Advancing Sustainable
Materials Management:
2017 Fact Sheet
Assessing Trends in Material Generation, Recycling,
Composting, Combustion with Energy Recovery and
Landfilling in the United States
November 2019
-------
Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has collected and reported data on the generation and disposition of
municipal solid waste (MSW) in the United States for more than 30 years. This information is used to measure the
success of materials management programs across the country and to characterize the national waste stream. These
facts and figures are based on the most recent information, which is from calendar year 2017.
In 2017, in the United States, approximately 268 million tons (U.S. short tons unless specified) of MSW were generated
(See Figure 1). Of the MSW generated, approximately 67 million tons of MSW were recycled and 27 miiiion tons of MSW
were composted. Together, more than 94 million tons of MSW were recycled and composted, equivalent to a 35.2
percent recycling and composting rate (See Figure 2). In addition, more than 34 million tons of MSW (12.7 percent) were
combusted with energy recovery. Finally, more than 139 million tons of MSW (52.1 percent) were landfilled (See Figure
3 and Table 1).
Information about waste generation and disposal is an important foundation for managing materials. Sustainably
managing materials requires focusing on the life cycle of a product, from the time it is produced, used, reused and
ultimately recycled or discarded. This is known as Sustainable Materials Management (SMM). 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 and minimizes the adverse environmental impacts of material use.
This report analyzes MSW trends in generation and management, materials and products, and economic indicators
affecting MSW. It also includes a section on the generation of construction and demolition (C&D) debris, which is not a
part of MSW, but comprises a significant portion of the non-hazardous solid waste stream.
Figure 1. MSW Generation Rates, 1960 to 2017
300
10
262 , 266.8 267.8
0
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2016 2017
-A- Total MSW generation
-M- Per capita generation
2
-------
Figure 2, MSW Recycling and Composting Rates, 1960 to 2017
Total MSW recycled and composted
Percent recycled and composted
Figure 3. Management of MSW in the United States, 2017
Recycling
25.1%
Landfillinq
52.1%
Composting
10.1%
Combustion with
Energy Recovery
12.7%
3
-------
Table 1 Generation, Recycling, Composting, Combustion with Energy Recovery and Landfilling of Materials in MSW, 2017*
(in millions of tons and percent of generation of each material)
Materia!
Weight
Generated
Weight
Recycled
Weight
Composted
Weight
Combusted
with Energy
Recovery
Weight
Landfilled
Recycling as
Percent of
Generation
Composting
as Percent of
Generation
Combustion
as Percent of
Generation
Landfilling as
Percent of
Generation
Paper and paperboard
67.01
44.17
-
4.49
18.35
65.9%
-
6.70%
27.38%
Glass
11.38
3.03
-
1.48
6.87
26.6%
-
13.01%
60.37%
Metals
Steel
18.89
6.17
-
2.29
10.43
32.7%
-
12.12%
55.21%
Aluminum
3.83
0.62
-
0.56
2.65
16.2%
-
14.62%
69.19%
Other nonferrous metalst
2.33
1.54
-
0.07
0.72
66.1%
-
3.00%
30.90%
Total metals
25.05
8.33
-
2.92
13.80
33.3%
-
11.66%
55.09%
Plastics
35.37
2.96
-
5.59
26.82
8.4%
-
15.80%
75.83%
Rubber and leather
9.11
1.67
-
2.49
4.95
18.3%
-
27.33%
54.34%
Textiles
16.89
2.57
-
3.17
11.15
15.2%
-
18.77%
66.02%
Wood
17.99
3.00
-
2.85
12.14
16.7%
-
15.84%
67.48%
Other materials
5.10
1.45
-
0.67
2.98
28.4%
-
13.14%
58.43%
Total materials in products
187.90
67.18
-
23.66
97.06
35.8%
-
12.59%
51.66%
Other wastes
Food, othert
40.67
-
2.57
7.47
30.63
-
6.3%
18.37%
75.31%
Yard trimmings
35.18
-
24.42
2.11
8.65
-
69.4%
6.00%
24.59%
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
4.04
-
-
0.79
3.25
-
-
19.55%
80.45%
Total other wastes
79.89
-
26.99
10.37
42.53
-
33.8%
12.98%
53.24%
Total municipal solid waste
267.79
67.18
26.99
34.03
139.59
25.1%
10.1%
12.71%
52.13%
* Includes waste from residential, commercial and institutional sources.
+ Includes lead from lead-acid batteries.
$ Includes collection of other MSW organicsfor composting.
Details might not add to totals due to rounding.
