovery of ferrous metals
from durable goods (large and small appliances, furniture, and tires) was estimated to be 26.8 percent
(4.1 million tons) in 2013 (Table 6).
Steel cans were estimated to be recovered at a rate of 70.6 percent (1.3 million tons) in 2013.
Approximately 420,000 tons of other steel packaging, including strapping, crowns, and drums, were
estimated to have been recovered for recycling in 2013. Recovery of ferrous metals includes material
collected through recycling programs as well as metal recovered at combustion facilities.
Discards After Recovery. In 2013, discards of ferrous metals after recovery were 11.8 million tons, or
7.0 percent of total discards (Table 3).
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 44
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 6. Metal Productions in MSW, 2013
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Product Category
Durable Goods
Ferrous Metals*
15,150
4,060
26.8%
Generation Recovery Discards
(Thousand (Thousand (Percent of (Thousand
tons) tons) generation) tons)
11,090
Aluminum'1
1,510
NA
NA
1,510
Leadt
1,380
1,370
Other Nonferrous Metalst
630
Neg.
Total Metals in Durable Goods
18,670
5,430
Nondurable Goods
Aluminum
Containers and Packaging
Steel
99%
Neg.
29.1%
10
630
13,240
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
1,870
530
2,400
1,270
120
410
1,800
4,200
23,060
17,550
3,500
2,010
1,320
420
1,740
700
NA
NA
700
2,440
7,870
5,800
700
1,370
70.6%
79.2%
72.5%
55.1%
NA
NA
38.9%
58.1%
34.1%
33.0%
20.0%
68.2%
550
110
660
570
120
410
1,100
1,760
15,190
11,750
2,800
640
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.
NA = Not Available
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 7. Metals Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2013
V)
c
o
25
20
15
10
0
1960 1965 1970
1975 1980 1985
Generation
1990 1995
— Recovery
2000 2005 20102013
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
2013, 1.8 million tons of aluminum were generated as containers and packaging, while approximately
1.7 million tons were found in durable and nondurable goods. The total-3.5 million tons-was 1.4
percent of total MSW generation in 2013 (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 55.1
percent of generation (0.7 million tons) in 2013, 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 2013.
Discards After Recovery. In 2013, 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
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 2013. Lead in
batteries accounted for almost 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 almost 1.4 million tons in 2013, with recovery
being lead recovered from batteries. It was estimated about 99 percent of battery lead was recovered
in 2013.
Discards After Recovery. In 2013, 640,000 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
HOPE natural bottles, and other containers) has the most plastic tonnage at almost 14 million tons in
2013 (Figure 8 and Table 7).
Figure 8. Plastics Products Generated in MSW, 2013
Other containers
PET bottles & jars and
HOPE natural bottles
Bags, sacks and wraps
Other packaging
Nondurable goods
Durable goods
i
02468
million tons
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
47
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 7. Plastics in Products In MSW, 2013
(In thousands of tons, and percent of generation by resin)
Product Category
Durable Goods
Generation Recovery Discards
(Thousand (Thousand (Percent of (Thousand
tons) tons) generation) tons)
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods*
Plastic Plates and Cups§
LDPE/LLDPE
PLA
PP
PS
Subtotal Plastic Plates and Cups
Trash Bags
HOPE
LDPE/LLDPE
Subtotal Trash Bags
All other nondurables*
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PLA
PP
PS
Other resins
Subtotal All Other Nondurables
360
1,290
240
2,080
4,110
750
3,240
12,070
^^m
20
20
180
790
1,010
200
780
980
570
520
230
1,170
20
1,210
200
560
4,480
830
Neg.
130
6.9%
Neg.
2.9%
11,240
20
20
180
790
1,010
200
780
980
4,350
Total Plastics in Nondurable Goods, by
resin
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PLA
570
720
230
1,970
40
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 7. Plastics in Products In MSW, 2013
(In thousands of tons, and percent of generation by resin)
Product Category
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in Nondurable Goods
Generation Recovery Discards
(Thousand (Thousand (Percent of (Thousand
tons) tons) generation) tons)
1,390
990
560
6,470
130
2.0%
6,340
Plastic Containers & Packaging
Bottles and Jars**
PET
Natural Bottlest
HOPE
Other plastic containers
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Subtotal Other Containers
Bags, sacks, & wraps
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PP
PS
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, & Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging*
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PLA
PP
PS
Other resins
Subtotal Other Packaging
Total Plastics in Containers & Packaging,
by resin
PET
HOPE
PVC
2,880
780
1,390
40
40
280
80
1,830
700
50
2,260
630
140
3,780
870
700
340
1,110
10
990
310
380
4,710
3,750
3,570
430
900
220
300
Neg.
Neg.
30
Neg.
330
40
470
510
30
10
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
10
30
Neg.
80
930
570
Neg.
31.3%
28.2%
21.6%
10.7%
18.0%
5.7%
20.8%
13.5%
3.4%
1.4%
1.0%
9.7%
1.7%
24.8%
16.0%
1,980
560
1,090
40
40
250
80
1,500
660
50
1,790
630
140
3,270
840
690
340
1,110
10
980
280
380
4,630
2,820
3,000
430
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 7. Plastics in Products In MSW, 2013
(In thousands of tons, and percent of generation by resin)
Product Category
LDPE/LLDPE
PLA
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in Containers &
Packaging
Total Plastics in MSW, by resin
PET
HOPE
PVC
LDPE/LLDPE
PLA
PP
PS
Other resins
Total Plastics in MSW
Generation Recovery Discards
(Thousand (Thousand (Percent of (Thousand
tons) tons) generation) tons)
3,410
10
1,900
530
380
13,980
4,680
5,580
900
7,460
50
7,400
2,270
470
Neg.
40
30
Neg.
2,040
930
570
Neg.
470
Neg.
40
30
4,180 | 960
32,520 | 3,000
13.8%
2.1%
5.7%
14.6%
19.9%
10.2%
6.3%
0.5%
1.3%
23.0%
9.2%
2,940
10
1,860
500
380
11,940
3,750
5,010
900
6,990
50
7,360
2,240
3,220
29,520
t Nondurable goods other than containers and packaging.
§ 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 identified in Report on Postconsumer PET Container Recycling Activity in 2012.
National Association for PET Container Resources. Recovery includes caps, lids, and other material collected with PET bottles
and jars.
f 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
HOPE = High density polyethylene
LDPE = Low density polyethylene
LLDPE = Linear low density polyethylene
t 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.
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
(HOPE) 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 (HOPE) bottles for milk and water, and
a wide variety of other resin types used in other plastic containers, bags, sacks, wraps, and lids.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
50
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 32.5 million tons in 2013 (Figure 9). As a percentage of MSW generation, plastics
were less than one percent in 1960, increasing to 12.8 percent in 2013.
Recovery for Recycling. While overall recovery of plastics for recycling is relatively small - 3.0 million
tons, or 9.2 percent of plastics generation in 2013 (Table 7) - recovery of some plastic containers is
more significant. PET bottles and jars were recovered at a rate of 31.3 percent in 2013. Recovery of
high-density polyethylene natural bottles was estimated at 28.2 percent in 2013. 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 29.5 million tons, or 17.7
percent of total MSW discards in 2013 (Table 3).
Figure 9. Plastics Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2013
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20102013
^— Generation Recovery
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
51
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 7.7 million tons in 2013. One reason for the relatively slow
rate of growth is that tires deliver more miles and years of service than in earlier years.
As a percentage of total MSW generation, rubber and leather has been about 3 percent for many years
(Table 1).
Recovery for Recycling. The only recovery for recycling identified in this category is rubber from tires,
and that was estimated to be 1.2 million tons in 2013,which is approximately 40.5 percent of the total
rubber in tires generated in 2013 (Table 8). (This recovery estimate does not include tires retreaded or
energy recovery from tires.) Overall, 16.1 percent of total rubber and leather generated in MSW was
recovered in 2013.
Table 8. Rubber And Leather Products In MSW, 2013
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation)
Product Category
Generation Recovery Discards
(Thousand (Thousand (Percent of (Thousand
tons) tons) generation) tons)
Durable Goods
Rubber in Tires*
3,060
1,240
40.5%
1,820
Total Rubber & Leather
Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Clothing and Footwear
Other Nondurables
250
Neg.
Neg.
250
Total Rubber & Leather
Nondurable Goods
1,060
Neg.
Neg.
1,060
7,720
1,240
16.1%
6,480
Total Rubber & Leather
* 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 6.5 million tons in 2013
(3.9 percent of total discards).
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
52
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 15.1 million tons of textiles were generated in 2013 or 6.0 percent of total
MSW generation (Table 1). Significant amounts of textiles enter the reuse market. Since reuse occurs
prior to generation, the amount of reused textiles is not included in the generation estimates (or
estimated separately). However, the reused garments and wiper rags enter the waste stream
eventually becoming part of MSW generation.
Recovery for Recycling and Discards. It was estimated that 14.4 percent of textiles in clothing and
footwear and 18.0 percent of items such as sheets and pillowcases was recovered for export or
reprocessing in 2013 (1.8 million tons) (Table 16). The recovery rate for all textiles is 15.2 percent in
2013 (2.3 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 market research report data combined with
data from the Center for Forest Products Marketing and Management (Virginia Polytechnic Institute).
Generation. Generation of wood in MSW was 15.8 million tons in 2013 (6.2 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 2.5
million tons in 2013 (15.7 percent recovery rate).
Accounting for recovery for recycling, wood discards were 13.3 million tons in 2013, or 8.0 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
Food 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
generated during the manufacturing and packaging of food products is considered industrial waste and
therefore not included in MSW food estimates.
Generation. No production data are available for food. Food from residential and commercial sources
were estimated using data from sampling studies in various parts of the country in combination with
demographic data on population, grocery store sales, restaurant sales, numbers of employees, and
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 53
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
numbers of prisoners, students, and patients in institutions. Seventeen residential food measurement
studies provided the basis for the average per capita generation factor (0.357 pounds per person per
day) applied to population. Numerous food retail and institutional measurement studies provided the
factors applied to appropriate economic data for the commercial portion of the food generation
estimate. Generation of residential and commercial food was estimated to be 37.1 million tons in 2013
(14.6 percent of total generation) (Table 1). Food 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 that would otherwise need to be managed
either through composting or disposal. Data on these types of programs are limited. 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 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 classified as MSW in the past.
Beginning in 2004, BioCycle staff conducted more targeted data gathering of MSW food composting
from primary sources including state solid waste officials, large-scale municipal and commercial
composting facilities, and large generators (e.g., supermarkets and restaurants). Since 2010, food
composting data published by state environmental agencies have been used to estimate the tonnage
of food composted.
The targeted state data gathering of MSW food composting operations resulted in an estimate of 1.47
million tons of food waste composted in 2013. A separate BioCycle publication estimated 370,000 tons
of MSW composted in 2013. MSW composting includes the composting of food as well as other
organic materials found in MSW. The total - 1.8 million tons of food and other organic materials
composted in 2013 - is shown in the recovery tables. Food recovered in 2013 is higher compared to
earlier years due to a combination of better data measurement and growth in composting programs.
Yard Trimmings
Yard trimmings2 include grass, leaves, and tree and brush trimmings from residential, institutional, and
commercial sources.
Generation. In the earliest versions of this report, generation of yard trimmings was estimated using
sampling studies and population data. While generation of yard trimmings had been increasing steadily
as population and residential housing grew (i.e., constant generation on a per capita basis), in the
1990s local and state governments started enacting legislation that discouraged yard trimmings
disposal in landfills.
2 Although limited data are available on the composition of yard trimmings, it is estimated that the average composition
by weight is about 50 percent grass, 25 percent brush, and 25 percent leaves. These are "ballpark" numbers that will
vary widely according to climate and region of the country.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 54
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Legislation affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills was tabulated, using published sources. In
1992, 11 states and the District of Columbia—accounting for more than 28 percent of the nation's
population—had legislation in effect that bans or discourages yard trimmings disposal in landfills. The
tabulation of current legislation shows 21 states—representing about 39 percent of the nation's
population—have legislation affecting disposal of yard trimmings. In addition, some local and regional
jurisdictions regulate disposal of yard trimmings. This has led to an increase in backyard composting
and the use of mulching mowers to allow grass trimmings to remain in place since the early 1990's.
However, we are unable to estimate the influence of backyard composting and use of mulching
mowers on a yearly basis.
Using these facts, it was estimated that yard trimmings generation has declined since 1990. In the
absence of significant new legislation, yard trimmings generation has been increasing slightly since
2000 (i.e., increasing as natural population and residential dwelling units increase) (Table 1). An
estimated 34.2 million tons of yard trimmings were generated in MSW in 2013.
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
2013. 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 20.6 million tons of yard trimmings
removed for composting or wood waste mulching in 2013 - a significant increase over the 2000
estimate of 15.8 million tons.
It should be noted that the estimated 20.6 million tons recovered for composting in 2013 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 2013. 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 254.1
million tons in 2013.
Over the years paper and paperboard has been the dominant material category generated in MSW,
accounting for 68.6 million tons (27.0 percent of generation) in 2013. Food, the second largest material
component of MSW at 37.1 million tons (14.6 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 34.2 million tons (13.5 percent of generation) has declined as a percentage of MSW since
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 55
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
Metals account for 23.1 million tons (9.1 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 2013, 4.5
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 2013
(behind paper, food, and yard trimmings) at 32.5 million tons, and account for 12.8 percent of MSW
generation.
Figure 10. Generation of Materials in MSW, 1960 to 2013
V)
O
i->
O
1
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20102013
* "All other" includes primarily wood, rubber and leather, and textiles.
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 87.2 million tons (34.3 percent
of generation) in 2013.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
56
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 11. Recovery and Discards of Materials in MSW, 1960 to 2013
300
250
200
=| 150
100
50
Generation
Recovery
Discards
(Generation minus recovery = discards)
0
1960
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20102013
Estimated recovery of materials (including composting) is shown in Figure 12. In 2013, recovery of
paper and paperboard dominated materials recovery at 49.8 percent of total tonnage recovered, while
yard trimmings contributed 23.6 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
57
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 12. Materials Recovery in MSW,* 2013
87.2 Million tons
Food
Wood 2 1 %
2.8%
Plastics
3.5%
Paper & paperboard
49.8%
* 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 27.0 percent of
MSW generated in 2013, but after recovery, paper and paperboard products were 15.1 percent of
discards. Materials that have less recovery exhibit a larger percentage of MSW discards compared to
generation. For example, plastic products were 12.8 percent of MSW generated in 2013 and, after
recovery, were 17.7 percent of discards.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
58
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 13. Materials Generated and Discarded* in MSW, 2013
(In percent of total generation and discards)
Generation (254.11 Million tons)
Other
3.3%
Paper &
paperboard
27.0%
Yard trimmings
13.5%
Wood
6.2%
Rubber, leather & textiles
9.0%
Glass
4.5%
Plastics
12.8%
Discards (166.93 Million tons)
Other
4.4%
Metals
9.1%
Wood
8.0%
Plastics
17.7%
Rubber, leather & textiles
11.6%
* Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery
The Chapter 2 section above gave a breakdown of municipal solid waste by material. It described how
the 254.1 million tons of MSW were generated, recycled (including composted) and disposed of. The
following section breaks out the same 254.1 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
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
59
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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, 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" - 254.1 million tons
in 2013 - 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 - 87.2 million
tons; and for Table 11 and related tables, the "bottom line" is MSW discarded - 166.9 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 2013, 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 51.6 million tons in 2013 (20.3 percent of total MSW
generation). After recovery for recycling, 42.3 million tons of durable goods remained as discards in
2013.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 60
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 9. Categories of Products Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream,
1960 to 2013
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
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
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
9,920 14,660 21,800 29,810 38,870 45,060 47,510 49,720 50,090 51,550
25,060 34,420 52,170 64,010 63,650 53,480 51,590 51,430
43,560 52,670 64,530 75,840 76,330 71,320 75,340 75,230 75,770
Percent of Total Generation
11.3%
19.7%
(Detail in Table 15)
51,550
51,600
~7C ~7~7D
54,620 83,280 108,890 146,510 178,720 185,040 172,310 176,650 176,750 178,920
23,860 30,700 32,930
35,270 36,310 36,430
20,000 23,200
35,000 30,530 32,070
33,200 33,710 33,960
1,300 1,780
3,820 3,870 3,900 3,930
33,500 37,780
72,290 73,890 74,290 75,190
,600 250,540 251,040 254,
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product** Wastes
Other Wastes
Food
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated -
* 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
61
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 10. Recovery* of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each category)
Thousands of Tons
1960 1970
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
350 940 1,360 3,460 6,580 7,970
',390 3,730 4,670 8,800 17,560 19,770
2,870 3,350 8,490 16,780 28,870 31,500
8,790 9,290
18,890 18,830
34,210 38,280
9,210 9,280
17,270 16,410
38,760 39,050
°
n
5,610 8,020 14,520 29,040 53,010 59,240
Neg. Neg.
Neg. Neg.
680
690
61,890 66,400
850 1,270
65,240 64,740
1,740 1,840
Yard Trimmings
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
4,200
15,770
19,860
19,900
19,300
19,590 20,600
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Total Other Wastes
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
4,200
16,450
20,550
20,750
20,570
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
5,610
8,020
14,520 33,240 69,460 79,790
82,640
86,970
Neg. Neg.
21,330 22,440
86,570 87,180
Percent of Generation of Each Category
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product** Wastes
Other Wastes
3.5% 6.4% 6.2% 11.6% 16.9%
13.8% 14.9% 13.6% 16.9% 27.4%
10.5% 7.7% 16.1% 26.0% 38.1%
17.7% 18.5% 18.7% 18.4% 18.
31.1% 35.3% 36.5% 33.6% 31.8%
41.3% 48.0% 50.8% 51.5% 51.5%
10.3%
9.6% 13.3% 19.8% 29.7% 32.0% 35.9% 37.6% 36.9% 36.2%
Food, OtherA
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.4%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.6%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
9.6%
Neg.
12.0%
Neg.
6.8%
16.0%
2.2%
51.7%
Neg.
25.4%
28.5%
2.1%
61.9%
Neg.
29.9%
31.4%
2.4%
59.9%
Neg.
28.7%
33.8%
3.5%
57.3%
Neg.
27.8%
34.7%
4.8%
57.7%
Neg.
28.7%
34.5%
5.0%
60.2%
Neg.
29.8%
34.3%
Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
Other than food products.
Includes recovery of soiled 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
62
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 11. Categories of Products Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream,
1960 to 201 3
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Thousands of Tons 1
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 22)
Total Product** Wastes
Food
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
1960
9,570
14,940
24,500
49,010
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
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
2009
38,720
34,590
37,110
110,420
34,420
13,300
3,820
51,540
161,960
2011
40,430
32,760
37,060
110,250
35,040
14,410
3,870
53,320
2012
40,880
34,160
36,470
111,510
34,690
14,370
3,900
52,960
164,470
2013 •
42,270
35,190
36,720
114,180 |
35,220
13,600
3,930
52,750
166,930
1 Percent of Total Discards 1
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
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
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%
^^H
13.6%
17.6%
1.7%
32.9%
100.0%
2000
18.6%
26.7%
27.0%
72.3%
^^H
17.3%
8.5%
2.0%
27.7%
100.0%
2005
21.3%
25.2%
25.8%
72.3%
^^H
18.5%
7.0%
2.1%
27.7%
100.0%
2009
23.9%
21.4%
22.9%
68.2%
21.3%
8.2%
2.4%
31.8%
100.0%
2011
24.7%
20.0%
22.7%
67.4%
21.4%
8.8%
2.4%
32.6%
100.0%
2012
24.9%
20.8%
22.2%
67.8%
21.1%
8.7%
2.4%
32.2%
100.0%
2013 •
25.3%
21.1%
22.0%
68.4%
21.1%
8.1%
2.4%
31.6%
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
63
-------
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 30 years.
Generation of major appliances has increased very slowly over the years. In 2013, generation was 4.5
million tons, or 1.8 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 2013, leaving 1.9 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, Annual Appliance Industry Forecasts, 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 2 million tons of small appliances were generated
in 2013. A small amount of ferrous metals in small appliances is recovered through magnetic
separation.
