Source Reduction

Waste Prevention

Sustainable Resource

Environmental Protection and Emergency Response November 1999

Agency (5306W) www.epa.gov/osw

1EPA National Source Reduction

Characterization Report 

For Municipal Solid Waste 

in the United States
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1.1 Why Characterize Source Reduction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 How Was Source Reduction Calculated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.4 Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 Overview of the Measurement Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3 Selecting the Factor Driving Waste Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.4 Calculating Source Reduction for MSW Using Consumer Spending (PCE) as the 

Driving Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.2 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.3 Analysis of Products and Materials Contributing Significantly to Source Reduction . . . . . . . 16

3.4 Source Reduction Values for the Individual Components of MSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

4.1 Reducing Organic Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.1.1 Implementing Comprehensive Source Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Montgomery County, Maryland

4.1.2 Grasscycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Pinellas County, Florida 

4.1.3 Backyard Composting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

4.1.4 Food Scraps Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

New York State Department of Correctional Services, Frost Valley YMCA, 

Del Mar Fairgrounds, New College/University of South Florida at Sarasota, 3M

4.2 Reducing Wood and Transport Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.2.1 Remanufacturing or Repairing Wooden Pallets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Pallet Repair, Inc., Pallet Resource of North Carolina, Inc., 

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Inc.

4.2.2 Substituting Materials for Transport Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Alpine Windows, Home Depot, Schlegel Systems, Inc.

National Source Reduction Characterization Report i

Contents
4.3 Reducing Primary Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

4.3.1 Lightweighting and/or Redesigning Primary Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

The Clorox Company, The Coca-Cola Company, Federal Express Corporation,

The Procter & Gamble Corporation

4.3.2 Eliminating Unnecessary Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Warner-Lambert Company

4.3.3 Switching to Reusable Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Dunn County, Wisconsin

4.4 Working With Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

4.4.1 Eliminating Unnecessary Packaging From Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Target Stores

4.4.2 Switching to Reusable and Returnable Packaging With Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Maytag Corporation, Herman Miller, Inc., Royal Crest Dairy

4.4.3 Streamlining Purchasing Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Silicon Graphics, Commonwealth Edison

4.5 Working With Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

4.5.1 Product Take-Back and Remanufacturing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Xerox Corporation, Eastman Kodak Company, The Laser Link, Inc.

4.5.2 Leasing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Monsanto and Dell Computer Corporation, The City of San Diego and Interface, Inc.

4.5.3 Packaging Reuse by Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Wakefern Food Corporation

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

A.1 Overview of the Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

A.2 Definition of Source Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

A.3 Empirical Analysis of Waste Generation From 1960 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

A.4 Statistical Analysis Approach to Measuring Source Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

A.5 Support for Selection of Consumer Spending as the Driving Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

A.6 Additional Analysis of Source Reduction and Source Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

ADDITIONAL SOURCE REDUCTION RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

ii National Source Reduction Characterization Report 
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables

Table 2-1: Calculation of Source Reduction in 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Table 3-1: Source Reduction for Years Prior to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Table 3-2: 1996 Source Reduction by Major Material Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Table 3-3: 1996 Source Reduction and Source Expansion Values for Subcategories of MSW . . . . .13

Table 3-4: Significant Source Reduction and Source Expansion Within MSW—1996 . . . . . . . . . .14

Table 3-5: Source Reduction/(Expansion) for Functional Categories—1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Table 3-6: Significant Source Reduction Within MSW—1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Table 3-7: Newspaper Lightweighting—1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Table 3-8: Soft Drink Packaging Materials Substitution—1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Table 3-9: Source Reduction/(Expansion) Values for Individual Components of MSW—1996 . . . .21

Table A-1: Possible Drivers of Waste Generation Rates for MSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

Table A-2: R2 Values for MSW-Related Regressions for 1960 to 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Table A-3: Source Reduction Values for MSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Table A-4: Source Reduction Values for MSW, MFW, and OW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Table A-5: Source Reduction Values for the Individual Components of MSW . . . . . . . . . . . . .72-75

Figures

Figure 2-1: Actual vs. Projected MSW Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Figure 2-2: Average Annual Percent Change in MSW Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Figure 2-3: Calculation of Source Reduction in 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Figure 4-1: Xerox Product “Closed Loop” Lifecycle Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

Figure A-1: The Structure of MSW and its Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Figure A-2: Average Annual Percent Change in MSW, MFW, and OW Generation . . . . . . . . . . .65

National Source Reduction Characterization Report iii
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

sour c e

\Usôrs, o Uso

?

rs\ n. A point of origin.

r eduction

\ri-Udck-shcn\ n. The amount by which 

something is lessened or diminished.

1.1 Why Characterize Source 

Reduction?

I

n February 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)

Agenda for Action called for “a new solid waste management ethic” reflected in what has come to be referred to as the “solid waste management

hierarchy.” While acknowledging variations in local conditions, the hierarchy

established a preferred order to municipal solid waste (MSW) management:

1. Source reduction (including reuse of products, grasscycling, and

onsite composting).

2. Recycling (including offsite composting).

3. Waste combustion (preferably with energy recovery) and landfilling.

In its Agenda for Action, EPA emphasized a clear preference for source reduction over all other waste management practices. The best way to manage

waste is to simply not generate it in the first place, so that it doesn’t need to

be collected, treated, or disposed of. Furthermore, source reduction’s benefits

greatly outweigh those of recycling, incineration, and landfilling in terms of

reducing energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and other environmental

impacts. Source reduction makes sense—both environmentally and economically.

One of the big challenges with source reduction involves trying to quantify

the results of waste prevention efforts. While recycling tonnages and landfill

or combustion input can be weighed on a scale, it is very difficult to measure

something that has not been generated in the first place.

That is why EPA developed this report. For the first time, a nationwide effort

has been made to capture the amount of waste that was not created over a certain time period. This report not only estimates the quantity of source reduction nationwide, but also looks at factors that drive waste prevention activities

such as changes in design practices, operational changes, policy trends, and

new technologies. Source reduction is addressed in terms of the MSW stream

as a whole and in major material categories (i.e., paper and paperboard, food

scraps and yard trimmings, plastics, metals, wood, glass).

Source Reduction activities reduce the

amount or toxicity of wastes before they

enter the municipal solid waste management system. Source reduction,

also known as waste prevention, occurs

before waste generation is measured.

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, such as refillable glass bottles, reusable plastic food storage containers, or refurbished wood pallets.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

includes wastes such as durable goods,

nondurable goods, containers and

packaging, food scraps, yard trimmings,

and miscellaneous inorganic wastes

from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. MSW does

not include sewage, hazardous wastes,

nonhazardous industrial waste, construction and demolition debris, or automobile bodies.

Generation refers to the amount

(weight or volume) of materials and

products that enter the waste stream

before recycling (including offsite composting), landfilling, or combustion takes

place.

Discards refer to the MSW that has not

been recycled or composted.These 

discards are usually combusted or disposed of in landfills, although some

MSW is littered, stored, or disposed on

site, particularly in rural areas.

Additional terms and definitions can be

found in the Glossary of this report.

definitions
In order to quantify and examine source reduction across the country, EPA

built this report using MSW data that the Agency has compiled and reported to

the public since 1990. For the last decade, EPA has produced a report,

Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, to give overall calculations of MSW generation, recycling, and disposal for all years from 1960 to

1997. MSW generation, recycling, and disposal data are given by material categories (i.e., paper, plastic, metal, wood, glass, food, and yard trimmings), as well

as by product categories (i.e., durable goods, nondurable goods, containers and

packaging, food scraps, and yard trimmings). This information has proven

invaluable for supporting MSW policy decisions and solid waste management

practices in the United States. 

In order to characterize the waste that was not generated, EPA has developed a

methodology for calculating the amount of MSW source reduction occurring

in the United States on an annual basis since 1990. This base year coincides

with major source reduction policy initiatives embodied in the 1989 Agenda for

Action, as well as the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act. 

This report’s basic approach to measuring source reduction involves looking at

changes in waste generation, by estimating what the waste generation rate

would have been had source reduction not taken place. To do this, the methodology focuses on waste generation rates. EPA’s methodology takes an important

departure from traditional per capita, per day units of measure, by using economic data to understand MSW generation rates. Personal Consumption

Expenditures (PCE) are used to evaluate the reduction of waste generation relative to the real growth in consumer spending. PCE, a component of the Gross

Domestic Product (GDP), is an economic measure of consumer spending. This

approach was chosen because consumer spending data correlates with historical

MSW generation. In other words, the more people spend, the more waste they

generate. PCE, therefore, can be used to predict what waste generation would

have been, had source reduction not occurred. In some cases, individual material waste streams may grow faster than the PCE rate. This is referred to as

“source expansion” and is further explained in Chapter 2 of this report.

To further clarify areas where material substitution (e.g., aluminum for glass,

paper for plastic, or vice versa) has led to source reduction or expansion, EPA

introduced the concept of “functional product groupings.” This report examines products in functional categories (e.g., beverage containers used to deliver

soft drinks to consumers) so that source reduction may be considered relative to

a specific market activity, rather than on a material-specific basis.

Using this overall methodology, which quantifies source reduction by weight,

EPA is now able to characterize waste prevention both in the aggregate and by

product and material categories. Later efforts may also address material toxicity

and volume, which is important when considering the amount of landfill space

this waste would have required.

2 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Source reduction encompasses a

broad range of activities undertaken by private citizens, communities,

commercial establishments, institutional agencies, and manufacturers

and distributors. In general, source

reduction activities include:

u Redesigning products or packages to reduce the quantity or

toxicity of the materials used, or

substituting lighter materials for

heavier ones.

u Lengthening the life of products

to postpone their disposal.

u Using packaging that reduces

product damage or spoilage.

u Reducing the amount of products or packages used by businesses or consumers.

u Reusing products or packages.

u Managing organic wastes such

as food scraps and yard trimmings through grasscycling,

backyard composting, or other

onsite alternatives to disposal.

What Is 

Source Reduction?

1.2 How Was

Source Reduction 

Calculated?
This report is based directly on tonnage data for MSW provided in the

Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. Characterization of

Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1997 Update (hereafter referred to as

“1997 Update”) contains waste generation data for 1996; therefore source

reduction was calculated for 1996 (relative to the 1990 base year) as this was

the most recent data available.

In 1996, a total of more than 23 million tons of MSW were source reduced in

the United States. That same year, according to the 1997 Update, 209.7 million tons of MSW were generated. Had source reduction not taken place, an

additional 11 percent of MSW generation would have required recycling,

landfilling, or combustion.

By applying the methodology mentioned above, EPA examined which components of MSW were responsible for the 23.3 million tons of source reduction in 1996. Durable goods (e.g., appliances, furniture, tires) represented

nearly 2.2 million tons; nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers, clothing) represented nearly 3.6 million tons; containers and packaging represented 4 million

tons; and other MSW (e.g., yard trimmings, food scraps) represented 13.5

million tons.

The figures above do not mean that waste generation rates decreased for

every product within these broad categories; in fact, within each category,

some items had increased waste generation rates, while the rates for other categories were less. The result was a net value of source reduction in the overall

category. Chapter 3 provides additional detail regarding areas of source

reduction and expansion in various product categories.

EPA also examined source reduction for the years covered in the 1997 Update

(1992, 1994, and 1995), relative to the base year 1990. In 1992, approximately

630,000 tons of MSW were source reduced; in 1994, more than 7.9 million

tons of MSW were source reduced; and in 1995, more than 15.8 million tons

of MSW were source reduced.

Using this data, the benefits from source reduction can now be assessed more

reliably. Product level impacts of source reduction also can be better understood as a critical element of solid waste management planning and policies.

This report should ultimately help emphasize the impact of source reduction

and capture the attention of policy makers at all levels of government.

This report is an integral part and a natural extension of EPA’s ongoing

efforts to track and report national developments in MSW generation. EPA

intends to add source reduction data as a permanent feature to all future

updates of the Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States

report, to create a more accurate profile of the nation’s efforts to reduce

MSW.

National Source Reduction Characterization Report 3

1.3 Summary of

Results
Three chapters follow this introduction. Chapter 2 explains the methodology

that was used to generate all of the source reduction estimates presented in

this report. Further detail on the chosen methodology, including an explanation of the significance of PCE as a predictor of waste generation, is provided. 

Chapter 3 contains the final data on source reduction for the MSW stream as

a whole, as well as for its component materials and product categories. It also

provides a closer look at several materials and activities that contribute significantly to source reduction on a national level. Data are summarized in figures

and tables throughout. 

Chapter 4 describes source reduction in action, through a number of case

studies. Profiling the source reduction activities of individual organizations

helps support the numerical data presented in Chapter 3 with real world

examples. The source reduction efforts highlighted include backyard composting, elimination of unnecessary packaging, lightweighting, and material

reuse. 

A Glossary defines terms used in this report, and the Appendix provides

extensive detail on the empirical and statistical analysis undertaken to support

the methodology described in Chapter 2.

4 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

1.4 Report

Organization
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 5

Chapter 2

METHODOLOGY p r evention

\pri-Uven(t)-shcn\ n. The act of keeping from

happening.

waste

\Uw2ast\ v. To use, consume, or expend careless

or thoughtlessly.

2.1 Introduction

This report represents the first attempt to quantify nationwide source

reduction. In developing a methodology for quantifying source reduction at the national level, EPA first began by examining the historical

pattern of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation in the United States. It is

often assumed that measuring source reduction involves measuring changes in

waste generation over a period of time. While changes in waste generation

are important indicators of source reduction, they do not take into account

the variety of socioeconomic and lifestyle changes that affect the quantity of

MSW generated (e.g., changes in packaging, increased consumption of food

away from home, changes in lawn and garden care). For this reason, EPA’s

methodology assumes that, without source reduction, MSW generation

would have grown from 1990 to 1996 in proportion to a driving factor such

as population or economic activity. A change in the driving factor, thus, would

change the amount of waste generated.

The impact of driving factors on MSW generation is measured by analyzing

the amount of waste generated over time relative to the driving factor. The

rate of waste generation means the amount of waste generated per unit of the

driving factor, such as per capita or per dollars spent. Source reduction is then

calculated as the difference between the projected amount of MSW generated

in 1996, and the actual amount of MSW generated in 1996. 

To understand which driving factor best explains waste generation, this report

examined several factors to determine which one followed the pattern of

waste generation most closely. The following three leading candidates were

selected:

• Population: waste generated per capita.

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP): waste generated per million dollars of

economic activity.

• Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE): waste generated per million

dollars spent by consumers.

The historical pattern of changes in waste generation was found to be more

closely related to changes in consumer spending (PCE) than to changes in

GDP or population (or to other possible factors that were tested but not

selected). In addition, consumer spending’s impact on MSW generation

Driving Factor refers to macroeconomic developments that cause, or

drive, changes in waste generation.

Examples include increases or

decreases in population, wages, and

gross domestic product.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

refers to the total annual market value

of all final goods, services, and structures produced by labor and property

located in the United States, regardless of who owns the resources.

Personal Consumption

Expenditures (PCE) refers to the

amount of spending by consumers on

goods and services within the GDP. It

is the largest single component of

GDP and accounts for two-thirds of its

total output. In this report, PCE also is

often referred to more generically as

"consumer spending."

Additional terms and definitions can

be found in the Glossary of this

report.

definitions
makes intuitive sense, since the products and packaging purchased by consumers are ultimately discarded as MSW.

Source reduction, therefore, was measured as the difference between the

amount of waste that would have been generated in 1996, if the relationship

between waste generation and consumer spending had remained the same as

it was in 1990, and the actual amount of waste generated in 1996.

Figure 2-1 illustrates the approach to source reduction measurement used in

this report. The solid line represents actual waste generation over time, with

the values for 1980, 1990, and 1996. The dotted line shows the waste that

would have been generated if, beginning in 1990, the rate of waste generation

relative to consumer spending remained constant at the 1990 level while 

consumer spending continued to grow. The waste generation projection for

1996 is greater than the actual amount of waste generated in 1996, reflecting

source reduction. If the waste generation rate in 1996 (relative to consumer

spending) was greater than the rate in 1990, this would reflect source 

expansion.

The first step in measuring source reduction at the national level is to examine the historical pattern of MSW generation. Figure 2-2 provides a picture

of the percent changes in MSW generation from 1960 to 1996 using data

from the Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1997

Update (1997 Update). In the 1997 Update, information is only available for

certain years during the period 1960 through 1996. Data for these years are

used to develop average annual changes

in the generation of MSW. The data

show that MSW generation grew steadily from 1960 to 1994. In 1994, however,

there was a decisive downturn. It is

believed that source reduction is responsible for this downturn. But how much

of an impact does source reduction make

on MSW generation?

To quantify the amount of waste prevented in a given year (i.e., source

reduction), it is necessary to consider the

amount of waste that would have been

generated if there had been no change in

the generation rate. In other words, if

people had not practiced source reduction, how much waste would have been

generated? Such an approach requires

that source reduction in a given year be

6 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

YEAR

WASTE

(Thousands of Tons)

Projected 1996 Waste Generation

Using 1990 Generation Rate

Actual 1980 Waste Generation

Actual 

1996 

Waste 

Generation

Actual 1990 

Waste Generation

1996

Source 

Reduction

260,000

240,000

220,000

200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

Figure 2-1: Actual vs. Projected MSW Generation 

(relative to consumer spending)

2.2 Overview of

the Measurement 

Approach

Source Reduction in 1996 = Projected 1996 Waste Generation (Using 1990 Generation Rate) – Actual 1996 Waste Generation
measured relative to a base year (1990)

and a specified driver (such as PCE).

Source reduction is calculated as the difference between the amount of waste

that would have been generated in 1996,

if the rate of generation (relative to the

driving factor) remained the same as it

was in 1990, and the actual amount of

waste generated in 1996.

It is difficult to measure what would have

happened without source reduction,

because waste generation is constantly

changing as the population and economy

change. Modifications in packaging,

increased consumption of food away

from home, changes in lawn and garden

care, and countless other socioeconomic

and lifestyle changes impact the quantity

of MSW generated. The method used in

this report to compute source reduction

captures the effects of such changes.

To understand which driving factor impacted waste generation the most, EPA

closely examined the top three key driving factors to determine which one

followed the pattern of waste generation most closely. The key drivers are:

population (waste generated per capita), GDP (waste generated per million

dollars of economic activity), and consumer spending or PCE (waste generated per million dollars spent at the retail level). 