Negligible = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
A dash in the table means that data are not available.
4
-------
Trends in Municipal Solid Waste
Our MSW, or trash, is comprised of various items consumers throw away. These items include packaging, food,
yard trimmings, furniture, electronics, tires and appliances. MSW does not include industrial, hazardous or C&D
waste. Sources of MSW include residential waste, including waste from multi-family housing, as well as waste
from commercial and institutional locations, such as businesses, schools and hospitals.
Over the last few decades, the generation, recycling, composting, combustion with energy recovery and
landfiliing of MSW has changed substantially. Solid waste generation peaked at 4.74 pounds per person per day
in 2000. The rate of 4.51 pounds per person per day in 2017 is slightly lower than the 2016 rate, which was 4.53
pounds per person per day (See Figure 1).
The combined recycling and composting rate increased from less poocj
than 10 percent of generated MSW in 1980 to 35.2 percent in 2017 .. ... „ ,, ,. ,, ,
Nationally, the composting of food rose
(See Figure 2). Without including composting, recycling alone rose from 2,15 million tons in 2016 (5.3 percent
from 14.5 million tons (9.6 percent of MSW) in 1980 to 67.2 million 0f food generated) to 2.57 million tons in
tons (25.1 percent) in 2017. Composting was negligible in 1980, 2017 (6.3 percent),
but it rose to 27.0 million tons in 2017 (10.1 percent; See Figure 3
and Table 2 for details).
Combustion with energy recovery was less than 2 percent of
generation in 1980 at 2.8 million tons. In 2017, more than 34.0 million tons (12.7 percent of MSW generated)
were combusted with energy recovery (See Table 2).
Since 1990, the total amount of MSW going to landfills has dropped by 5.7 million tons, from 145.3 million tons
in 1990 to 139.6 million tons in 2017 (See Table 2). The net per capita 2017 landfiliing rate was 2.3 pounds per
day, which was lower than the 3.2 per capita rate in 1990 (See Table 3).
Table 2. Generation, Recycling, Composting, Combustion with Energy Recovery and Landfiliing of MSW,
1960 to 2017 (in millions of tons)
Activity
1960
1980
1990
2000
2005
2010
2015
2016
2017
Generation
88.1
121.1
151.6
208.3
243.5
253.7
251.1
262.1
266.8
267.8
Recycling
5.6
8.0
14.5
29.0
53.0
59.2
65.3
67.6
68.6
67.2
Composting*
neg.
neg.
neg.
4.2
16.5
20.6
20.2
23.4
25.1
27.0
Combustion with
energy recoveryt
0.0
0.5
2.8
29.8
33.7
31.7
29.3
33.5
33,9
34.0
Landfiliing and
other disposal^
82.5
112.6
134.3
145.3
140.3
142.2
136.3
137.6
139.2
139.6
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,
tire-derived fuel).
X Landfiliing after recycling, composting and combustion
with energy recovery. Includes combustion without
energy recovery.
Details might not add to totals due to rounding,
neg. (negligible) = less than 5,000 tons.
5
-------
Table 3. Generation, Recycling, Composting, Combustion with Energy Recovery and Landfilling of MSW,
1960 to 2017 (in pounds per person per day)
Activity
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2010
2015
2016
2017
Generation
2.7
3.3
3.7 4.6 4.7
4.7
4.4
4,5
4,5
4,5
Recycling
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.0
1.1
1,1
1,2
1,2
1,1
Composting*
neg.
neg.
neg.
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
Combustion with
energy recoveryt
0.0
neg.
0.1
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0,6
0,6
0,6
Landfilling and other
disposal^
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.2
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
2,3
2,3
Population (in
millions)
180.0
204.0
227.3
249.9
281.4
296.4
309.1
320.9
323.1
325.1
Composting of yard trimmings, food, and other MSW * Landfilling after recycling, composting, and
organic material. Does not include backyard combustion with energy recovery. Includes
composting. combustion without energy recovery.
+ Includes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse- Details might not add to totals due to rounding,
derived fuel form, and combustion with energy recovery of neg. (negligible) = less than 5,000 tons,
source separated materials in MSW (e.g., wood pallets,
tire-derived fuel).
Analyzing MSW
EPA analyzes MSW by breaking down the data in two ways: by material or by product. Materials are made into
products, which are ultimately reprocessed through recycling or composting, or managed by combustion with
energy recovery facilities or landfills. Examples of materials that EPA tracks include paper and paperboard,
plastics, metals, glass, rubber, leather, textiles, wood, food and yard trimmings. For a full list of materials, see
Table 1.