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 11.6 million tons in 2013 (4.6 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. Although
recovery of wood, textiles, and metals may be occurring, no measurable data source could be
identified for this analysis.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 64
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 12. Products Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail On Durable Goods)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Thousands of Tons
1960 1970
2012 2013
Durable Goods
Major Appliances
1,630
2,170
2,950
3,310
3,640
3,610
3,760
4,080
4,190
4,470
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
2,150
1,120
Neg.
5,020
9,920
2,830
1,890
820
6,950
14,660
4,760
2,720
1,490
9,880
21,800
460
6,790
1,660
3,610
1,510
12,470
29,810
1,040
8,120
2,460
4,930
2,280
1,900
14,500
16,400
38,870
1,180
9,340
2,960
4,910
2,750
2,630
17,680
20,310
45,060
1,630
10,500
3,550
4,780
2,890
3,190
17,210
20,400
47,510
1,900
11,130
3,830
4,740
3,000
3,300
17,740
21,040
49,720
„„
1,950
11,500
3,860
4,710
2,920
3,270
17,690
20,960
50,090
1,950
11,620
3,820
4,770
2,880
3,140
18,900
22,040
51,550
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 18)
Total Product Wastes*
Other Wastes
Food
Yard
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
27,370 43,560 52,670 64,530 75,840 76,330 71,320 75,340 75,230 75,770
3,900
74,290
251,040 254,110
Percent of Total Generation
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
1.8%
2.4%
1.3%
Neg.
5.7%
11.3%
1.8%
2.3%
1.6%
0.7%
5.7%
12.1%
1.9%
3.1%
1.8%
1.0%
6.5%
14.4%
1.6%
0.2%
3.3%
0.8%
1.7%
0.7%
6.0%
14.3%
1.5%
0.4%
3.3%
1.0%
2.0%
0.9%
0.8%
6.0%
6.7%
16.0%
1.4%
0.5%
3.7%
1.2%
1.9%
1.1%
1.0%
7.0%
8.0%
17.8%
1.5%
0.7%
4.3%
1.5%
2.0%
1.2%
1.3%
7.0%
8.3%
19.4%
1.6%
0.8%
4.4%
1.5%
1.9%
1.2%
1.3%
7.1%
8.4%
19.8%
1.7%
0.8%
4.6%
1.5%
1.9%
1.2%
1.3%
7.0%
8.3%
20.0%
1.8%
0.8%
4.6%
1.5%
1.9%
1.1%
1.2%
7.4%
8.7%
20.3%
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product Wastes*
Other Wastes
Food
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include C&D debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990. t Other than food products. Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
*** Not estimated separately priorto 1999. For more information on consumer electronics see Electronics Management in the U.S. Through 2009.
This 2009 electronics report examines a smaller selection of types of electronics, www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecvcling/manage.htm
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
65
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 13. Recovery* of Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Durable Goods)
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Thousands of Tons
1960 1970
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
10
Neg.
330
Neg.
10
350
,»n
50
Neg.
250
620
20
940
a-»n
130
Neg.
150
1,040
40
1,360
ac-m
1,070
10
Neg.
Neg.
440
1,470
470
3,460
00nn
2,000
20
Neg.
190
1,290
2,130
190
760
950
6,580
n«n
2,420
20
Neg.
250
1,640
2,640
360
640
1,000
7,970
10™
2,510
110
10
260
2,130
2,860
600
310
910
8,790
iOOQn
2,620
120
10
270
2,080
2,970
850
370
1,220
9,290
i00an
2,680
120
10
290
1,980
2,890
1,000
240
1,240
9,210
i-ii-m
2,620
120
10
240
1,930
2,850
1,270
240
1,510
9,280
ic>iin
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product Wastes*
Other Wastes
Food
Yard Trimmings
To
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
rotal MSW Recovered - Weight
Percent of Generation of Each Product
3,350 8,490 16,780 28,870 31,500 34,210 38,280 38,760 39,050
66,400
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
0.6%
Neg.
29.5%
Neg.
0.2%
3.5%
13.8%
2.3%
Neg.
13.2%
75.6%
0.3%
6.4%
14.9%
4.4%
Neg.
5.5%
69.8%
0.4%
6.2%
13.6%
32.3%
2.2%
Neg.
Neg.
12.2%
97.4%
3.8%
11.6%
16.9%
54.9%
1.9%
Neg.
7.7%
26.2%
93.4%
10.0%
5.2%
5.8%
16.9%
27.4%
67.0%
1.7%
Neg.
8.4%
33.4%
96.0%
13.7%
3.6%
4.9%
17.7%
31.1%
66.8%
6.7%
0.1%
7.3%
44.6%
99.0%
18.8%
1.8%
4.5%
18.5%
35.3%
64.2%
6.3%
0.1%
7.0%
43.9%
99.0%
25.8%
2.1%
5.8%
18.7%
36.5%
64.0%
6.2%
0.1%
7.5%
42.0%
99.0%
30.6%
1.4%
5.9%
18.4%
33.6%
58.6%
6.2%
0.1%
6.3%
40.5%
99.0%
40.4%
1.3%
6.9%
18.0%
31.8%
(Detail in Table 16)
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product Wastes*
Other Wastes
Food
10.5%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
** Not estimated separately prior to 1990. t Other than food products. Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
*** Not estimated separately prior to 1999. For more information on consumer electronics see Electronics Management in the U.S. Through 2009.
This 2009 electronics report examines a smaller selection of types of electronics, www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecvcling/manage.htm
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 14. Products Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2014
(With Detail on Durable Goods)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Thousands of Tons |
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2009 2011 2012 2013
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 Wastes*
Other Wastes
Food
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
1,620
2,150
790
Neg.
5,010
9,570
14,940
24,500
49,010
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
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
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
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
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
1,250
1,520
10,490
3,290
2,650
30
2,590
16,900
19,490
38,720
34,590
37,110
110,420
34,420
13,300
3,820
51,540
1,460
1,780
11,120
3,560
2,660
30
2,450
17,370
19,820
40,430
32,760
37,060
110,250
35,040
14,410
3,870
53,320
1,510
1,830
11,490
3,570
2,730
30
2,270
17,450
19,720
40,880
34,160
36,470
111,510
34,690
14,370
3,900
52,960
1,850
1,830
11,610
3,580
2,840
30
1,870
18,660
20,530
42,270
35,190
36,720
114,180
35,220
13,600
3,930
52,750
Percent of Total Discards
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2009 2011 2012 2013
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
2.0%
2.6%
1.0%
Neg.
6.1%
11.6%
18.1%
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging 29.7%
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product Wastes*
Other Wastes
Food
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
59.4%
14.8%
24.2%
1.6%
40.6%
1.9%
2.5%
1.5%
0.2%
6.1%
12.1%
18.9%
35.6%
66.6%
11.3%
20.5%
1.6%
33.4%
2.1%
3.5%
1.9%
0.3%
7.2%
14.9%
21.7%
32.2%
68.8%
9.5%
20.1%
1.6%
31.2%
1.3%
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%
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%
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%
0.8%
0.9%
6.5%
2.0%
1.6%
0.0%
1.6%
10.4%
12.0%
23.9%
21.4%
22.9%
68.2%
21.3%
8.2%
2.4%
31.8%
0.9%
1.1%
6.8%
2.2%
1.6%
0.0%
1.5%
10.6%
12.1%
24.7%
20.0%
22.7%
67.4%
21.4%
8.8%
2.4%
32.6%
0.9%
1.1%
7.0%
2.2%
1.7%
0.0%
1.4%
10.6%
12.0%
24.9%
20.8%
22.2%
67.8%
21.1%
8.7%
2.4%
32.2%
1.1%
1.1%
7.0%
2.1%
1.7%
0.0%
1.1%
11.2%
12.3%
25.3%
21.1%
22.0%
68.4%
21.1%
8.1%
2.4%
31.6%
Total MSW Discarded -% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
* Discards after materials and compost 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 see Electronics Management in the U.S. Through 2009.
This 2009 electronics report examines a smaller selection of types of electronics, www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecvcling/manage.htm
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
67
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Carpets and Rugs. Prior to 2000, an industry publication, Carpet and Rug Industrial Review, published
data on carpet sales in square yards. These data were 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 2013, which was 1.5 percent of total generation.
Recovery of carpet fiber, backing, and padding - estimated from industry data - was 240,000 tons in
2013 (6.3 percent of carpet generation).
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.
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 4.8
million tons in 2013 (1.9 percent of total MSW). Since 2000, the generation of rubber tires has
remained fairly constant; decreasing slightly since 2011. 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 Rubber Manufacturing Association. The tire
recovery rate increased from 26.2 percent in 2000 to 40.5 percent in 2013. Since 2009, the quantity of
tires generated remained relatively steady. Starting in 2009, the percentage of tires recovered through
recycling decreased slightly. Tires recovered for fuel are not included in recovery through recycling.
Tires going to combustion facilities as fuel are included in the combustion estimates in Chapter 3.
After recovery, 2.8 million tons of tires were discarded in 2013. Tire 2011 and 2012 recovery estimates
were revised from previous versions of this report due to revisions in the 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 2013 (1.1 percent of total
generation).
The Battery Council International provided the most recent data on recovery of batteries. Since 2000,
recovery of batteries for recycling has fluctuated between 93 percent and 99 percent; recovery has
increased since 1980 as a growing number of communities have restricted batteries from disposal at
landfills or combustion facilities. In 2013, 99 percent of the lead in these batteries was estimated to be
recovered for recycling as well as the polypropylene battery casings. (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.)
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 68
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Battery 2011 and 2012 generation and 2009 through 2012 recovery estimates were revised from
previous versions of this report due to revisions in the numbers of deregistered vehicles and the
recovery estimates 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 22.0 million tons of these goods were generated in 2013, amounting to 8.7
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 2013, an estimated 3.1 million tons of these
goods were generated. Of this, 1.3 million tons of selected consumer electronics were collected for
recycling (40.4 percent recovery rate). This is up from the 2012 recovery rate for selected consumer
electronics, which was 30.6 percent. It is unclear whether the large increase in the electronics recycling
rate from 2012 to 2013 is due to an actual increase in recycling or the result of improved and expanded
data. 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 2013, bringing total recovery from this category to 1.5 million tons.
Discards of miscellaneous durable goods were 20.5 million tons in 2013.
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
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 2013 (20.3 percent of total
generation). Recovery of paper products in this category is quite significant, resulting in 16.4 million
tons of nondurable goods recovered in 2013 (31.8 percent of nondurables generation). This means that
35.2 million tons of nondurable goods were discarded in 2013 (21.1 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 2013 was
shown earlier in Table 4. Generation of paper and paperboard nondurable products declined from 47.8
million tons in 2000 to 30.6 million tons in 2012 to 30 million tons in 2013. Each of the paper and
paperboard product categories in nondurable goods is discussed briefly below.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 69
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Newspapers/mechanical papers are the largest single component of the paper products in
the nondurable goods category, at 8.1 million tons generated in 2013 (3.2 percent of total
MSW). In 2013, an estimated 5.4 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 850,000 tons, or 0.3 percent of total MSW generation, in
2013. Books are made of both groundwood and chemical pulp.
Magazines accounted for an estimated 1.4 million tons, or 0.6 percent of total MSW
generation, in 2013. 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 4.8 million tons, or 1.9 percent of
total MSW generation in 2013. These papers are almost entirely made of uncoated chemical
pulp, although some amounts of groundwood are also used. It should be noted that some
of these office-type papers are generated at locations other than offices, including homes
and institutions such as schools. Also, other kinds of papers (e.g., newspapers, magazines,
and packaging) are generated in offices, but are accounted for in other categories.
Standard mail includes catalogs and other direct bulk mailings; these amounted to an
estimated 4.2 million tons, or 1.6 percent of MSW generation, in 2013. 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 1.9 million tons, or 0.7 percent of MSW
generation, in 2013.
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 9.1 million tons, or 41.3 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 3.6 million tons (1.4 percent of total MSW generation) in
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 70
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
2013. No significant recovery of tissue products for recycling was identified, although there
is some composting of these items.
• Paper plates and cups include paper plates, cups, bowls, and other food service products
used in homes, in commercial establishments like restaurants, and in institutional settings
such as schools. Generation of these products was estimated at 1.3 million tons (0.5 percent
of total MSW generation) in 2013. 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 2013. No significant
recovery for recycling of these papers was identified.
Overall, generation of paper and paperboard products in nondurable goods was 30 million tons in 2013
(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 48.2 percent in
2013. Thus 15.5 million tons of paper in nondurables were discarded in 2013 (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 2013, or 0.4
percent of total MSW (Table 15). No significant recovery for recycling was identified in 2013.
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
about 1.0 million tons in 2013 (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 2013, 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 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 2013.
Clothing and Footwear. Generation of clothing and footwear was estimated to be 11.1 million tons in
2013 (4.4 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 American Apparel & Footwear Association along with data on average weights for
each type of products included. Adjustments are made for net imports (domestic production minus
exports plus imports) of these products based on International Trade Commission data.
The Secondary Material & Recycled Textiles Association has reported on recovery of textiles for
exports, reprocessing, and reuse. Using their information, it was estimated that 1.6 million tons of
textiles in clothing were recovered for recycling in 2013 (14.4 percent). (Reuse occurs before
generation and is not included in the generation or recycling estimates.)
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 71
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Towels, Sheets, and Pillowcases. An estimated 1.3 million tons of towels, sheets, and pillowcases were
generated in 2013. 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 2013 (18.0 percent).
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables. Generation of other miscellaneous nondurables was estimated to
be 3.6 million tons in 2013 (1.4 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.
Table 15. Products Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Nondurable Goods)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
14,660 21,800 29,810 38,870 45,060 47,510 49,720 50,090 51,550
Newspapers/Mechanical Paperst
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
7,110
1,920
1,520
1,260
1,090
270
2,700
Neg.
1,360
100
17,330
9,510
2,470
2,650
2,130
2,080
420
3,630
350
1,620
200
25,060
11,050
3,390
4,000
3,120
2,300
630
4,230
1,930
190
2,170
1,410
34,420
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
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
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
7,760
650
960
1,450
5,380
4,650
3,490
3,490
1,170
4,420
3,810
900
1,000
9,120
1,230
4,000
53,480
9,150
-
930
1,510
5,100
4,380
2,010
3,510
1,340
3,940
22,720
3,630
1,030
1,010
9,070
1,310
3,670
51,590
8,380
860
1,470
4,750
4,150
2,130
3,510
1,290
4,010
22,170
3,590
1,060
1,020
10,310
1,290
3,610
51,430
8,050
-
850
1,410
4,770
4,150
1,870
3,620
1,320
3,940
21,930
3,600
1,010
980
11,120
1,280
3,630
51,600
(Detail in Table 18}
Total Product Wastest
Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
54,620 83,280 108,890 146,510 178,720 185,040 172,310 176,650 176,750 178,920
33,500 37,780 42,750 61,760 64,730 68,690 72,290 73,890 74,290 75,190
88,120 121,060 151,640 208,270 243,450 253,730 244,600 250,540 251,040 254,110
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
72
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 15. Products Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Nondurable Goods)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
Percent of Total Generation
Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
| I960 |
11.3%
^^^^^^^^^M
^^^^^^^^^1
1970 |
12.1%
^^^^^^^^^H
^^^^^^^^^1
1980
14.4%
^^^^^•••B
^^^^^^^^^1
1990
14.3%
••••^ia^iBBi
^^^^^^^^^m
2000
16.0%
•^^^•••••iai
^^^^^^^^^•i
2005
17.8%
^^^^^^^^^m
2009
19.4%
^^^^^^^^^H
^^^^^^^^^•i
2011 |
19.8%
^^^^^^^^^M
^^^^^^^^^
2012 |
20.0%
^^^^^^^^^H
^^^^^^^^^H
2013 |
20.3%
Newspapers/Mechanical Paperst
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 Nondu rabies
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 19)
Total Product Wastest
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%
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%
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%
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%
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%
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%
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%
3.7%
0.4%
0.6%
2.0%
1.7%
0.8%
1.4%
0.5%
1.6%
9.1%
1.4%
0.4%
0.4%
3.6%
0.5%
1.5%
20.6%
30.1%
70.5%
3.3%
-
0.3%
0.6%
1.9%
1.7%
0.8%
1.4%
0.5%
1.6%
8.8%
1.4%
0.4%
0.4%
4.1%
0.5%
1.4%
20.5%
30.0%
70.4%
3.2%
0.3%
0.6%
1.9%
1.6%
0.7%
1.4%
0.5%
1.6%
8.6%
1.4%
0.4%
0.4%
4.4%
0.5%
1.4%
20.3%
29.8%
70.4%
Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated -
\ 38.0% | 31.2% | 28.2% | 29.7% | 26.6% | 27.1% | 29.6% | 29.5% | 29.6% | 29.6%
B 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 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.
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.
Other than food products.
Detailed data not available.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
73
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 16. Recovery* of Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Nondurable Goods)
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
350
940
1,360
3,460
6,580
7,970 8,790 9,290 9,210
9,280
Newspapers/Mechanical Paperst
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 Nondu rabies
Total Nondurable Goods
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 20)
Total Product Wastest
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
1,820
100
250
130
Neg.
Neg.
40
50
Neg.
2,390
2,870
5,610
5,610
2,250
260
710
340
Neg.
Neg.
110
60
Neg.
3,730
3,350
8,020
8,020
3,020
280
870
350
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
150
Neg.
4,670
8,490
14,520
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
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
61,890
20,750
82,640
6,630
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10,610
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,250
230
110
18,830
38,280
66,400
20,570
86,970
5,870
-
-
-
-
9,570
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,470
230
130
17,270
38,760
65,240
21,330
86,570
5,390
-
-
-
-
9,060
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,600
230
130
16,410
64,740
22,440
87,180
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
74
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 16. Recovery* of Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Nondurable Goods)
(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Percent of Generation of Each Product
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
3.5%
6.4%
6.2%
11.
Newspapers/Mechanical Paperst
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 Nondu rabies
Total Nondurables
(Detail in Table 21)
Total Product Wastest
Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
25.6%
5.2%
16.4%
10.3%
Neg.
Neg.
1.5%
Neg.
Neg.
13.8%
10.3%
Neg.
6.4%
23.7%
10.5%
26.8%
16.0%
Neg.
Neg.
3.0%
Neg.
Neg.
14.9%
9.6%
Neg.
6.6%
27.3%
8.3%
21.8%
11.2%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.6%
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%
19.8%
6.8%
16.0%
59.0%
17.6%
19.4%
31.8%
55.1%
32.9%
11.0%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.9%
17.1%
Neg.
27.4%
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%
32.0%
29.9%
31.4%
88.1%
36.9%
33.3%
53.8%
74.2%
63.4%
66.2%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.7%
17.1%
Neg.
35.3%
35.9%
28.7%
33.8%
72.5%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
46.7%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
13.8%
17.6%
Neg.
36.5%
37.6%
27.8%
34.7%
70.0%
-
-
-
-
43.2%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
14.3%
17.8%
Neg.
33.6%
36.9%
28.7%
34.5%
67.0%
-
-
-
-
41.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
14.4%
18.0%
3.6%
31.8%
36.2%
29.8%
34.3%
* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
t Starting in 2010, newsprint and groundwood inserts expanded to include directories and other mechanical papers previously counted as Other
Commercial Printing.
** Not estimated separately priorto 1990.
*** High-grade paper such as printer paper; generated in both commercial and residential sources.
§ Standard Mail: Not estimated separately priorto 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail and Standard (A) Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
§ Plastic Plates and Cups: Not estimated separately priorto 1980.
t Other than food products.