Using population as the driving factor, a common choice in past studies,

assumes that waste generation per capita is relatively stable or predictable. In

other words, the number of people drives MSW generation and the actions of

those people are generally consistent during the period of time considered.

Using GDP, in contrast, assumes that waste generation is proportional to

overall economic activity. Similarly, the choice of consumer spending (PCE)

assumes that waste generation is driven by the activities and expenditures of

consumers. On theoretical grounds, it seems reasonable to expect that one of

the two economic measures, rather than population, represents the appropriate driving factor for MSW generation. Per capita generation of MSW is not

constant over time; most waste is generated as a result of some type of economic activity.

The link between consumer spending and MSW generation also makes intuitive sense, since consumer spending reflects the goods and products,

including food, and their packaging that are purchased, used, and ultimately

National Source Reduction Characterization Report 7

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

1960- 1970 1970- 1980 1980- 1990 1990- 1992 1992- 1994 1994- 1995 1995- 1996

Period

Average Annual Percent Change

Figure 2-2: Average Annual Percent Change in MSW Generation

2.3 Selecting the

Factor Driving 

Waste Generation 
discarded as MSW. Consumer spending has generally grown from year to

year, reflecting the increasing material well-being of the American population. Consumer spending also is generally linked to yard trimmings waste

generation, though not as directly. Material well-being may also be reflected

in the purchase of plants, seeds, fertilizer, and water, which ultimately contribute to the generation of yard waste.

For the reasons discussed, EPA’s analysis determined that consumer spending

(PCE) was the factor that most accurately predicts, or drives, MSW generation. Statistical support for selecting consumer spending as the most appropriate driving factor also is strong. The supporting analysis for this choice can

be found in the Appendix. 

This report, therefore, measured source reduction as the difference between

the projected amount of MSW generated in 1996 and the actual amount of

MSW generated in 1996. The projected amount was determined using the

1990 relationship between MSW generation and consumer spending. A complete description of the measurement method used to quantify national source

reduction, including a detailed discussion of the statistical analyses undertaken, can be found in the Appendix.

With the selection of consumer spending as the driving factor, Figure 2-1 can

now be revised to show actual data from the 1997 Update on MSW generation as well as data on projected waste generation using the 1990 generation

rate. Figure 2-3 includes these data and illustrates source reduction in 1996

relative to 1990.

8 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

YEAR

WASTE

(Thousands of Tons)

Projected 1996 Waste Generation

Using 1990 Generation Rate

Actual 1980 Waste Generation

Actual

1996

Waste

Generation

Actual 1990

Waste Generation

260,000

240,000

220,000

200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

Source

Reduction

1996=

23,286

151,640

205,210

209,660

232,946

Figure 2-3: Calculation of Source Reduction in 1996

2.4 Calculating

Source Reduction

for MSW Using

Consumer

Spending (PCE) as

the Driving Factor
Table 2-1 at right explains the previous figure in more detail, including the

main steps involved in calculating source reduction in 1996.

1. The first row of the table contains

actual waste generation numbers

reported in EPA’s annual MSW 

characterization reports.

2. The second row is the value of real

(adjusted for inflation) consumer

spending. The data on consumer

spending (PCE) was obtained from

the 1997 Statistical Abstract of the

United States. 

3. The figures shown in the third row

are the result of dividing the values

for waste generation (the first row)

by the values for consumer spending

(second row). Specifically, for the

1990 data, 205,210 thousand tons

divided by $4,132,200 million yields

a waste generation rate of 49.66 tons per million dollars. 

4. In the fourth row, using the 1990 waste generation rate obtained in step 3,

the amount of waste generated in 1996 (assuming no change in behavior

since 1990) can be projected. This value—232,946 thousand tons—is simply consumer spending in 1996 ($4,690,700 million) multiplied by the

1990 waste generation rate (49.66 tons per million dollars). 

5. Row five subtracts the “Actual 1996 Waste Generation” (209,660 thousand tons) from the “Projected 1996 Waste Generation Using 1990

Generation Rate” (232,946 thousand tons) to compute “Source Reduction

in 1996” (23,286 thousand tons). In words, the above calculation can be

summarized as follows:

In addition to the calculation of source reduction described in Table 2-1,

which EPA preferred because of its simplicity, there is another way to 

calculate MSW source reduction using the same basic method. This 

alternative uses statistical rather than nonstatistical analysis. A description 

of this calculation is outlined in the Appendix. 

National Source Reduction Characterization Report 9

Waste Stream: Actual 205,210 209,660

Waste Generation (Thousands of Tons)

Driving Factor: Consumer Spending 4,132,200 4,690,700

(PCE in Millions of Dollars)

Rate: Waste Generation Rate 49.66 44.70

(Tons per Million Dollars)

Projected 1996 Waste Generation Not Applicable 232,946

Using 1990 Generation Rate 

(Thousands of Tons)

Source Reduction in 1996 Not Applicable 23,286

(Thousands of Tons) 

Source Reduction 1990 1996

Equation Components

Table 2-1: Calculation of Source Reduction in 1996

Source Reduction in 1996 = Projected 1996 Waste Generation (Using 1990 Generation Rate) – Actual 1996 Waste Generation 

= (232,946 thousand tons) – (209,660 thousand tons)

= 23,286 thousand tons 

= 23 million tons
To isolate which components of MSW were responsible for the 23 million

tons of source reduction witnessed in 1996, the average annual changes in the

waste generation rate for each product and material included in MSW were

examined. Source reduction for each was then calculated using the same

method outlined in Table 2-1. Specifically, source reduction for components

of MSW was calculated as follows:

In order to determine “Projected 1996 Component Waste Generation,” the

following formula was used:

Chapter 3 describes the analysis applied to various product and material

categories.

10 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Component Source Reduction in 1996 = Projected 1996 Component Waste Generation – Actual 1996 Component Waste 

Projected 1996 Component Waste Generation = 1990 Component Waste Generation ÷ 1990 PCE × 1996 PCE 
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 11

Chapter 3

RESULTS

r esour ce 

\Ur2e-/sôrs\n. Something that a countr o y, state, etc. has and can use 

its advantage.

sustainable 

\sc-Ust2a-nc-bcl\adj. Able to be kept in existence or maintained.

3.1 Introduction

Measuring of source reduction at the national level provides a useful framework for setting municipal solid waste (MSW) management goals, tracking progress toward those goals, and highlighting opportunities for increased waste prevention. 

This report represents the first comprehensive analysis of source reduction at

the national level. It provides an estimate of the amount of source reduction

that occurred in the United States in 1996, relative to a base year of 1990, the

first full year after EPA’s adoption of the waste management hierarchy and its

emphasis to reduce, reuse, and recycle. 

In this chapter, the methodology discussed in Chapter 2 will be applied to

various aspects of the waste stream, going from the general to the specific. To

recap, the first step is to look at source reduction for the overall annual waste

stream and calculate the source reduction for years previous to 1996. The

next step is to look at several major categories of products and materials

including areas of significant source reduction or source expansion. The conclusion of this chapter includes a list of individual components of MSW that

combine to make up the overall waste stream.

In 1996, a total of 23 million tons of MSW were source reduced. This is

equivalent to 11 percent of the 209.7 million tons of MSW generated that year.

Using the methodology shown in Table 2.1 of Chapter 2, source reduction

achievements in years previous to 1996 (Table 3-1) can now be calculated to

provide a “picture” of the year-to-year changes in source reduction over time.

Source Reduction (also known

as Waste Prevention) refers to any

change in the design, manufacturing, purchase, or use of materials

or products (including packaging) to

reduce their amount or toxicity

before they become MSW. Source

reduction also refers to the reuse of

products or materials.

Source Expansion refers to

increases in the rate of generation

of MSW. Source expansion is the

opposite of source reduction.

Durable Goods refers to longer

lasting goods such as major and

small appliances, furniture and furnishings, carpets and rugs, and

consumer electronics.

Nondurable Goods refers to

items having a lifetime of less than

3 years, such as newspapers,

magazines, office paper, telephone directories, paper towels

and tissues, paperboard, paper

plates and cups, plastic plates and

cups, and textiles.

Additional terms and definitions

can be found in the Glossary of

this report.

definitions

3.2 Findings

1992 630

1994 7,974

1995 15,879

1996 23,286

Year Source Reduction (thousand tons) 

Table 3-1: Source Reduction for Years Prior to 1996
Applying the same methodology, the components of MSW that are responsible for the 23 million tons of source reduction in 1996 can be examined. The

results are detailed in Table 3-2.

Within the broad categories that make up the MSW stream, some of the

individual materials experienced source reduction in 1996, while others experienced source expansion. Source expansion is the opposite of source reduction. As mentioned in Chapter 2, we use this term when there is an increase

in the rate of MSW generation rather than a decrease. Table 3-3 provides a

summary of the source reduction and source expansion values obtained for

the following subcategories of MSW: durable goods, nondurable goods, containers and packaging, and other MSW.

12 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Durable Goods 2,179

(e.g., appliances, furniture, tires) 

Nondurable Goods 3,571

(e.g., newspapers and clothing)

Containers & Packaging 4,002

(e.g., bottles and boxes) 

Other MSW 13,534

(e.g., yard trimmings and food scraps) 

Total Source Reduction 23,286

Waste Stream Tons Source Reduced

in Thousands

(Based on consumer spending 

and change in waste generation rate)

Table 3-2: 1996 Source Reduction by 

Major Material Categories
As shown in Table 3-4 on page 14, 10 specific components of MSW contributed significantly to overall source reduction and expansion. Yard trimmings, newspapers, magazines, wood packaging, glass containers, miscellaneous durable goods, and food scraps are each responsible for 1 million tons

or more of the total source reduction in the United States in 1996. Yard trimmings represent the largest individual contributor to source reduction, with

more than 11.7 million tons being source reduced in 1996.

The source reduction values for the seven significant contributors in Table 

3-4 are impacted by the following factors: 1) the amount of yard trimmings in

MSW is decreasing due to the use of backyard composting, landfill bans, and

mulching lawnmowers for grasscycling; 2) newspaper use has been reduced

due to various forms of lightweighting (reductions in the weight of a 

National Source Reduction Characterization Report 13

Durable Goods

Source Reduction 2,958

Source Expansion (779)

Net Value 2,179 9.4%

Nondurable Goods

Source Reduction 6,314

Source Expansion (2,743)

Net Value 3,571 15.3%

Containers and Packaging

Source Reduction 7,161

Source Expansion (3,159)

Net Value 4,002 17.2%

Other MSW

(i.e., yard trimmings, food scraps, miscellaneous inorganics)

Source Reduction 13,534

Source Expansion 0

Net Value 13,534 58.1%

Total Source Reduction 29,967

Total Source Expansion (6,681)

Total Net Value 23,286 100%

Waste Stream Source Percent of

Reduction/ Overall MSW

(Source Source 

Expansion)* Reduction

Table 3-3: 1996 Source Reduction and Source Expansion Values for

Subcategories of MSW (Thousands of Tons)

* Parentheses denote negative numbers, or source expansion. Positive numbers

indicate source reduction.
particular product); 3) source reduction of wood packaging is due to the

increasing reuse of wooden pallets in recent years; 4) glass bottles and jars are

experiencing significant source reduction as glass is being replaced with plastic and other, lighter packaging materials, particularly in the soft drink industry; 5) the growth of the electronics reuse market during the 1990s and the

replacement of larger, heavier computers and telephones with smaller, lighter

versions are responsible for the source reduction seen in the miscellaneous

durable goods category; and 6) food scraps have experienced source reduction

as a result of a variety of activities including backyard composting, donations

of edible food, and institutional onsite composting.

Analysis also shows that many products and materials are experiencing source

expansion, including several that are experiencing significant source expan14 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Significant Source Reduction

Yard Trimmings 11,731

Newspapers 2,955

Wood Packaging 2,806

Glass Containers 2,389

Miscellaneous Durable Goods 2,145

Food Scraps 1,711

Magazines 1,242

Total 24,979 **

Significant Source Expansion

Corrugated Boxes (3,481)

Other Commercial Printing (1,816)

Clothing and Footwear (1,075)

Total (6,371)***

Waste Stream Source Reduction/

Showing Significant (Source Expansion)*

Source Reduction or (Based on consumer spending and

Expansion change in waste generation rate)

Table 3-4: Significant Source Reduction and Source Expansion Within

MSW—1996 (Thousands of Tons)

* Parentheses denote negative numbers, or source expansion. Positive numbers indicate

source reduction.

** The total source reduction contributed by these six materials is higher than the total net

source reduction of 23 million tons due to the offsetting effects of the source expansion

experienced by some materials. As shown in Table 3-3, net source reduction is determined by subtracting total source expansion (7 million tons) from total source reduction

(30 million tons).

*** Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 15

Durable Goods

Miscellaneous Durables 2,145

Furniture/Furnishings 388

Major Appliances 237

Tires 188

Batteries, Lead Acid (96)

Small Appliances (258)

Carpets/Rugs (426)

Subtotal 2,179**

Nondurable Goods

Publications 4,581

Office Paper 616

Tissue Paper/Towels 380

Miscellaneous Nondurables 351

Other Nonpackaging Paper 289

Towels, Sheets, Pillowcases 56

Trash Bags 25

Disposable Diapers 15

Third Class Mail (174)

Plates and Cups (284)

Clothing/Footwear (788)

Other Commercial Printing (1,497)

Subtotal 3,571 **

Containers & Packaging

Wood Packaging 2,806

Beverage Containers 1,785

Food Containers 878

Bags and Sacks 497

Wrapping (34)

Miscellaneous Packaging 244

Paper Boxes (2,174)

Subtotal 4,002 

Other MSW

Yard Trimmings 11,731

Food Scraps 1,711

Miscellaneous Inorganics 92

Subtotal 13,534 ** 

Grand Total 23,286 **

Product Source

Reduction/(Expansion)*

(Based on consumer spending 

and change in waste generation rate)

Table 3-5: Source Reduction/(Expansion) for 

Functional Categories—1996

* Parentheses denote negative numbers, or source expansion. Positive numbers indicate

source reduction.

** Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.

sion, such as corrugated cardboard.

This does not necessarily mean that

these materials and products are

becoming heavier, but, rather, the

use of these materials is increasing.

Corrugated cardboard boxes, for

example, have been and continue to

be lightweighted. It is probable,

however, that the explosion of catalog, electronic, and Internet commerce has greatly increased the use

of corrugated cardboard boxes for

transportation packaging to homes

and businesses. As a result, the use of

those materials or products is outpacing the effects of lightweighting. It

also should be noted that in some

areas of waste management, the volume of material can be considered as,

or more, important than the weight

of the material.

Calculating source reduction based

on consumer spending and changes

in the waste generation rate also can

be applied to individual elements of

the waste stream. Care must be

taken, however, not to focus on a single product or material whose use

might be impacted by other products

or materials. It might be more

instructive, for example, to look at

the amount of waste generated from

the delivery of soft drinks to consumers via beverage containers,

rather than looking at waste from

glass, plastic, and aluminum containers individually. EPA refers to the

result of looking at multiple related

segments of the waste stream as

“functional categories.” Table 3-5

shows source reduction (or expansion) for these functional categories. 
Table 3-6 below identifies the specific products and materials in MSW which

contribute significant source reduction—1 million tons or more. For each

of the specific products and materials identified, additional evidence supporting the prevalence of source reduction is presented below. This includes

measurements of source reduction that take into account lightweighting and

materials substitution. Lightweighting refers to reductions in the weight of a

particular product or material. Aluminum beverage cans, for example, have

become significantly lighter over time. Materials substitution refers to the

replacement of a heavier material with a lighter material. Glass soft drink bottles, for instance, are being more frequently replaced by plastic. The impact

of lightweighting and materials substitution on source reduction can be captured through the use of carefully chosen driving factors. The following discussion illustrates those techniques. For selected materials, source reduction

values were obtained using driving factors more directly related to the material than consumer spending. In these cases, the alternate driving factors predicted the material’s waste generation rate better than consumer spending.

As shown in Table 3-6, yard trimmings contribute significantly to overall

source reduction. Indeed, yard trimmings are by far the largest individual

contributor to source reduction. As explained in the 1997 Update, the tonnage

of yard trimmings in MSW has fallen because the number of states that have

banned yard trimmings from landfills has grown, as has the use of backyard

composting and mulching lawnmowers.

16 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Significant Source Reduction

Yard Trimmings 11,731

Newspapers 2,955

Wood Packaging 2,806

Glass Containers 2,389

Miscellaneous Durable Goods 2,145

Food Scraps 1,711

Magazines 1,242

Total 24,979*

Waste Stream Source Reduction

(Based on consumer spending 

and change in waste generation rate)

Table 3-6: Significant Source Reduction Within MSW—1996 

(Thousands of Tons)

Montgomery County,

Maryland. After imposing a

1994 ban on the disposal of yard

trimmings, Montgomery County,

Maryland, undertook an aggressive source reduction program

targeting grasscycling, backyard

composting, and mulching. The

initiative resulted in the diversion

of 51,000 and 53,000 tons in

1994 and 1995, respectively—

nearly 50 percent of the projected total yard trimmings generation. In so doing, the county

avoided a $2.5 million expansion

of its composting facilities and

averted $1 million in annual

composting costs.

For more details on this case

study and additional case studies on grasscycling and backyard composting see Chapter 4. * The total source reduction contributed by these six products and materials is higher than the

total net source reduction of 23 million tons due to the offsetting effects of the source expansion experienced by some materials. As shown previously in Table 3-3, net source reduction

is determined by subtracting total source expansion (7 million tons) from total source reduction (30 million tons). Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.

Grasscycling and 

Backyard Composting

3.3 Analysis of

Products and 

Materials

Contributing 

Significantly to

Source Reduction
Lightweighting of

Newspapers

The 1996 Update presents direct evidence of lightweighting of newspapers. According to the 1996 Update,

although activities influencing

newsprint source reduction vary, for

several decades there has been a trend

to reduce the “basis weight” of newspapers (the typical thickness of the

newsprint, excluding inserts). Prior to

1974, the standard basis weight of

newspapers was 32 pounds per 3,000

square feet. In 1995, the standard basis

weight was closer to 30 pounds per

3,000 square feet. Other basis weights 

of 24 pounds per 3,000 square feet or

lower were used as well. In addition to

this direct evidence, performing a product-specific analysis on newspapers using

data on waste generated per page of

newspapers read also indicates source reduction. The number of pages read is

used as the driving factor rather than consumer spending because this factor

is a better indicator of the waste generation rate for newspapers. Table 3-7

mirrors the computation shown in Table 2-1 (page 9) determining overall

source reduction, except that the calculation of source reduction is performed

using waste generated per million pages read rather than per million dollars

spent. While the tonnage reflected is for all newspapers nationwide, the

analysis was based on data on “pages per pound” for four large regional newspapers. The table shows a reduction in the waste generation rate (waste generated per million pages) through 1995, revealing significant source reduction

between 1990 and 1995. (The 1996 Update only provides data through 1995;

the 1997 Update does not include data on newspaper lightweighting.) 