Products are what people buy and handle, and they are manufactured out of the types of materials listed above.
Product categories include containers and packaging, nondurable goods, durable goods, food and yard
trimmings. Containers and packaging, such as milk cartons and plastic wrap, are assumed to be in use for a
year or less; nondurable goods like newspaper and clothing are assumed to be in use for less than three years;
and durable goods, such as furniture, are assumed to be in use for three or more years. Some products, such
as appliances, may be made of more than one material. Information about products shows how consumers are
using and discarding materials and offers strategies on ways to maximize the source reduction, recycling and
composting of materials.
6
-------
Materials in MSW
Table 1 and the following figures provide specific information about materials in MSW. Table 1 shows
generation, recycling, composting, combustion with energy recovery and landfilling by material, weight and
percent of generation.
Figure 4 below provides the breakdown of MSW
generation by material. Paper and paperboard, along Composting Collection Programs12
with food, continued to be to largest components of . Abou, 3 860 commlmily compostjng
MSW generated. Paper and paperboard accounted for programs were documented in 2017—an
25 percent, while food accounted for about 15 percent. increase from 3,227 in 2002.
Yard trimmings and plastics comprised about 13 percent . Food composting curbside co||ectjon
each. The remaining amount of MSW generated programs served 6.1 million households in
consisted of rubber, leather and textiles; metals; wood; 2017. About 6.7 million households had
glass; and other materials. access to drop-off food collection
programs that year.
Figure 5 provides the breakdown of MSW recycling by
material in 2017 Paper and paperboard composed tie
largest component of MSW recycling, representing
nearly 66 percent. Metals made up over 12 percent of
MSW recycled. The remaining amount of MSW recycled consisted of rubber, leather and textiles; plastics;
glass; wood; and other materials.
Figure 6 provides the breakdown of MSW composting by material, Figure 7 provides the breakdown of MSW
combustion with energy recovery, and Figure 8 provides the breakdown of MSW landfilling.
Figure 4. Total MSW Generation (by material), 2017
267.8 Million Tons
Other.
3.5%
Food
15.2%
Yard trimmings
13.1%
Glass
4.2%
Metals
9.4%
Plastics
13.2%
Rubber, leather
& textiles
9.7%
7
-------
Figure 5. Total MSW Recycling (by material), 2017
67.2 Million Tons
Figure 6. Total MSW Composting (by material), 2017
27.0 Million Tons
Rubber, leather & textiles
6.3% \
Other
2.2%
Wood
4.5%
Plastics
4.4%
Glass
4.5%
Metals
12.4%
Paper and paperboard
65.7%
Food
9.5%
Yard trimmings
90.5%
Figure 7. Total MSW Combusted with Energy Recovery
(by material), 2017 34.0 Million Tons
Figure 8. Total MSW Landfilled (by material), 2017
139.6 Million Tons
Other
4.3%
Paper &
paperboard
13.2%
Rubber, leather
& textiles
16.6%
Yard
trimmings
6.2%
IVlGtdlS
.6%
Glass
Food
22.0%
Plastics
16.4%
Other
4.5% Paper &
paperboard
13.1%
Rubber, leather
& textiles
11.5%
Yard
trimmings
6.2%
Metals
9.9%
Plastics
19.2%
-------
Products in MSW
The following information provides the details of the products found in MSW. Table 4 shows generation,
recycling, composting, combustion with energy recovery and landfilling by product category, weight and percent
of generation. The product categories include containers and packaging, durable goods, nondurable goods, and
food and yard trimmings.
Containers and packaging made up the largest portion of MSW generated at 80 million tons (29.9 percent) in
2017, More than 57 million tons (21.4 percent of MSW generation) of durable goods were generated, while
more than 50 million tons (18.9 percent of MSW generation) of nondurable goods were generated. The
generation of food in MSW was over 40 million tons (15.2 percent), yard trimmings generation was 35 million
tons (13.1 percent), and the generation of other wastes was about four million tons (1.5 percent).
The Containers and packaging product category had the highest recycling rate at 50.1 percent in 2017. Paper
products, steel and glass were the most recycled materials by percentage in this category. The recycling of
nondurable goods was 32.1 percent. Paper products such as newspapers/mechanical papers were the most
recycled nondurable goods. Newspapers/mechanical papers include newspapers, directories, inserts, as well as
some advertisement and direct mail printing. Overall, 18.9 percent of durable goods were recycled. With a 99.1
percent recycling rate in 2017, lead-acid batteries continued to be one of the most recycled products.