Detailed data not available.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
75
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 17. Products Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Nondurable Goods)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Thousands of Tons
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
1960 1970
9,570 13,720 20,440 26,350 32,290 37,090 38,720 40,430 40,880 42,270
Newspapers/Mechanical Paperst
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 Wastest
Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
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
920
410
640
670
1,390
1,700
1,180
3,490
1,170
4,420
3,810
900
1,000
7,870
1,020
4,000
34,590
37,110
110,420
51,540
161,960
2,520
-
-
-
-
12,110
3,630
1,030
1,010
7,820
1,080
3,560
32,760
37,060
110,250
53,320
163,570
2,510
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12,600
3,590
1,060
1,020
8,840
1,060
3,480
34,160
36,470
111,510
52,960
164,470
2,660
-
-
-
-
12,870
3,600
1,010
980
9,520
1,050
3,500
35,190
36,720
114,180
52,750
166,930
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
76
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 17. Products Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Nondurable Goods)
(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
11.6%
12.1%
14.9%
15.1%
18.6%
21.3%
23.9%
24.7%
24.9%
25.3%
Newspapers/Mechanical Paperst
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 Nondu rabies
Total Nondurables
Containers and Packaging
(Detail in Table 23)
Total Product Wastest
Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - %
6.4%
2.2%
1.5%
1.4%
1.3%
0.3%
3.2%
Neg.
1.6%
0.1%
18.1%
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%
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%
0.6%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.9%
1.0%
0.7%
2.2%
0.7%
2.7%
2.4%
0.6%
0.6%
4.9%
0.6%
2.5%
21.4%
22.9%
68.2%
31.8%
100.0%
1.5%
-
-
-
-
7.4%
2.2%
0.6%
0.6%
4.8%
0.7%
2.2%
20.0%
22.7%
67.4%
32.6%
100.0%
1.5%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7%
2.2%
0.6%
0.6%
5.4%
0.6%
2.1%
20.8%
22.2%
67.8%
32.2%
100.0%
1.6%
-
-
-
-
7.7%
2.2%
0.6%
0.6%
5.7%
0.6%
2.1%
21.1%
22.0%
68.4%
31.6%
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.
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.
Other than food products.
Detailed data not available.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
77
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Containers and Packaging
Containers and packaging make up a major portion of MSW, amounting to 75.8 million tons of
generation in 2013 (29.8 percent of total generation). Table 18 shows generation trended downward
by about 7 percent between 2005 and 2009, followed by a 6 percent increase between 2009 and 2013
(to 75.8 million tons). Generation of most types of packaging declined from 2005 to 2009 due to the
economic downturn. Plastic containers and wood packaging showed a slight increase during this time.
Between 2009 and 2013 generation of some types of packaging continued to decline while others
increased.
Glass packaging generation declined 7.6 percent between 2005 and 2009 and another 4.1 percent
between 2009 and 2013. Steel packaging decreased 5.5 percent between 2005 and 2009 and increased
7.1 percent between 2009 and 2013. Aluminum packaging generation declined 2.6 percent over the
four year period 2005 to 2009 and another 4.2 percent decline between 2009 and 2013.
Paper and paperboard packaging generation declined 11.9 percent between 2005 and 2009 and
increased 10.4 percent between 2009 and 2013. Plastic packaging generation increased 0.9 percent
from 2005 and 2009 and increased another 11.6 percent between 2009 and 2013.
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 2013, 51.5 percent of containers and packaging generated was recovered for recycling.
Because of this recovery, containers and packaging comprised 22.0 percent of total MSW discards in
2013.
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 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 (domestic production minus exports plus imports).
Generation of these glass containers was 9.3 million tons in 2013, or 3.6 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 34.0 percent of
generation, in 2013. Glass container discards were 6.1 million tons in 2013, 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 2.4 million tons in 2013 (0.9 percent of total MSW
generation), with most of that amount being cans for food products (Tables 18 and 19). Generation
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 78
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
estimates are based on data supplied by the Steel Recycling Institute (SRI). Estimates include
adjustments for net imports (domestic production minus exports plus imports).
The Steel Recycling Institute also provided recovery data for steel containers and packaging. An
estimated 1.7 million tons of steel packaging were recovered in 2013, or 72.5 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
generation calculations than shipments alone (domestic production minus exports plus imports). Total
aluminum container and packaging generation in 2013 was 1.8 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 2013 was 700,000 tons, or 55.1 percent of generation.
Recovery data for the other aluminum packaging categories are not available for 2013. After recovery
for recycling, 1.1 million tons of aluminum packaging were discarded in 2013.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 79
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 18. Products Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Containers and Packaging)
(In thousands of tons)
1 Products
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
1960 1 1970
9,920 14,660
17,330 25,060
1980
21,800
34,420
Thousands of Tons
1990 2000 2005
29,810 38,870 45,060
52,170 64,010 63,650
2009
47,510
53,480
2011 2012 2013
49,720 50,090 51,550
51,590 51,430 51,600
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
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Packaging
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
29,480 30,050
Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Gable Top/Aseptic Cartonst
790
510
550
500
460
540
550
550
Folding Cartons
3,820
4,300
5,820
5,530
4,980
5,540
5,490
5,370
Other Paperboard Packaging
3,840
4,830
230
290
200
160
90
80
70
70
Bags and Sacks
3,380
2,440
1,490
1,120
910
750
960
830
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
200
110
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
2,940
3,810
850
1,020
1,670
1,400
1,310
1,670
1,460
Subtotal Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles and Jars
8,580
14,110
21,400
HOPE Natural Bottles
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks
60
910
26,350
260
230
890
390
32,680
430
530
1,430
940
39,940
1,720
690
1,740
1,650
39,640
2,540
800
1,420
1,640
34,940
2,570
760
1,750
660
38,020
2,740
770
1,870
38,010
2,790
780
1,850
Neg.
1,690
8,510
38,560
2,880
780
1,830
Wraps
840
1,530
2,550
2,810
3,190
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging
1,230
2,470
4,200
4,450
3,850
3,880
3,810
1,180
790
2,040
2,840
3,210
3,600
4,640
4,550
Total Plastics Packaging
Other Packaging
Wood Packaging
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - Weight
* Generation before materials recovery or combustion. 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 Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
t Other than food products. Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. NA = Not Available - Detailed data not available.
3,780
4,710
185,040 172,310 176,650
32,930 35,270 36,310
74,290 75,190
251,040 254,110
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 19. Products Generated* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Containers and Packaging)
(In percent of total generation)
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 12)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 15)
Containers and Packagin
Glass Packaging
11.3% 12.1% 14.4% 14.3% 16.0% 17.8% 19.4% 19.8%
19.7% 20.7% 22.7% 25.0% 26.3% 25.1% 21.9% 20.6%
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles*
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
Neg.
0.3%
0.5%
0.6%
Neg.
0.3%
0.8%
0.7%
Neg.
0.2%
0.9%
0.6%
Neg.
0.2%
0.8%
0.6%
Neg.
0.2%
0.8%
0.6%
0.02%
0.2%
0.8%
0.5%
0.05%
0.2%
0.8%
0.5%
0.05%
0.2%
0.7%
0.5%
0.05%
0.2%
0.7%
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Gable Top/Aseptic Cartonst
0.5% 0.2%
0.2%
0.2% 0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Folding Cartons
2.5%
2.1%
2.4%
2.2%
2.0%
2.2%
2.2%
2.1%
Other Paperboard Packaging
4.4%
4.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Bags and Sacks
2.2%
1.2%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.4%
Wrapping Papers
0.1%
0.1%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
0.3%
Neg.
Other Paper Packaging
3.3%
3.1%
0.6%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
0.7%
Subtotal Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
3.4%
3.4%
3.3%
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles and Jars
16.0%
17.7%
17.4%
0.2%
15.7%
0.2%
16.4%
0.7%
15.6%
1.0%
14.3%
1.1%
15.2%
1.1%
15.1%
1.1%
15.2%
1.1%
HOPE Natural Bottles
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Other Containers
0.1%
0.8%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
Bags and Sacks
Wraps
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging
0.3%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
0.3%
0.6%
0.7%
1.0%
1.1%
1.3%
0.8%
1.2%
1.7%
1.8%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
0.1%
1.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.2%
1.3%
1.5%
1.8%
Total Plastics Packaging
Other Packaging
Wood Packaging
0.1%
1.7%
2.2%
3.3%
4.6%
4.9%
5.1%
5.5%
5.5%
Other Misc. Packaging
2.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
3.8%
0.1%
1.5%
1.9%
5.5%
3.7%
0.1%
Total Containers & Pkg
31.1%
36.0%
34.7%
31.0%
31.2%
30.1%
29.2%
30.1%
30.0%
29.8%
Total Product I/Vastest
Other Wastes
62.0%
68.8%
71.8%
70.3%
73.4%
72.9%
70.4%
70.5%
70.4%
70.4%
Food
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Generated - %
13.8%
22.7%
1.5%
38.0%
100.0%
10.6%
19.2%
1.5%
31.2%
100.0%
8.6%
18.1%
1.5%
28.2%
100.0%
11.5%
16.8%
1.4%
29.7%
100.0%
12.6%
12.5%
1.4%
26.6%
100.0%
13.0%
12.6%
1.5%
27.1%
100.0%
14.4%
13.6%
1.6%
29.6%
100.0%
14.5%
13.5%
1.5%
29.5%
100.0%
14.5%
13.5%
1.6%
29.6%
100.0%
14.6%
13.5%
1.5%
29.6%
100.0%
Generation before materials recovery or combustion. 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 Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
t Other than food products.
Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 20. Recovery* of Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Containers and Packaging)
(In thousands of tons)
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 16)
350
940
1,360 3,460 6,580 7,970
9,290
3,730 4,670 8,800 17,560 19,770 18,890 18,830
9,210
17,270
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles**
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Other Bottles & Jars
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
9,280
16,410
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Gable Top/Aseptic Cartonst
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
30
Folding Cartons
520
340
410
1,190
2,490
Other Paperboard Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Bags and Sacks
Neg.
200
300
320
450
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Subtotal Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
220
350
300
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,860
2,110
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles and Jars
2,740
3,110
7,210
12,070
21,040
23,610
25,070
28,660
28,920
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - Weight
5,610 8,020
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.
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.
2,360
28,950
HOPE Natural Bottles
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Other Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastes*
Neg.
21,330
86,570
Neg.
22,440
87,180
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 21. Recovery* of Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Containers and Packaging)
(In percent of generation of each product)
Percent of Generation of Each Product
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 13)
Nondurable Goods
3.5%
6.4%
6.2%
11.6% 16.9%
17.7%
18.5% 18.7%
18.4% 18.C
(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
5.5% 23.9% 58.9% 63.3% 68.3% 72.0%
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Gable Top/Aseptic Cartonst
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
6.5%
Folding Cartons
Neg.
Neg.
7.0%
21.5%
50.0%
Other Paperboard Packaging
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Bags and Sacks
Neg.
Neg.
20.1%
28.6%
49.5%
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Subtotal Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
7.5%
9.2%
35.3%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
21.7%
24.7%
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles and Jars
19.4%
14.5%
27.4%
36.9%
52.7%
59.6%
71.8%
75.4%
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.
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.
27.7%
HOPE Natural Bottles
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Other Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastest
Other Wastes
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Recovered - %
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
83
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 22. Products Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Containers and Packaging)
(In thousands of tons)
Durable Goods
(Detail in Table 14)
Nondurable Goods
(Detail in Table 17)
Containers and Packaging
Glass Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Bottles**
9,570 13,720 20,440 26,350 32,290 37,090 38,720 40,430 40,880
14,940 21,330 29,750 43,370 46,450 43,880 34,590 32,760 34,160
1,310
5,440
6,010
3,750
4,180
4,540 3,660 3,260
3,290
42,270
35,190
3,180
Wine and Liquor Bottles
Other Bottles & Jars
1,070
1,890
2,430
1,820
1,480
1,380
1,280
1,160
3,710
4,440
4,780
3,640
2,500
1,950
1,720
1,700
Total Glass Packaging
Steel Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
630
1,550
470
110
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
1,200
1,700
Neg.
1,140
1,790
Neg.
Cans
3,740
3,480
2,700
1,950
1,100
790
640
530
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
260
270
240
140
80
80
70
80
4,630
5,300
3,410
2,200
1,180
870
710
610
Other Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Neg.
Neg.
170
170
90
60
410
560
530
40
380
950
560
20
310
890
690
50
350
1,090
800
80
360
1,240
670
60
460
1,190
600
120
450
1,170
Folding Cartons
Bags and Sacks
Paperboard Pkg
Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles and Jars
540
80
620
590
120
430
1,140
Total Product I/Vastest
Other Wastes
550
110
120
410
1,100
Joxes
& Paperboard Pkg
septic Cartonst
}ns
xjard Packaging
ks
pers
Packaging
er Paper &
°kg
& Board Pkg
4,810
10,000
10,690
12,480
9,880
8,830
5,090
2,640 2,670 3,460
3,840
2,720
11,370
4,830
3,460
18,290
790
3,300
230
3,380
200
550
19,140
510
3,960
290
2,240
110
1,020
20,610
550
5,410
200
1,190
Neg.
1,670
18,900
500
4,340
160
800
Neg.
1,400
16,030
430
2,490
90
460
Neg.
1,310
9,870
-
-
6,720
9,360
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,420
9,090
-
-
6,150
9,610
HOPE Natural Bottles
Other Containers
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaain
Other Packaging
Wood Packaging
3,470 4,580
11,140 10,810 12,100
7,400 7,590 7,350
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
110,420 110,250
Food
Yard Trimmings
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded - Weight
12,200
20,000
1,300
33,500
82,510
12,800
23,200
1,780
37,780
113,040
13,000
27,500
2,250
42,750
137,120
23,860
30,800
2,900
57,560
175,030
30,020
14,760
3,500
48,280
173,990
32,240
12,210
3,690
48,140
173,940
34,420
13,300
3,820
51,540
161,960
35,040
14,410
3,870
53,320
163,570
34,690
14,370
3,900
52,960
164,470
35,220
13,600
3,930
52,750
166,930
* 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. 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. - Detailed data not available.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Table 23. Products Discarded* in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2013
(With Detail on Containers and Packaging)
(In percent of total discards)
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
11.6
12.1%
18.9%
14.9%
21.7%
15.1%
24.8%
18.6
21.3% 23.9%
24.7%
24.9%
26.7% 25.2%
21.4%
20.0% 20.8%
Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
25.3%
21.1%
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Total Steel Packaging
0.4% 0.4%
0.4% 0.4%
Aluminum Packaging
Beer and Soft Drink Cans
Foil and Closures
Total Aluminum Pkg
Paper & Paperboard Pkg
Corrugated Boxes
Gable Top/Aseptic Cartonst
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Folding Cartons
2.4%
2.3%
3.1%
2.5%
1.5%
Other Paperboard Packaging
4.7%
4.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Bags and Sacks
2.5%
1.3%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
Wrapping Papers
Other Paper Packaging
Subtotal Other Paper & Paperboard Pkg
0.1%
0.1%
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
3.3%
3.1%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
0.8%
4.1%
Total Paper & Board Pkg
Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles and Jars
13.8%
16.2%
14.0%
11.8%
10.9%
9.2%
6.1%
5.7%
3.9%
5.5%
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
Total Other Wastes
Total MSW Discarded -
3.7%
5.8%
HOPE Natural Bottles
Other Containers
Bags and Sacks
Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps
Other Plastics Packaging
Total Plastics Packaging
Other Packaging
Wood Packaging
Other Misc. Packaging
Total Containers & Pkg
Total Product Wastes*
Other Wastes
100.0% 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.
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. - Detailed data not available
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Paper and Paperboard Containers and Packaging. Corrugated boxes are the largest single product
category of MSW at 30.1 million tons generated, or 11.8 percent of total generation, in 2013.
Corrugated boxes also represent the largest single category of product recovery. At 26.6 million tons of
recovery in 2013, 88.5 percent of boxes generated were recovered. After recovery, 3.5 million tons of
corrugated boxes were discarded, or 2.1 percent of MSW discards in 2013.
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 38.6
million tons of MSW generation in 2013, 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 2.4 million tons
in 2013). The overall recovery rate for paper and paperboard packaging in 2013 was 75.1 percent.
Other paper packaging such as cartons and sacks is mostly recovered as mixed papers.
Plastic Containers and Packaging. Many different plastic resins are used to make a variety of packaging
products. Some of these include polyethylene terephthalate (PET) soft drink and water bottles, high-
density polyethylene (HOPE) 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 about 14 million tons in 2013 (5.5 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 31.3 percent rate in 2013 (900,000 tons). Recovery of HOPE natural bottles
(e.g., milk and water bottles) was estimated to have been 220,000 tons, or 28.2 percent of generation.
Overall, recovery of plastic containers and packaging was estimated to be 2.0 million tons, or 14.6
percent in 2013. Discards of plastic packaging thus were 11.9 million tons in 2013, or 7.2 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 PET 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 86
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Wood Packaging. Wood packaging includes wood crates and pallets (mostly pallets). Data on
production of wood packaging are from market research reports, and the USDA Forest Service
Southern Research Station and Virginia Polytechnic Institute. In 2013, 9.4 million tons of wood pallets
and other wood packaging were estimated to have been generated, or 3.7 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 2.5 million tons in 2013.
Accounting for pallet reuse and recovery for recycling, wood packaging discards were 6.9 million tons
in 2013, or 4.2 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 360,000 tons were generated in 2013.
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 2013 is shown in Figure 15. Paper and paperboard
made up 58.2 percent of nondurables in MSW generation, with plastics contributing 12.5 percent, and
textiles 21.2 percent. Other materials contributed lesser percentages. After recovery for recycling,
paper and paperboard were 44.3 percent of nondurable discards, with plastics being 18.0 percent, and
textiles 25.9 percent.
The materials composition of containers and packaging in MSW in 2013 is shown in Figure 16. By
weight, paper and paperboard products made up 50.9 percent of containers and packaging generation;
plastics accounted for 18.5 percent. Glass was 12.2 percent, wood was 12.9 percent, and metals were
5.5 percent.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 87
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 14. Generation of Products in MSW, 1960 to 2013
Containers & Packaging
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20102013
The percentage of materials discards from containers and packaging is affected by recovery for
recycling. After recovery for recycling, paper and paperboard dropped to 26.2 percent of discards.
Glass containers accounted for 16.6 percent of discards of containers and packaging, plastics were 32.5
percent, wood was 19.9 percent, and metals were 4.8 percent.
Additional containers and packaging detail is shown in Figure 17. Corrugated boxes account for 40
percent of total containers and packaging generation but, due to a high recovery rate, only account for
nine percent of discards. Wood packaging makes up 12 percent of containers and packaging generation
and 19 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 15. Nondurable Goods Generated and Discarded* in MSW, 2013
(In percent of total generation and discards)
Generation (51.60 Million tons)
Rubber & leather
2.1%
Paper & paperboard
58.2%
Discards (35.19 Million tons)
Paper & paperboard
44.3%
Rubber & leather
3.0%
* Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
89
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 16. Containers and Packaging Materials Generated, Recovered,
and Discarded* in Municipal Solid Waste, 2013
(In percent of total generation, recovery, and discards)
Generation (75.77 Million tons)
Recovery (39.05 Million tons)
5.5%
5.2%
Discards* (36.72 Million tons)
Paper & paperboard
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Wood, Other
* Discards in this figure include
combustion with energy recovery
4.8%
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
90
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Figure 17. Containers and Packaging Generated, Recovered,
and Discarded* in Municipal Solid Waste, 2013
(In percent of total generation, recovery, and discards)
2%
Generation (75.77 Million tons)
2%
Recovery (39.05 Million tons)
1%
^H Corrugated Cardboard
^| Non-Corrugated Paper Packaging
^| Glass Beer and Soft Drink Bottles
Other Plastic Containers
H Other Plastic Packaging
• PET Bottles and Jars
Glass Wine and Liquor Bottles
^| Other Glass Bottles and Jars
^| Steel Packaging
^| Aluminum Packaging
HI HDPE Bottles - Natural
Plastic Bags, Sacks, Wraps
Wood Packaging
^H Miscellaneous Packaging
* Discards in this figure include
combustion with energy recovery
Discards* (36.72 Million tons)
-1%
3%
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
91
-------
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 2013 was 254.1 million tons, which was slightly
more than the 251.0 million tons generated in 2012. This compares to 1990, when total
generation of MSW was 208.3 million tons.