National Source Reduction Characterization Report 17

Waste Stream: Actual Newspaper 13,430 13,140

Waste Generation (Thousands of Tons)

Driving Factor: Number of Pages 2,605,420 3,101,040

(Millions of Pages)

Rate: Waste Generation Rate 5.2 4.2

(Tons per Million Pages)

Projected 1995 Waste Generation Not Applicable 15,985

Using 1990 Generation Rate 

(Thousands of Tons)

Source Reduction in 1995 Not Applicable 2,845

(Thousands of Tons) 

Source Reduction 1990 1995

Equation Components

Table 3-7: Newspaper Lightweighting—1995*

* Data on newspapers is from the Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the

United States: 1996 Update.
Wood Packaging Repair and Reuse

Wood packaging is another material that experienced significant source

reduction in 1996. This waste consists primarily of wooden pallets, which

form a large portion of transportation packaging waste. In the 1997 Update,

the analysis of waste generation for wood packaging was revised to incorporate additional information, reflecting the increasing reuse of wooden pallets.

According to the 1997 Update, this reuse caused the decline in wood waste

generation evidenced in 1997. As reuse is a form of source reduction, the

increased reuse supports the source reduction found in this report’s analysis. 

Materials Substitution and Lightweighting of Glass,

Plastic, and Aluminum Containers

Materials substitution has played a significant role in the source reduction of

glass bottles and jars. Glass is being replaced with plastic and other packaging materials that are, on average, much lighter than glass. The result is a significant decline in the packaging weight per unit of product manufactured.

This trend is not new; its origins predate the 1980s. Consider, for example,

soft drink containers. Using data from the 1997 Update, Table 3-8 shows that,

with a base year of 1980, the tonnage of soft drink containers source reduced

is greater than the actual tonnage of soft drink-related waste generated in

1996. Similar to previous tables, this mirrors the same method of computation except that the driving factor for the waste generation rate is more

directly related to the product. In this case, beverage consumption is used as

the driving factor in place of overall consumer spending.

18 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Pallet Repair, Inc. Pallet Repair,

Inc., of Baltimore, Maryland,

remanufactures between 8,000

and 10,000 pallets per week for

reuse. The company provides

services to repair old pallets,

manufacture pallets from used

pallets, and take apart unusable

pallets to grind up for reuse as

mulch. At a minimum, Pallet

Repair restores approximately

416,000 pallets annually, saving

5.4 million board feet of wood

and conserving nearly 60,000

cubic yards of landfill space.

Pallet Resource of North

Carolina, Inc. Pallet Resource

of North Carolina, Inc., handles

a large volume of pallets, managing the collection, repair, and

reuse of more than 1.25 million

pallets per year. Pallet Resource

estimates that by diverting broken pallets from landfills, it saves

16.25 million board feet per year

and conserves more than

179,000 cubic yards of landfill

space annually.

For more details on these case

studies and other examples of

wood packaging reduction see

Chapter 4.

Waste Stream: Actual Beverage 2,162 1,722

Packaging Waste Generation 

(Thousands of Tons)

Driving Factor: Beverage Consumption 6,315,000 10,295,000

(Thousands of Gallons)

Rate: Waste Generation Rate 0.34 0.17

(Tons per Thousand Gallons)

Projected 1996 Waste Generation Not Applicable 3,524

Using 1980 Generation Rate

(Thousand of Tons)

Source Reduction in 1996 Not Applicable 1,803*

(Thousands of Tons) 

Source Reduction 1980 1996

Equation Components

Table 3-8: Soft Drink Packaging Materials Substitution—1996

Wooden Pallet Reuse

* Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.
Table 3-8 focuses on 1980 and 1996 because these are the only 2 years for

which the data required to develop the table are available. Because of the difference in base year (1980 in Table 3-8 as opposed to 1990 in Tables 3-5 and

3-9) the source reduction values in Table 3-8 are not directly comparable to

those presented in other tables. Data presented in the 1997 Update, however,

do show that glass beverage packaging per person declined nationally between

1990 and 1996. This confirms the source reduction for glass packaging found

in this report’s analysis. 

Reducing Miscellaneous Durable Goods 

Miscellaneous durable goods is a heterogeneous category within MSW 

that includes various types of consumer electronics and a number of other

items such as sports equipment. Small appliances, such as toasters and mixers,

were included in this category in the past, but since 1990 they have been

accounted for separately. In the area of consumer electronics, growth since

1990 has been dominated by personal computers and telephones. Both have

experienced weight reductions as a result of portable computers replacing

larger desktop models and cellular phones replacing larger and heavier wired

units. Perhaps more importantly, during the 1990s, the reuse market for electronics has grown, resulting in significant reuse of these valuable items.

Together, these developments confirm the source reduction found in this

report’s analysis. 

Clorox Company. Recently, the

Clorox Company decided to switch

from glass to plastic bottles for both its

18-ounce barbeque sauce and its 16-

ounce salad dressing. By redesigning

and lightweighting its packaging,

Clorox eliminated nearly 15,000 tons

of glass waste annually. Clorox also

cut its shipping costs by using smaller

shipping containers and, consequently, eliminated 1,000 tons of corrugated

cardboard annually.

Procter & Gamble Corporation. The

Procter & Gamble Corporation (P&G)

redesigned the plastic bottles used for

its 32- and 48-ounce vegetable oil

containers to cut down on the amount

of plastic used. P&G changed the

containers' geometry to allow a thinner layer of plastic to be used to contain the same amount of oil.The

resulting bottles use 30 percent less

plastic than before, eliminating about

1,250 tons of plastic per year. In addition, by reducing storage space, the

new design requires smaller shipping

containers for transportation.This has

helped P&G cut its use of corrugated

cardboard by about 650 tons annually.

Coca-Cola Company. The Coca-Cola

Company has made significant

progress in lightweighting its aluminum beverage cans by reducing the

amount of raw materials used to manufacture the cans. Coca-Cola has

reduced its aluminum usage in the

United States by an estimated 20,000

tons per year, primarily by shaving the

diameter of the neck on the cans.

Furthermore, the total weight of the

can itself has been reduced by 41

percent since 1963.

For more details on these case studies and other examples of materials

substitution and lightweighting see

Chapter 4.

Lightweighting Packaging

Monsanto. In March 1997, Monsanto's production facility in Luling,

Louisiana, began leasing computer equipment from Dell Computer

Corporation in an arrangement that reduces waste for Monsanto and consistently provides them with high-quality personal computer workstations.

The leasing program frees Monsanto from having to purchase replacement

electronics and provides Dell with a number of remarketing avenues, including spare parts reclamation, sales abroad, and re-leasing to organizations

that do not need the latest technology. The waste prevented from this program could be more than 16.5 tons annually, with computers averaging 56

pounds of materials per unit. For more details on this case study and other

examples of reducing miscellaneous durable goods see Chapter 4.

Reducing Durable Goods

National Source Reduction Characterization Report 19
Food Scraps Recovery

Food scraps, including food preparation wastes and uneaten food from

households, commercial establishments, institutions, and industries, have

experienced source reduction as a result of several types of recovery activities

currently occurring across the country. Food scraps recovery methods include

donating edible food; processing discards into animal feed; rendering liquid

fats and solid meat products into cosmetics, soap, animal food, and other

products; and onsite composting, using either aerated windrows or piles,

enclosed vessels, or worms (called “vermicomposting”).

20 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

New York State Department of Correctional Services. A 1989 survey found

that food scraps comprised 30 percent by weight of the New York State

Department of Correctional Services' (DOCS) waste stream. In order to

reduce disposal costs, as well as comply with state waste reduction legislation, DOCS initiated a new composting program. Forty-seven of DOCS' 70

correctional facilities collected food preparation discards, leftovers, and scraps

for onsite composting in 1997. DOCS' 30 composting facilities accept from 0.5

to 4 tons of food daily, or 6,200 tons annually. Coupled with an additional 700

tons of other organic waste, this represents a 90 percent recovery rate for

food and other organic discards, which nets an annual savings of $564,200

for the state in avoided disposal costs.

For more details on this case study and other examples of food scraps recovery see Chapter 4.

Food Scraps Recovery

3.4 Source

Reduction Values 

for the Individual

Components of MSW

The same methodology outlined in Chapter 2 also can be applied to individual elements of the waste stream. Table 3-9 provides a detailed breakdown of

source reduction or expansion for individual components of the waste stream.

For ease of reference and comparison, these categories mirror the categories

established in the Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States

report published by EPA. Care must be taken not to draw conclusions about a

single product or material whose use might be impacted by other products or

materials.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 21

Source Reduction/(Expansion)*

Waste Stream (Based on consumer 

by Commodity spending and change in 

waste generation rate)

Source Reduction/(Expansion)*

Waste Stream (Based on consumer 

by Commodity spending and change in 

waste generation rate)

Durable Goods

Miscellaneous Durables 2,145

Furniture/Furnishings 388

Major Appliances 237

Tires 188

Batteries, Lead Acid (96)

Small Appliances (258)

Carpets/Rugs (426)

Source Reduction Subtotal for Durable Goods 2,958**

Source Expansion Subtotal for Durable Goods (779)**

Net Value Subtotal for Durable Goods 2,179**

Nondurable Goods

Newspapers 2,955

Magazines 1,242

Office Paper 616

Tissue Paper/Towels 380

Miscellaneous Nondurables 351

Other Nonpackaging Paper 289

Telephone Directories 222

Books 161

Towels, Sheets, Pillowcases 56

Trash Bags 25

Disposable Diapers 15

Plastic Plates/Cups (72)

Third-Class Mail (174)

Paper Plates/Cups (212)

Clothing/Footwear (788)

Other Commercial Printing (1,497)

Source Reduction Subtotal for Nondurable Goods 6,314 **

Source Expansion Subtotal for 

Nondurable Goods (2,743)

Net Value Subtotal for Nondurable Goods 3,571

Containers and Packaging

Wood Packaging 2,806

Glass Beer/Soft Drink Bottles 1,192

Glass Food/Other Bottles & Jars 832

Paper Bags/Sacks 790

Glass Wine/Liquor Bottles 364

Plastic-Other Containers 343

Aluminum Beer/Soft Drink Cans 199

Steel Beer/Soft Drink Cans 170

Milk Cartons 119

Other Paperboard Packaging 99

Wrapping Papers 75

Steel Food/Other Cans 63

Steel-Other Packaging 57

Other Misc. Packaging 20

Plastics-Other Packaging 16

Aluminum-Foils/Closure 15

Aluminum-Other Cans (17)

Plastic Milk Bottles (48)

Plastic Wraps (123)

Other Paper Packaging (192)

Plastic Soft Drink Bottles (212)

Plastic Bags/Sacks (293)

Folding Cartons (509)

Corrugated Boxes (1,765)

Source Reduction Subtotal for 

Containers and Packaging 7,161**

Source Expansion Subtotal for Packaging (3,159)

Net Value Subtotal for Containers and Packaging 4,002**

Other Components of MSW

Yard Trimmings 11,731

Food Scraps 1,711

Miscellaneous Inorganics 92

Source Reduction Subtotal for 

Other MSW Components 13,534

Source Expansion Subtotal for 

Other MSW Components 0

Net Value Subtotal for Other MSW Components 13,534

Source Reduction Total for MSW 29,967

Source Expansion Total for MSW (6,681)

Net Value Total for MSW 23,286

* Parentheses denote negative numbers, or source expansion. Positive numbers indicate source reduction.

** Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.

Table 3-9 : Source Reduction/(Expansion) Values for Individual Components of MSW—1996 
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 23

Chapter 4

CASE STUDIES

T

his chapter illustrates source reduction in action. Results achieved by

the featured source reduction programs support and complement the

source reduction values presented in the previous chapter. Case studies

profiling the source reduction efforts of businesses and communities across

the country are organized into the following sections:

• Reducing Organic Waste

• Reducing Wood and Transport Packaging

• Reducing Primary Packaging

• Working With Suppliers

• Working With Customers

Each section begins with a general introduction and summary of the featured

case studies. Following the introduction, the section is divided into subsections focusing on specific source reduction activities. Within each of these

subsections, several case studies are then presented. The case studies contain

information on the background, goals, implementation, and quantitative

results of the source reduction program spotlighted. Many of the companies

profiled in this report are participants in the EPA’s voluntary WasteWise program, which provides assistance to organizations in reducing their solid waste.

Additional information on this program and others can be found at the back

of this report. The information presented in each case study in this report is

current and accurate as of the fall of 1998. 

4.1 Reducing Organic Waste

In 1996, organic waste comprised 85.5 percent of the nation’s MSW stream,

accounting for a total of 179 million tons of the waste generated.1 A significant portion of the national organic waste stream (e.g., newspaper, office

paper, and corrugated cardboard) is already being recovered for recycling.

One-quarter of the organic waste stream, however, can be source reduced by

one of the methods described below. The source reduction activities

described in the following case studies—grasscycling, backyard composting,

and food scraps recovery—target yard trimmings and food scraps, which

Primary Packaging has direct

contact with the product it holds.

Examples include glass and plastic bottles that contain beverages,

steel and aluminum cans that contain food or beverages, bags that

hold chips, and paperboard that

packages food or consumer goods

such as toys.

Secondary packaging allows

products to be unitized for handling and distribution, but does not

come into direct contact with the

product. Examples include a corrugated paperboard tray that holds

cans of vegetables, a plastic ring

or paperboard box that unitizes

beverages cans, and a sealed

plastic bag that holds small boxes

of candies.

Transport or tertiary packaging

unitizes products (usually already

in primary and secondary packaging) for shipping or distribution.

Examples include external packaging materials including crates,

pallets, cartons, skids, wraps, and

totes that help contain and protect

products during shipping and 

handling.

Additional terms and definitions

can be found in the Glossary of

this report.

ter minology

e f ficiency

\c-Ufish-cn-s2e\ n. The ability to produce the

desired effect, product, etc. with a minimum of

effort, expense, or waste.

1 U.S. EPA. 1998. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 1997

Update. EPA530-R-98-007. Washington, DC. p. 163.1
24 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

respectively accounted for 28 million tons and 22 million tons of waste generation in 1996. Nationally, such activities as these contribute to the source

reduction of 12.5 million tons of yard trimmings and 1.7 million tons of food

scraps each year.

The portion of the national organic waste stream available for grasscycling is

14 million tons, or 50 percent of total yard trimmings generation.2

Grasscycling is a source reduction strategy that encourages residents and

commercial and institutional establishments to leave grass clippings on the

lawn after cutting rather than bagging and setting them out for curbside collection.3 Most grasscycling programs rely heavily on public education efforts

such as press releases, brochures, newspaper advertisements, and radio and

television spots. Occasionally, financial incentives also are used to either

reduce the cost of mulching lawnmowers or the equipment required to retrofit nonmulching mowers or, at times, to discourage the bagging of clippings

by charging a per-bag pickup fee.

Backyard composting targets a total of 19 million tons of organic waste—8

million tons of food scraps and 11 million tons of yard trimmings—generated

solely by the residential sector.

4 This source reduction activity encourages residents to separate specific organic materials and create their own compost

piles using backyard composting bins. Public outreach, bin subsidization, education, and training are the key elements in creating a successful backyard

composting program.

The portion of the organic waste stream comprised of commercial and institutional food scraps—11 million tons (50 percent of total food scraps generation)—can be source-reduced via one of several food scraps recovery options.

Food discards include food preparation wastes and uneaten food from households, commercial establishments, institutions, and industries. They comprised 10.4 percent by weight of the total 1996 MSW stream, yet only 2.4

percent of discards were recovered that year. According to the U.S.

Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, if just 5 percent of

the nation’s consumer, retail, and food service discards were recovered, savings from reduced landfill costs alone would be about $50 million annually.

5

Food scraps recovery methods include donating edible food; processing discards into animal feed; rendering liquid fats and solid meat products into cosmetics, soap, animal food, and other products; and composting. 

While composting can be done either on site or off site, there is an important

distinction. Onsite composting is a type of source reduction, through the use

of either aerated windrows or piles, enclosed vessels, or worms (called “vermi2 Ibid., p. 44.

3 U.S. EPA. 1998. Organic Materials Management Strategies. EPA530-R-97-003. Washington,

DC. p. 13.

4 Ibid., pp. 15, 17.

5 U.S. EPA. 1998. Don't Throw Away That Food. Strategies for Record-Setting Waste

Reduction. EPA530-F-98-002. Washington, DC. p. 1.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 25

composting”). This method enables the business or institution to take advantage of the final, nutrient-rich compost. Offsite composting is considered

recycling, not source reduction, since it does not prevent organic material

from entering the municipal waste collection system. Typically it involves a

contracted hauler who transports the materials to a public or private composting facility, from where the final product is ultimately sold for profit to other

end users.

The following case studies describe a wide range of source reduction programs for grass clippings, yard trimmings, and food scraps. The programs

highlighted vary in scale, materials of focus, and people and behaviors targeted for change. Montgomery County, Maryland, represents a model program

for the comprehensive reduction of all three types of materials. The case

study on Pinellas County, Florida, illustrates its success in source reducing

many tons by simply leaving grass clippings on the lawn. The Commonwealth

of Massachusetts provides an example of a backyard composting program

endeavoring to reach residents statewide. Finally, food scraps recovery operations are profiled at sites ranging from state facilities to local fairgrounds to

private corporations. Recovery methods span onsite composting, donation,

and conversion to animal feed.