Yard trimmings had the highest composting rate of all product categories at 69.4 percent. Food was composted
at a rate of 6.3 percent.
Food was the product category with the highest rate of combustion with energy recovery with a rate of 18.4
percent. Durable goods were combusted at a rate of 15.9 percent and nondurables at a rate of 13.3 percent.
Containers and packaging, along with yard trimmings, were combusted at rates below 10 percent.
Food was the product category with the highest landfill rate at 75.3 percent. Durable goods followed with a
landfill rate of 65.2 percent. Nondurable goods had the third highest landfill rate at 54.6 percent. Containers and
packaging, along with yard trimmings, were the product categories with the lowest landfill rates at 40.1 percent
and 24.6 percent, respectively.
Figure 9 displays selected individual products with high recycling rates.
Recycling Rates
Measured by percent of generation, individual products with the highest recycling rates in 2017 were lead-acid
batteries (99.1 percent), corrugated boxes (88.4 percent), steel cans (70.9 percent), newspapers/mechanical
papers (76.8 percent), major appliances (60.3 percent), aluminum cans (49.2 percent), mixed paper (48.3
percent), tires (39.9 percent) and selected consumer electronics (35.9 percent).
9
-------
Figure 9. Selected Products with High Recycling Rates, 2017*
_22J_
70.!
|49.2|
39.9
33.9
31.2
29.1
Lead-Acid
Batteries
Corrugated
Boxes
Steel
Cans
Aluminum
BeerS Soda
Cans
Tires
Products
Selected
Consumer
Electronics
Glass
Containers
HDPE Natural
{White
Translucent)
Bottles
PET
Bottles
& Jars
*Does not include combustion with energy recovery
10
-------
Table 4. Generation, Recycling, Composting, Combustion with Energy Recovery and Landfilling of Products in MSW, 2017*
(in millions of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Products
Weight
Generated
Weight
Recycled
Weight
Composted
Weight
Combusted
with Energy
Recovery
Weight
Landfilled
Recycling as
Percent
of Generation
Composting as
Percent
of Generation
Combustion as
Percent of
Generation
Landfilling as
Percent of
Generation
Durable goods
Steel
16.88
4.70
-
2.19
9.99
27.8%
-
13.0%
59.2%
Aluminum
1.72
-
-
0.26
1.46
-
-
15.1%
84.9%
Other nonferrous metalst
2.33
1.54
-
0.07
0.72
66.1%
-
3.0%
30.9%
Glass
2.45
Negligible
-
0.32
2.13
Negligible
-
13.1%
86.9%
Plastics
13.46
0.85
-
1.72
10.89
6.3%
-
12.8%
80.9%
Rubber and leather
7.94
1.67
-
2.27
4.00
21.0%
-
28.6%
50.4%
Wood
6,59
Negligible
-
1.20
5.39
Negligible
-
18.2%
81.8%
Textiles
3.91
0.59
-
1.02
2.30
15.1%
-
26.1%
58.8%
Other materials
1.84
1.45
-
0.03
0.36
78.8%
-
1.6%
19.6%
Total durable goods
57.12
10.80
-
9.08
37.24
18.9%
-
15.9%
65.2%
Nondurable goods
Paper and paperboard
25.95
14.09
-
2.33
9.53
54.3%
-
9,0%
36.7%
Plastics
7.42
0.22
-
1.40
5.80
3.0%
-
18.9%
78.2%
Rubber and leather
1.17
Negligible
-
0.22
0.95
Negligible
-
18.8%
81.2%
Textiles
12.68
1.98
-
2.09
8.61
15.6%
-
16.5%
67.9%
Other materials
3.48
Negligible
-
0.68
2.80
Negligible
-
19.5%
80.5%
Total nondurable goods
50.70
16.29
-
6.72
27.69
32.1%
-
13.3%
54.6%
11
-------
Table 4 (continued). Generation, Recycling, Composting, Combustion with Energy Recovery and Landfilling of Products in MSW, 2017*
(in millions of tons and percent of generation of each product)
Products
Weight
Generated
Weight
Recycled
Weight
Composted
Weight
Combusted
with Energy
Recovery
Weight
Landfilled
Recycling as
Percent
of Generation
Composting as
Percent
of Generation
Combustion as
Percent of
Generation
Landfilling as
Percent of
Generation
Containers and packaging
Steel
2.01
1.47
-
0.10
0.44
73.1%
-
5.0%
21.9%
Aluminum
1.89
0.62
-
0.26
1.01
32.8%
-
13.8%
53.4%
Glass
8.93
3.03
-
1.16
4.74
33.9%
-
13.0%
53.1%
Paper and paperboard
41.06
30.08
-
2.16
8.82
73.3%
-
5.3%
21.5%
Plastics
14.49
1.89
-
2.47
10.13
13.0%
-
17.0%
69.9%
Wood
11.40
3.00
-
1.65
6.75
26.3%
-
14.5%
59.2%
Other materials
0.30
Negligible
-
0.06
0.24
Negligible
-
20.0%
80.0%
Total containers and
packaging
80.08
40.09
-
7.86
32.13
50.1%
-
9.8%
40.1%
Other wastes
Food, othert
40.67
-
2.57
7.47
30.63
-
6.3%
18.4%
75.3%
Yard trimmings
35.18
-
24.42
2.11
8.65
-
69.4%
6.0%
24.6%
Miscellaneous inorganic
wastes
4.04
-
-
0.79
3.25
-
-
19.6%
80.4%
Total other wastes
79.89
-
26.99
10.37
42.53
-
33.8%
13.0%
53.2%
Total municipal solid waste
267.79
67.18
26.99
34.03
139.59
25.1%
10.1%
12.7%
52.1%
* includes waste from residential, commercial and institutional sources.