• Per capita MSW generation increased from 4.38 pounds per person per day in 2012 to 4.40
pounds per person per day in 2013. MSW generation per person per day peaked in 2000.
The 4.40 pounds per person per day is one of the lowest since 1980.
• Paper and paperboard products made up the largest percentage of all the materials in
MSW, at 27.0 percent of total generation. Generation of paper and paperboard products
declined from 84.8 million tons in 2005 to 68.6 million tons in 2013. 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 33 and 27 percent of generation since 2005.
• Yard trimmings comprised the third largest material category, estimated at 34.2 million
tons, or 13.5 percent of total generation, in 2013. 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 2013 was 32.5 million tons, or 12.8 percent of generation.
This was an increase of 2.5 million tons from 2009 to 2013. 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 12.8
percent in 2013, plastics generation as a percent of total generation has remained fairly
steady over the past three years.
• In 2013, an estimated 3.1 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 79.8 million tons in
2005 (31.4 percent of generation) to 87.2 million tons in 2013 (34.3 percent of generation).
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 92
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
• 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 49.5 percent in 2005 to 63.3 percent in
2013.
• The increase in recovery of paper and paperboard products over the longer term has been
due to increases in recovery, overtime, from all categories: newspapers, books, magazines,
office papers, directories, Standard mail (advertisements, circulars, etc.), and other
commercial printing.
• Newspapers/mechanical papers recovery rate decreased from 72.5 percent to 67.0 percent
between 2011 and 2013. Prior to 2011, newspaper recovery was reported separately from
mechanical papers (and therefore not comparable to earlier years). Newspapers/
mechanical papers generation decreased from 9.2 million tons to 8.1 million tons from 2011
to 2013.
• Containers and packaging recovery increased from 34.2 million tons in 2009 to 39.1 million
tons in 2013; percentage recovery increased from 48.0 percent to 51.5 percent.
• Nondurable goods recovery decreased from 18.9 million tons in 2009 to 16.4 million tons in
2013. The percentage recovery of nondurable goods decreased from 35.3 percent to 31.8
percent over this same time period.
• Selected consumer electronics recovery increased to 1.3 million tons (40.4 percent recovery
rate). This is up from the 2012 recovery rate for selected consumer electronics, which was
30.6 percent. It is unclear whether the large increase in the electronics recycling rate from
2012 to 2013 is due to an actual increase in recycling or the result of improved and
expanded data.
• Measured by tonnage, the most recovered products and materials in 2013 were corrugated
boxes (26.6 million tons), yard trimmings (20.6 million tons), mixed nondurable paper
products (9.1 million tons), newspapers/mechanical papers (5.4 million tons), glass
containers (3.2 million tons), lead-acid batteries (2.9 million tons), major appliances (2.6
million tons), wood packaging (2.5 million tons), mixed paper containers and packaging (2.4
million tons), tires (1.9 million tons), food (1.8 million tons), and selected consumer
electronics (1.3 million tons). Collectively, these products accounted for 90 percent of total
MSW recovery in 2013.
Measured by percentage of generation, products with the highest recovery rates in 2013
were lead-acid batteries (99.0 percent), corrugated boxes (88.5 percent),
newspapers/mechanical papers (67.0 percent), steel packaging (72.5 percent), major
appliances (58.6 percent), yard trimmings (60.2 percent), aluminum cans (55.1 percent),
mixed nondurable paper products (41.3 percent), tires (40.5 percent), selected consumer
electronics (40.4 percent), glass packaging (34.0 percent), PET bottles and jars (31.3
percent), and HOPE natural bottles (28.2 percent).
Long Term Trends
• Generation of MSW has increased (except in recession years), from 88.1 million tons in
1960 to 254.1 million tons in 2013. After 2005, generation decreased due to the depressed
economy. Generation decreased 3.6 percent between 2005 and 2009 followed by a rise in
generation of 3.9 percent from 2009 to 2013.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 93
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Generation of paper and paperboard, the largest material component of MSW, fluctuates
from year to year, but has decreased from 87.7 million tons in 2000 to 68.6 million tons in
2013. 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 2005, with the trend reversing 2005 to 2009, and rising again from 2009 through
2013.
In percentage of total MSW generation, recovery for recycling (including composting) did
not exceed 15 percent until 1990. Growth in the recovery rate was significant over the next
15 years. The recovery rate has grown more slowly over the last few years. The 2013
recovery rate was 34.3 percent.
Recovery (as a percentage of generation) of most materials in MSW has increased
dramatically over the last 43 years. Some examples:
1970 1980 1990 2000 2013
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Yard trimmings
Selected Consumer
Electronics
Lead-acid batteries
15%
1%
4%
Neg.
Neg.
76%
21%
5%
8%
<1%
Neg.
70%
28%
20%
24%
2%
12%
97%
43%
23%
35%
6%
52%
10%
93%
63%
27%
34%
9%
60%
40%
99%
Neg. = less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
-------
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. REPT-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/mswcha r05.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-00.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 1999 Facts and
Figures. EPA/530-R-01-014. July 2001.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 95
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Aluminum Containers and Packaging
The Aluminum Association. Aluminum Statistical Review. Various years.
The Aluminum Association, www.aluminum.org.
Can Manufacturers Institute. Can Shipments Report. Various years.
Personal Communication with a representative of the Can Manufacturers Institute. February 2006.
Resource Recycling Container Recycling Update. Various issues.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Closures for
Containers." MQ34H. 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
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). 2007-2010, 2012.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) BEES online.
http://ws680.nist.gov/Bees/(A(YCFzTiR_zAEkAAAAODIjNml3NTMtOGJkOCOONzdlLTIiYzQtYzcxMjhm
NGY3NjkOOk5fnsJX3lz7AaEHUE-jlVklvVkl))/ViewProductList.aspx
Rauch Associates, Inc. The Rauch Guide to the U.S. Adhesives and Sealants Industry. ISBN 0-932157-
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.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Tariff and trade online
database, http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user set.asp
Consumer Electronics
Alster, Norm. "Are Old PC's Poisoning Us?" Business Week. June 2000.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 96
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
"Annual and Monthly Buying Guide." Consumer Reports. Various Issues 1984 - 1995.
Best Buy website, www.bestbuy.com
Canon Communications LLC. U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review: 1999 to 2008. Appliance
Magazine. Market Research Report. July 2009. www.ApplianceMagazine.com/MarketResearch
Consumer Electronics Association. Fast Facts Data. Various years.
Dana Chase Publications, Inc. Appliance Statistical Review. Various years.
Dann, Carolyn. End-of-Life Electronics Equipment Pilot Collection Program Summary Report - Alachua
County, Florida. October 1999. Center for Environmental Communications.
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.
IDC Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker, August 2014.
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. www.materials4future.org.
Matthews, H. Scott, Francis C. McMichael, et al. Disposition and End-of-Life Options for Personal
Computers. Green Design Initiative Technical Report #97-10. Carnegie Mellon University.
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Management of waste electronic appliances. August
1995.
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Recycling Used Electronics. Report on Minnesota's
Demonstration Project. July 2001.
National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. Contracting for Proper Recovery and
Recycling of Electronic Products. March 2, 2000. www.nrc-recycle.org/programs
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 97
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
NPD Group US Technology Consumer Tracking - Monthly. Various years.
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.
StEP Initiative. Characterizing Transboundary Flows of Domestic and Transboundary Flows of Used
Electronics: Analysis of Generation, Collection, and Export in the United States, December 2013.
http://www.step-initiative.org/files/step/ documents/MIT-
NCER%20US%20Used%20Electronics%20Flows%20Report%20-%20December%202013.pdf
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 98
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
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
and subsequent years.
Food
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/.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Faststats - Nursing Home Care.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/nursing-home-care.htm
City of San Clemente, CA. Pilot Food Waste Project. "CR&R Waste & Recycling Services." http://san-
clemente.org/sc/Services/Environmental/SolidWaste/PilotFoodWasteProiectJulylO.pdf
City of Wayzata, MN. Curbside Collection of Source-Separated Organics in the City of Wayzata Final
Report - Phase 1. January 2005.
City of Wayzata, MN. Curbside Collection Of Source-Separated Organics in the City of Wayzata 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 99
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
Farrell Tucker, Molly. "Dairy Farm Succeeds with Codigestion." BioCycle. March 2011.
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." Various years.
http://www.fsdmag.com/census-reports.html
Food Service Director. Hospital Census Report. "Performance report for top 50 hospitals." Various
years, http://www.fsdmag.com/census-reports.html
Food Service Director. Long-term Care Census Report. "Performance report for top 75 long-term care
chains." 2008. http://www.fsdmag.com/census-reports.html
Food Service Director. VA Martinsburg Wins Sustainability Award. June 15, 2010.
http://www.leanpath.com/docs/martinsburg.pdf
Goldstein, Nora. "National Trends in Food Residuals Composting Part I." BioCycle. July 1997.
Goldstein, Nora. Unpublished analyses of the food waste composting industry. August 2006, August
2007, and August 2008.
Goldstein, Nora and Dave Block. "Nationwide Inventory of Food Residuals Composting Part II."
BioCycle. August 1997.
Goldstein, Nora, Jim Glenn, and Kevin Gray. "Nationwide Overview of Food Residuals Composting."
BioCycle. August 1998.
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."/ 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 100
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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/countv/SolidWaste/homecomposting/Documents/Food%20Wa
ste%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.
Personal communication with Brian Mathews Senior Program Manager StopWaste.org. Alameda
County, CA. January 2008.
Personal communication with Bruce Bowers Environmental Manager. Harley-Davidson Motor
Company Operations, LLC. August 2010.
Personal communication with Jeff Senne Director of Performance, Sustainability and CSR. Sodexo, Inc.
August 2010.
Personal communication with Jennifer Erickson. Metro Regional Government Resource Conservation &
Recycling. Portland, Oregon. August 2010.
Personal communication with Mike Geller PSA Sustainability Coordinator. Providence Health &
Services. Portland, OR. August 2010
Personal communication with Nicole Chardoul Resource Recycling Systems. August 2010.
www.recycle.com
Personal communication with Rachel Warner Marketing Director. National Association of College and
Universities Food Services. August 2010.
Personal communication with Rick Robson Environmental Chemist - Sustainability. Hallmark Cards, Inc.
August 2010.
Personal communication with selected State Officials and state websites. Various years.
San Francisco Department of the Environment. Waste Characterization Study. Environmental Science
Associates (ESA). August 2005.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 101
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
Sullivan, Dan. "Mixed Waste Composting Facilities Review." BioCycle Nationwide Survey. November
2011. BioCycle November 2011, Vol. 52, No. 11
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/Recvcling/RecyclingPortalFiles/union.pdf
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. American Fact Finder. "Characteristics of the
Group Quarters Population by Group quarters Type. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-
Year Estimates." S2601B. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STSelectServlet? ts=298394730199
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. American Fact Finder. "Characteristics of the
Group Quarters Population by Group Quarters Type. 2011 American Community Survey." S2601B.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/isf/pages/sea rchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 102
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.isp?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/EPA FoodWasteReport El Regions 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
West Wendover, Nevada. City website, http://www.westwendovercity.com/resguide/water.php
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 (DEO.).Com posting Feasibility Study for the Randolph-
Macon College Dining Facility. Fall 2008.
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/recycle/pdf/CompostingStudvRMC2009.pdf
Walmart. Integrated Organic Diversion Program. Bobby Fanning, Sr. Manager, Solid Waste and
Recycling. Presentation from Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) 2010 Workshop. March 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/rcc/resources/meetings/rcc-2010/fanning.pdf
WRAP. United Kingdom. Food Waste Report The Food We Waste. April 2008.
http://wrap.s3.amazonaws.com/the-food-we-waste.pdf
Yepsen, Rhodes. "Residential Food Waste Collection In The U.S. — BioCycle Nationwide Survey."
BioCycle March 2013, Vol. 54, No. 3.
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, M.J. "A Profile of the Nonferrous Secondary Metals Industry." U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Proceedings of the Second Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium. 1970.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 103
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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
Beverage Marketing Corporation. 2005 Beverage Packaging in the U.S. 2005.
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." Various years.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Rates/BiannualRpt/default.htm
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/Recvcling/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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 104
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.vra recycles.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=iP3bJOxHPuo%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/recycl ing-and-solid-waste-data.html
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
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 105
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.aspx?fileticket=7dqcFOrOZgO%3d&tabid=2613
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. "2008 Oregon Material Recovery and Waste Generation
Rates Report. Land Quality Division." September 2009.
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/2008MRWGRatesReport.pdf
Owens Corning. "01 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
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.a mericanchemist ry.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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 106
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.ecv.wa.gov/programs/swfa/solidwastedata/recyclin.asp
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. "Annual Reports from Responsible Units." Table 1
Recyclable Materials Collected by Wisconsin Responsible Units (1999-2008).
http://www.wnrmag.com/org/aw/wm/recvcle/recycleldfrept/tablelru.pdf
Lead-Acid Batteries
American Automobile Manufacturers Association. AAMA Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures. Various
years.
Battery Council International. Industry Statistics. Various years.
Battery Council International. Monthly Shipment Reports Replacement Automotive Batteries. Various
years. http://batterycouncil.org/?page=Research
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.
National Automobile Dealers Association. NADA Data: Annual Report Vehicles in Operation and
Scrappage. Various years. https://www.nada.org/nadadata/
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.
http://www.nada.org/nadadata
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 107
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
National Automobile Dealers Association. NADA. Data 2011. State of the Industry Report.
http://www.nada.org/NR/rdonlyres/0798BE2A-9291-44BF-A126-
OD372FC89B8A/0/NADA 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/commoditv/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. Appliance Magazine 2011 Market Research Report,
http://www.appliancemagazine.com/reports/MarketValue0611SAMPLE.pdf
Appliance Magazine. Corcoran Communications. September 1983.
Appliance Manufacturer. Annual Industry Marketing Guide, March issue of various years.
Appliance Manufacturer. "Market Profile." Various years.
Appliance Manufacturer. "Shipments Forecasts." Various years.
Appliance Recycling Information Center. INFOBulletin #1, #2, and #7. July 2001.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 108
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Trends and Forecasts. 1971 to 1988.
AID Home Inspection. 2013. http://www.atdhomeinspection.com/advice/average-product-life/
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.
Eugster, Martin, Roland Hischier, Huabo Duan. Key Environmental Impacts of the Chinese EEE-lndustry
A Life Cycle Assessment Study. October 5, 2007.
http://ewasteguide.info/system/files/Eugster_2007_Empa.pdf
Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association. Statistical Highlights. Various years.
ICF, Inc. Assessment of Refrigerator/Freezer Foam End-of-Life Management Option. 2010.
JACO Environmental. Refrigerator/Freezer Recycling Program flyer. Communication by phone and via
email. 2013.
Maytag Corporation, www.amana.com.
National Association of Home Builders and Bank of America. Study of Life Expectancy of Home
Components, 2007. http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload details.aspx?contentlD=99359
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.
RETRA Ltd. (UK Trade Association for Electrical Retailers & Servicing Organizations). 2013.
http://www.retra.co.uk/7page id=74
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"
http://www.web.extension.uiuc.edu/disaster/replace/energy.html
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures. Various years.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 109
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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. Department of Energy. 2009 Refrigerator Market Profile, pg. 5. Installed Base. Original Source:
Appliance Magazine. 32nd Annual Portrait of the Appliance Industry. September, 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Time Lag and Composition of Durable Goods. April 2014.
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/recmeas/pdfs/08 tim lag comp durble gds meth.pdf
U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity Summaries. "Iron and Steel Scrap." Various years.
Wal-Mart website, www.walmart.com
Paper And Paperboard
American Forest & Paper Association. Monthly Statistical Report. Various issues.
American Forest & Paper Association. Paper, Paperboard, Pulp Capacity and Fiber Consumption.
Various years.
American Forest & Paper Association, Paper Recycling Group. Annual Statistical Summary Waste Paper
Utilization. Various years.
American Forest & Paper Association. Statistics of Paper, Paperboard & Wood Pulp. Various years.
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 110
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers. "Recycled Content in Expandable Polystyrene Foam Protective
Packaging." Technical Bulletin. Fall 2001.
American Chemistry Council. "Production and Sales & Captive Use of Thermosetting & Thermoplastic
Resins." Various years.
American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. National Postconsumer Recycled Plastic Bag and Film
Report. Various years, http://www.americanchemistry.eom/s plastics/index.asp
American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. National Postconsumer Report on Non-Bottle Rigid
Plastic Recycling. Various years, http://www.americanchemistry.eom/s plastics/index.asp
American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. United States National Postconsumer Plastics Bottle
Recycling Report. Various years, http://www.americanchemistry.eom/s plastics/index.asp
American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. Plastic Packaging Resins. March 2007.
American Plastics Council, Inc. "Production and Sales & Captive Use of Thermosetting & 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.eom/s plastics/sec content.asp?CID=1593&did=7094
Modern Plastics. Resin Statistics. January and February issues. Various years.
National Association of PET Container Resources (NAPCOR). "Report on Post Consumer PET Container
Recycling Activity." Various years, www.napcor.com
Patty Moore, Moore Recycling Associates, Inc. Presentation to the Association of Oregon Recyclers
June 22, 2007.
http://www.aorr.org/Docs/2007 Conference Presentations/Markets%20Panel%20Plastics.pdf
Personal communication with Aaron Aragon, Program Manager, U.S. Department of Justice, UNICOR
Federal Prison Industries. September 30, October 24 and October 27, 2008.
Personal communication with Moore Recycling Associates, Inc. 2009-2013.
Personal communication with various industry representatives. 2006-2014.
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 111
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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.
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
SniderTire." Bob Ulrich and Mike Manges. 2009. http://www.moderntiredealer.com/Stats/
Modern Tire Dealer. "2011 Was a Great Year for Retreading." January 17, 2012.
http://www.moderntiredealer.com/news/storv/2012/01/2011-was-a-great-year-for-retreading-
still.aspx
Modern Tire Dealer. 2013 Facts Issue, January 2013. http://www.moderntiredealer.com/list/tag/facts-
issue.aspx
National Automobile Dealers Association. NADA Data State of the Industry Report. Various years.
http://www.asymcar.eom/f/2014/2013 NADA Data 102113.pdf
National Automobile Dealers Association. NADA Data 2014. Annual Financial Profile of America's
Franchised New-Car Dealerships. http://www.nada.org/lndustryAnalysis/ Resources/2015/NADA-
DATA-2014/
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/
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 112
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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. Newsroom. Year 2011 Press Releases. 2011 Tire Shipments to Grow
Two Percent. http://www.rma.org/newsroom/release.cfm?ID=315
Rubber Manufacturers Association. Passenger Replacement Shipments To Set Record In 2005.
December?, 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. 2013 US Scrap Tire Management Summary, November 2014.
http://www.rma.org/download/scrap-tires/market-reports/US STMarket2013.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.
Tire Rack.com. Tire Tech "Tire Aging Part - #1." 2015.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/tech page.jsp?techid=138
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures. Industry series 30A-30.
Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Rubber Mechanical
Goods." MA30C. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. "Rubber: Production,
Shipments, and Stocks." MA30A. Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Various
years.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. U.S. Imports for Consumption. FT 247. Table 1.
Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook. "Plastics and Rubber." Also earlier editions.
Various years.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Online database.
http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user set.asp
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 113
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 http://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."
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 114
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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. Apparel Stats. 2013 and earlier years.
https://www.wewear.org/.
American Apparel and Footwear Association. Shoe Stats. 2013 and earlier years.
https://www.wewear.org/.
American Apparel and Footwear Association. Trends: An Annual Compilation of Statistical Information
on the U.S. Apparel & Footwear Industries. 2005 Edition. June 2006. https://www.wewear.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://help-en-
eu.nike.com/a pp/answers/detail/a_id/39600/p/3897.
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 115
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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). Online database.
http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user set.asp
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.pa lletenterprise.com/a rticledatabase/view.asp?articlelD=2906
Bush, Robert, Phillip Araman, and E. Brad Hager. "Recovery, Reuse and Recycling by the United States
Wood Packaging Industry: 1993 to 2006." Environmental Planning, Management, and Sustainability
Studies. February 26, 2007. www.srs4702.forprod.vt.edu/pubsubi/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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 116
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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 20
08.pdf
California Integrated Waste Management Board. "Detailed Characterization of Commercial Self-Haul
and Drop-box Waste" Cascadia Consulting Group. June 2006.