Montgomery County, Maryland’s comprehensive source reduction program

for organics illustrates the benefits source reduction can render. In 1994,

waste composition analyses indicated that yard trimmings constituted approximately 18 percent of the county’s MSW stream. To conserve landfill space,

Montgomery County’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

imposed a ban on the disposal of yard trimmings and initiated weekly curbside collection to compost the material instead. The county’s compost facility

can only handle 60,000 to 70,000 tons annually, however, which left a 35,000-

ton surplus. Having a clear need to cut the yard trimmings collected by onethird, the county undertook an aggressive source reduction program targeting

grasscycling, backyard composting, and mulching. In so doing, Montgomery

County avoided a $2.5 million expansion of its composting facilities.

The Montgomery County DEP launched its yard trimmings source reduction

program over a 2-year period (1994 to 1995), during which it targeted

180,000 single family homes, 250 landscape and lawn service companies,

30,000 multifamily and commercial property managers, conservation groups,

homeowner associations, garden clubs, nature centers, public gardens, and

nurseries. Startup costs for the county’s grasscycling campaign were $360,000

for the program’s first year, when there was an intensive push to produce outreach materials, videos, public service announcements (PSAs), and six direct

mail pieces. (Each mailing cost the county $30,000 in postage alone!) In its

6 Personal communication with Joseph Keyser, environmental specialist, Montgomery County

Department of Environmental Protection. July 28, 1998. Eastern Research Group. Arlington,

VA.

4.1.1

Implementing

Comprehensive

Source Reduction

Montgomery County, Maryland6
26 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

second year, the composting and mulching initiative cost just $230,000. This

36 percent cost reduction was due to the outreach portion of the campaign

becoming relatively self-sufficient by the second year. In addition, followup

surveys at the end of the first year indicated the county already made great

progress toward its reduction goals, relieving some pressure in the second

year.

As an affluent community, Montgomery County faced an added challenge in

convincing residents to grasscycle. Seventeen percent of households hire

some form of lawncare service rather than doing their own mowing. Aware

that this could be an obstacle, the county disseminated information to registered lawncare operations to make them aware of the potential for saving 40

percent of their time by not bagging, while simultaneously eliminating their

tipping fees and allowing them to take on more clients with no added costs.

The Montgomery County DEP also provided materials for the lawncare services to give their clients to educate them about the benefits of mulching in

terms of the health of the lawn and the reduced need for fertilizer.

In total, Montgomery County’s grasscycling campaign diverts approximately

27,000 tons of grass clippings per year. This figure is even more impressive

when coupled with the 72,000 tons of carboniferous bulking materials, such

as brush, the county would have to compost along with the grass in order to

maintain a 2:1 ratio of carbon to nitrogen. Having eliminated the need to

compost yard brush, the county instead is able to collect brush separately,

grind it up, and give it away at local shopping center depots as a crude ground

cover for landscaping. According to an environmental specialist with the

Montgomery County DEP, “Residents loved the program! They couldn’t get

enough of the mulch.” As a result of this highly successful brush diversion

program, approximately 12,000 tons of mulch ended up in garden beds

around the community rather than filling up the county’s facility in 1995.

The major thrust of the backyard composting campaign was to educate and

train residents in proper composting methods for yard trimmings via regularly scheduled workshops held at locations across the county. In partnership

with the Audubon Naturalist Society, regional government service centers,

libraries, and numerous garden centers and home improvement centers,

Montgomery County sponsored more than 350 workshops, attended by

14,000 county residents, between 1994 and 1995. A strong indication of the

success of the workshops is that more than 7,000 compost bins (more than

one bin for every two participants) were sold at workshops that year. Two

years later, more than 90 percent of those bins were still in use. In fact,

Montgomery County won the National Association of Counties’ 1998

Composting Award for having sold 24,000 compost bins to residents, indicating that more than 1 in 10 households have changed their behavior to adopt

backyard composting as a home source reduction measure. Overall, documented waste diversion indicates that as many as 60 percent of people in the

county participate in backyard composting.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 27

In addition to yard trimmings diversion, the composting campaign also separately targeted food scraps recovery. VermiLab, the county’s school vermicomposting program, encouraged the use of worms for onsite composting of

cafeteria scraps. VermiLab provided worm boxes, which were set up in the

central courtyards of 12 schools and more than 100 public and private elementary, middle, and high schools; trained faculty in more than 150 classrooms; developed a composting curriculum for grades K through 12; and created the Digger the Worm cartoon character and 7-foot-tall mascot to appeal

to the interests of young students. Volunteer students recorded the weight of

food scraps collected each day before adding them to the worm boxes. In

total, students recorded 3 tons of vermicomposted cafeteria scraps across the

county. Additionally, by educating 10,000 students per year about vermicomposting, the VermiLab program has inspired 1,000 households in the county

to set up worm boxes for their own food scraps.

Montgomery County’s combined outreach efforts to promote grasscycling,

mulching, backyard composting, and vermicomposting amounted to impressive source reduction results. Quarterly waste composition samplings conducted before, during, and after program implementation indicated that

51,000 tons and 53,000 tons—nearly 50 percent of the projected total yard

trimmings generation—were grasscycled or backyard composted in 1994 and

1995, respectively. By source reducing approximately 50,000 tons of compostable materials annually, Montgomery County saves almost $1 million in

processing costs. Pre- and postsurvey data also indicated program success,

with an increase from 59 percent to 70 percent in the grasscycling rate and

from 43 percent to 60 percent in the residential composting of yard trimmings.

By reducing yard trimmings and food scraps at the source, Montgomery

County’s grasscycling and composting initiatives successfully eliminated the

need to expand the county composting facility as a result of the landfill ban.

This accomplishment saved $2.5 million in building expenses and $1 million

in averted annual composting costs. The source reduction program also had a

dramatically lower dollars-per-ton cost than that of recycling or disposal.

Montgomery County’s environmental specialist in charge of source reduction

shared his recommendations for implementing a successful source reduction

program. First, he emphasized it is extremely useful to conduct a baseline survey to find out what people’s current practices and motivations are in order to

hone your message appropriately as you develop your campaign strategy.

Followup surveys both during and after the campaign also are helpful in

determining how effective different outreach tactics are and have been.

Finally, he advised building partnerships with local nonprofit organizations,

utility companies, newspapers, garden and retail centers, and other interested

factions. In doing so, you can disseminate your message to more people and

can greatly reduce the costs of outreach efforts.
28 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

In a study conducted from 1990 to 1993, Pinellas County, Florida’s Department of Solid Waste Management documented the benefits and waste diversion capacity of grasscycling based on the participation of 200 volunteer residents each year. In return, participants received T-shirts and free fertilizer.

Surveys completed after the project’s close indicated that residents who grasscycled felt their lawns looked healthier, spent less time mowing, and actually

used less fertilizer.

7 To promote grasscycling in the community, Pinellas

County gave out bumper stickers and lawn signs to establishments that left

grass clippings on their lawns. In addition, the county distributed brochures

to nurseries and landscaping companies and produced two 30-minute video

programs that aired on the University of Florida’s public access channel.8 An

annual telephone survey, which polls 500 randomly selected households that

have resided in the county for at least 1 year, revealed in 1993 that 61 percent

of residents engaged in grasscycling—a 41 percent increase from 1990. Based

on an average yard size of 5,000 square feet and an average generation of

roughly 1,500 pounds of grass clippings per yard per year, the 1997 telephone

survey found that 51,227 tons of clippings were diverted through grasscycling

that year by approximately 70,000 participating households.9

Massachusetts imposed landfill disposal bans on yard trimmings and grass

clippings in addition to the municipal leaf and grass composting programs it

already had in place. To encourage residents to source reduce by using backyard composting, rather than send yard trimmings for offsite composting at a

municipal facility, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection (MADEP) has conducted home composting coordinator training

programs since 1991. Workshops are held each year in the spring and fall to

educate the general public and to enlist volunteer home composting coordinators. A core of more than 300 trained coordinators present workshops in

their communities, set up demonstration sites with materials supplied by

MADEP, distribute compost bins, and serve as local sources of composting

information. 

MADEP has provided home composting bins and educational materials to

225 communities since 1994 through a state-subsidized grant program. An

estimated 78,000 bins were distributed by 1997, reducing disposal by approximately 30,000 tons per year. MADEP also sponsors the “Don’t Trash Grass”

program that encourages residents to grasscycle. The program is supported

7 Center for Policy Alternatives. 1996. Source Reduction Roundtable II. Tools for State and

Local Programs. Washington, DC. pp. 32-33.

8 U.S. EPA. 1998. Organic Materials Management Strategies. EPA530-R-97-003. Washington,

DC. p. 13.

9 Personal communication with Rebecca Stone, recycling coordinator, Pinellas County

Department of Solid Waste Management. August 10, 1998. Eastern Research Group.

Arlington, VA.

10 U.S. EPA. 1998. State Source Reduction Report. Appendix C: State Source Reduction Fact

Sheets. Washington, DC.

4.1.2

Grasscycling

Pinellas County, Florida

4.1.3 Backyard

Composting

Commonwealth of Massachusetts10
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 29

by workshops and the dissemination of printed materials, videos, and print

and radio PSAs. 

A 1989 survey found that food scraps comprised 30 percent by weight of the

New York State Department of Correctional Services’ (DOCS) waste stream.

In order to reduce disposal costs, as well as comply with state waste reduction

legislation, the department initiated a new composting program. Forty-seven

of DOCS’ 70 correctional facilities collected food scraps for onsite composting in 1997. These participating facilities prepare approximately 125,000

meals a day for an average of 1,000 inmates per facility. Kitchen workers put

food preparation discards in unlined plastic containers and inmates deposit

leftovers in collection containers in dining halls. Full containers are refrigerated until inmates transport them to DOCS’ onsite composting facilities three

or four times a week. At the composting sites, the food scraps are mixed with

bulking material and composted in windrows. Staff at each site train inmates

in composting procedures; well-trained staff and inmates who are invested in

the program keep contamination to a minimum. DOCS’ 30 composting facilities accept from 0.5 to 4 tons of food daily, or 6,200 tons annually. Coupled

with an additional 700 tons of other organic waste, this represents a 90 percent recovery rate for food and other organic discards, which nets an annual

savings of $564,200 for the state in avoided disposal costs. In addition,

kitchen staff separately collect large bones and liquid fat in 30- to 50-gallon

barrels provided by a rendering company that retrieves them every 2 weeks

free of charge and then processes the materials for manufacture into cosmetics and soaps.

The Frost Valley YMCA, a 6,000-acre residential educational and recreational

facility in the Catskill Mountains (Claryville, New York), has achieved total

onsite composting of the food discards from its kitchen and dining room.

When a waste assessment in the late 1980s found food to be the greatest

component of the waste stream, Frost Valley began to take steps to implement a static aerobic composting system. Since 1990, the camp’s kitchen staff

have been collecting all of their food preparation scraps, meat, bones, and

paper towels, while guests deposit their leftovers in an unlined can in the dining room. Staff stationed in the dining room during meals educate guests and

assist them with proper food recovery procedures. Eventually, the collected

food discards are added to a standard feed mixer along with Frost Valley’s

other organic waste (including yard trimmings and horse manure), mixed with

an equal amount of wood chips (which act as a bulking agent), and finally

windrow-composted on site after the materials have begun to break down.

Frost Valley uses the finished compost in landscaping and gardening projects

4.1.4 Food Scraps

Recovery11

Frost Valley YMCA

11 U.S. EPA. 1998. Don't Throw Away That Food. Strategies for Record-Setting Waste

Reduction. EPA530-F-98-002. Washington, DC.

New York State Department of

Correctional Services
30 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

and in its onsite greenhouse, which demonstrates the benefits of composting

to the thousands of visitors that participate in the YMCA’s waste reduction

education program every year. In 1997, the facility recovered an estimated 80

tons of food and other organic discards—100 percent of its estimated generation! Frost Valley realizes a net savings of $5,200 annually as a result.

Since January 1997, this California fairgrounds has vermicomposted fruit and

vegetable scraps from the facility’s kitchen on site. When scraps are a few days

old, staff feed the partially decayed food to worms in a framed wooden box.

The finished worm compost, or castings, is used as fertilizer on Del Mar

Fairgrounds. In total, the worms processed more than 6 tons of food discards

in 1997. Every ton composted saves the fairgrounds $40 to $47 in avoided

disposal costs. Startup costs were under $500, including the cost of purchasing 25 pounds of worms. In 1998, Del Mar Fairgrounds expanded the scale of

its vermicomposting operation with the purchase of two more worm boxes.

New College reported composting more than 2 tons of food scraps on site in

1997. While conducting a cafeteria waste audit prior to implementation of

the composting program, the college’s resource conservation coordinator “was

amazed to see how much perfectly good food [was thrown] away each day.”12

Since then, the college has forged a partnership with the Salvation Army,

whose food service director collects roughly 10 gallons of prepared food every

afternoon, feeding approximately 100 people. This amounts to 10 tons of

food donated instead of disposed of every year.

13

This St. Paul, Minnesota, diversified manufacturing company prepares thousands of meals daily for 12,000 employees at its headquarters’ food services

operation. Disposal of the food preparation waste was a messy and costly

endeavor, however, so the company began to explore creative disposal solutions. An environmental consultant helped 3M locate a family farming operation experienced in collecting and converting reclaimed food to animal feed.

To increase understanding between the groups, farm employees toured 3M’s

food services operation, and 3M employees visited the farm. This exchange

proved key in preventing contamination because food service employees recognized the importance of keeping paper, glass, and metal from mixing with

the food scraps. In the program’s first 2 years, 3M diverted 45 tons of food

scraps and edible oils and saved more than $30,000.

12 U.S. EPA. 1997. WasteWise Update: Donation Programs—Turning Trash into Treasure.

EPA530-N-97-005. Washington, DC. p. 8.

13 U.S. EPA. 1993. Business Guide for Reducing Solid Waste. Appendix D. EPA530-K-92-004.

Washington, DC. p. 36.

14 U.S. EPA WasteWise. 1996. Managing Food Scraps as Animal Feed. Washington, DC. p. 4.

Del Mar Fairgrounds

New College/University of South

Florida at Sarasota

3M14
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 31

Single-use wooden pallets and other transport packaging can contribute significantly to the amount of waste businesses generate. Transport packaging

includes cartons, crates, pallets, skids, wraps, and totes used to ship products

and materials to the marketplace, customers, and between facilities.

Businesses can reduce costs, improve efficiency, conserve resources, and eliminate waste by implementing programs to reduce or reuse their transport

packaging. Specific strategies to preserve wooden pallets and other transport

packaging include remanufacture and repair of wooden pallets or switching to

reusable transport packaging. 

In 1996, wood packaging was source reduced by more than 3.3 million tons,

making it one of the major components of MSW experiencing source reduction. Wood transport packaging includes both wooden crates and pallets,

although pallets represent the majority of this category. In 1997, it is estimated that 18.87 million tons of wood pallets and other wood packaging were

generated, or 9 percent of total MSW generation. Pallet reuse and pallet and

container retrieval and recovery systems are the fastest growing segment of

the transport packaging industry. According to a 1995 Virginia Tech study,

nearly 171.1 million pallets—representing more than 3 million tons of wood

packaging—were estimated to be refurbished and returned to service.15 The

study estimates that, annually, fewer than 1.5 million (less than 1 percent of

the total) of the pallets recovered by the pallet remanufacturing industry are

sent to landfills.

The 1997 Modern Materials Handling Pallet User Survey conducted by the

National Wooden Pallet and Container Association (NWPCA) indicates that

1 out of every 5 pallet users took advantage of reuse and recovery systems

compared to only 1 out of every 14 pallet users just 2 years earlier. The survey also indicates that nearly 80 percent of pallet users reuse their pallets

more than one time, and 25 percent might use pallets more than 20 times.

Switching to reusable transport packaging is another excellent source reduction strategy that results in significant cost savings. By reusing a durable container or pallet, businesses avoid the cost of purchasing single-use transport

packaging.

The following case studies represent a range of source reduction programs

focusing on wood and transport packaging reductions. The first set of case

studies on Pallet Repair, Inc., Pallet Resource of North Carolina, and

Pennsylvania Power and Light highlight examples of pallet remanufacturing

or repair operations and partnerships. The second set of case studies demonstrate how three companies, Alpine Windows, Home Depot, and Schlegel

Systems, Inc., successfully reduced significant amounts of transport packaging

waste by switching to reusable packaging.

15 Virginia Tech. 1995. Recycling in the U.S. Pallet Industry: 1995. Blacksburg, VA.

4.2 Reducing

Wood and

Transport

Packaging
32 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Pallet Repair, Inc., is a medium-sized wooden pallet repair company located

in Baltimore, Maryland, that provides approximately 25 jobs. The business

remanufactures between 8,000 and 10,000 pallets per week for reuse. At a

minimum, Pallet Repair repairs approximately 416,000 pallets annually, saving 5.4 million board feet of wood and conserving nearly 60,000 cubic yards

of landfill space.17 The company provides services to repair old pallets, manufacture pallets from used pallets, and takes apart unusable pallets to grind up

for reuse as mulch. Pallet Repair strives to be a “closed-loop” business by selling many of its rebuilt pallets to customers that supply it with used pallets. In

addition, Pallet Repair does not landfill any of the used pallets it purchases on

the open market or receives from its customers. 

Pallet Repair believes the voluntary programs to encourage waste reduction

and the cost savings attributed to the reuse of pallets helped its business flourish. In 1989, Pallet Repair operated out of a 15,000-square-foot warehouse

equipped with only two loading docks. Pallet Repair relocated several times

to expand its storage and operations both internally and externally. The company currently occupies 5 acres with a 25,000-square-foot warehouse, enough

storage space for more than 100,000 pallets at one time. The expansion

helped sales increase by approximately 30 percent annually. 

Pallet Repair initiated a closed-loop business after building up a strong customer base of large companies with needs for both a supplier of large volumes

of pallets and a reclamation method once they were used. Pallet Repair

encouraged its customers to participate in its closed-loop process by offering

to pick up used pallets free of charge if the customer committed to purchasing the remanufactured pallets from the company. Pallet Repair also guaranteed that no pallets would ever be sent to the landfill; pallets that cannot be

remanufactured, or approximately 15 percent of all used pallets, are sent to a

contractor for mulching. Pallet Repair contracts primarily with large manufacturers including companies such as Lever Brothers, McCormick Spice,

Beverage Capital, and Chesapeake Fiber, Inc. For these customers, Pallet

Repair provides onsite trailers to load and store wooden pallets until they can

be picked up for remanufacturing. Pallet Repair acknowledges it must still

purchase some pallets from the open market to support business demand, but

the services it provides to major customers help contribute to the success of

its closed-loop business. In addition, Pallet Repair believes its guarantee of

high-quality service to its customers and entering the market at a time when

remanufactured pallets were becoming increasingly popular helped the business expand throughout the region. 