+ Includes lead from lead-acid batteries.
+ Includes collection of other MSW organicsfor composting.
Details might not add to totals due to rounding.
Negligible = less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
A dash in the table means that data are not
available.
12
-------
Environmental and Economic Benefits
Environmental Benefits of Recycling and Composting
The energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) benefits of recycling, composting and combustion with energy recovery
that are shown in Table 5 are calculated using
EPA's WARM (Waste Reduction Model) tool (See:
https://www.epa.gov/warm). WARM calculates and
totals the GHG emissions of baseline and alternative
waste management practices, including source
reduction, recycling, composting, combustion with
energy recovery and landfilling. For example, paper
and paperboard recycling, at about 44.2 million tons,
resulted in a reduction of about 148 MMTCO2E in
2017. This reduction is equivalent to removing over 31 million cars from the road for one year.
Table 5.2017 Environmental Benefits
(The numbers in the Recycled, Composted, Combustion with Energy Recovery and Landfilled columns are
listed by weight of material* in millions of tons)
Material
Recycled
Composted
Combustion
with Energy
Recovery
Landfilled
GHG
Benefits
(MMTCO2E)
Number of Cars
Taken Off the
Road Per Year
(millions of cars)
Paper and paperboard
44.17
-
4.49
18.35
(147.97)
(31.42)
Glass
3.03
-
1.48
6.87
(0.89)
(0.19)
Metals
Steel
6.17
-
2.29
10.43
(15.12)
(3.21)
Aluminum
0.62
-
0.56
2.65
(5,66)
(1.20)
Other nonferrous metals**
1.54
-
0.07
0.72
(6,87)
(1.46)
Total metals
8.33
-
2.92
13.8
(27.65)
(5.87)
Plastics
2.96
-
5.59
26.82
3.82
0.81
Rubber and leather*
1.67
-
1.74
0.78
0.17
0.04
Textiles
2.57
-
3.17
11.15
(2.76)
(0.59)
Wood
3.00
-
2.85
12.14
(3.15)
(0.67)
Food, otheri
-
2.57
7.47
30.63
(6.90)
(1.46)
Yard trimmings
-
24.42
2.11
8.65
0.85
0.18
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes
-
-
0.79
3.25
(0.27)
(0.58)
Totals
65.73
26.99
32.61
132.44
(184.74)
(39.22)
* I ricl udes material from residential, commercial and institutional sources.
"Includes lead-acid batteries. Other nonferrous metals calculated in WARM as mixed metals.
+Only includes rubber from tires.
tincludes collection of other MSW organics for composting.
These calculations do not include an additional 10.02 million tons of MSW that could not be addressed in the WARM model.
MMTC02E is million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Numbers in parentheses indicate a reduction in either
greenhouse gases or vehicles, and therefore represent environmental benefits.
Source: WARM model Version 15 (https://www.epa.gov/warm)
In 2017, more than 94 miiiion tons of MSW in
the U.S. were recycled and composted, saving
over 184 MMTCO2E. This is comparable to the
emissions that could be reduced from taking
over 39 miiiion cars off the road in a year.