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
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 117
-------
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/sw/100201legrpt.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/swrn/iswmp/Final/Section2WasteStreamAssessment.pdf
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. "The Eighth Annual Report of
the Recycling Public Advisory Council." November 2009.
http://www.awm.delaware.gov/Recvcling/Documents/The%20Eighth%20Annual%20Report%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
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 118
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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." RW Beck. 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.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Matt Flechter, Recycling/Composting
Coordinator.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Lisa Mojsiej, EIT.
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/nvrateQ9.pdf
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 119
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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/recoverv/materialrecovery.htm
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Lawrence Holley, Division Chief, Waste
Minimization and Planning. July 7, 2010.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. "Statewide Waste Composition Study." RW
Beck. April 2003.
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 120
-------
Chapter 2—Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
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."
http://www.scchealth.org/docs/es/docs/recvcle/recycling facts.html
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America, Part I." BioCycle. April 1995.
Steuteville, Robert. "The State of Garbage in America, Part 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/recvcle/documents/AnnualReport-
RRR2008Final.pdf
Wake County, N.C. Solid Waste Management. "Wake County Waste Characterization Study." RW Beck.
April 1999.
Washington Department of Ecology. "Generation, Recycling and Per Capita data (1986-2008)." 2009.
http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/swfa/solidwastedata/recyclin.asp
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Sudhir Patel, Division of Water & Waste
Management.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000 annual recycling data. Staff document.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. "Annual Reports from Responsible Units." Table 1
Recyclable Materials Collected by Wisconsin Responsible Units (1999-2008).
http://www.wnrmag.com/org/aw/wm/recvcle/recycleldfrept/index.html
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. "Wisconsin Statewide Waste Characterization Study."
Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. May 2003.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 121
-------
3. MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE
Introduction
EPA developed a hierarchy ranking the most environmentally sound strategies for municipal solid
waste. The hierarchy places emphasis on reducing, reusing, and recycling the majority of wastes and
demonstrates the key components of EPA's Sustainable Materials Management Program (SMM).
SMM is an effort to protect the environment and conserve resources for future generations through a
systems approach that seeks to reduce materials use and their associated environmental impacts over
their entire life cycles, starting with extraction of natural resources and product design and ending with
decisions on recycling or final disposal.
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
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
122
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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.
Figure 18. Diagram of Solid Waste Management
Generation
of waste for
management
Changes in
package
design
t
1
Backyard
composting,
grasscycling
1
Changes in Changes in
purchasing industrial
habits practices
t
1
Increased
reuse
t
1
Other
changes in
use patterns
SOURCE REDUCTION
1
Recovery for
recycling (including
composting)
t ,
i
Combustion
with energy
recovery
WASTE REDUCTION
Landfill/Other
disposal
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.
Because of the lifecycle environmental benefits, source reduction is the most preferred materials
management approach. Source reduction can:
• Save natural resources.
• Conserve energy.
• Reduce pollution. Reduce the toxicity of our waste.
• Save money for consumers and manufacturers.
Source reduction is gaining more attention as an important solid waste management option. Source
reduction, often called "waste prevention," is defined by EPA as "any change in the design,
manufacturing, purchase, or use of materials or products (including packaging) to reduce their amount
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
123
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
or toxicity before they become municipal solid waste. Prevention also refers to the reuse of products
or materials."4 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.
• Removing unnecessary layers of packaging and using right-sized packaging.
• 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, yard trimmings) through backyard composting
or other on-site alternatives to disposal.
Table 24. Selected Examples of Source Reduction Practices
Source Reduction
Practice
Product or Packagir
Materials
reduction
Materials
substitution
Lengthen Life
MSW Product Categories
Durable Goods Nondurable Goods Containers & Packaging . „ .
8 8 1 (Wood, Yard Waste, Food, etc.)
g Redesign
• Downgauge metals in
appliances
• Use of composites in
appliances and
electronic circuitry
• High mileage tires
• Electronic components
reduce moving parts
• Paperless purchase
orders
• Concentrated products
• Regular servicing
• Consider purchasing
warranties to make
repair more affordable
• Extend warranties
• Container lightweighting
• Right size packaging
• Eliminate unnecessary
layers of packaging
• Refillable/reusable
containers, including use
of flexible pouches for
refills for rigid containers
• Replace rigid or heavy
packaging with lighter or
more compact options,
e.g., cereal in bags, coffee
in brick packs
• Use life cycle data to
choose material with
lower lifecycle impact
• Design for secondary use
• Design for upgrades (e.g.,
add computer memory or
processing capacity,
battery upgrades)
• Reusable packaging
• Xeriscaping
• Just in time ordering/
inventory control
• Adjust menus to reduce
frequently uneaten or
wasted items
• Clearer label information
on food expiration date
• Avoid spoilage by
changing:
— Packaging
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Source reduction definition from Glossary of Terms at web page Wastes -
Educational Materials, accessed January 2015 at http://www.epa.gov/osw/education/quest/glossla.htmtfsr.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 124
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 24. Selected Examples of Source Reduction Practices
Source Reduction
Durable Goods
Purchase long lived
products
Regular servicing
Repair
Buying less stuff
Keuse
By Design
• Docu
and r
disas
repa
• Use
syste
mod
stanc
facili
repa
- l\
c
t
a
c
a
c
r
F
l\
c
t
i
f
- l\
c
i
r
r
F
t
f
r
r
V
a
c
Document materials
and methods for
disassembly/
repair/reuse
Use materials and
systems that exhibit
modularity, and
standardization to
facilitate reuse and
sir
Minimize
connections
between parts
and/or make
connections more
accessible for ease
of repair and
replacement of
parts
Mechanical
connections with
bolts and screws
instead of glues, to
facilitate repair
Minimize
connections to
increase ease of
repair or part
replacement
Provide adequate
tolerances to allow
for removal and
replacement or
repair of parts
without affecting
adjacent
components
MSW Product Catego
Nondurable Goods
Containers & Packaging
Repair
Duplex printing
Sharing
Reduce unwanted mail
Purchasing
concentrated products
Buying less stuff
Reusable shipping or
mailing envelopes
Purchasing products in
bulk (less packaging)
Reusable bags and
containers
Buying less stuff
Organics
(Wood, Yard Waste, Food, etc.)
— Storage and
transportation
- Supply chain
management
HIH
Food donation
Avoid spoilage by
monitoring and tracking
food and purchases and
use
Reduce over-purchasing
Proper food storage and
preparation
Repurposing (e.g., older
bread can be made into
croutons)
Backyard composting
Vermi-composting
Grasscycling
Reusable pallets
Returnable secondary
packaging
Reusable/refillable
dispensers for cleaning
products
Reusable service ware in
food service
Use durable reusable
water bottles instead of
disposable bottles
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
125
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 24. Selected Examples of Source Reduction Practices
| ' 1 MSW Product Categories J
Practice Durable Goods Nondurable Goods Containers & Packaging „.,_,„_,,? j ,
|| | | (Wood, Yard Waste, Food, etc.) |
Secondary
• Borrow or rent for
temporary use
• Give to charity
• Buy or sell at garage
sales
• Donate clothing, books • Loosefill
• Waste paper scratch 1 • Grocery sacks
pads
• Dairy containers
• Glass and plastic bottles
and jars
Reduce/Eliminate Toxins
Eliminate PCBs
Soy or waterbased inks
Waterbased solvents
Reduce mercury
Replace lead foil on wine
bottles
Replace BPA-containing
plastic products, liners,
and coatings with
alternative materials
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, as long as the reduction in packaging maintains its protective performance and
does not result in increased damage, leaks, or spoilage of the product inside the package. Design for
source reduction can take several approaches.
Products can be redesigned to reduce weight or volume so that less packaging is required to deliver
the product. Removing water from pre-diluted products is an effective way to reduce not only the size
of a package but also its shipping weight, reducing both material use and transport fuel use. Single-
strength liquid laundry detergent, for example, has now essentially been replaced by triple-strength
concentrates that deliver the same amount of active ingredients in a much smaller bottle. Flavored
beverage concentrates in the form of powders and drops that consumers mix with water at home are
gaining popularity and can reduce the number of disposable beverage bottles entering the waste
stream.
Reductions in packaging can also be achieved by making container walls thinner, changing the shape or
design of the package, or changing the package manufacturing process. Significant reductions in
material use (and disposal) have been made in beverage packaging in recent years. Examples of
packaging source reduction achievements for different material types include the following:
• Plastics: The weights of plastic bottles and containers, particularly beverage bottles, have
been reduced considerably over the years. Since 1980, the weight of two-liter PET soft drink
bottles has dropped by about 34 percent, from 68 grams per bottle to 42-45 grams today.
The weight of a 32 ounce sports drink bottle was reduced from 45 grams to 39 grams, a 13
percent reduction that saved 595,000 pounds of plastic in the U.S. and almost 9 million
pounds in Europe. The weight of a 500 ml water bottle has been reduced by half since 2002.
Other types of plastic packaging have seen significant weight reductions as well. The weight
of one brand's plastic yogurt cups are now about half the weight they were in the 1970s.
The amount of plastic (and overall weight) of other plastic food trays and containers has
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
126
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
been reduced by replacing some of the plastic content with mineral fillers, or by replacing
solid plastic with plastic material that has a microcellular structure that reduces material
weight and improves insulating performance without affecting recyclability.
• Aluminum: In 2013, a 12 ounce aluminum beverage can weighed 0.0286 pounds (2.86
pounds per 100 cans, or 13 grams per can); down from 3.51 pounds per 100 cans (15.9
grams per can) in 1992 and 4.5 pounds per 100 cans (20.4 grams per can) in 1972. This is a
reduction of almost 19 percent since 1992 and 36 percent since 1972.
• Steel cans: Over the years, steel food cans have been lightweighted by shifts from three
piece to two-piece can designs, using thinner gauges of steel for can walls, and
improvements in easy-open end (EOE) cans. Today's steel food cans are about 1/3 lighter
than they were 25 years ago.
• Glass: Significant lightweighting has been achieved in soft drink, beer, and wine bottles, as
well as food jars, through use of manufacturing techniques such as the NNPB (narrow neck
press and blow) process, which can achieve weight reductions of 10 to 30 percent
compared to conventional glass bottles.
• Corrugated boxes: The amount of corrugated used for packaging can be reduced by
ensuring that boxes are not overspecified (do not use boxboard that is thicker and heavier
than the application requires). In some cases, the amount of corrugated can be reduced by
using a different box configuration, e.g., a box with smaller flaps, or by replacing corrugated
boxes with corrugated trays and pads used with a film overwrap. One innovative company
installs equipment that feeds corrugated sheet into forming machines at customers' plants
to produce made-to-order boxes tailor-fit to each order.
Material substitution is another way to make a product or package lighter, use less material and/or
reduce environmentally hazardous characteristics of the product. 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. Substitution also may involve replacing a rigid package with a lighter or more
compact flexible package. Improvements in strength and barrier properties of new film resins and
technologies can allow significant reductions in packaging film thickness (and weight) without
diminishing protective performance. A related source reduction approach is using lightweight, flexible
packages to sell refills for heavier rigid containers. This solution can be used for products like laundry
detergent and liquid hand soap, where the refill material from the pouch is poured into the original
rigid container, rather than purchasing another filled rigid container. A foodservice refill pouch of salad
dressing that can be poured into refillable individual bottles reduced plastic use by 60 percent
compared to the rigid bulk refill container used previously.
Redesign of a product to make it smaller and/or lighter can also result in savings in the amount of
transport packaging used to ship products to stores. For example, when a large consumer product
company reduced the thickness of their disposable diapers in 2013, the amount of plastic film wrap
and corrugated shipping boxes used to package and ship the diapers was reduced by 10 percent.
Elimination of unnecessary packaging is an important form of source reduction. Some companies have
removed cardboard cores inside rolls of paper towels or bathroom tissue, with one company reporting
elimination of 8.5 pounds of waste per case of tissue. Some farmers use reusable field-to-store
containers for shipping produce. After the produce is picked it is put into a container that will be used
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 127
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
not only to ship the product but also to display the product in the retail store. These display-ready
containers result in savings in many areas. With no repacking, less labor is required, fewer containers
are used, and spoilage and produce damage that can occur during repacking processes is reduced.
Reusable display-ready containers are often sturdier and provide more protection during shipment
compared to single-use containers. Other companies have eliminated exterior boxes for health and
beauty products such as bottles of cough syrup. Using "right-sized" shipping boxes is another very
effective approach that can reduce not only the amount of material used for the box but also the
amount of fill material used to surround the product inside the box. Cube optimization (designing
product and packaging so that it more efficiently uses space in transport packaging) can lead to both
waste reduction and ancillary benefits of more efficient transport (less truckloads required to ship
same amount of product, with associated fuel and GHG reductions). One very large retailer was able to
increase deliveries by 830 million cases while simultaneously reducing 300 million miles driven,
compared to their 2005 baseline. Manufacturers should consider the entire packaging system to
ensure that a change made in one area does not result in tradeoffs in another area. For example,
removal of exterior packaging at the product level could result in additional packaging needed for
palletizing and shipping the product.
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. Unfortunately there currently is no standardized way for
manufacturers to communicate - and consumers to understand - the relative durability or lifespan of
competing products. 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.
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. Containers and packaging can
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 128
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
be reused in two ways: they can be used again for their original purpose, or they can be used in other
ways. 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.
Containers and Packaging. Glass bottles are a prime example of reuse of a container for its original
purpose. Refillable glass bottles can be collected, washed, and refilled for use again. Some years ago
large numbers of refillable glass soft drink bottles were used; however, single-use glass bottles, plastic
bottles, and aluminum cans have largely replaced these. While refillable glass soft drink bottles have
largely disappeared from use in the U.S., refillable bottles are seeing an increase in popularity for beer
and dairy products. According to a 2011 USA Today article, hundreds of brewpubs, breweries and even
grocery stores are cashing in on the growing popularity of 64-ounce refillable glass beer bottles called
growlers. A California dairy reports a return rate of over 80 percent of their glass milk bottles. The
bottles are washed, sanitized and reused an average of 4-6 times before being recycled.
Consumers are also increasingly choosing to purchase reusable vessels to use for on-the-go
consumption of drinking water and other beverages, rather than buying beverages in disposable
bottles. Water bottle refill stations are now available at locations including schools, national parks, and
airports.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 129
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Another example in the reuse category is the use of refurbished wood pallets for shipping palletized
goods. It is estimated that over 8 million tons of wood pallets were refurbished and returned to service
in 2013. It is also common practice to recondition steel drums and barrels for reuse.
Use of returnable containers for closed-loop shipping cycles between product manufacturers and their
customers continues to expand, as companies realize the environmental and cost benefits of using a
much smaller supply of durable boxes to make shipment cycles that would require much greater
numbers of single-use boxes that are typically disposed or recycled after one use. Many companies sell
or lease rigid and collapsible plastic containers made of solid molded panels or corrugated plastic that
can be reused dozens or hundreds of times. Fiber corrugated boxes can often be reused for several
shipping cycles before they become worn out and are sent to a recycler. Use of returnable containers
can save huge quantities of material if container losses due to theft and damage can be minimized.
One major snack food company reports operating a corrugated box reuse system with a 96.8 percent
box reuse rate. The boxes are used an average of 5 times before they are recycled, saving 5 million
trees a year. Some corrugated box brokers are successfully selling used corrugated boxes, which bring
a higher price than selling baled used boxes to a recycler.
In addition to use for shipments of finished products, reusable packaging has important benefits for
shipments between parts suppliers and manufacturers. Use of reusable boxes and racks designed for
specific parts can drastically reduce not only the amount of one-way packaging to be recycled or
disposed but can also lead to reductions in part damage, greatly improved efficiencies in space
utilization in transport and in plants, increased material handling efficiencies at manufacturing plants,
and associated cost savings.
Many types of containers and packaging can be either recycled or reused. Although recycling is an
effective means of reducing solid waste disposal, energy is required for recycling and remanufacturing
processes. Direct reuse of a product or package is a very effective source reduction technique that is
less energy-intensive than recycling. Many grocery stores offer reusable bags for sale and encourage
reuse of any shopping bags, often allowing a refund for each bag 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.
Just as consumer participation is key to increasing recycling, responsible consumer behavior is key to
the success of many source reduction measures. For example, source-reduced packaging designed to
be light in weight and minimize material usage can become litter or marine debris if improperly
managed by consumers. Products that have been designed to have long lives will not result in source
reduction if consumers dispose of the product when a replaceable or repairable component fails or do
not maintain the product properly.
Management of Organic Materials
Food and yard trimmings combined made up over 28 percent of MSW generation in 2013, 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,
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 130
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
composting of organic materials after they are taken to a central composting facility is a recycling
activity. Estimates for these off-site composting activities are included in this chapter.
There are several types of source reduction that take place at the point of generation (e.g., the yard of
a home or business). The backyard composting of yard trimmings and certain food discards is a
growing source reduction practice. There also is a trend toward leaving grass clippings on lawns, often
through the use of mulching mowers. Other actions contributing to reduced organics disposal are:
establishment of variable fees for collection of wastes (also known as unit-based pricing or Pay-As-You-
Throw), which encourage residents to reduce the amount of wastes set out; improved technology
(mulching mowers); xeriscaping (landscaping with plants that use minimal water and generate minimal
waste); and certain legislation such as bans on disposal of food or 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 2013, 21 states (amounting to about 39 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.
Recovery for Recycling and 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 and Food Collection. In 2011, more than 9,800 curbside recyclables collection
programs were reported in the United States. Curbside collection programs commonly require
residents to do at least some sorting of the recyclable materials put at the curb. In recent years,
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 131
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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.
EPA estimates over 70 percent of the U.S. population had access to curbside recyclables6 collection
programs in 2011 (based on data from states representing 71.2 percent of the U.S. population). In
comparison, a 2009 American Beverage Association study estimated that 74 percent of the U.S.
population had access to curbside recycling programs.7
Communities offering residential curbside food collection programs were identified for 209
communities across 16 states in 2013. Table 25 shows that these residential curbside collection
programs were available to 2.7 million households, which is 2.3 percent of all U.S. households in 2013.
Table 25. Residential Food Collection and
Composting Programs in the U.S., 2013
Households _ Households
State _ . State
Served Served
California
Colorado
Iowa
Kansas
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Jersey
1,301,966 1 New York
37,824
39,400
73
4,540
9,599
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
Vermont
47,500 Washington
157,596 I Wisconsin
8,138
31,800
73,813
213,728
3,400
15,600
2,700
770,458
700
Total U.S. Households Served 2,718,835
Total U.S. Households
116,291,033
2.3%
BioCycle March 2013. Residential Food Waste Collection In The U.S. — BioCycle Nationwide Survey.
Supplemental tables.
Additional web search to supplement BioCycle survey.
New York City's pilot program served over 30,000 households in 2013. The program was expanded in 2014 to
100,000 households served. Several other pilot programs around the country were started or expanded in 2014,
including Cambridge, MA and Austin, TX.
Several alternative composting collection programs exist to serve communities where curbside
collection is not an option. First, many cities and towns encourage residents to compost food in their
backyards, if space is available. Second, a number of communities—such as Cambridge and
Manchester-by-the-Sea in Massachusetts; Minneapolis, Ramsey, and Hennepin Counties in Minnesota;
5 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 2011 Facts and Figures. May 2013.
7 American Beverage Association. "2008 ABA Community Survey. Final Report." September 2009.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
132
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Boulder County in Colorado; Napa Valley in California; and Washington, D.C.—have drop-off sites that
accept food for composting in place of or in addition to curbside programs. Third, new private
companies have formed to fill the demand for home pick-up services for food composting where
municipal curbside programs do not exist.
Drop-off Centers. Drop-off centers typically collect residential recyclable 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 later 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 19). In these programs, the
consumer pays a deposit on beverage containers at the point of purchase, which is redeemed on
return of the empty containers. In California, beverage distributors also pay a per container fee. In
addition to these fees, handling fees are also assessed in most of the states listed.