16 Personal communication with a Pallet Repair representative. June 30, 1998. Eastern

Research Group. Arlington, VA.

17 Calculations obtained from Mr. Phil Araman, U.S. Forest Service.

1 pallet = 13 board feet; 416,000 pallets x 13 board feet/pallet = 5,408,000 board feet

7 pallets = 1 yd3; 416,000 pallets/ 7 pallets/yd3 = 59,428 yd3

Pallet Repair, Inc.16

4.2.1

Remanufacturing or

Repairing Wooden

Pallets
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 33

A major barrier to the success of pallet remanufacturing is the perception that

remanufactured pallets are not as good as new ones. Used pallets appear gray

and some customers perceive that they are of lower quality. Other companies

demand pallets that meet specific quality standards in order to be capable of

transporting products. Pallet Repair affiliates with NWPCA, which constantly

strives to resolve these issues by setting quality standards that help increase

the reliability and success of the pallet remanufacturing industry. Pallet Repair

strongly believes that through the influence of NWPCA, pallet reuse will

continue to grow and significantly contribute to the source reduction of wood

waste and keep pallets completely out of the landfill. 

Pallet Resource of North Carolina is a major operation serving more than

250 industrial customers and bringing in annual revenues of more than $6

million. Pallet Resource handles a large volume of pallets, managing the collection, repair, and reuse of more than 1.25 million pallets per year. The reason it is able to manage such a large volume is because it accommodates virtually any need the customer might have for managing their used pallets and

will accept all pallet sizes and types. Pallet Resource accepts all broken or

used wooden pallets, with nearly 65 percent of the pallets received able to be

repaired for reuse. The remaining unusable pallets are either disassembled for

reusable components or pulverized into wood fiber for end use as animal bedding, mulch, or playground cushion materials. No pallets are sent to landfills

for disposal. Pallet Resource estimates that by diverting broken pallets from

landfills, it saves 16.25 million board feet of wood per year and conserves

more than 179,000 cubic yards of landfill space.19

Pallet Resource started its operation in 1985 and its facilities occupy 21 acres

of land, including six buildings with more than 50,000 square feet of storage

and operation space. Its incoming pallets are manually sorted by size and condition. Repairable pallets are fixed and returned to the customer. Pallets that

cannot be repaired are disassembled to obtain reusable components. Salvaged

boards are cut to acceptable lengths and later utilized to create customized

pallets that are not readily available in other markets. Customized pallets have

a twofold benefit—they reduce costs for buyers and save virgin resources.

Pallets that cannot be reused are pulverized in a hammermill to produce

wood fiber that is reused as a different commodity such as animal bedding or

mulch. 

Depending upon their quality, Pallet Resource might purchase used pallets

from businesses for repair and remanufacturing purposes. If pallets are in

18 Institute for Local Self-Reliance. 1997. Sustaining Businesses & Jobs Through Pallet

Repair & Reuse. Washington, DC.

19 Calculations obtained from Mr. Phil Araman, U.S. Forest Service.

1 pallet = 13 board feet; 1,250,000 pallets x 13 board feet/pallet = 16,250,000 board feet

7 pallets = 1 yd3; 1,250,000 pallets/ 7 pallets/yd3 = 178,570 yd3

Pallet Resource of 

North Carolina, Inc.18
34 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

poor condition, however, Pallet Resource can charge a significant handling

fee, depending on the quantity of pallets it transports to its location. Pallet

Resource obtains its pallets from retail food and grocery distribution centers,

retail home improvement centers, and bulk mail and packaging distribution

centers, primarily located within central North Carolina. Pallet Resource’s

fleet of 110 flat and van type trailers backhaul pallets, which are collected as

refurbished pallets are dropped off. Others are purchased from smaller businesses that deliver the pallets to Pallet Resource. 

Pallet Resource’s marketing strategy helps their business grow. By providing

full service pallet collection, repair, and reuse, they continue to obtain and

retain more customers every year. In addition, both the increased remanufacturing of pallets and the rising raw material prices to create new pallets help

guarantee a strong market. Pallet Resource noted that although more pallets

are currently remanufactured, the percentage of pallets that can be repaired

and resold has declined recently. Since pallets are repaired more times, the

pallets received are often in worse overall condition, making it more difficult

to remanufacture them for reuse. A greater percentage of pallets are disassembled for components or sent for mulching. Pallet Resource views this as a

positive change, however, because it still continues to reduce the demand for

new lumber to be used in the pallet manufacturing industry. 

PP&L, Inc. provides electrical delivery throughout a 10,000-square-mile area,

supplying electricity to more than 1.2 million customers. One of PP&L, Inc.’s

corporate objectives is to achieve at least $1 million in savings annually

through waste prevention activities. To help achieve this goal, PP&L, Inc.

implemented initiatives to reduce pallet purchases by nearly 100 tons.

PP&L, Inc. achieved reductions in its use of wooden pallets by working with

vendors on the quality of their pallets to improve the potential for internally

reusing them. PP&L, Inc., for example, had not previously been purchasing

standard sizes that could be remanufactured easily. It began requesting standard sizes for purchase and also bought pallets made of hardwood materials to

increase their longevity. It discouraged its purchasing department from

acquiring specialty or one-time use pallets. PP&L, Inc. attempts to reuse pallets wherever feasible and allows employees to take home excess pallets to

create compost bins and for other personal uses. It publishes a list of pallet

refurbishers and mulching facilities to avoid sending these materials to the

landfill.

PP&L, Inc.’s successful reuse program for wooden pallets can be attributed to

its strong commitment to the environment, both from management and the

effort of its employees. PP&L, Inc.’s Corporate Environmental Policy

Committee consists of management representatives that review their compa20 U.S. EPA. 1997. Waste Reduction Activities of Selected WasteWise Partners: Electric

Power Industry. EPA530-R-97-017. Washington, DC.

Pennsylvania Power and Light

Company, Inc. (PP&L) 
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 35

ny’s environmental direction and set policy. The committee’s goal is to develop a cultural attitude for environmental responsibility equivalent to that of

safety, quality, and productivity. PP&L, Inc. also has launched a “Taking Care

of the Future Today” campaign with the message that good corporate environmental performance comes from the actions and decisions made each day

by employees.

Established in 1973, Alpine Windows is located in Bothell, Washington, and

employs approximately 400 people, making it one of the largest window manufacturers in the Northwest. Alpine manufactures vinyl windows for contractors, manufactured home builders, and home owners. To reduce its packaging

waste and improve packaging and handling efficiency, Alpine Windows modified its process for shipping window glass by switching from wood crates to

“glass packs,” a process that uses only a special truck, slings, and tarps. The

switch to glass packs saves the company more than $265,000 annually and

eliminates the need for wooden crates. 

The opportunity to eliminate crates became apparent when Alpine adopted

new technology for feeding individual sheets of glass into the glass cutter.

Previously, whole crates were removed from the flatbed truck by forklift and

placed on a cart for transport to the production area, where the crate was

opened and sheets were picked up one at a time by suction cups and placed

on the feeder.

The new feeder method permits the glass supplier to load uncrated packs of

glass against an A-frame structure on a flatbed truck, covering the packs with

tarps and securing the load with tie-downs. At Alpine, these uncrated packs

are unloaded by a forklift rigged with a boom and nylon web slings. Packs are

placed on a trolley rigged with an A-frame and moved to the production area,

where individual sheets of glass are peeled from the pack and fall onto the

feeder table. Under this “free-fall” system, air pressure slows the fall rate of

the glass, preventing it from breaking. 

The slings for the new system cost $250 each, but are reusable for more than

a year. Alpine also invested about $400,000 in the new free-fall system, but it

has a service life of 20 years. Previously, Alpine purchased 12 to 24 wooden

crates daily at a cost of 50 dollars each. Now Alpine avoids their use and disposal completely, eliminating the need for thousands of crates and saving

$230,000 annually. Since the company now receives uncrated packs of glass,

they are able to obtain 50 percent more sheets of glass than the same number

of crated packs. Restock time is thus cut by a very significant amount. Alpine

estimates the annual labor savings is an additional $35,000.

Both employees and customers responded enthusiastically to the switch to

glass packs for shipping. Employees noted the improvement in operational

21 Indiana Institute on Recycling. 1996. Case Study 9606. Indiana University, Terre Haute, IN.

Alpine Windows21

4.2.2 Substituting

Materials for

Transport Packaging
36 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

efficiency because loading glass onto the cutting tables was much easier with

the new method and made the cutting process about 10 to 15 percent faster.

Customers responded to Alpine’s competitive prices, which are a reflection of

the reduced costs and increased efficiency of the packaging and handling

changes. Clearly, Alpine’s strategic switch has been beneficial not only for the

competitiveness of the company, but also to conserve precious raw materials

and protect the environment. 

Home Depot opened its doors for business in 1978. Now, with more than

700 stores, the company is the largest home improvement retailer in the

United States. In early 1995, Home Depot sent letters to its vendors introducing the option to ship products to their stores using slip sheets weighing 3

pounds instead of wooden pallets weighing 40 pounds. A slip sheet is a solid

sheet of fiberboard, corrugated board, or high-density plastic upon which

freight is placed and stabilized with stretch wrap, glue, or tape. Slip sheets

have short panels extending beyond one or more sides that are used for handling and moving the freight. 

Before Home Depot began accepting shipments using slip sheets, more than

40 percent of the company’s incoming shipments were delivered on wood pallets. The Home Depot distribution network favored switching materials,

because the company does not have a system to return pallets to vendors. Slip

sheets did not work for all vendors because their products were too heavy or

awkward, but the company’s logistics department estimated that about 55 percent of Home Depot’s shipments could be handled with slip sheets. Home

Depot saved an estimated $2 million and eliminated 36,000 tons of wood

from its waste stream during the first year the program was implemented.

Before implementing this new program, Home Depot conducted a cost

analysis of slip sheets versus pallets for an average vendor. Slip sheets averaged $3.70 per unit compared to pallets at $6.00 per unit. By making the

switch, Home Depot eliminated the need for more than 1.8 million pallets

(36,000 tons) in retail operations, saving more than $660,000 in disposal and

handling costs for the wood. They also avoided freight costs of $2.4 million,

including savings to vendors that reduced the weight of their shipments or

had the ability to ship additional products on each trailer. In addition, Home

Depot either reuses the slip sheets internally or sends them back to be

reground and recycled into new slip sheets, so the disposal impact of the slip

sheets is negligible.

Home Depot leases about $2 million worth of equipment from Cascade, a

firm that manufactures push/pull attachments for slip sheet handling that fit

onto a forklift. This cost, however, is not entirely attributable to slip sheets;

the attachments can be used for handling wood pallets as well. Each distribu22 National Recycling Coalition. 1997. Case Studies in Source-Reduced and Reusable

Transport Packaging. Alexandria, VA.

Home Depot22
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 37

tion center and Home Depot retail store needs at least one push/pull attachment. Home Depot must also still manage a great number of wood pallets. At

most locations, the retailer has found a pallet reuse and repair business to

remove the pallets. The reduction in pallet storage requirements, however,

has helped Home Depot increase its warehouse product storage capacity by

10 percent. Home Depot’s use of slip sheets has also led to improved transport efficiency due to less weight and more efficient use of truck space.

Schlegel Systems, Inc. switched from corrugated and wooden gaylord shipping containers to reusable plastic folding gaylord containers as part of a cost

savings project with one of its plastic resin suppliers. The switch eliminated

approximately 30,000 pounds of corrugated and wood packaging annually. In

addition, the supplier saved money on packaging and passed that savings

along to Schlegel in the form of a raw material price reduction. Since the

plastic containers fold for easy storage, Schlegel also conserves valuable warehouse space.

Schlegel also uses folding returnable plastic containers as part of an ongoing

source reduction project with Xerox. The company had been using corrugated boxes to ship parts to Xerox. By switching to reusable containers, the

amount of corrugated used has been reduced by thousands of pounds.

Schlegel’s changes have not only been beneficial for their company but also

for their supplier, their customers, and the environment.

According to the 1997 Update, the many products made or packaged with

paper and paperboard comprise the largest component of MSW. Total generation of paper and paperboard in MSW has grown steadily from 30 million

tons in 1960 to 79.9 million tons in 1997. The percentage has varied over

time, but increased to 38.1 percent of total MSW generation in 1997. The

following case studies examine source reduction activities that focus on primary packaging, which includes all packaging that directly covers or protects

a product and is not specifically used for transporting the product. Primary

packaging, for example, includes cans, bottles, and boxes, but excludes corrugated boxes and wood packaging generally used to contain and transport

products already packaged. Approximately 3.1 million tons of packaging

materials (excluding corrugated boxes and wood packaging) were source

reduced in 1996.

Long-held production and marketing practices often specify the use of more

primary packaging than is actually needed to protect and preserve a product.

Recognizing this, many organizations are taking a second look at the product

packaging they generate. By establishing in-house teams and working with

23 Schlegel Systems, Inc. WasteWise Awards Application. 1997.

Schlegel Systems, Inc.23

4.3 Reducing

Primary Packaging
38 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

suppliers, organizations can eliminate unnecessary packaging, switch to

reusable packaging, or examine methods to lightweight, redesign, or substitute packaging without sacrificing product safety or quality.

Plastics are a small but visible portion of the waste stream often used as primary packaging materials. As a percentage of MSW generation, plastics constituted less than 1 percent by weight in 1960, increasing to 9.4 percent in

1997. A common materials substitution practice involves using plastic to

replace glass in beverage packaging. Plastic resins are now used for a variety

of beverage containers such as soft drink bottles and milk and water jugs.

This increased use of plastic bottles to replace glass bottles, however, is one of

the underlying factors behind the source expansion occurring for plastic soft

drink and milk bottles. The waste streams for plastic soft drink bottles and

plastic milk bottles increased by 209,000 and 56,000 tons, respectively, in

1996. Other types of plastic packaging, including bags, sacks, and wraps, also

experienced source expansion in 1996—309,000 tons for bags and sacks and

4,000 tons for wraps. The following case studies, however, provide evidence

of specific cases where source reduction is occurring for these materials. 

Another common beverage container, the aluminum can, has undergone significant redesign and lightweighting to reduce the amount of aluminum

required for packaging. According to the Can Manufacturers Institute, nearly

80 percent of all single-serving beverages are packaged in aluminum cans

today. In 1996, there were 99 billion cans sold to the beverage industry. The

Can Manufacturers Institute also reports that consumption per person of

these beverages has grown from 76 gallons per year to 96 gallons per year, or

28 percent, since 1980. Since consumers show a strong preference for aluminum cans, the beverage industry has continuously analyzed ways to lightweight cans and reduce the cost of packaging its products. In fact, even

though consumption of beverages has increased, packaging of beverages on a

per person basis has actually decreased from 101 pounds per year to 93

pounds per year, or 7.5 percent since 1980.

The following case studies represent a range of source reduction programs

focusing on packaging reductions. Businesses and governments alike have successfully reduced significant amounts of waste using these strategies. The

Clorox Company, the Coca-Cola Company, Federal Express Corporation,

and Procter & Gamble Corporation prevented waste by lightweighting or

redesigning packaging. Warner-Lambert Corporation eliminated unnecessary

packaging for its products. Dunn County, Wisconsin, switched to reusable

packaging in order to eliminate waste and save money.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 39

While Clorox is most known for its laundry additives and cleaning products,

it also manufactures such merchandise as automotive protective products, cat

litter, dressings and sauces, and water filtration products. With such a large

and varied operation, Clorox continually seeks ways to eliminate extraneous

costs by cutting waste wherever possible. Recently, Clorox decided to switch

from glass to plastic bottles for both its 18-ounce barbeque sauce and its 16-

ounce salad dressing. By redesigning and lightweighting its packaging, Clorox

eliminated nearly 15,000 tons of glass waste annually. The new polyethylene

terephthalate (PET) bottles weigh 85 percent less than the old glass bottles. 

Initially, Clorox began considering the switch from glass to plastic in order to

reduce production costs and increase resource efficiency. Clorox had already

converted its larger size barbeque sauce and salad dressing bottles to plastic

containers. Larger containers have less surface area in contact with the products so it is easier to use more permeable plastic material to package them and

still maintain product quality. Clorox needed to ensure that when plastic containers were used, they would still provide an acceptable shelf life for the

product. In addition, Clorox had to fine-tune its filling lines and make other

manufacturing changes for plastic containers to be used. Ultimately, Clorox

modified its entire manufacturing and shipment process. The switch from

glass to plastic produced substantial cost savings including cutting shipping

costs by using smaller shipping containers and consequently eliminating 1,000

tons of corrugated cardboard annually.

Clorox discovered another immediate benefit of its switch—consumers

showed a stronger preference for the product when packaged in plastic rather

than glass. Clorox’s products became a better value to the customer because

its source reduction initiative not only cut waste but also reduced the cost of

shipping, which ultimately avoids price increases to the customer. Although

sales figures are not released, Clorox notes that it significantly increased its

market share. Clorox is satisfied with the major switch made for its salad

dressings and barbeque sauces but also finds that there will be fewer opportunities to reduce packaging in the future. Most packaging will be source

reduced 1 gram at a time, but Clorox considers it worthwhile because so

many products are sold that the amount of waste reduced is significant.

Through the years, the Coca-Cola Company has significantly reduced the

amount of raw materials needed to produce its packaging through lightweighting and redesign initiatives. The glass bottles, aluminum cans, and

plastic bottles used by the company today have been reduced from their origi24 Personal communication with a Clorox Company representative. July 15, 1998. Eastern

Research Group. Arlington, VA.

25 Personal communication with a Coca-Cola Company representative. July 17, 1998.

Eastern Research Group. Arlington, VA.

4.3.1 Lightweighting

and/or Redesigning

Primary Packaging

The Coca-Cola Company25

The Clorox Company24
40 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

nal weights by 43 percent, 41 percent, and 21 percent, respectively. This

means it takes fewer raw materials to make these packages and less energy to

transport them. 