13
-------
Economic Indicators
Economic Benefits of Recycling and Composting
How our nation uses materials is fundamental to our economic and environmental future. Global competition for
finite resources is expected to continue to increase. A more productive and less impactful use of materials helps
our society remain economically competitive, contributes to our prosperity and protects the environment. By
using waste materials as valuable raw materials, recycling creates jobs, builds more competitive manufacturing
industries and significantly contributes to the U.S. economy.
EPA's 2001 Recycling Economic Information (REI) Study evaluated the number of recycling jobs, wages and
tax revenue. The Agency updated the study with a 2016 REI Report3 to increase the understanding of the
economic implications of material reuse and recycling. The 2016 REI Report included updated information about
the number of recycling jobs, wages and tax revenue (See Figure 10). The report showed that the recycling and
reuse of materials creates jobs and also generates local and state tax revenues. The data from the most recent
year available showed that in 2007, recycling and reuse activities in the United States accounted for: 757,000
jobs; $36.6 billion in wages; and $6.7 billion in tax revenues. This calculation equates to 1,57 jobs for every
1,000 tons of materials recycled. Construction and demolition debris provided the largest contribution to all three
categories (jobs, wages and tax revenue), followed by ferrous metals and nonferrous metals, such as aluminum.
Figure 10. Wages, Taxes and Jobs Attributed to Recycling
14
12
10
-------
Recycled Commodity Values
Figure 11 shows the indexed values by year for the following recycled commodities from 1990 to 2017: high-
density polyethylene (HOPE) natural bottles; polyethylene terephthalate (PET) clear bottles; aluminum used
beverage cans (UBC); steel cans; old newspaper (ONP) (grade 6); old corrugated containers (OCC) (grade 11);
paper stock (PS) (grade 1) soft mixed paper; and glass containers .The values are normalized to 2017 using the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).They are indexed to allow commodity
values with different metrics, such as dollars per ton, dollars per gross ton and dollars per short ton, to be shown
on the same graph and to compare their relative rates of change. The indexed value indicates the change in
value of the data since 1990, where one is equal to the value in 1990. For example, if for a given year, the
indexed value were two, then the commodity value for that year would be two times the 1990 value.
Figure 11 shows similar trends across all commodities for indexed values. For example, values for plastics and
papers spiked in 1995, and values for most commodities dipped in 2009, relative to 1990. Additionally, many
commodities, such as plastics and papers, also experienced a price spike in 2000, 2007 and 2011, followed by
a dip in 2015. In contrast, the indexed lines for glass, aluminum and steel cans appear to fluctuate less
frequently.
Figure 11. Indexed Recycled Commodity Values by Year
Year
Soft Mixed Paper ——OCC (11) Mill -O- PET Clear Steel Can
FOB Seller's Dock End User
¦ ONP (6) Mill FOB - - - Aluminum
Seller's Dock -±- HOPE Natural UBC End User — Glass
Source: Pulp & Paper Global Fact & Price Book, 2003-2004. Page 128. Paperloop, Inc. 2004. See endnotes for additional sources4
-------
Landfill Tipping Fees
From 1985 to 1995, there was a rapid rise in national landfill tipping fees, followed by a steady decrease from
1995 to 2004. Since 2004, there has been a slow and steady average increase of about one percent per year in
landfill tipping fees (See Figure 12). The tipping fees are expressed in constant 2017 dollars.
Tipping fees are important to consider as they typically increase as landfill capacity decreases. The difference in
tipping fees regionally is correlated to landfill capacity, as the average tipping fee in Western states ($35.69)
with more available space for landfills (e.g., Texas, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada) is less than half of the
average in the Northeast ($74.75).5
National mean annual landfill tipping fees were normalized to the value of the dollar in 2017 using the
Consumer Price Index (CP!) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to allow meaningful comparisons. This figure
shows an average increase from 1985 to 1995 of $3.31 per year, followed by a steady decrease of $0.81 per
year through 2004 and an average increase of $0.56 per year from 2004 to 2017.
$60
$50
f S40
+-»
QJ
Q)
% $30
C
CL
Q.