Deposit systems generally target beverage containers, which account for about 5 percent of total MSW
generation (dairy products are typically excluded). The 2007 version of this report series estimated that
about 35 percent of all recovery of beverage containers comes from ten of the eleven states with
deposit legislation,8 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.
Containers recovered through these programs eventually are credited to the distributor and counted
towards the redemption rate.)
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.
8 Delaware deposit legislation was repealed by Senate Bill 234. Deposit collection ceased on December 1, 2010.
http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/usa/delaware.htm
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 133
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Office paper (e.g., white, mixed color, computer paper, etc.) is part of another commercial recyclables
collection infrastructure. Depending on the quantities generated, businesses (e.g., banks, institutions,
schools, printing operations, etc.) can sort materials and have them picked up by a paper dealer, or self
deliver the materials to the recycler. It should be noted that commercial operations also make
recycling available for materials other than paper.
Multi-family residence recycling could be classified as either residential or commercial recyclables
collection. Multi-family refuse is usually handled as a commercial account by waste haulers. These
commercial waste haulers may handle recycling at multi-family dwellings (typically five or more units)
as well.
Figure 19. States with Bottle Deposit Rules
Source: Container Recycling Institute, 2011
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 2013,
797 MRFs were operating in the United States, with an estimated total daily throughput of over
140,000 tons per day (Table 26). The most extensive recyclables processing throughput occurs in the
Northeast and West (Figure 20).
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
134
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 26. Material Recovery Facilities (MRF), 2013
WEST 153 37,176
Source: Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. Data provided December 2014.
Figure 20. Estimated MRF Throughput, 2013
(Tons per day per million persons)
600
500
° 400
300
200
100
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. Data provided December 2014.
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 often 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 21. Mixed waste
processing facilities receive mixed solid waste (including recyclable and non-recyclable materials),
which is then loaded on conveyors. Using both mechanical and manual (high and low technology)
sorting, recyclable materials are removed for further processing. In 2013, there were reported 52
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
135
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
mixed waste processing facilities in the U.S., handling about 58,700 tons of waste per day. The Western
region has the largest concentration of these processing facilities (representing over 90 percent of the
daily throughput).
Figure 21. Mixed Waste Processing Estimated Throughput, 2013
(Tons Per Day Per Million Persons)
800
700
i/i
n
o
£ 600
Q.
C
1 500
1
1. 400
J 300
*-
>.
re
1 200
c
o
*J
100
0
Northeast South Midwest West
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. Data provided December 2014.
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 and yard trimmings, wood, and other materials. In 2013, 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 2013, up from 1,100
tons per day in 2009. In 2013, the highest processing capacity per million persons was found in the
West and Midwest, as shown in Figure 22.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
136
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
o
en
!_
o>
EL
_E
01
3
O
rc
•a
Figure 22. MSW Composting Capacity, 2013
(Capacity in Tons Per Day Per Million Persons)
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; BioCyde, November 2011, Medina County, Ohio and West Wendover, Nevada websites.
Yard Trimmings Composting. Yard trimmings composting is much more prevalent than mixed waste
composting. On-site management of yard trimmings (backyard composting) is discussed earlier in this
chapter, and is classified as source reduction, not recycling. In 2013, about 3,560 yard trimmings
composting programs were identified. In 2013, about 50 percent of these programs were in the
Midwest region, as shown in Figure 23. Based on 20.6 million tons of yard trimmings recovered for
composting in the United States (Table 2, Chapter 2), yard trimmings composting facilities handled
approximately 56,400 tons per day in 2013.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
137
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 23. Yard Trimmings Composting Facilities, 2013
(In Number of Facilities)
V)
o
01
3
O
ro
-o
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance. July 2014 "State of Composting in the U.S. "Facilities composting yard trimmings. Includes data
for 44 states. An Internet search provided remaining information for Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and
the District of Columbia
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 2013 design capacity of about 95,300 tons per day. There were 80 WTE facilities in 2013 (Table
27), down from 102 in 2000. In tons of capacity per million persons, the Northeast region had the most
MSW combustion capacity in 2013 (Figure 24).
In addition to facilities combusting mixed MSW (processed or unprocessed), there is a small but
growing amount of combustion of source-separated MSW. In particular, rubber tires have been used
as fuel in cement kilns, utility boilers, pulp and paper mills, industrial boilers, and dedicated scrap tire-
to-energy facilities. In addition, there is combustion of wood wastes and some paper and plastic
wastes, usually in boilers that already burn some other type of solid fuel. For this report, it was
estimated that about 3.2 million tons of MSW were combusted in this manner in 2013, with tires
contributing a majority of the total.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
138
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 27. Municipal Waste-To-Energy Projects, 2013
Number Design Capacity
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
38
21
14
7
44,415
32,004
11,524
7,310
U.S. Total*
* Excludes 4 inactive facilities (representing another 996 tpd capacity).
WTE includes mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived fuel combustion facilities.
Source: "The 2014 ERC Directory of Waste-to-Energy Facilities." Energy Recovery Council (ERC). May 2014.
Figure 24. Municipal Waste-To-Energy Capacity, 2013
(Capacity in Tons Per Million Persons)
o
I/I
!_
o>
EL
C
O
1
4—*
EL
_E
01
3
O
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Energy Recovery Council (ERC). May 2014.
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
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
139
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
recovered materials purchased by end users rather than materials entering a processing facility, the
residues are counted with other disposed materials.
When municipal solid waste is combusted, a residue (usually called ash) is left behind. Years ago this
ash was commonly disposed of along with municipal solid waste, but combustor ash is not counted as
MSW in this report because it generally is managed separately9. (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 2013, there were 1,908 municipal solid waste landfills reported in the United States. Table 28 and
Figure 25 show the number of landfills in each region. The South and West had the largest number of
landfills. Thirty-eight percent of the landfills are located in the West, 35 percent in the South, and 21
percent in the Midwest. Less than 7 percent are located in the Northeast.
Table 28. Landfill Facilities, 2013
Region
NORTHEAST
SOUTH
MIDWEST
WEST
Number of Landfills
128
668
394
Source: BioCycle October 2010. Latest report available.
9 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 140
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 25. Number of landfills in the U.S., 2013
800
700
600
500
400
2 300
200
100
Northeast South
Source: BioCycle October 2010. Latest report available.
Midwest
West
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 as shown in Table 29.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
141
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 29. Jobs Created through Reuse, Recycling, and Disposal
(jobs per 10,000 tons per year managed)
Type of Operation Jobs per 10,000 TPY
Computer Reuse
Textile Reclamation
Misc. Durables Reuse
Wooden Pallet Repair
296
85
62
28
Recycling-based Manufacturers
Paper Mills
Glass Product Manufacturers
Plastic Product Manufacturers
Conventional Materials Recovery Facilities
Composting
Landfill and Incineration
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 30 and Figure 26.
Historically, municipal solid waste generation has grown steadily (from 88.1 million tons in 1960 to
254.1 million tons at present). In the 1960s and early 1970s a large percentage of MSW was burned,
with little recovery for recycling. Landfill disposal typically consisted of open dumping, often
accompanied with open burning of the waste for volume reduction.
Through the mid-1980s, incineration declined considerably and landfills became difficult to site, and
waste generation continued to increase. Materials recovery rates increased very slowly in this time
period, and the burden on the nation's landfills grew dramatically. As Figure 26 shows, discards of
MSW to landfill or other disposal apparently peaked in 1990 and then began to decline as materials
recovery and combustion with energy recovery increased.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
142
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Figure 26. Municipal Solid Waste management, 1960 to 2013
300
Recovery of the composting component of recycling
Combustion with energy recovery
1970
1980
1990
2000
20102013
Recovery has increased steadily. Combustion with energy recovery, as a percentage of generation, has
been declining. MSW discards to landfills rose to about 142.3 million tons in 2005, and then declined to
134.3 million tons in 2013. 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 52.8 percent in 2013.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
143
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 30. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion,
and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2013
(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,
88,120
5,610
Neg.
5,610
82,510
0
121,060
8,020
Neg.
8,020
113,040
400
151,640
14,520
Neg.
14,520
137,120
2,700
208,270
29,040
4,200
33,240
175,030
29,700
243,450
53,010
16,450
69,460
173,990
33,730
253,730
59,240
20,550
79,790
173,940
31,620
244,600
61,890
20,750
82,640
161,960
29,010
250,540
66,400
20,570
86,970
163,570
31,800
251,040
65,240
21,330
86,570
164,470
32,200
254,110
64,740
22,440
87,180
166,930
32,660
other disposal* 82,510 112,640 134,420 145,330 140,260 142,320 132,950 131,770 132,270 134,270
II Pounds per Person per Day
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2009 2011 2012 2013
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after recovery
Combustion with
energy recovery**
Discards to landfill,
other disposal*
Population (thousands)
2.68
0.17
Neg.
0.17
2.51
0.00
2.51
179,979
3.25
0.22
Neg.
0.22
3.03
0.01
3.02
203,984
3.66
0.35
Neg.
0.35
3.31
0.07
3.24
227,255
4.57
0.64
0.09
0.73
3.84
0.65
3.19
249,907
4.74
1.03
0.32
1.35
3.39
0.66
2.73
281,422
4.69
1.10
0.38
1.48
3.21
0.58
2.63
296,410
4.37
1.10
0.37
1.47
2.90
0.52
2.38
307,007
4.41
1.17
0.36
1.53
2.88
0.56
2.32
311,592
4.38
1.14
0.37
1.51
2.87
0.56
2.31
313,914
4.40
1.12
0.39
1.51
2.89
0.57
2.32
316,129
Generation
Recovery for recycling
Recovery for composting*
Total Materials Recovery
Discards after recovery
Combustion with
energy recovery**
Discards to landfill,
other disposal*
100.0%
6.4%
Neg.
6.4%
93.6%
0.0%
93.6%
100.0%
6.6%
Neg.
6.6%
93.4%
0.3%
93.1%
100.0%
9.6%
Neg.
9.6%
90.4%
1.8%
88.6%
100.0%
14.0%
2.0%
16.0%
84.0%
14.2%
69.8%
100.0%
21.8%
6.7%
28.5%
71.5%
13.9%
57.6%
100.0%
23.3%
8.1%
31.4%
68.6%
12.5%
56.1%
100.0%
25.3%
8.5%
33.8%
66.2%
11.9%
54.4%
100.0%
26.5%
8.2%
34.7%
65.3%
12.7%
52.6%
100.0%
26.0%
8.5%
34.5%
65.5%
12.8%
52.7%
100.0%
25.5%
8.8%
34.3%
65.7%
12.9%
52.8%
Composting of yard trimmings, food 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). 2013 includes 29,500 MSW, 510 wood, and 2,650 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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
144
-------
Chapters—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/2011scrapjobstudv
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/ll/more-iobs-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/mswcha r05.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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 145
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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-00.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1999 Facts and
Figures. EPA/530-R-01-014. July 2001.
Source Reduction
Aluminum Association. Industry Statistics U.S. Aluminum Beverage Can Recycling. 2014.
http://www.aluminum.org/sites/default/files/section images/UBCRecyclingRate2013.pdf
Ball. Cans: A Smart and Sustainable Solution. Accessed December 2014 at
http://www.ball.com/innovation-lightweighting/
Canfield, Clarke. "Reusable 'growlers' grow popular for carrying draft beer." October, 18, 2011. USA
Today.
City of Seattle. DfD Design for Dissembly in the Built Environment, Undated document accessed
January 2015 at http://www.lifecyclebuilding.org/docs/DfDseattle.pdf
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.
Ecolean. Description of material composition and benefits accessed December 2014 at
http://www.ecolean.com/package/material/
Fenton, A.; Wiegand, 0.; Mann, K. Light weighting containers. Undated document accessed December
2014 at http://old.emhartglass.com/files/A0040.pdf
Flexible Packaging Association. Flexible Packaging Lightweighting Strategies and Innovation. 2011.
http://www.flexpack.org/sustainable packaging/FPA Lightweighting White Paper.pdf
Frito Lay. Our Steps to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. Accessed December 2014 at
http://www.fritolay.com/purpose/our-steps. Box reuse listed as item 24.
General Mills. Packaging. Accessed December 2014 at
http://www.generalmills.com/en/Responsibility/Environment/packaging.aspx
Heinz. Packaging Sustainability Pillars. Accessed December 2014 at
http://www.heinz.com/sustainability/supplychain/packaging.aspx
Keep America Beautiful, Inc. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the Year
2000. 1994.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 146
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Kimberly-Clark. 2013 Sustainability Report. http://www.sustainabilityreport2013.kimberlv-
clark.com/products/packaging/index.aspx. Diaper packaging reduction listed under first section,
North America Personal Care.
Koel, Jaan. "Out-of-the-box sustainable packaging options for manufacturers." Posted October 1, 2012
at http://sustainablemfr.com/materials/box-sustainable-packaging-options-manufacturers.
Georgia-Pacific Compact® coreless tissue savings described in last paragraph of Light-weighting,
Downsizing section.
Kraft. Description of flexible salad dressing refill package and benefits 2012 at
http://www.kraftyespack.com/full/sustainability.aspx
LeBlanc, Rick. "How to Make More Money Recycling Used Cardboard Boxes."2014. Accessed December
2014 at http://recycling.about.com/od/Paper/a/How-To-Make-More-Money-Recycling-Used-
Cardboard-Boxes.htm
MicroGREEN. Description of cup material and benefits accessed December 2014 at
http://www.microgreeninc.com/about-incycle-cups/how-it-works/
National Park Service. Sustainability Success Story: Water-filling Stations at Zion National Park. 2012.
Accessed February 2015 at
http://www.nps.gov/sustainability/parks/downloads/GPP%20Success ZION bottles 4 17 12.pdf
Packsize. Description of on-demand custom box manufacturing accessed December 2014 at
http://www.packsize.com/on-demand
PepsiCo. Packaging Waste and Recycling. Accessed December 2014 at
http://www.pepsico.com/Purpose/Environmental-Sustainability/Packaging-and-Waste
PETRA. PET Resin Association. Sustainability. Accessed December 2014 at
http://www.petresin.org/sustainability.asp
Rattray, Tom. "Source Reduction—An Endangered Species?" Resource Recycling. November 1990.
Raymond Communications Inc. State Recycling Laws Update Year-End Edition 1998.
Straus. Straus Family Creamery Reusable Glass Bottles. Accessed December 2014 at
http://strausfamilvcreamery.com/values-in-action/reusable-glass-bottles
Tesla. Tesla Motors windshield packaging case study video, accessed January 2015 at Use Reusables
website http://www.usereusables.com/casestudies/index.html.
Unilever. Benefits of Mucell technology described in Our Perspective section at
http://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living-2014/reducing-environmental-impact/waste-and-
packaging/Reduce-Reuse-Recycle/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Consumer's Handbook for Reducing Solid Waste. EPA/530-
K-92-003. August 1992.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 147
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States
1994 Update. November 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Wise: Second Year Progress Report. EPA/530-R-96-016.
September 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 2011 Facts and
Figures. May 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Reducing Wasted Food & Packaging: A Guide for Food Services
and Restaurants 2014 at
http://www.epa.gov/foodrecovery/docs/reducing wasted food pkg tool.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Source reduction definition from Glossary of Terms at web page
Wastes - Educational Materials, accessed January 2015 at
http://www.epa.gov/osw/education/quest/glossla.htmfer.
Vetropack. A lighter way to enjoy glass. Undated document accessed December 2014 at
http://vetropack.inettools.ch/upload/dokumente/leichtglas e rz.pdf
Walmart. On the road to doubling fleet efficiency. Accessed at http://corporate.walmart.com/global-
responsibility/environment-sustainability/truck-fleet January 2015.
Warren, Jim. "Water bottle refilling stations already a success at Fayette high schools." Lexington-
Herald Leader, March 28, 2013. Accessed February 2015 at
http://www.kentucky.com/2013/03/28/2578010/water-bottle-refiling-stations.html.
Recovery for Recycling and Composting
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Waste Remediation Programs.
http://www.adem.state.al.us/programs/land/default.cnt
American Beverage Association. 2008 ABA Community Survey Final Report Rev. 02 September 2009.
http://flrecvcling.org/Resources/Downloads/American-Beverage-Association-Community-
Recvcling-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.Org//news/exec summ 2010.html
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. Arkansas Recycling Marketing Directory.
http://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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 148
-------
Chapters—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/Directorv/SearchList/List?FAC=Disposal&OPSTATUS=Act
ive®STATUS=Permitted
Cambridge Department of Public Works. 2014. Curbside Compost Pilot.
http://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/recvclingandtrash/faqrecyclingandrubbish/co
mpostingquestions/compostpilot.aspx
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Final Report on Inventory and Database of
Colorado Diversion Activity.
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/oeis/p2 program/grantreports/sow3finalreport.pdf
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Hazardous Materials and Waste Management
Division. HSRF Year-to-Date Cubic Yards Reported 2008.
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/swreport/hsrf2008.pdf
Colorado Municipal League. Municipal Residential Curbside Recycling Services.
http://www.coloradocurbside.com/survevtables/curbsidecityservice.html
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Active Leaf Composting Facilities.
http://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 s
urvey report 2 section 2.pdf
Container Recycling Institute. 2006. http://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.gov/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/2009Annua I Report/10
B.pdf
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 149
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Yard Trash Processing Facilities Database.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/solid waste/pages/yardtrash.htm
Georgia Department of Community Affairs. 2009 Solid Waste Management Annual Report. 2009 Solid
Waste and Recyclable Collection. Solid Waste & Recycling Collection 2009 Update.
http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/research/programs/downloads/SWAR2009Collection.pd
f
Glenn, Jim. "MSW Composting in the United States." BioCycle. November 1997.
Glenn, Jim. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. April 1998.
Goldstein, Nora. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. October 2010.
Goldstein, Nora. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. December 2001.
Goldstein, Nora, and Celeste Madtes. "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle. November 2000.
Governmental Advisory Associates. 1997 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.
http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/landfill-capacity/2007/index.html
Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Recycle Indiana. Composting.
http://www.in.gov/recycle/5725.htm
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Organics and Composting.
http://www.iowadnr.gov/waste/recycling/organics/index.html
Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Waste Management.
http://publicl.kdhe.state.ks.us/Landfills/Landfills.nsf70pendatabase
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Waste Management. Recycling and
Local Assistance Branch. http://waste.ky.gov/RLA/Pages/default.aspx
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 150
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Waste Management. Statewide Solid
Waste Management Report- 2010 Update.
http://waste.kv.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, http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/data/
Maine State Planning Office. Report: Residential Recycling Year: 2008.
http://www.maine.gov/spo/recvcle/docs/data/2008data/ResidentRecycling.pdf
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/Programs/LandPrograms/Recycling/publications/
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Landfills, Transfer Stations & Compost Sites.
http://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.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/DEQ-WHMD-
List Registered Compost Sites 230193 7.pdf
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Compost.
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/compost.htmltfpbrsites
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. Recycling Directories.
http://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, http://www.deq.state.ne.us/lntList.nsf/Web+List?OpenView&Start=l&Count=125
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Nevada Solid Waste Landfills.
http://ndep.nv.gov/BWM/landfill.htmfeolid nevada
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Composting Facilities in New Hampshire.
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/waste/swrtas/composters.htm
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 151
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. NJDEP Approved Operating Commercial Sanitary
Landfills, http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw/lrm/aocslf.htm
New Jersey. Department of Environmental Protection. Recycling Markets Directory.
http://www.state.ni.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, http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/55447.html
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Waste Management.
http://www.wastenotnc.org/DATARPTS2003 3ColA.HTM
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 I id=4649434&folderld=4667253&name=
DLFE-46021.pdf
North Dakota Department of Health - Division of Waste Management. 2010 Curbside Pick-Up
Programs. http://www.ndhealth.gov/WM/Publications/CommunitvRecyclinglnNorthDakota.pdf
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management.
http://www.epa.ohio.gov/Defau It.aspx?alias=www.epa.oh io.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.
http://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/recvcle/recvwrks/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.
http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/waste/pdf/swfacs.pdf
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 152
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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.htmffsolidwastereport
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
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/countv recycling.shtml
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Municipal Solid Waste in Texas: A Year in Review FY 2008
Data Summary and Analysis. October 2009.
http://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.
Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea. 2014. Curbside Composting.
http://www.manchester.ma.us/pages/manchesterma dpw/curbcomp
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.htmffDisposaIFacili
ties
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, http:// www.deq.virginia.gov/waste/pdf/allava.pdf
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 153
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Washington State Department of Ecology, http://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.
Yepsen, Rhodes and Nora Goldstein. BioCycle Nationwide Survey. "Source Separated Residential
Composting in the U.S." December 2007.
Yepsen, Rhodes. Residential Food Waste Collection in the U.S. — BioCycle Nationwide Survey. BioCycle
2013. 54(3): 23. http://www.biocycle.net/2013/03/19/residential-food-waste-collection-in-the-u-s-
biocycle-nation wide-survey/
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://energvrecovervcouncil.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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 154
-------
Chapters—Management of Municipal Solid Waste
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 155
-------
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.
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 156
-------
Appendix A—Materials Flow Methodology
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.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 157
-------
Appendix A—Materials Flow Methodology
Figure A-1. Materials Flow Methodology for Estimating Generation
of Products and Materials in Municipal Solid Waste
Domestic Production
of
Materials/Products
Conversion/
fabricating
Scrap
Imports
of
Materials/Products
Exports
of
Materials/Products
Diversion
of
Materials/Products
Permanent
Diversion
Municipal
Solid Waste
Generation
I
I Temporary
Diversion
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
158
-------
Appendix A—Materials Flow Methodology
Figure A-2. Materials Flow Methodology for Estimating
Discards of Products and Materials in Municipal Solid Waste
MSW
Generation
Recovery
for
Recycling
Recovery
for
Composting
Discards
after
Recycling
and
Composting
Recovery for
Combustion
with
Energy
Recovery
1
Recovery for
Combustion
without
Energy Recovery
Discards
to Landfill
and
Other
Disposal
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
159
-------
Appendix B: Construction and Demolition
Debris Generation
Introduction
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris includes a variety of materials that may be generated from
different sources (e.g., construction, renovation, demolition, land-clearing, and natural disasters). The
C&D estimates presented in this appendix are generated from construction, renovation and demolition
of buildings, roads, and bridges.
EPA estimated how much C&D debris is generated in the United States using a materials flow analysis.
Materials estimated through the materials flow analysis are Portland cement concrete, steel, wood
products, gypsum wallboard and plaster, brick, clay tile, and asphalt shingles. The method used to
estimate asphalt concrete differed from the materials flow analysis. The asphalt concrete generation
was estimated using industry gathered consumption data and an estimated asphalt concrete recovery
rate.
Construction and Demolition Debris
Generation
This section includes a detailed description of the methodology used by EPA to estimate C&D debris
generation and results from the analysis. In order to capture the greatest portion of C&D debris
generation possible, EPA chose to use a top-down estimation method developed from a materials flow
analysis by Cochran and Townsend (2010). This method is similar to that used for calculation of waste
generation from durable goods in municipal solid waste. Historical construction-material usage
(consumption) is tabulated and typical lifespans of material types are assumed. The materials flow
analysis estimates when each material has reached end-of-life (EOL) and is ready for management.
Two alternative approaches for estimating generation have been proposed. The first requires annual
construction, demolition, and renovation data such as annual square footage of construction or
construction and demolition permits as well as information on the amount and type of materials per
unit of construction or demolition in order to estimate and characterize the waste at the national level.
Since these data are not readily available for non-building related C&D generation, this approach
would lead to underestimation of C&D debris generation. The second approach is a bottom-up
approach that uses state-level diversion and disposal data to build up to a national estimate. This
approach relies on data gathered by individual state agencies. The data are gathered over different
time periods, presented at differing levels of data aggregation, supported by different material and
management definitions, all of which would make comparison across all of the states difficult.
The materials flow method outlined by Cochran and Townsend, and used as a starting point here,
draws on publicly available historical materials consumption data from several government and
industry organizations to estimate C&D debris generation for Portland cement concrete, steel, wood
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 160
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
products, gypsum wallboard and plaster, brick, clay tile, and asphalt shingles. The method EPA used to
estimate asphalt concrete differed from the materials flow analysis. Industry gathered data on recycled
asphalt pavement (RAP) consumption and an estimated asphalt concrete recovery rate were used to
estimate generation. These products represent the major components of construction. C&D debris
generation from land clearing or natural disasters is not included.
C&D Debris Generation Methodology
Based on the Cochran and Townsend methodology, EPA derived total C&D debris generation from the
sum of waste generated during construction and demolition activities. Figure B-l depicts the flow of
materials resulting from construction, renovation, and demolition over the lifetime of a building, road,
or other structure. Cochran and Townsend define C&D debris generated during construction (Cw) as
the portion of purchased construction materials that are not incorporated into the actual structure,
such as scraps and surplus materials. New construction and the installation phase of renovation
projects both contribute to waste generated during construction. Demolition waste (Dw) is the sum of
materials removed from a structure during renovation and the materials generated from a structure's
final demolition.
Figure B-1. Materials Flow Diagram for Construction, Renovation, and Demolition
Materials
(M)
Source: Cochran and Townsend (2010)
Construction guides, used by builders to estimate the amount of materials to purchase for a
construction project, provide the average amount of waste expected during construction for a range of
materials. Cochran and Townsend used these guides to estimate the average percentage of materials
discarded during construction, shown in Table B-l. Equation 1 below shows the calculation of waste
during construction for a given year based on annual material consumption and average percentage of
material waste during construction.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
161
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
(1) CW,y = MyXWC
where:
Cw,y = amount of material waste discarded during construction in year y;
My = the amount of a given material consumed in the U.S. in year y; and,
Wc = the percentage of material discarded during new construction or the installation phase
of renovation.
Table B-1. Percent of Material Discarded during
Construction
Material
Concrete
Wood products
Drywall and Plasters
Steel
Brick and Clay Tile
Asphalt Shingles
Asphalt Concrete
Percent Discarded
3%
5%
10%
0%
4%
10%
0%
Source: As cited in Cochran and Townsend (2010): DelPico (2004) and Thomas
(1991)
Any material incorporated into the actual structure remains until removed during renovation or
demolition, at which point it becomes demolition waste.10 Since C&D debris generated from
demolition in a given year is dependent on the lifespan of each construction material, Cochran and
Townsend (2010) calculated a range of C&D debris generation from demolition based on the short,
typical, and long lifespan of the material and source of C&D debris shown in Table B-2, resulting in
three different values for C&D demolition debris for each year by material and source.
Table B-2. Lifespan of Construction Materials by Source (Years)
Matprial
Concrete
Lumber
Plywood and Veneers
Wood Paneling
Drywall and Plasters
Qnurrp
Buildings
Roads & Bridges
Other Structures
Buildings
Buildings
Buildings
Buildings
^^m
Short
50
23
20
50
50
20
25
Lifespan
Typical
75
25
30
75
75
25
50
^M
Long
100
40
50
100
100
30
75
10 For a material such as asphalt shingles that reaches its assumed end of life before other materials associated with the
same structure, EPA assumes that the material is removed from service through renovation and accounted for in the
demolition amount. This approach does not capture demolition materials generated during renovation for aesthetic or
other reasons that remove materials prior to their end of life.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
162
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
Table B-2. Lifespan of Construction Materials by Source (Years)
mm
Steel
Brick
Clay Floor & Wall Tile
Asphalt Shingles
Asphalt Concrete
Buildings/ Roads &
Bridges
Buildings
Buildings
Buildings
Buildings
Short
50
50
15
20
20
Lirespan
Typical
75
75
20
25
25
Long
100
100
25
30
30
Source: As cited in Cochran and Townsend (2010): Zapata and Gambatese (2005), Katz (2004), Park et al. (2003),
Scheuer et al. (2003), Junnila and Horvath (2003), Chapman and Izzo (2002), Cross and Parsons (2002), Thormark
(2002), Keoleian et al, (2001), Horvath and Hendrickson (1998), Bolt (1997), and Packard (1994). Additional
corroboration with USGS (2010).
Table B-3 shows the results for C&D debris generation of brick when using the Cochran and Townsend
method for calculating demolition debris. While this method reflects the variability in demolition
debris due to the uncertainty in material lifespan, each of the three demolition waste estimates are
based on a single data point, i.e., historical consumption data for a single year. Furthermore, the
overall C&D debris generation is presented as a range, while a single representative total waste value
would be more useful. To calculate a single representative total waste value for each material and
source in a given year, only one demolition debris estimate must be chosen. However, it is not clear
which of the three demolition debris estimates (short, typical, or long) would be the most
representative of actual demolition debris generated in a given year. For instance, Table B-3 reveals
that the demolition debris estimate for bricks calculated with the Cochran and Townsend method
using the typical 75 year lifespan for bricks ranges from nearly 20 million short tons in 2000 to less than
3 million short tons in 2008.
Because waste during construction estimates remains fairly steady and contributes less than 10
percent of total C&D debris between 2000 and 2008, demolition debris estimates drive the observed
changes. The rapid drop in demolition debris generation between 2004 and 2007 is due to falling
consumption of bricks for construction as the Great Depression began in the late 1920's. Given that a
strong economy is indicative of high construction activity and thus demolition in order to make space
for new buildings, it seems unlikely that in 2007, at the height of the U.S. economy before the
recession, demolition waste from bricks was half of what it was in 2006 and a quarter of what it was in
2005 simply because of low construction activity during the Great Depression 75 years ago. The same
issues that cause highly variable C&D debris generation using a typical material lifespan can also affect
demolition debris estimates using short or long lifespans.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
163
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
Table B-3. U.S. Annual C&D Brick Debris Generation using Cochran and
Townsend's (2010) Method to Calculate Demolition Debris Generation (Tons)
Brick Waste Demolition Brick Total C&D Brick Debris
Year During
Construction Short Life Typical Life Long Life Short Life Typical Life Long Life
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
587,760
568,880
567,510
568,570
637,010
661,300
613,990
523,990
390,970
276,950
259,570
237,390
234,840
234,840
12,179,130
12,756,340
11,332,560
11,294,080
12,929,510
15,199,870
15,565,430
12,814,070
12,159,890
14,122,410
13,352,790
12,852,550
13,256,590
14,257,090
19,317,300 14,411,010
19,163,380
18,220,600
16,989,220
14,699,620
11,755,850
6,195,390
2,693,650
16,258,090
17,181,620
17,123,900
17,508,710
19,932,990
20,471,720
19,971,470
2,482,000 16,161,880
2,693,650 20,414,000
4,386,800 19,086,420
7,349,810
8,061,700
6,791,840
17,701,110
18,028,200
17,162,380
12,766,890
13,325,220
11,900,070
11,862,650
13,566,520
15,861,170
16,179,420
13,338,060
12,550,860
14,399,350
13,612,370
13,089,940
19,905,060
19,732,260
18,788,110
17,557,790
15,336,630
12,417,150
6,809,380
3,217,640
2,872,970
2,970,590
4,646,370
7,587,200
13,491,430 8,296,540
14,491,930
7,026,680
14,998,770
16,826,970
17,749,130
17,692,470
18,145,720
20,594,290
21,085,710
20,495,470
16,552,850
20,690,940
19,345,990
17,938,500
18,263,030
17,397,220
Instead of calculating demolition debris generation based on one service life at a time (short, typical,
long), EPA calculated an average demolition debris generation for the full range of a material's
expected lifespan for each source. The demolition debris generation from brick in 2013 is used as an
example. The expected lifespan of brick ranges from 50-100 years (Table B-2). EPA calculated
demolition debris resulting from consumption of bricks for each year in 1913-1963, and then averaged
the results. Equation 2 below shows the calculation used to estimate demolition waste for a given year.
where:
y = the given year for which demolition waste generation is calculated;
/ = the longest expected lifetime of the material (see Table Y);
s = the shortest expected lifetime of the material;
Dw,y = the amount of demolition waste generated from material removed during renovation or
demolition in yeary;
Mi = the amount of a given material consumed in the U.S. in year /, where / ranges from year y-l
to yeary-s;
CM/,/ = the amount of material wasted during construction in year /, where / ranges from year y-l
to yeary-s.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
164
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
Table B-4 shows waste generated during construction, demolition, and total C&D debris from bricks for
2000-2013 using this averaging method. The total C&D estimates using EPA's method are much less
susceptible to the influence of construction industry spending at the point of consumption. However,
the estimates are also not fully sensitive to the construction industry spending for the exact year for
which the generation amount is estimated. For example, at heights of construction activity, EPA's
method will capture above-average C&D debris generated by construction activities, but not the
above-average C&D debris generated by demolition activities driven by the need to make space for
new construction, nor the above-average C&D debris generated by renovations completed for reasons
other than the end of a material's useful lifespan. Figure B-2 shows total C&D brick debris generated
between 2000 and 2013 using EPA's method to estimate demolition debris compared to the Cochran
andTownsend method.
Table B-4. U.S. Annual C&D Debris Generation from Bricks using Average
Demolition Debris Generation over the Range of Material's Useful Life
(Tons)
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Waste Brick During
Construction
587,760
568,880
567,510
568,570
637,010
661,300
613,990
524,000
390,970
276,950
259,570
237,390
234,840
234,840
Demolition Brick
12,423,600
12,391,160
12,294,580
12,179,130
12,096,890
12,051,620
11,965,980
11,815,830
11,662,660
11,622,670
11,484,220
11,361,990
11,274,840
11,200,890
Total C&D Brick Debris
13,011,360
12,960,040
12,862,090
12,747,710
12,733,900
12,712,920
12,579,970
12,339,830
12,053,630
11,899,620
11,743,790
11,599,380
11,509,670
11,435,730
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
165
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
Figure B-2. Comparison of Total C&D Debris Generation for Bricks
EPA's average demolition method* and Cochran and
Townsend's short, typical, and long material lifespan method
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Waste - Short Life
• Total Waste - Typical Life
Total Waste - Long Life
Total Waste C&D - Average Demolition
*Total C&D Debris - Average Demolition estimates shown in Table 4.
Historical Consumption Data
The following seven sections describe the historical consumption data used for each construction
material, and any assumptions necessary to determine the share of consumption associated with the
construction of buildings, roads, and other structures.
Portland Cement Concrete
EPA derived historical concrete consumption from cement consumption data published by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) for the years 1900 to 2013 (USGS, 2014a) (van Oss, 2015). The USGS also
reports the amount of cement by end-use, including Portland cement for 1975-2012 (USGS, 2005) (van
Oss, 2014). Since cement end-use statistics were not readily available for years prior to 1975, EPA
assumed 96 percent of cement was consumed in Portland cement, based on the average of end-use
data for 1975-2012. For 2013, EPA assumed the same percentage of cement used in Portland cement
as in 2012. USGS data includes sales of cement blended with fly ash. However, this may not capture
concrete production where Portland cement and fly ash are purchased separately and mixed at the
concrete plant. This may result in an underestimation of annual concrete consumption.
EPA converted Portland cement consumption into estimated concrete consumption using the density
of cement and concrete and amount of cement used per unit of concrete. As cited by Cochran and
Townsend (2010), the 2003 American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) International standard
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
166
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
reports an average density of 2,300 kg/m3 for concrete, and the Portland Cement Association (PCA)
gives an average density of 3,150 kg/m3 for Portland cement and a typical concrete composition of 11
percent Portland cement by volume. These values translate to 6.64 tons of concrete consumed per ton
of Portland cement.
EPA used the method suggested by Cochran and Townsend (2010) to allocate consumption of concrete
across the three sources of concrete C&D debris: buildings, roads and bridges, and other structures.
PCA estimates that in 2002, 47 percent of Portland cement was used in buildings, 33 percent in roads
and bridges, and 20 percent in other structures (Townsend and Cochran, 2010). Since this study
assumes concrete consumption is directly related to cement consumption, the 2002 percentages for
cement were used to calculate concrete consumption by buildings, roads and bridges, and other
structures in 2002. The following list describes the steps taken to estimate the division of concrete
consumption between buildings, roads and bridges, and other structures using the percentages for
2002 from PCA and historical datasets from the U.S. Census Bureau on the annual value of construction
put-in-place grouped by type of structure (U.S. Census Bureau, 1975a, 1975b, 2003, 2008, and 2015).
EPA used differences in construction spending between 2002 and a given year in each of the three
source categories to adjust the 2002 percentages from PCA to reflect changes in the distribution of
concrete consumption between buildings, roads and bridges, and other structures over time.
1. Converted all construction put-in-place values into 1996 constant dollars:
a. 1964-2002 values (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003a): No conversion necessary.
b. 1915-1963 values (U.S. Census Bureau, 1975a): Converted values presented in 1957-
1979 constant dollars by multiplying each value by a factor of 6.39, which was the
relative value of a constant 1996 dollar to constant 1957-1959 dollar based on index
tables. This value was computed by 1) calculating the ratio of the 1970 index value and
1957-1959 index value using data from series Nl and N30 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1975a);
2) calculating the ratio of the 1996 index value to the 1970 index value in the 1964-2002
historical value of construction put-in-place (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003a and 2003b); and
3) multiplying these two ratios together.
c. For 2003-2013 values (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 and 2015a): Converted values
presented in current dollars using the annual price indexes of new single-family homes
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2015b). The index for each year was calculated by multiplying the
current dollar for a given year by the 1996 index value and dividing by the index value of
the given year.
2. Calculated construction put-in-place for buildings, roads, and other structures by summation of
subcategory values (in constant 1996 dollars).
a. For 1915-2002, the buildings category includes residential and non-residential buildings
from private and public construction as well as non-residential farm construction; roads
includes publicly constructed highways, roads, and streets; and other structures includes
all privately constructed public utilities and all other private structures as well as public
construction of military facilities, sewer and water systems, conservation and
development, public service enterprises, and all other public structures.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 167
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
b. For 2003-2013, the buildings category includes residential and non-residential lodging,
office, commercial, health care, educational, religious, public safety, and amusement
and recreation categories; roads includes the highways and streets category; and other
structures includes the communication, power, transportation, sewer and waste
disposal, water supply, conservation and development, and manufacturing categories.
3. Calculated the ratio of spending to tons of concrete (constant $1996/ ton) consumed for
buildings, roads and bridges, and other structures in 2002.
a. Multiplied total concrete consumption in 2002 by PCA's estimated distribution of
cement among the three sources in 2002 (47 percent for buildings, 33 percent for roads
and bridges, 20 percent for other).
b. Divided 2002 construction put-in-place values for buildings, roads and bridges, and
other structures (in constant 1996 dollars) by tons of concrete consumed by each of the
three categories.
4. Calculated the percent of concrete use by source for each year using the spending per ton of
concrete ratios developed in Step 3.
a. Divided spending (in constant 1996 dollars) on buildings, roads and bridges, other
structures, and total construction spending for each year by the corresponding 2002
spending per ton of concrete ratio for each source.
b. Divided the tons of concrete for each source estimated in Step 4a using 2002 spending
ratios by the total tons of concrete for that year derived from construction spending to
calculate percent distribution of concrete consumption across buildings, roads and
bridges, and other structures for the years 1915-2013.
c. Estimated 1900-1914 concrete consumption distribution for the three sources based on
the average distribution for 1915-2014.
5. Calculated the tons of concrete consumed for buildings, roads and bridges, and other structures
in a given year by multiplying the total tons of concrete consumed in construction (based on
USGS cement consumption data) by the percent distribution of concrete use associated with
each source (Step 4) for a given year.