To better understand Coca-Cola’s source reduction initiatives, it is helpful to

look at the company’s experience with the aluminum can. Since the aluminum

can was first introduced for soft drink applications in 1963, the total weight of

the can has been reduced from approximately 55 pounds per 1,000 cans to

approximately 30 pounds per 1,000 cans—a 41 percent total source reduction.

This accomplishment has been achieved by reducing the body weight and

sidewall thickness of cans. In 1993, for example, the company shaved more

than 4 millimeters off the necks of its aluminum cans, reducing its aluminum

usage in the United States alone by an estimated 20,000 tons per year. The

weight of this narrower can end is more than 2 pounds lighter per 1,000 cans

than the previous can end used.

Along with these achievements, the Coca-Cola Company continues to search

for new ways to reduce its use of raw materials in packaging.

Since 1981, Federal Express has continuously reduced the thickness of the

paperboard used to manufacture its 9-1/2 by 12-1/2 FedEx Letter envelope.

The envelope has been lightweighted by 40 percent, and the combined savings from this source reduction activity and the redesign of other paper,

paperboard, and polyethylene shipping containers totals more than $20 million annually for the company.

Federal Express picks up, sorts, and delivers more than 3 million letters and

packages every day. In volume alone, Federal Express is a world leader in

overnight express delivery, with 1997 sales of $15 billion. As part of its service, Federal Express provides shipping envelopes and boxes to its customers.

Annual outlays for such supplies total approximately $200 million. To control

this significant cost of business, Federal Express continuously examines its

various containers and related shipping items to identify ways to reduce their

size and weight without compromising their integrity and appearance. 

Federal Express supplies more than 300 million FedEx Letters to customers

every year, so the payback in supply costs is virtually immediate when a

lighter weight stock is adopted. Originally, the FedEx Letter was manufactured from a 20-point stock, the lightest stock available to meet the company’s requirements for envelope strength and printability. The paper industry

currently produces an acceptable 12-point stock, reducing paper requirements

for the FedEx Letter. 

Since 1986, Federal Express also has reduced the FedEx Pak from 26-pound

to 14-pound material. The FedEx Pak is made from DuPont Tyvek®, a spun26 Indiana Institute on Recycling. 1995. Case Study 9504. Indiana University, Terre Haute, IN.

Federal Express Corporation26
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 41

bonded high-density polyethylene. Federal Express works closely with

DuPont to incorporate postconsumer material (plastic milk jugs and water

bottles) into the FedEx Pak. The Pak currently contains 25 percent postconsumer material. 

Federal Express continues to work closely with its suppliers to improve the

quality and cost of materials it purchases. Federal Express notes that if the

company can improve its supplier’s internal costs, the supplier can pass the

savings on.

For companies that ship millions of products every year, even small design

changes can result in significant waste reductions. The Procter & Gamble

Corporation (P&G) wanted to redesign the plastic bottles used for its 32- and

48-ounce vegetable oil bottles to reduce the amount of plastic used. The

company also wanted to find a way to increase shipping capacity. It turned out

that both goals could be met by replacing the traditional cylindrical shape of

the oil bottle with a rectangular design. Changing the bottle’s geometry

allowed a thinner layer of plastic to be used to provide the same strength as a

thicker bottle. The resulting bottle uses 30 percent less plastic than before,

eliminating about 1,250 tons of plastic per year. In addition, the bottle’s new

design requires smaller shipping containers for transportation and increases

the number of products in each shipment. This has helped P&G cut its use of

corrugated cardboard by about 650 tons annually.

When P&G sought a design change in the 32- and 48-ounce bottles, it had to

meet certain quality standards including bottle strength, supplier’s ability to

manufacture a new design, and customer appeal of the new package. P&G

also anticipated process changes and transport packaging changes that would

potentially occur with a new packaging design. During 4 years of development, test marketing, and careful analysis of cost, P&G partnered with its

bottle supplier, Continental PET Technologies, to produce the new bottle

design. In addition to the source reduction already discussed, the new design

realized the following benefits:

• Better space utilization resulted with the rectangular bottom as compared

to the cylindrical bottom, as it reduced unused space from 22 percent to

12 percent.

• The rectangular design permitted more bottles to be shipped per cubic

foot and per truck, saving shipping space and energy.

• Faster label assembly occurred since one label replaced the two that were

previously used.28

27 U.S. EPA. 1995. WasteWise Update: A Fresh Look at Packaging. EPA530-N-95-004.

Washington, DC.

28 Indiana Institute on Recycling. 1996. Case Study 9632. Indiana University, Terre Haute, IN.

The Procter & Gamble 

Corporation27
42 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

P&G saw a 25 to 30 percent rate of return on its investment, and it completely recovered its costs in approximately 3 years. P&G notes that when the

competition copies you, you know you have a winner. P&G concluded that

this cost-effective reduction in packaging was integrated quite successfully

into product manufacturing and delivery systems. Subsequently, P&G applied

the same design to its 64- and 128-ounce vegetable oil bottles, manufactured

by Continental Plastic Container. This saves an additional 600 tons of plastic

and 800 tons of corrugated cardboard annually.

Warner-Lambert, a manufacturer of health care and consumer products, has

focused on minimizing the amount of packaging used for its products.

Recently, the company removed the outer paperboard cartons on a line of

cold formula remedies, leaving only the shrink-wrapped bottle. This step

alone eliminates the generation of 33 tons of paperboard each year. 

The old outer carton packaging prevented scuffing of the bottle, sufficiently

satisfied tamper resistance and safety concerns, provided ample space for

advertising, and held good shelf presence. In 1993, with less than a month of

paperboard carton inventory remaining, Warner-Lambert initiated a major

packaging change—elimination of the outer carton. By making the switch,

Warner-Lambert was able to increase the number of bottles displayed in the

same shelf space. To counter potential tampering problems, the dispensing

cup was tightly shrink-wrapped to the cap of the bottle, completely closing

the top. The decision was approached carefully by a multidisciplinary team

including technical packaging, product manufacturing, marketing, and environmental staff. They considered the marketing, cost savings, consumer

acceptance, and waste reduction impacts of removing the paperboard carton

before finally deciding to eliminate it. 

Consumer complaints to Warner-Lambert about unnecessary packaging led

the company to examine the feasibility of eliminating some of it. In response,

Warner-Lambert reduced the weight and amount of packaging for its mouthwash product line, switching from a glass bottle with corrugated and paper

overwrap to just a plastic bottle. This one change eliminated more than 9,500

tons of packaging per year, a 52 percent reduction. The company considered

various factors, including development of a child-resistant cap, shelf-life testing, consumer acceptance, the safety of reduced packaging, the purchase of

new machinery to produce it, a strategy for distribution and transportation of

the products, and the overall cost savings resulting from this change. By analyzing every part of its manufacturing process, Warner-Lambert was able to

effectively identify methods to address these issues and sell the mouthwash in

a plastic bottle with no additional packaging. Both of these source reduction

Warner-Lambert Company29

4.3.2 Eliminating

Unnecessary

Packaging

29 Indiana Institute on Recycling. 1996. Case Study 9644 and 9645. Indiana University, Terre

Haute, IN.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 43

initiatives allowed the company to successfully reduce waste, save money, and

increase consumer satisfaction with its products.

Dunn County, a rural area located in west central Wisconsin, received a state

grant to implement a demonstration program designed to elevate awareness

of source reduction and motivate changes in behavior to reduce its waste generation rates. The county initiated an in-house source reduction pilot project

for all its offices and operations to establish a baseline and quantify the

decrease in waste generation by keeping track of source reduction initiatives

at its facilities. One of its participating facilities, the County Health Care

Center, made several minor packaging changes that saved significant

resources. The center switched to reusable steel food tray covers, saving

$3,000 per year on aluminum foil and plastic film wrap. The center prevented

1.5 tons of container waste annually by using a juice machine instead of purchasing juices in disposable containers. The center also eliminated more than

5,460 milk containers by using returnable containers.

As a result of the efforts made by the center and other county offices, Dunn

County kicked off an extensive public education campaign to communicate

the benefits of source reduction, including quantifying local results, to the

rest of the county’s waste generators. Positive coverage by the press helped

educate a broader audience and led other communities around the state to

establish similar programs. The program also helped set general operating

procedures to reduce waste in county facilities, which will encourage source

reduction activities in the future. Internally, the county designated employees

to take charge of source reduction ideas and activities, which helped guarantee continued support and effort once the grant activities were completed. A

Dunn County representative noted that, “Implementing a program is only

half the challenge. In order to achieve success, you need to continue to motivate people and develop new ideas. Repetition makes for a successful program.”

Businesses, institutions, and government agencies that implement source

reduction often focus on the waste produced by their own office buildings,

stores, and factories or on the packaging waste passed on to their customers.

Some innovative organizations also are reducing the waste entering their facilities by forming cooperative relationships with their vendors and suppliers.

These organizations recognize they are paying their suppliers and waste disposal contractors for every pound of excess packaging and every mile of

unnecessary transportation resulting from wasteful supply chains.

30 National Recycling Coalition. 1998. Making Source Reduction and Reuse Work in Your

Community. Alexandria, VA.

Dunn County, Wisconsin30

4.3.3 Switching to

Reusable Packaging

4.4 Working With

Suppliers
44 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Supplier relationships play a key role in reducing the waste generated from a

variety of products. Supplier relationships, for example, significantly contribute to the 4.3 million tons of packaging material source reduction that

takes place each year in the United States. Supplier relationships impact several specific products within packaging materials, including paper, corrugated,

plastic, and wood packaging. In addition, interactions with suppliers impact

office paper usage through invoices, purchase orders, and other forms. Efforts

to streamline purchasing practices contributed to the 655,000 tons of office

paper source reduced in 1996.

Not all of these individual materials, however, are experiencing source reduction on a national level. Wood packaging experienced significant source

reduction (3.3 million tons), while corrugated boxes experienced significant

source expansion (2.1 million tons). It is important to remember, however,

that these values reflect activity in the aggregate at the national level; for

many individual companies, supplier relationships have led to the source

reduction of significant quantities of corrugated boxes. Several case studies

included in this section illustrate this activity. 

Organizations form supplier relationships by drafting procedural memoranda,

holding meetings, conducting plant tours, revising purchasing policies, and

stipulating waste reduction activity in vendor and supplier contracts. Source

reduction activities involving suppliers include product design changes, packaging changes, new distribution systems, take-back programs targeted toward

reuse, and the purchase of more durable products.

The following case studies provide an overview of supplier relationships

formed by organizations to reduce municipal solid waste. A case study from

Target Stores illustrates source reduction through the elimination of unnecessary supplier packaging. Case studies from Maytag Corporation’s Galesburg

Refrigeration Products facility and Herman Miller, Inc., profile how working

with suppliers to establish reusable and returnable packaging programs produces significant source reduction results. The final two case studies, from

Silicon Graphics and Commonwealth Edison, demonstrate the benefits of

working with suppliers to streamline purchasing practices.

Target Stores is a national chain of more than 850 retail stores headquartered

in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Since 1993, the company has eliminated approximately 2,250 tons of waste per year (the majority of which was low-density

polyethylene) and saved an estimated $4.5 million by initiating a packaging

reduction program for its “softlines” merchandise, which includes such items

as clothing and shoes. In addition, its suppliers saved an estimated $3 million

by reducing the packaging material used in shipments.31

31 U.S. EPA. 1995. WasteWise Update: A Fresh Look at Packaging. EPA530-N-95-004.

Washington, DC.

Target Stores

4.4.1 Eliminating

Unnecessary

Packaging From

Suppliers
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 45

By developing a team and carefully evaluating its packaging needs, Target

realized that much of the packaging used by its vendors was unnecessary and

costly. When the Target team approached vendors about reducing excess

packaging, it was surprised to learn that vendor packaging choices were based

upon the vendors’ perceptions of Target’s needs. This began a very constructive dialogue in which Target and its vendors worked together to design specifications to eliminate excess packaging.

Suspecting that much of the merchandise shipped to Target included excess

packaging, senior management chartered a team of about 20 employees to

study the packaging of the softlines merchandise. The team came from several different areas within the company, including the Environmental, Quality

Assurance, Distribution, Operations, and Special Projects departments. Team

members spent many hours in the stockrooms of several stores in the

Minneapolis metropolitan area going through shipments to examine how the

merchandise was packaged. They observed both the amount of waste from

packaging and the time workers spent opening and unwrapping shipments.

The team found that a great deal of labor was expended tearing apart packaging for the softlines merchandise. One typical clothing shipment, for example,

contained 24 individually wrapped sweaters. Each of the sweaters had to be

unwrapped before they could be displayed in the store. The team ultimately

determined that an entire shipment of 24 sweaters could be safely shipped

using just one outside wrapper. 

“Old paradigms die hard,” according to a quality assurance director at Target.

Many vendors and buyers doubted the packaging changes would be effective.

They felt that the clothing would arrive wrinkled because of the reduced

packaging and make the merchandise unpresentable. To see whether the merchandise would arrive at the store in good condition, the Target team asked

its vendors to test its packaging reduction idea. After several shipments of

clothing arrived unwrinkled and presentable, the team decided to change

Target’s vendor packaging specifications.

“We proved the skeptics wrong by doing several test runs. There has been no

loss of sales due to presentation,” explains the director. The team had to convince management these test runs were important, as management wanted to

implement the team’s suggestions more quickly. “We wanted to make sure the

job was done right.”

The resulting specifications, drawn up by Target and its vendors, exclude not

only individually wrapped items but also tissue paper, cardboard inserts, pins,

collar inserts, tape, and clips. Target initiated a series of noncompliance

penalties to be assessed if merchandise does not arrive according to the specifications. “If these sweaters arrive individually wrapped, we will charge the

vendor for the additional labor it takes us to remove the excess packaging,”

explains a Target environmental manager.
46 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Target’s current goal is “to ship floor-ready apparel and minimize excess packaging.” “Floor-ready” means that the merchandise requires minimal preparation before being displayed on the sales floor. Target chose this goal because

it would reduce labor and disposal costs for both Target and the manufacturer

while providing significant environmental benefits. Target’s goal to become

“trashless” includes eliminating all unnecessary packaging as well as reusing

the necessary packaging.

Target’s advice for other companies considering initiating this type of program is to begin studying packaging needs immediately. Companies should

ask themselves two questions: Is each packaging component necessary for

shipping? Does each component help significantly in the presentation or protection of the product? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then

eliminate or reduce the packaging. Another hint on how companies can

reduce their packaging is to work collaboratively with vendors—communicate

precisely what kinds of packaging your company needs and does not need.

Vendors might think all the packaging they are delivering is required, even

though this might not be the case. Target found that having vendors as partners was a key to its success.

Maytag Corporation’s Galesburg Refrigeration Products facility produces

refrigerators for worldwide distribution. The Galesburg, Illinois, facility has

been working with suppliers to implement new returnable packaging systems

since 1989. At that time, only one or two of Galesburg’s suppliers were using

returnable packaging to ship goods to the facility, and Galesburg was sending

virtually all of its waste to the landfill (9,711 tons in 1989). By 1995,

Galesburg was sending only 1,593 tons of waste to the landfill, nearly an 84

percent decrease since 1989. The reduction in part was a result of Galesburg’s

returnable packaging and recycling programs. Currently, the company

reduces an estimated 900 tons of waste each year.

32

Galesburg’s early waste reduction efforts focused on finding markets for and

recycling wood skids and corrugated waste. These measures alone contributed

$600,000 to the company in the form of revenues generated from the sale of

the materials and cost savings from avoided disposal fees.33 The facility soon

began to look beyond recycling, however. Galesburg realized there were

opportunities for eliminating large amounts of packaging waste if the plant

was willing to work with its suppliers.

The Galesburg facility most often notified parts suppliers of its returnable

packaging proposals during contract renegotiations. Vendors were told that

the new packaging systems would have to submit to certain durability,

32 Personal communication with a Maytag environmental specialist. June 11, 1998. Eastern

Research Group. Arlington, VA.

33 Ibid.

Maytag Corporation’s Galesburg

Refrigeration Products Facility

4.4.2 Switching to

Reusable and

Returnable Packaging

With Suppliers
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 47

ergonomic, and safety tests and that the two companies would share any savings resulting from the packaging change. Most suppliers enthusiastically

embraced the proposals when they realized the packaging changes could ultimately reduce their disposal costs. The timing of the packaging change proposals, accompanied by an appeal to increased profit, were critical negotiation

tools.

The new packaging systems developed by Galesburg and its suppliers generally consisted of heavyweight corrugated and extruded plastic containers, both

of which generally replaced lightweight corrugated containers. On average,

these new materials extended the number of trips the containers could sustain

from 5 to 100. The changes also improved work processes. The facility began

using larger, “walk-in” boxes, for example, with side panels that unlock and

partially detach for easier packing. 

Galesburg used the new reusable container systems to ship plastic refrigerator

components with cosmetic finishes, such as air deflectors and control covers.

These components must sustain a great deal of handling without damage. In

addition to reducing the facility’s waste output, the durable returnable packaging systems helped provide extra protection for these cosmetic components.

The number of damaged components arriving at the Galesburg facility

dropped considerably after the introduction of reusable packaging. One vendor’s switch to returnable packaging reduced the number of damaged components arriving from the vendor by 18 percent.34 Furthermore, the new container systems allowed Galesburg’s suppliers to use truck trailer space more

efficiently. Returnable containers eliminated bulky excess packaging and

enabled double stacking. For shipments of refrigerator shelves, for example,

Galesburg introduced wire baskets that collapse from 40 to 6 inches in height

when emptied. These baskets allowed for easier unpacking and saved space

when they were shipped back to the supplier for reuse. Efficient use of truck

trailer space reduced the freight costs passed on to the Galesburg plant. One

packaging change that enabled double stacking, for instance, reduced shipping costs for one refrigerator component by 50 percent.35

Galesburg has approximately 100 suppliers for its products. Twenty-eight percent of Galesburg’s suppliers have converted to returnable packaging, and the

plant’s waste reduction team hopes to eventually create a 100 percent returnable packaging delivery system. As Galesburg adjusts its fire protection system

to account for the handling and storage of new types of packaging, the

returnable container requirements will become mandatory for all “preferred”

Galesburg suppliers. 

34 Personal communication with a Maytag environmental specialist. July 31, 1998. Eastern

Research Group. Arlington, VA.