$20
$10
$0
Year
Source: National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facts. October
2011 (Data from 1985 to 2008). Waste Business Journal. "The Cost to Landfill MSW Continues to Rise Despite Soft
Demand." July 11, 2017 (Data for 2010 to 2015). "Analysis of MSW Landfill Tipping Fees" April 2018 (Data for 2016
and 2017). https://erefdn.org/product/analysis-msw-landfill-tipping-fees-2/
Figure 12. National Landfill Tipping Fees, 1982-2017 ($2017 per ton)
$51.77
¦
$51.82
$49.74 ¦
¦
a $45.98
$43.15
¦ ¦ ¦
$47.84 ¦ ¦ $48.03 $47.93
$45.82 $45.92
¦ ¦ ¦ * ¦
548.67 $49.00 $49.29 $49.30
¦
$39.62
¦
$34.76
¦
¦
$24.42
$20.50
¦
$18.68
III 1 1 1 1 1 1
16
-------
MSW Generation and Household Spending
In the United States, the change in the amount of MSW generated typically mirrors trends in how much money
households spent on goods and services. Personal Consumer Expenditures (PCE) measure household
spending on goods and services such as food, clothing, vehicles and recreation services. PCE is one of the four
components of economic growth, along with government spending, private investments and net exports. As
PCE is an indicator of the household consumption of goods and services, which make up nearly 70 percent of
the gross domestic product (GDP), PCE has a stronger conceptual tie to MSW generation than the other three
GDP components. PCE adjusted for inflation is referred to as real PCE. This metric is more useful 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 13 explores the relationship between MSW generated and real PCE.
Figure 13 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 to
compare their relative rates of change since 1960. The indexed value indicates the change in the vaiue of the
data since 1960. For example, if, for a given year, the value was three, then the data value for that year would
be three times the 1960 value. In this case, if the 1960 value were 200, then the resulting year's value would be
600. The 2017 MSW per capita generation indexed value is 1.7, which means that MSW per capita generation
has increased by 70 percent since 1960.
Figure 13 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 index indicates that the amount of MSW generated per
dollar spent is falling, in other words, the U.S. economy has been able to enjoy dramatic increases in household
spending on consumer goods and services without 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.
Figure 13. Indexed MSW Generated and Real PCE over Time (1960-2017)
7.00
0.00
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2017
Year
Real PCE
MSW Generated
MSW Generated per Capita
Source: See endnotes6
17
-------
MSW Methodology
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. EPA recognizes that there are several approaches to
measuring material flows, such as by volume. To be consistent, EPA reports the quantities of materials in tons
in the current fact sheet, but the Agency will continue to explore options for alternative measurement
methodologies to describe materials management in the United States.
EPA has consistently used materials flow analysis to allow for the comparison of data over the last three
decades. EPA recognizes that this methodology differs from other methodologies that also estimate the
generation of MSW and other waste data. EPA will continue to work with stakeholders to identify methodologies
and additional publicly available data to improve our national understanding of materials flow in the United
States.
Using data gathered from industry associations, businesses and government sources, such as the U.S.
Department of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau, EPA estimates the weight in tons of all MSW materials
and products generated, recycled, composted, combusted with energy recovery and landfilled. Other sources of
data, such as waste characterizations and research reports performed by governments, industry or the press,
supplement these data.
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris
Generation Results
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is a type of waste that is not included in MSW. Materials included in
C&D debris are steel, wood products, drywall and plaster, brick and clay tile, asphalt shingles, concrete and
asphalt concrete. These materials are used in buildings, roads and bridges, and other structures. The
generation estimate represents C&D debris amounts from construction, renovation and demolition activities for
buildings, roads and bridges, and other structures.
In 2017, 569 million tons of C&D debris were generated. Figure 14 shows the 2017 generation composition for
C&D debris. C&D concrete was the largest portion at 69.7 percent, followed by asphalt concrete at 15.0 percent.
C&D wood products made up 7.1 percent, and the other products accounted for 8.1 percent combined. The
2017 generation estimates are presented in more detail in Table 6. As shown in Figure 15, demolition
represented over 90 percent of total C&D debris generation. Construction, on the other hand, represented under
10 percent.
18
-------
Figure 14. C&D Generation Composition by Material (before processing), 2017
569 Million Tons
Asphalt Shingles.
2.5%
Brick and ClayTile^
2.1%
Asphalt Concrete
15.0%
Steel
0.8%
Drywall and
Plasters
2.7%
Wood Products
7.1%
Concrete
69.7%
Table 6. C&D Debris Generation by Material and Activity, 2017 (in millions of tons)
Waste During
Construction
Demolition
Debris
Total
C&D Debris
Concrete
24.0
373.0
397.0
Wood Products7
3.3
36.9
40.2
Drywall and Plasters
4.3
11.0
15.3
Steel8
0
4.6
4.6
Brick and Clay Tile
0.3
11.9
12.2
Asphalt Shingles
1,4
13.0
14.4
Asphalt Concrete
0
85.7
85.7
Total
33.3
536.1
569.4
7-s See endnotes.