Wood Products
USGS provides consumption data for lumber, wood paneling, and plywood and veneer products
available for 1900 to 2011 (USGS, 2014b). EPA assumed the same consumption in 2012 and 2013 as in
2011 for each of the three wood product categories. EPA assumed that all wood panels as well as
plywood and veneer are used in building applications. A study published by the USDA Forest Service
reports approximately 78 percent of lumber is used in construction; 60 percent is used for residential
buildings, 7 percent is consumed in non-residential construction, and 11 percent is used in other
unspecified construction applications such as non-residential upkeep and improvements (Howard,
2007). No data were found to allocate the 18 percent of lumber consumption for non-residential and
unspecified uses between buildings and other structures. Since non-residential buildings such as barns,
warehouses, and small commercial buildings are assumed to consume a greater amount of lumber
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 168
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
than other structures, the entire amount of lumber for construction is allocated to the buildings
category. The remaining 22 percent of lumber is used in non-construction applications including
transport packaging such as pallets and manufacturing wooden consumer goods such as furniture
(Howard, 2007).
Gypsum Dry wall and Plasters
EPA used USGS historical consumption data for crude and synthetic gypsum for 1900 through 2013
(USGS, 2014c) (Crangle, 2014a). USGS also publishes end-use statistics for crude and synthetic gypsum,
available for 1975-2012, that document annual consumption in drywall (listed as prefabricated
products) and plasters made from calcined gypsum (USGS, 2005b) (Crangle, 2015). EPA used these data
to calculate the percent of gypsum consumed by drywall and plasters for the years 1975-2012. To
calculate annual drywall and plaster consumption before 1975, EPA multiplied total apparent gypsum
consumed each year in 1900-1974 by 75 percent, the average percent of gypsum used in drywall and
plasters during 1975-2012. EPA assumed the same percent of gypsum used in drywall and plasters for
2013 as calculated for 2012.
Steel
The Statistical History of the United States: From Colonial Times to the Present from the U.S. Census
Bureau (1975c) provides the amount of structural iron and steel shapes produced for 1900-1970 and
USGS published steel consumption data for 1979 through 2010 by end-use, including construction
(USGS, 2005c) (Fenton, 2014). Steel consumption for construction for 1971-1978 was estimated by
interpolation based on data for 1970 and 1979. EPA estimated 2013 steel consumption for
construction using the total apparent steel consumption reported by USGS (Fenton, 2015) and the
assumption that the percent of steel consumed by construction activities in 2013 remained the same
as in 2012 (Fenton, 2014). Note that consumption of steel for construction includes use in buildings,
roads, and bridges; data were not available to allocate steel use between buildings and other
infrastructure.
Bricks and Clay Floor and Wall Tile
The U.S. Census Bureau's Statistical History (1975d) reports the number of bricks consumed for
building construction for the years 1900-1969. EPA used the conversion factor of 550 bricks per metric
ton as cited in Cochran and Townsend (2010). For 1970-2012, USGS published clay end-use data,
including bricks, for miscellaneous clay and shale (USGS, 2005d) (Virta, 1975 and 2014a) and kaolin clay
(Virta, 2014b) for 1975-2012. For clay tile, EPA used USGS end-use data for miscellaneous clay and
shale (USGS, 2005d) (Virta, 1975 and 2014a), ball clay (USGS, 2005e) (Virta, 1975 and 2014a) and kaolin
clay (Virta, 2014b) available for 1975-2012. Since overall clay production and sales in the U.S. changed
only slightly between 2012 and 2013 (Virta, 2015), consumption of bricks and clay tile were assumed
the same in 2013 as reported in 2012.
Asphalt Shingles
Since historical data on asphalt shingle consumption are not readily available, EPA used production and
sales of roofing granules published by USGS as an indicator of changes in asphalt shingle consumption.
In 2006, the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA et al., 2011) reported sales of nearly
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 169
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
149,830,000 squares11 of roof coverage. Table 1-1 in Roofing the Right Way (Bolt, 1997) presents a
range of 210-250 pounds per square of roofing coverage. Using the midpoint of 230 pounds per
square, EPA converted 2006 shingle sales in squares to tons of shingles sold in 2006. USGS end-use
statistics for 1980-2012 include roofing granules made from construction sand and gravel (USGS,
2005f) (Bolen, 2014), crushed stone (Tepordei, 2006) (Willett, 2014), and silica (USGS, 2005g) (Dolley,
2014). USGS reports large portions of sand and gravel and crushed stone as "unspecified uses." To
account for roofing granules included in unspecified uses, EPA calculated the percent roofing granules
of all specified end uses for each year, and multiplied by total apparent consumption. For years where
USGS did not calculate roofing granules consumed, EPA estimated consumption by averaging the
consumption from the previous and following years. In order to estimate roofing granule consumption
in 2013, the ratio of roofing granules to total apparent consumption for each type of aggregate was
assumed the same as in 2012 (Bennett, 2015) (Willet, 2015) (Dolley, 2015). The final step entailed
multiplying the weight of shingles sold in 2006 by the ratio of roofing granules consumed in a given
year to roofing granules consumed in 2006.
Asphalt Concrete
EPA employed data on recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) published by the National Asphalt Pavement
Association (NAPA) and the U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
to estimate asphalt concrete waste generation. NAPA's 2014 report (Hansen and Copeland, 2014)
provides annual estimates of the tons of RAP from 2009 to 2013 based on their survey on recycled
materials and warm-mix asphalt usage, data from state asphalt pavement associations, and each
state's highway apportionment. RAP has a high value and NAPA (2006) states that 80 percent or more
of asphalt concrete removed from service each year is reclaimed for reuse. Thus, to calculate total
asphalt concrete waste generated, EPA divided the amount of RAP accepted by asphalt producers each
year (Hansen and Copeland, 2014) by 0.80. EPA chose this method as opposed to the materials flow
analysis using USGS end-use statistics on consumption of aggregates used in asphaltic and bituminous
aggregates, because RAP data are directly related to total asphalt concrete waste generation and no
assumptions about the lifespan of the asphalt concrete were required.
C&D Debris Generation Results
This section presents results for 2012 and 2013 C&D debris generation estimates. Table B-5 displays
the amount of C&D debris generation from buildings, roads and bridges, and other structures for each
material. The other structures category includes communication, power, transportation, sewer and
waste disposal, water supply, conservation and development, and manufacturing infrastructure.
Although results do not vary greatly between 2012 and 2013, C&D debris generation is slightly higher
in 2013 than in 2012 in almost all cases. Figure B-3 illustrates waste generation for 2013 and highlights
that in 2013 roads and bridges contributed significantly more to C&D debris generation than buildings
and other structures, and Portland cement concrete made up the largest share of C&D debris
generation for all three categories.
Table B-6 presents the amount of C&D waste generation from waste generated during construction,
demolition, and total C&D debris for each material. Total C&D generation is about 520 million tons in
2012 and 530 million tons in 2013. Portland cement concrete consumption created much more waste
11 One "square" refers to the amount of shingles required to cover 100 square feet of a roof.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 170
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
during construction than any other material. However, Figure B-4 shows that waste during
construction for drywall and plasters contributes a much greater percentage of the overall C&D debris
for drywall and plasters than is the case for Portland cement concrete. Demolition plays the largest
role in determining C&D debris generation as demolition debris comprises over 90 percent of total
C&D debris generation for all materials except drywall and plasters.
Table B-5. C&D Debris Generation by Source (Tons)
Buildings Roads and Bridges Other
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
Portland Cement
Concrete
Wood Products3
Drywall and
Plasters
Steel"
Brick and Clay Tile
Asphalt Shingles
Asphalt Concrete
Total
77,239,900
39,968,330
12,614,110
4,229,800
12,179,740
12,807,440
159,039,320
79,966,560
40,217,410
13,059,480
4,282,120
12,109,740
12,603,090
147,843,670
89,125,000
148,363,110
95,125,000
162,238,400 236,968,670 243,488,110
123,365,750
123,365,750
124,540,940
124,540,940
a Wood consumption in buildings also includes some lumber consumed for the construction of other structures. Data were not available
to allocate the 18 percent of lumber consumption for non-residential and unspecified uses between buildings and other structures.
Since non-residential buildings such as barns, warehouses, and small commercial buildings are assumed to consume a greater amount
of lumber than other structures, the entire amount of lumber for construction is included in the buildings source category.
b Steel consumption in buildings also includes steel consumed for the construction of roads and bridges. Data were not available to
allocate steel consumption across different sources, but buildings are assumed to consume the largest portion of steel for construction.
Figure B-3. C&D Debris Generated in 2013 by Material and Source
250,000,000
200,000,000
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
Asphalt Concrete
Asphalt Shingles
Brick and Clay Tile
Steel
Drywall and Plasters
Wood Products
Portland Cement Concrete
Buildings Roads and Bridges
Products
Other
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
171
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
Table B-6. C&D Debris Generation by Material and Activity (Tons)
Waste During Construction
Demolition Debris
Total C&D Debris
Portland Cement Concrete 16,681,010
Steel
Total
)ducts
nd Plasters
Clay Tile
lingles
oncrete
2,487,140
2,978,000
0
265,130
1,023,920
0
2,487,140
3,123,510
0
265,130
1,035,300
0
3
1
1
8
17,494,720 331,768,310 335,375,880 348,449,320 352,870,610
37,481,190 37,730,260 39,968,330 40,217,410
9,636,110 9,935,970 12,614,110 13,059,480
4,229,800
11,914,620
4,282,120
11,844,620
4,229,800
11,783,520
89,125,000
11,567,790
12,179,740
12,807,440
95,125,000 89,125,000
4,282,120
12,109,740
12,603,090
95,125,000
23,435,200 24,405,800 495,938,550 505,861,640 519,373,740 530,267,450
Figure B-4. Contribution of Construction and Demolition
Phases to Total 2013 C&D Debris Generation
100
80
01
O)
re
60
40
20
Portland Wood Products Drywall
Cement Concrete and Plasters
Steel
Products
During Construction
Brick and Asphalt
Clay Tile Shingles
Demolition
Asphalt
Concrete
Total
C&D Generation Composition
The 2013 C&D generation estimates presented in Table B-6 are depicted in Figure B-5. Portland cement
concrete is the largest portion (67 percent), followed by asphalt concrete (18 percent). These materials
are used in both building and road and bridge sectors. Wood products make up eight percent and the
other products account for seven percent combined.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
172
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
Figure B-5. C&D Generation Composition by Material
Asphalt Shingles
2%
Brick and ClayTile2°/c
Steel 1%
Drywall and Plasters
2%
Portland Cement Concre
67%
Conclusions
The generation methodology developed and presented in this appendix is structured to allow the
continuation of the analysis in future years. All historical consumption and distribution data are in
place for Portland cement concrete, steel, wood products, gypsum wallboard and plaster, brick, clay
tile, and asphalt shingles. The asphalt concrete generation estimate, based on industry data, can be
easily updated. It is anticipated that the asphalt industry source will continue to gather and publish the
data required for this methodology. Two data points that need updating in future estimates are the
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association asphalt shingle sales data and the Portland Cement
Association estimation of cement consumption by end use. Both of these data points are from 2002;
more recent data would improve the methodology assumptions for asphalt shingles and cement end
use markets. Further research is needed to determine the distribution of steel C&D debris generation
across the buildings, roads and bridges, and other structures categories.
ARMA (Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association) et al., 2011. The Bitumen Roofing Industry - A
Global Perspective. Appendix B, North American Production of Bitumen Shingles in 2006 (in
Squares of Roof Coverage). Published in March 2011. pp 59-60.
Bolen, W. 2014. USGS Minerals Yearbook, 2004-2012: Construction Sand and Gravel Statistics.
Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/sand & gravel construction/.
Accessed November 2014.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
173
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
Bennett, S. 2015. USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2015: Construction Sand and Gravel Statistics.
Released January 2015. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/sand & gravel construction/. Accessed
February 2015.
Bolt, S. 1997. Roofing the Right Way, third ed. Table 1-1: Styles, Weights, and Dimensions of Roofing
Materials. McGraw-Hill, New York City, New York, USA.
Cochran, K.M. and Townsend, T.G. 2010. "Estimating construction and demolition debris generation
using a materials flow analysis approach." Waste Management, 30 (2010), 2247-2254.
Crangle, R., Jr. 2014b. USGS Minerals Yearbook, 2005-2012: Gypsum Statistics. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commoditv/gypsum. Accessed November 2014.
Crangle, R., Jr. 2015. USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries: Gypsum Statistics. Released January 2015.
Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commoditv/gypsum. Accessed November
2014.
Dolley, T. 2015. USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries, 2015: Industrial Sand and Gravel Statistics
(Silica). Released January 2015. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silica/. Accessed February 2015.
Dolley, T. 2014. USGS Minerals Yearbook, 2004-2012: Industrial Sand and Gravel Statistics (Silica).
Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silica. Accessed January 2015.
Fenton, M. 2014. USGS Minerals Yearbook, 2004-2012: Iron and Steel Statistics. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron & steel. Accessed November 2014.
Fenton, M. 2015. USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries: Iron and Steel Statistics. Released January
2015. Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron & steel. Accessed
February 2015.
Hansen, K. and Copeland, A. 2014. Annual Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey on Recycled Materials
and Warm-Mix Asphalt Usage: 2009-2013. Prepared by National Asphalt Pavement Association for
U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Released October 2014.
Available at http://www.asphaltpavement.org/PDFs/IS138/IS138-2013 RAP-RAS-
WMA Survey Final.pdf. Accessed January 2015.
Howard, J. 2007. U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics: 1965 to 2005.
Research Paper FPL-RP-637. Madison, Wl. p.5.
NAPA (National Asphalt Pavement Association). 2006. Asphalt Recycling and Energy Reduction.
October 2006. Available at
http://www.asphaltpavement.org/images/stories/recycling and energy reduction.pdf Accessed
January 2015.
Tepordei, V. 2006. USGS Minerals Yearbook 1980-2004: Crushed Stone Statistics. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/stone crushed/. Accessed February 2015.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 174
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
U.S. Census Bureau. 1975a. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970.
Construction. Series N 1-60, Value of New Private and Public Construction Put in Place: 1915 to
1970. Published September 1975. Available at
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?title id=237&page title id=1641&toc id=&filepath=/docs/pu
blications/histstatus/pages/1975-1979/1641 1975-1979.pdffecribd-open. Accessed January 2015.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1975b. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970.
Construction. Series N 70-77,Expendituresfor New Construction, Private Residential and
Nonresidential and Public, in Current and Constant (1929) Dollars: 1869 to 1955. Published
September 1975. Available at
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?title id=237&page title id=1641&toc id=&filepath=/docs/pu
blications/histstatus/pages/1975-1979/1641 1975-1979.pdffecribd-open. Accessed January 2015.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1975c. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970.
Manufactures. Series P 263, Physical Output of Selected Manufactured Commodities: 1860 to 1970,
Structural iron and steel shapes produced. Published September 1975. Available at
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?title id=237&page title id=1641&toc id=&filepath=/docs/pu
blications/histstatus/pages/1975-1979/1641 1975-1979.pdffecribd-open. Accessed January 2015.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1975d. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970.
Manufactures. Table P 264, Physical Output of Selected Manufactured Commodities: 1860 to 1970,
Common and face brick produced. Published September 1975. Available at
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?title id=237&page title id=1641&toc id=&filepath=/docs/pu
blications/histstatus/pages/1975-1979/1641 1975-1979.pdffecribd-open. Accessed January 2015.
U. S. Census Bureau. 2003a. Construction Spending, Annual C30 Value of Construction Put in Place
Data, Table 1. Annual Value of Construction, constant dollars, 1964-2002. Available at
https://www.census.gov/construction/c30/xls/ta blconstant.xls.
U. S. Census Bureau. 2003b. Construction Spending, Annual C30 Value of Construction Put in Place
Data, Table 1. Annual Value of Construction, current dollars, 1964-2002. Available at
https://www.census.gov/construction/c30/xls/ta blcurrent.xls.
U. S. Census Bureau. 2008. Construction Spending, Historical Value Put in Place, Annual Total, 2002-
2007. Available at https://www.census.gov/construction/c30/xls/totalhal.xls.
U. S. Census Bureau. 2015a. Construction Spending, Historical Value Put in Place, Annual Total, 2008-
2014. Available at https://www.census.gov/construction/c30/xls/total.xls.
U. S. Census Bureau. 2015b. Price Indexes of New Single-Family Houses Sold Including Lot Value.
Available at https://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/pdf/price sold.pdf. Accessed February
2015.
USGS (U. S. Geological Survey). 2005a. Cement End-Use Statistics for 1975-2003 in Kelly, T. and Matos,
G., comps. Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States, Data
Series 140. Last modified September 15, 2005. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-statistics/cement-use.pdf. Accessed November
2014.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 175
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
USGS. 2005b. Gypsum End-Use Statistics for 1975-2003 in Kelly, T. and Mates, G., comps. Historical
Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States, Data Series 140. Last modified
September 15, 2005. Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-
statistics/gypsum-use.pdf. Accessed November 2014.
USGS. 2005c. Iron and Steel End-Use Statistics for 1979-2003 in Kelly, T. and Matos, G., comps.
Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States, Data Series 140.
Last modified September 1, 2005. Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-
statistics/ironsteel-use.pdf. Accessed November 2014.
USGS. 2005d. Miscellaneous Clay and Shale End-Use Statistics for 1975-2003 in Kelly, T. and Matos, G.,
comps. Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States, Data Series
140. Last modified September 15, 2005. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-statistics/claysmisc-use.pdf. Accessed November
2014.
USGS. 2005e. Ball Clay End-Use Statistics for 1975-2003 in Kelly, T. and Matos, G., comps. Historical
Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States, Data Series 140. Last modified
September 15, 2005. Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-
statistics/claysball-use.pdf. Accessed November 2014.
USGS. 2005f. Construction Sand and Gravel End-Use Statistics for 1975-2003 in Kelly, T. and Matos, G.,
comps. Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States, Data Series
140. Last modified September 15, 2005. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-statistics/sandgravelindustrial-use.pdf. Accessed
January 2015.
USGS. 2005g. Industrial Sand and Gravel (Silica) End-Use Statistics for 1975-2003 in Kelly, T. and Matos,
G., comps. Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States, Data
Series 140. Last modified September 15, 2005. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-statistics/sandgravelconstruction-use.pdf.
Accessed January 2015.
USGS. 2014a. Cement Statistics for 1900-2012 in Kelly, T. and Matos, G., comps. Historical Statistics for
Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States, Data Series 140. Last modified April 1,
2014. Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-statistics/dsl40-cemen.pdf.
Accessed November 2014.
USGS. 2014b. Lumber, Wood Panel Products, and Plywood and Veneer Statistics for 1900-2011 in Kelly,
T. and Matos, G., comps. Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United
States, Data Series 140. Last modified April 1, 2014. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-statistics/dsl40-wood.xlsx. Accessed November
2014.
USGS. 2014c. Gypsum Statistics for 1900-2012 in Kelly, T. and Matos, G., comps. Historical Statistics for
Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States, Data Series 140. Last modified April 1,
2014. Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-statistics/gypsum-use.pdf.
Accessed November 2014.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 176
-------
Appendix B—Construction and Demolition Debris Generation
van Oss, H. 2014. USGS Minerals Yearbook, 2005-2012: Cement Statistics. Released June 2014.
Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/index.html - myb.
Accessed February 2015.
van Oss, H. 2015. USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries: Cement Statistics. Released February 2015.
Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/index.html - myb.
Accessed February 2015.
Virta, R. 1975. USGS Minerals Yearbook, 1970-1974: Clay Statistics, Clays sold or used as reported by
producers in the United States by kind and use. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/usbmmyb.html. Accessed February 2015.
Virta, R. 2014a. USGS Minerals Yearbook, 2004-2012: Clay Statistics, Common Clay and Shale Sold or
Used by Producers in the United States, by Use. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commoditv/clays. Accessed February 2015.
Virta, R. 2014b. USGS Minerals Yearbook, 1970-2012: Clay Statistics, Kaolin sold or used by producers
in the United States, by use. Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commoditv/clays.
Accessed February 2015.
Virta, R. 2015. USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries: Clay Statistics. Released January 2015. Available
at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commoditv/clays. Accessed February 2015.
Willett, J. 2014. USGS Minerals Yearbook 2005-2012: Crushed Stone Statistics. Available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/stone crushed/. Accessed February 2015.
Willett, J. 2015. USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2015: Crushed Stone Statistics. Released January
2015. Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/stone crushed/. Accessed
February 2015.
Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013 177
------- |