35 Ibid.
48 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Herman Miller, Inc., also has implemented a variety of returnable and

reusable packaging systems with their suppliers. In 1990, Herman Miller’s

Holland Chair Plant underwent a 6-month switchover from a waste-intensive

corrugated box and filler system for shipping shells for its Equa chairs to a

reusable plastic tray system.

Under the original packaging system, the company shipped about 300,000

shells per year in heavy corrugated boxes, which fit 28 shells each.36

Employees wrapped the shells in polyethylene bags and added polyethylene

fillers to the boxes for added protection. All packaging was recycled after each

30 mile, one-way trip. The new system replaced the corrugated carton and

polyethylene material with two plastic trays capped on top of each other and

wrapped in a corrugated sleeve. Under the new system, the materials are

reused after each trip. The corrugated sleeves can be used for 3 to 4 years

(approximately 50 to 100 round trips).

The new packaging system cost the company approximately $500,000 and

paid for itself in less than a year. The company has saved at least $1.4 million

since the packaging change. The change itself resulted in a 70 percent packaging material reduction and a 94 percent decrease in damage claims.37 It also

resulted in substantial additional truck trailer and warehouse space. 

Royal Crest Dairy has served as a role model for the dairy industry through

its demonstrated commitment to waste reduction for more than 30 years. In

1965, this family-owned, independent, home-delivery dairy became one of the

first dairies in the country to offer reusable, recyclable, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) milk containers. Royal Crest collects, cleans, and reuses these

containers up to 100 times before recycling them. Today, the company prevents more than 40 tons of waste per year through this reuse process.38

The milk bottle reuse program is extremely successful; however, the chemical

process of cleaning the bottles created a new waste stream for Royal Crest.

The cleaning chemicals came in large HDPE barrels that, once used, piled up

quickly and took up more storage space than Royal Crest had to spare.

According to a Royal Crest risk manager, company managers—finding themselves “waist deep in 55-gallon barrels”—provided the impetus to pursue a

less wasteful disposal method. The company first examined the possibility of

locating a recycler who was willing to pick up the chemical barrels.

Unfortunately, the awkward size of and the chemical residue in the barrels

made the drums difficult, if not impossible, to recycle.

36 Indiana Institute on Recycling. 1995. Case Study 9627. Indiana University, Terre Haute, IN.

37 Ibid.

38 U.S. EPA. 1998. WasteWise Update: Building Supplier Partnerships. EPA530-N-98-003.

Washington, DC.

Herman Miller, Inc.

Royal Crest Dairy
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 49

Royal Crest turned to its chemical supplier to see if the company would collect the used barrels for reuse. The supplier responded with a flat rejection: it

did not have the resources to clean or recycle the barrels and one small customer was not worth the investment. Not discouraged, plant managers began

arranging for a new supplier who would pick up the used barrels. One plant

manager knew of a company who provided pickup service, which expedited

the entire process. Even so, managers were pleasantly surprised to find they

were able to identify and arrange for a new supplier within 1 week.

Pleased to discover there is usually someone out there who is willing to

accommodate the special needs of even a small company, the Royal Crest risk

manager encourages other small companies to persevere. “Don’t stop at your

first rejection,” he recommends. Companies should keep switching vendors,

be they product suppliers or recyclable haulers, until they find one who will

meet their waste reduction needs. 

By developing a Web-based purchasing system, Silicon Graphics, a leading

computer manufacturer, conserved more than 2.5 tons of paper forms in just

1 year. Now, the company’s 11,000 employees order products and services

electronically without leaving a costly paper trail.

Early in 1994, Silicon Graphics began investigating opportunities to streamline its purchasing process and cut costs. The company, based in Mountain

View, California, noticed that during the previous 2 years the number of purchasing transactions increased by 90 percent, reaching 19,000 transactions.39

The purchasing manager realized he either needed to hire additional people

to handle the growing paperwork or reengineer the purchasing process to

become more efficient. He chose to research electronic commerce opportunities and put these technologies to work for the company. 

By replacing the multipart paper forms with electronic forms, Silicon

Graphics conserved approximately 500,000 sheets of paper in just 1 year (60

to 70 percent of the paper is unrecyclable carbon paper). Using a Web-based

system, Silicon Graphics’ Purchasing Group reduced the number of purchasing steps from 15 to 3.40 “That’s not all,” the purchasing manager adds. “Now

employees can receive their purchases more quickly, too. Employee orders

can often be filled within 24 hours instead of 3 weeks.”

Under Silicon Graphics’ new purchasing system, employees browse supplier

catalogs electronically linked to the system and fill out an electronic form.

The system sends the form via e-mail to the appropriate manager for

approval. If the manager approves the request, the purchase order is transmit39 U.S. EPA. 1996. WasteWise Update: Going Paperless With Technology. EPA530-N-96-007.

Washington, DC.

40 Ibid.

4.4.3

Streamlining

Purchasing Practices

Silicon Graphics
50 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

ted to the supplier via electronic data interchange (EDI). In the future, the

system will allow digital signatures to acknowledge receipt of materials and

electronic invoices and payments. Employees also will be able to track the status of an order at any point throughout the process.

In the first year, the project saved an estimated $200,000 for Silicon Graphics.

Initial costs were high because they included all of the efforts to research,

design, develop, pilot, and implement the system as well as efforts to work

with and educate employees and suppliers.41 With the infrastructure in place,

however, Silicon Graphics could expand its use of the electronic forms into

other company groups. 

Silicon Graphics’ new system made life easier for everyone involved, including suppliers. Managers are excited about the savings in time and money.

Employees receive their orders faster and do not get frustrated because the

order slip has been misplaced. Suppliers are paid promptly and now have the

infrastructure in place to work electronically with their other customers. 

While bulk purchasing can help reduce waste for some organizations, others

receive more supplies than they can use on a regular basis. For generating stations at Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), an electric utility company in

northern Illinois, these problems created hefty disposal costs and increased

administrative burdens. ComEd established a “just-in-time” policy through a

single supplier that enabled the company to obtain supplies as needed and

reduce waste from materials that exceeded their shelf life. This policy, along

with other streamlining processes, has saved the company more than

$500,000 since the project began.42

Before ComEd adopted its just-in-time policy with a single laboratory supplier, the company faced many difficulties in managing the supply chain.

Formerly, it ordered materials from six suppliers, each of which required a

separate invoice for every order. With ComEd’s 16 facilities placing orders for

several items each day, the cost for processing the invoices and paper flow

alone became a significant expense. In addition, bulk orders produced waste

from leftover supplies whose shelf life had expired. 

A pilot program with one of the suppliers was developed to alleviate ComEd’s

burden. ComEd negotiated with the supplier to designate several new methods to order supplies by phone, fax, and the Internet. The supplier created a

Web site that contained an online catalog, a complete list of stock, and online

order forms. This system provided real-time data on the availability of particular items so ComEd employees could determine when they would receive

the supplies. The supplier also agreed to fill the orders for next-day delivery

as needed and send only one billing statement monthly to each facility. 

41 Ibid.

42 U.S. EPA. 1998. WasteWise Update: Building Supplier Partnerships. EPA530-N-98-003.

Washington, DC.

Commonwealth Edison
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 51

The most important part of the contract, however, was establishing a thirdparty buying system so ComEd need only order through a single supplier. By

establishing a third-party buying system, the supplier became responsible for

ordering materials and supplies from other companies and charging ComEd

for its services. This policy relieved ComEd from its dependence on six different suppliers with separate invoicing and delivery systems. The supplier

also agreed to adhere to a buy-back policy so surplus materials would not be

thrown away. 

ComEd expanded the pilot study to all 15 generating stations and the central

lab facility. In order to make it a complete success, it was especially important

for the supplier to commit to a firm price for a long-term contract. ComEd

selected the supplier based on its willingness to meet ComEd’s needs and its

strong performance on consistent pricing and delivery. ComEd’s procurement

specialist states, “It’s not only great for cutting waste and improving our bottom line, it ultimately reduces the end cost for our customers too.”

Manufacturers can reduce waste in the design and manufacturing of products,

but once those products are shipped out, source reduction is often up to the

customer. Companies can make it easier for customers to reduce waste by

facilitating the reuse, service, or repair of their products. Customers and manufacturers often cooperate to reduce the waste generated by a range of products including durable goods (e.g., longer lasting goods such as computers,

appliances, furniture, and carpets), nondurable goods (e.g., office paper and

disposable plates), and containers and packaging. 

Durable goods made up 15.1 percent of the 1996 U.S. MSW stream. This

component of the waste stream has been growing both in sheer tonnage and

as a percentage of the total waste stream for the last several decades.

Nondurable goods accounted for 26.5 percent of the waste generated in

1996.43 Source reduction for durable and nondurable goods, each currently at

2.4 million tons per year, slows the growth of product waste.

Product reuse is one important source reduction strategy for durable and

nondurable goods. Product manufacturers are often in the best position to

reuse or remanufacture their own goods due to design knowledge, materials

compatibility, and economies of scale. In order to ensure effective reuse and

remanufacturing, businesses develop efficient means of recovering used products from their customers. The remanufacturing industry has experienced significant growth in recent years. Recent figures estimate sales from the industry at $53 billion with nearly 500,000 people employed.44

43 U.S. EPA. 1998. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1997

Update. EPA530-R-98-007. Washington, DC.

44 Lund, Robert T. 1996. The Remanufacturing Industry: Hidden Giant. Boston, MA.

4.5 Working With

Customers
52 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Extending product life is an important source reduction strategy for durable

goods. Manufacturers can extend the usable life of their goods by signing

agreements with customers to provide product service and repair over many

years. When customers know they can have an expensive product repaired at

minimal cost, there is little motivation to discard the item and purchase a new

one. By delaying the end of a product’s life, customers, manufacturers, and

service organizations reduce the amount of durable goods in the waste stream.

Opportunities for businesses to work with customers do not stop with durable

and nondurable goods, however. Companies can also work with their customers to reduce waste from containers and packaging. One example is instore reuse programs for grocery bags. In 1996, Americans discarded approximately 2 million tons of bags and sacks (nearly 1 percent of the U.S. waste

stream).45 During that same time, nearly 515,000 tons of bags and sacks were

source reduced.

The following case studies represent a range of source reduction programs

involving a business-to-customer relationship or interaction. Case studies of

Xerox Corporation, Eastman Kodak Company, and The Laser Link, Inc. profile product take-back and remanufacturing programs. Xerox’s take-back program is supported by product design policies that facilitate recovery, reuse,

and remanufacturing. Two case studies, Monsanto and the city of San Diego,

examine how lease agreements can prevent waste. Lease agreements facilitate

product recovery and, when they include service provisions, extend product

life. The final case study, an example of businesses working with customers to

reduce packaging waste, details a program that provides an incentive for customers to return grocery bags to supermarkets for reuse. 

Many companies are beginning to recover their products from customers to

prevent these items from going to waste and to cut raw material costs by substituting recovered material for virgin material. Recovery is easier when engineers build reusability and recyclability into the products they design. This is

one aspect of Design for the Environment (DfE)—identifying cost-effective

alternatives to existing products and processes that reduce risks to the environment. Xerox Corporation’s DfE program and product take-back operation, known as the Asset Recycle Management program, treats used products

as assets, rather than waste. 

In 1997, Xerox remanufactured equipment from more than 30,000 tons of

returned machines. The programs also have saved Xerox a substantial amount

of money. Xerox estimates that annual savings in raw material, labor, and disposal as a result of design changes and product take-back programs are on the

order of several hundred million dollars.46 These impressive cost savings justi45 U.S. EPA. 1998. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1997

Update. EPA530-R-98-007. Washington, DC.

46 Personal communication with Xerox environmental specialist. July 22, 1998. Eastern

Research Group. Arlington, VA.

4.5.1 Product 

Take-Back and

Remanufacturing

Programs

Xerox Corporation
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 53

fy the programs internally. According to Xerox, the company’s asset recycling

and DfE programs merge environmentalism with good business sense.

Xerox encourages customers to return machines to the company. Employees

log, disassemble, and sort parts from returned machines that meet internal

criteria for remanufacturing. Xerox incorporates reprocessed parts into new

products. Parts that do not meet remanufacturing criteria and cannot be

repaired are often ground, melted, or otherwise converted into basic raw

materials. The company integrates remanufacturing into the same assembly

lines that produce new products. The aim of the asset recycling program is to

prevent Xerox product assembly and disassembly from producing landfill

waste (see Figure 4-1 on page 54).

Although the asset recycling program saved Xerox approximately $50 million

in its first 12 months of operation, it was difficult to work with equipment not

initially designed to be remanufactured or recycled.47 With this in mind,

Xerox developed its DfE program to incorporate environmental considerations, such as recycling and remanufacturing, into product design. Xerox’s

DfE program includes the following criteria:

• Satisfaction of all regulatory requirements.

• Satisfaction of criteria defined by major environmental labeling programs

such as EPA’s ENERGY STAR® and Germany’s Blue Angel.48

• Satisfaction of customer environmental requirements.

• Satisfaction of internal requirements for remanufacturing and environmental protection.

Xerox began training engineers in DfE principles in 1993. Soon afterward,

the company began producing removable copier cartridges designed specifically for parts reuse. Xerox later applied DfE principles to entire copiers and

printers. DfE requires product designers to develop an environmental plan

for each product, focusing on environmental impacts and incorporating features to minimize the cost of recycling or reusing components.

DfE principles encourage Xerox designers to limit production materials to

recycled and recyclable plastics and metals. Xerox now uses fewer types of

plastics than it did before DfE was introduced. Xerox’s ultimate goal is to use

only easily recyclable thermoplastics in the future. Paper labels, which contaminate recycled plastic, are avoided, and all components are marked with

recycling symbols to identify their materials. 

DfE principles also led engineers to design products for easier maintenance,

disassembly, cleaning, and testing, which extended the life of product compo47 Murray, Fiona. 1994. Xerox: Design for the Environment. Harvard Business School. N9-

794-022. January 7. p. 9.

48 ENERGY STAR® is a U.S. registered trademark.
54 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

nents. Engineers design many parts to

snap together, for example, facilitating

parts service and replacement. 

Xerox engineers use a variety of other

DfE concepts in product design and

manufacturing. One diagnostic tool,

known as signature analysis, uses a

sophisticated methodology to help

Xerox engineers determine the remaining lifespan and performance potential

of recovered products. Additionally, a

financial model helps determine how

design changes that influence a product’s

manufacturing cost also affect the lifecycle cost of the product, which includes

remanufacturing return on investment

and disposal costs. Product designers can

then examine the tradeoffs between

product costs and lifecycle costs.

Xerox promotes the achievements of

these programs to shareholders and the

public. Besides providing information

for journal articles and case studies, such as one published by the Harvard

Business Review in 1994, Xerox produces an annual environmental, health, and

safety progress report and posts a copy on its corporate Web site. Xerox managers also conduct lectures and programs at universities, including a 3-day

course for environmental executives at the University of Michigan.

Kodak achieved an 85 percent reuse and recycling rate for its single-use

FunSaver Camera line through an innovative take-back program. In order to

reuse the parts, Kodak offers incentives to photo processors to ensure the

cameras are returned to the company. Since the start of the program, Kodak

has reused parts from more than 160 million returned cameras. This process

has prevented more than 7,500 tons of waste.49

Customers purchase one-time use cameras because of their cost and convenience. They use the FunSaver camera just as they would any other camera,

except they take the entire camera, rather than just the film, to a photo

processor for developing. What many of these consumers do not realize is

that the photo processor sends the camera back to Kodak after removing and

developing the film. Initially, photo processors returned approximately 40

49 Personal communication with an Eastman Kodak Company environmental specialist.

February 27, 1998. Eastern Research Group. Arlington, VA.

Figure 4-1: Xerox Product “Closed Loop” Lifecycle Management

Source: Xerox Environment, Health and Safety Department Web site

<www.xerox.com/ehs/1995/prodstew.html>

Raw Material New Components Build

Recycled Materials Certified Processing Deliver

Third-Party Recycling Sort/Inspect Customer Usage

Disposal Goal

Zero Landfill Dismantle Remove

Eastman Kodak Company
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 55

percent of the cameras for disassembly and reuse or recycling. Kodak then

initiated an incentive program to the photo processors to increase the return

rate of the cameras. The incentive program includes offering deposits, free

collection and shipping containers, a list of preferred carriers, and recycling

signs and posters. This incentive program, along with a partnership agreement with its competitor Fuji to exchange mistakenly delivered cameras,

boosted the return rate to 70 percent.

When the photo processor returns the FunSaver camera to Kodak, the valuable parts from the camera, such as the shutter, viewfinder, and circuit board

are removed from the camera. Kodak reuses these parts to manufacture “new”

cameras. Other parts that cannot be reused are then recycled.

The Laser Link, Inc., established in October 1992, is a seven-employee toner

cartridge remanufacturer located in Boyertown, Pennsylvania. The motto of

the company is “Renewing Our Resources With Quality Products.” By

accepting, disassembling, cleaning, testing, refilling, and reselling printer,

copier, and fax machine toner cartridges, the cartridge remanufacturing

industry prevents more than 37,000 tons of empty toner cartridges (mostly

consisting of HDPE) from entering the U.S. waste stream each year. In

Pennsylvania alone, there are more than 200 cartridge remanufacturers producing more than 68,900 cartridges per month.50

Laser Link remanufactures approximately 9,600 cartridges annually, diverting

more than 19 tons of waste from landfills and waste combustors. Of the cartridges sold to Laser Link’s customers, 90 percent are exchanged for empty

toner cartridges.51 For each empty toner cartridge returned, customers receive

a $10 discount on each remanufactured toner cartridge they purchase. This

exchange program ensures Laser Link a steady stream of empty toner cartridges for remanufacturing.

Laser Link picks up empty toner cartridges from its customers while delivering new cartridges. The company also encourages customers to return all cartridge packing materials, which include corrugated, polystyrene, paper, and

aluminum. Laser Link either reuses or recycles these materials.