19
-------
Figure 15. Contribution of Construction and Demolition Phases to Total 2017 C&D Debris Generation
100,—.
80
60
40
20
Concrete Wood Products Drywa 11 and Plasters Steel Brick and Clay Tile Asphalt Shingles Asphalt Concrete Total
Products
¦ During Construction ¦ Demolition
Table 7 displays the amount of C&D debris generation from buildings, roads and bridges, and other structures
for each material. The "other structures" category includes C&D debris generation estimates from
communication, power, transportation, sewer and waste disposal, water supply, conservation and development,
and the manufacturing infrastructure. In 2017, roads and bridges contributed significantly more to C&D debris
generation than buildings and other structures, and concrete made up the largest share of C&D debris
generation for all three categories.
Table 7. C&D Debris Generation by Source, 2017 (in millions of tons)
Buildings
Roads and
Bridges
Other
Concrete
98.8
164.5
133.7
Wood Products'
38.9
-
1.3
Drywall and Plasters
15.3
-
-
Steel8
4.6
-
-
Brick and Clay Tile
12.2
-
-
Asphalt Shingles
14.4
-
-
Asphalt Concrete
-
85.7
-
Total
184.2
250.2
135.0
7-8 See endnotes.
A dash in the table means that data are not available.
20
-------
Resources
The 2017 data tables and the summary of the MSW characterization methodology are available on the EPA
website, along with information about waste reduction, recycling and sustainable materials management.
Please visit:
https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling
https://www.epa.gov/recycle
https://www.epa.gov/smm
https://www.epa.gov/warm
Endnotes
1. Source for 2002 community composting program data: "The State of Garbage In America." Simmons, Phil, Scott M.
Kaufman, and Nickolas J. Themelis. BioCycle 47, no. 4, p. 26 (2006). Source for 2017 data: Goldstein, N. 2017, "The
State of Organics." BioCycle, October, p. 5, Table 2. Facilities composting yard trimmings, yard trimmings and food, and
mixed organics. Excludes 740 facilities composting manure, biosolids, mixed MSW or not defined.
2. Sources for food composting collection programs: Streeter, V.; Piatt B. 2017. Residential Food Waste Collection Access
in the U.S. BioCycle December.
3. US EPA. 2016. "Recycling Economic Information Report" (2016). https://www.epa.gov/smm/recycling-economic-
information-rei-report. The 2016 REI Report used an updated analytical framework and a new Waste Input-Output
methodology, which focused on the life cycle of materials. These refinements offered significant improvements over the
original 2001 REI Study by providing a better definition of recycling and addressing double counting. This new
methodology assists decision makers and researchers in more accurately estimating the economic benefits of recycling,
and it creates a foundation upon which additional studies can be built.
4. Recycled Commodity Values. Soft mixed paper consists of a clean, sorted mixture of various qualities of paper not
limited as to type of fiber content. Prohibitive Materials may not exceed 1 percent. There are specific limits on the
percent of contaminants allowed in soft mixed paper. Data were not available for ONP, metals, plastics and glass in
1997 and 1998. For plastics, glass and metals, there was a transition in data sources between 1996 and 1999 and
between 2004 and 2005, so some of the change between years could be due to the methodology of the data source for
capturing data.
Additional sources include Secondary Materials Pricing and Secondary Fiber Pricing. 2003-2017. Released December
2017. Available at http://www.recyclingmarkets.net/. 1970 to 2004 historical data tabulated from weekly or monthly
industry publications and averaged annually during the time periods shown. Publications included Waste Age Recycling
Times, Waste News, Paper Recycler, Miller Freeman, Inc.
5. Solid Waste Environmental Excellence Protocol. "No End in Sight to US Landfill Cost Increases — Pacific Region to
Experience Highest Growth". June 13, 2018. https://nrra.net/sweep/no-end-in-siaht-to-us-landfill-cost-increases-pacific-
reaion-to-experience-hiahest-arowth/
6. MSW Generation: US EPA. 2019. Solid Waste in the United States: 2016 and 2017 Facts and Figures working papers.
Population: U.S. Census Bureau. Population Division. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population.
PCE: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2019. Tables 2.3.4 and 2.3.5.
7. Wood consumption in buildings also includes some lumber consumed for the construction of other structures. Data were
not available to allocate lumber consumption for non-residential and unspecified uses between buildings and other
structures except for railroad ties. 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 amount of lumber for
construction remaining after the amount for railroad ties is split out is included in the buildings source category.
8. 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.
21
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Land and Emergency Management (5306P)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA 530-F-19-007
November 2019
------- |