50 Judge, Tricia. 1998. Make My Day. Recharger Magazine. January. Vol. 9, No. 5. pp. 74-75.

51 Laser Link, Inc. internal company document.

The Laser Link, Inc.
56 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Escaping the trap of computer obsolescence has preoccupied many information technology (IT) professionals in recent years. Together, Monsanto and

Dell Computer Corporation found a way to do just that. In March 1997,

Monsanto’s production facility in Luling, Louisiana, began leasing computer

equipment from Dell in an arrangement that reduces waste for Monsanto and

consistently provides them with high-quality personal computer (PC) workstations. Leased PCs are covered by a 3-year warranty, freeing Monsanto

from having to purchase replacement electronics and from having to find disposal solutions for the unusable parts. The waste prevented from this program could be more than 16.5 tons annually, with PCs averaging 56 pounds

of materials per unit.52

According to a Monsanto IT team leader, “An examination of Monsanto’s

total cost of PC ownership showed there were some compelling business reasons to move to a computer leasing model.” When asked about some of the

practical benefits of a leasing program, the team leader noted that the new

program “eliminated a number of ongoing problems including PC disposal,

routine PC upgrades, and IT resource demands.” 

Problems began to mount as Monsanto’s PC network grew older and seemingly slower in a world where microprocessor speeds continually increased.

Monsanto noticed its PC network had become obsolete far ahead of its depreciation schedule. Additionally, the age-old practice of PC hand-me-downs was

causing a torrent of IT service demands. As Monsanto purchased new systems

and transferred the old machines internally, IT team members scurried to

update and reconfigure systems for their new owners. “With more than 600

PCs at Luling alone, we had a major problem on our hands,” the IT team

leader admitted.

To help solve this problem, Monsanto brainstormed and examined the

finances for a leasing program. In late 1994 and early 1995, Monsanto identified the leasing model as the most cost-effective solution to its growing problem. By 1997, the Luling facility was one of a few test sites where Monsanto

began leasing PCs. 

Monsanto leases high-end computer workstations on a 24- or 36-month program that ultimately returns the used systems to Dell for reuse. Returned PCs

often carry substantial value after the lease ends. According to a Dell leasing

division official, “For many years, Dell products have been designed for easy

serviceability, a key feature that helps the leasing program function effectively.

The Dell direct model (leased PC) provides the company with a number of

remarketing avenues including spare parts reclamation, sales abroad, and releasing to organizations that don’t need the latest technology.” 

52 Personal communication with a Monsanto IT specialist. May 29, 1998. Eastern Research

Group. Arlington, VA.

4.5.2 Leasing

Programs

Monsanto and Dell Computer

Corporation
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 57

Dell does not design leased PCs differently than other units. All Dell PCs use

a modular chassis, which provides flexibility in product specification, and PC

component consistency. This design is beneficial for a leasing program

because the company does not have to guess what type of components come

back with each returned system.

In 1996, the city of San Diego entered into an innovative carpeting lease

agreement with Interface, an Atlanta-based carpet manufacturer. By leasing

the carpet from Interface, San Diego will never have to dispose of massive

amounts of worn or damaged carpet. At 10 pounds per yard, the leasing project will save San Diego from disposing of 125 tons of carpet waste.53

The leased Interface carpet is different from ordinary carpet. Interface carpet

is laid down in easily replaceable tiles or squares. The tiles are not individually glued to the floor. A porous, rubbery carpet backing grips the floor like a

suction cup, and glue strips are only necessary every 6 feet, reducing consumption and exposure to potentially hazardous adhesives. As part of the

lease, Interface agreed to rotate the carpet squares to prevent excessive wear

in high traffic areas and replace the squares with new pieces in the case of

damage. 

According to San Diego’s sustainable building coordinator, “The quality and

durability, as well as the 12 percent recycled content, of the carpet were the

main reasons for going with Interface.” There were no capital outlays for the

materials and, at the end of the carpet life, the manufacturer will remove the

carpet and recycle the fibers and backing into new product.

The carpet lease was an integral part of the San Diego Green Building

Project. In 1994, the city purchased a 3-story, 73,000 square foot building and

spent the better part of 2 years on a “green renovation.” The Environmental

Services Department moved in upon completion in April 1996. Leasing a carpet square system was one of the many environmental innovations San Diego

included in the Green Building Project so they could lead by example.

When asked about the carpet’s performance 2 years after installation, the sustainable building coordinator noted that it is holding up well. The carpet is

under a 5-year lease contract, but is backed by a 15-year warranty and San

Diego is pleased with the performance.

53 Personal communication with a San Diego environmental specialist. May 1, 1998. Eastern

Research Group. Arlington, VA.

The City of San Diego and

Interface, Inc.
58 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Wakefern Food Corporation is the largest retailer-owned food wholesaler in

the United States. The company operates more than 190 ShopRite supermarkets in Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

In 1991, Wakefern instituted a $.05 customer rebate for each paper grocery

bag or plastic bag returned to ShopRite stores for reuse, regardless of whether

bags originated in a ShopRite store. To promote the program to customers,

Wakefern posted window signs, distributed point-of-purchase materials and

take-home brochures, and broadcasted store announcements. One of the promotional brochures informed customers that “All bags should be reused if

possible.” ShopRite stores also occasionally promoted the in-store sale of

reusable cloth bags. Cloth bags can be reused more than paper or plastic bags,

resulting in even greater waste reductions.

The rebate program and promotional materials helped conserve large quantities of paper and plastic and generated significant cost savings. In the first

year of the program, ShopRite stores reused more than 5.2 million bags. By

the fourth year of the program, ShopRite was reusing more than 8 million

bags annually. Approximately 53 million of the nearly 56 million bags reused

since the program’s inception are paper grocery bags. These 53 million paper

bags translate into 3,430 tons of paper waste diverted from landfills and waste

combustion facilities.54

Through rebates, ShopRite stores passed along savings from avoided labor,

transportation, and purchasing costs to their customers. These savings

amounted to more than $100,000 in 1991 and nearly $200,000 in 1997.

4.5.3 Packaging

Reuse by Customers

Wakefern Food Corporation

54 Wakefern Food Corporation internal company document.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 59

Glossary

Backyard Composting refers to a method of source reduction whereby food

scraps and yard trimmings are diverted from the waste stream

through controlled decomposition in open piles, pits, windrows, or

bins. This is considered a form of source reduction since the waste

material is handled “onsite” and never enters the waste stream.

Dependent Variable refers to the variable on the left side of the equality sign

in an equation. Its value is determined by, or dependent on, the values of the independent variables on the right side. 

Discards include the MSW remaining after recovery for recycling (including

offsite composting). These discards would presumably be combusted

or landfilled.

Drivers (also known as Driving Factors) refer to macroeconomic developments that cause, or drive, changes in waste generation. Examples

include population, wages, and gross domestic product.

Durable Goods refers to longer lasting goods (3 or more years) such as

major and small appliances, furniture and furnishings, carpets and

rugs, tires, lead-acid batteries, and consumer electronics.

Food Scraps Recovery refers to a method of source reduction whereby food

is kept out of the waste stream through donations to community

groups, onsite composting, processing discards into animal feed, or

rendering.

Grasscycling refers to a method of source reduction whereby grass clippings

are left on the lawn rather than bagged and set out for collection.

This is considered a form of source reduction since the waste material is handled “onsite” and never enters the waste stream.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) refers to the total annual market value of

all final goods, services, and structures produced by labor and property located in the United States, regardless of who owns the resources.

Independent Variable refers to the variable on the right side of the equality

sign in an equation. Its value is determined independently of, or outside, the equation.

Lightweighting refers to reductions in the weight of material used to make

packaging (i.e., less plastic in a food container or less aluminum in a

beverage can) per unit of material contained in the package.
60 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Linear Regression refers to the study of quantitative relationships between

two measurable variables. Data are collected on a number of units or

cases within the variables and then analyzed to determine the relationship.

Materials Flow Waste (MFW) refers to waste from the 47 products and

packaging materials within the broader categories of durable goods,

nondurable goods, and containers and packaging.

Materials Substitution refers to a method of source reduction in which one

material is replaced with another. Shrink wrapping a bottle of cough

syrup previously packaged in a paperboard box is an example of

materials substitution as is replacing a metal appliance cover with a

lighter plastic one.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) refers to wastes such as durable goods, nondurable goods, containers and packaging, food scraps, yard trimmings, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. MSW does not include

sewage, hazardous wastes, nonhazardous industrial wastes, construction and demolition debris, or automobile bodies.

Nominal refers to the measurement of an economic variable in current

prices. The opposite of nominal is real.

Nondurable Goods refers to items having a lifetime of less than 3 years,

such as newspaper, books, magazines, office paper, telephone directories, paper towels and tissues, paperboard, paper plates and cups,

plastic plates and cups, rubber, leather, and textiles.

Other Waste (OW) refers to waste from yard trimmings, food scraps, and

miscellaneous inorganic materials.

Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) refers to the amount of

spending by consumers on goods and services. It is the largest single

component of the GDP and accounts for two-thirds of its magnitude.

Primary Packaging refers to all packaging that directly covers or protects a

product and is not specifically used for transporting the product.

Primary packaging also serves to promote products.

R-Squared (R2

) Value refers to a standard measurement associated with linear regression that indicates how well the regression equation

explains the underlying data used for the regression. The higher the

R2 value, the better the equation explains the data.

Rate of Waste Generation refers to the amount of waste generated in a

given year (W) divided by the value of a particular driver (D), or R =

W/D. 
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 61

Real refers to economic data that has been adjusted for inflation.

Remanufacturing refers to the restoration of durable products to serve their

original function by replacing worn or damaged parts.

Rendering refers to a type of food scraps recovery in which liquid fats and

solid meat products can be used as raw materials in an industrial

process, which converts them into animal food, cosmetics, soap, and

other products.

Reuse refers to a type of 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.

Source Expansion refers to the results of source reduction calculations in

which the rate of generation of municipal solid waste increases after

the base year. Source expansion is the opposite of source reduction,

in which the rate decreases.

Source Reduction (also known as Waste Prevention) refers to any change

in the design, manufacturing, purchase, or use of materials or products (including packaging) to reduce their amount or toxicity before

they become municipal solid waste. Source reduction also refers to

the reuse of products or materials.

Transport Packaging refers to external packaging materials, including crates,

pallets, cartons, skids, wraps, and totes, that help contain and protect

products during shipping and handling.

Vermicomposting refers to a type of composting in which worms (usually

red worms) break down organic materials into high-quality compost

(worm castings). Animal products or grease cannot be composted in

this manner.

Waste Generation refers to the amount (weight or volume) of materials and

products that enter the waste stream before recycling (including offsite composting), landfilling, or combustion take place. Waste generation occurs after source reduction.

Yard Trimmings refers to leaves, branches, and other organic debris generated from yards, parks, and public places.
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 63

Appendix

This appendix provides more detail on the statistical analysis undertaken to

support the results described in Chapters 2 and 3. It is not intended to be a

stand-alone section; it refers back to sections, figures, and tables from

Chapters 2 and 3 without repeating them explicitly.

1

As shown in Figures 2-1 and 2-3 (see pages 6 and 8), source reduction quantified in this report reflects changes in waste generation from 1990 to 1996.

The year 1990 is referred to as the base year. The objective of the methodology is to define source reduction for a specific waste stream (W) using data

on the tonnage in 1990 (W90) and in 1996 (W96). In addition to the waste

stream tonnage, source reduction measurement requires the introduction of

the concept of a driving factor (D) such as population or consumer spending.

The term “driving factor” captures the idea that D causes some of the

observed changes in W. Using the driving factor and the waste stream tonnage, the rate of waste generation (R) is defined as follows:

(1) R = W/D

Using the driving factor and the rate of waste generation, source reduction in

1996 relative to a 1990 base year (SR96) is defined by the following equation:

(2) SR96 = (R90 x D96) - W96

This equation corresponds to the definition of source reduction illustrated

earlier in Figures 2-1 and 2-3. 

In equation (2), R90 is simply the rate of waste generation in 1990, measured

as W90 divided by D90. The term R90 x D96 is 1996 waste generation without source reduction, or the waste one would expect if the rate of waste generation in 1996 remained the same as in 1990. W96 is actual 1996 waste generation. 

Equation (2) can be rewritten in a simpler form. Using equation (1), W96 =

R96 x D96. Equation (2), therefore, can be rewritten as follows:

(3) SR96 = (R90 - R96) x D96

In other words, equation (3) states that the total source reduction in 1996

is the product of the reduction in the rate of waste generation between

1990 and 1996 and the level of a specified driving factor in 1996.

Equation (3) highlights a crucial aspect of source reduction. Source reduction

depends only on changes in the rate of waste generation. SR96 will be positive, indicating source reduction in 1996 relative to 1990, if, and only if,

waste generation in 1996 is less than waste generation in 1990.

A.1 Overview of

the Appendix

A.2 Definition of

Source Reduction

1 The statistical and analytical methods described in this Appendix were conducted in coordination with the Tellus Institute and in accordance with similar research conducted by Tellus

on behalf of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Chapter 2 discussed source reduction results for the municipal solid waste

(MSW) stream as a whole. This report also examined individual component

streams within MSW. The most important of these component streams, for

the purposes of this report, are the following:

• Materials Flow Waste (MFW). This stream consists of waste from 47

specific products and packaging materials, which the Characterization of

Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1997 Update (1997 Update)

groups into durable goods, nondurable goods, and containers and packaging. In the 1997 Update, waste from each of the specific products and

packaging materials is accounted for separately using a materials flow

methodology, which tracks each product or material from its introduction into the economy to the point at which it becomes part of the waste

stream.

• Other Waste (OW). This stream consists primarily of yard trimmings:

leaves, branches, and other organic debris generated from yards, parks,

and public places. In addition, OW includes food scraps and miscellaneous inorganic waste. The components of OW are neither analyzed

using the materials flow methodology, nor subdivided into specific

products and materials.

Figure A-1 below shows the relationships among the various components of

MSW discussed above, as well as the 1996 tonnage for each component. As

shown below, MSW is the sum of MFW and OW.

Figure A-1: The Structure of MSW and its Components (1996 Generation in Millions of Tons)

Durable

Goods

31.7

Nondurable

Goods

55.7

Packaging

69.2

7 Products 16 Products

24

Containers

and

Packaging

Materials

Yard

Trimmings

21.9

Food

Waste

28

Materials

Flow Waste

156.6

Other

Waste

53.1

Municipal

Solid Waste

209.7

Misc.

Inorganic

Waste

3.2

64 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

A.3 Empirical

Analysis of Waste

Generation From

1960 to 1996
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 65

Figure A-2 below expands on the information presented in Figure 2-2 (see

page 7)—in addition to MSW, data for selected years are used to develop

average annual percent changes in the generation of MFW and OW. This

provides a picture of the growth that has taken place in these waste streams

since 1990. Notice that for MSW and MFW, growth occurred through 1994.

In 1994, there is a serious downturn leading to subsequent reductions. For

OW, there is a different pattern—growth was strong through 1990, at which

point a downturn began to occur.

Average Annual Percent Change in MSW, MFW, and OW Generation

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

1960- 1970 1970- 1980 1980- 1990 1990- 1992 1992- 1994 1994- 1995 1995- 1996

Period

Average Annual Percent Change

Municipal Solid Waste

Materials Flow Waste

Other Wastes

Figure A-2: Average Annual Percent Change in MSW, MFW, and OW Generation
As described in Chapter 2, it is generally accepted that changes in driving factors, such as consumer spending, gross domestic product (GDP), or population, can cause changes in the MSW stream. It is less clear, however, which

factor most affects source reduction. Linear regression can help address this

question. Further, linear regression allows the rate term in the formula for

source reduction, R90 - R96 in equation (3) on page 63, to be replaced by a

formula that reflects all of the waste rate data for the period 1990 to 1996. To

address these points, a three-step statistical approach was applied:

Step 1: A range of driving factors were regressed against waste generation

to see which best explained the historical generation pattern.

Driving factors were tested individually, rather than in groups;

because the driving factors were sufficiently collinear, multilinear

analyses were problematic. Testing single driving factors also

allowed for a simple evaluation of the regression results: the best

driving factor was selected by comparing R2 values from the

regressions.

For each waste stream analyzed, two types of regression equations

were considered as part of the driving factor selection process.

Trend equations were developed by regressing waste generation

against driving factors. Change equations were developed by

regressing year-to-year changes in waste generation against yearto-year changes in driving factors. For the best driving factor, both

the trend and change equations should have R2 values near 1.

Particular attention was paid to the R2 value for the change equation, since a driving factor’s ability to explain year-to-year variation

in waste generation provides a strong argument that the driving

factor is, in fact, related directly to waste generation for the stream

under study.

Step 2: Based on the resulting R2 values, the preferred driving factor (D)

was then used to calculate the rate of waste generation (R) defined

in equation (1) as W divided by D. The resulting annual data for

R were then regressed against time (T), producing a rate equation

of the following form: 

(4) R = aT + b

As a final step in the driving factor selection, the regression results

from equation (4) were examined. An R2 value near 1 provides

additional evidence, beyond the results from the trend and change

equations, that waste generation and the driving factor selected are

highly correlated.

Step 3: Using equation (4), the waste generation rates in 1990 and 1996,

R90 and R96, were then calculated. R90 was obtained by setting T

= 0 since 1990 is the base year. R96 was obtained by setting T = 6

since 1996 - 1990 equals 6 years. Next, R90 - R96 was calculated

66 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

A.4 Statistical

Analysis Approach

to Measuring

Source Reduction
(R90 - R96 = -6a). As shown in equation (2), SR96 = (R90 - R96) x

D96. Replacing R90 - R96 with -6a yielded the following 

equation: 

(5) SR96 = -6a x D96

-6a is one example of a regression-based formula for changes in

rate. A variety of such formulas were developed. A potential advantage of such formulas is that they reflect the rate of waste generation for all years from 1990 to 1996, whereas R90 - R96 reflected

the rates for only 1990 and 1996. 

This three-step approach was used to analyze the MSW stream as

a whole, its major component streams, and specific products and

materials within MSW, as described in the following section.

In measuring source reduction for MSW and its component waste streams,

the following driving factors were considered: population, wages, real and

nominal GDP, and real and nominal personal consumption expenditures

(PCE).2 Nominal data are the actual, annual values for GDP and PCE. Real

data are the nominal data adjusted to remove the effects of inflation. While

real data for GDP and PCE correspond better to the actual products and

materials that end up in the MSW stream, nominal data were included for

thoroughness. These driving factors were selected for the reasons discussed in

Chapter 2 and also based on the following observations:

• In the United States and elsewhere, MSW generation has traditionally

been analyzed on a per-capita basis. Both the 1997 Update and the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Towards

Sustainable Development: Environmental Indicators analyze MSW generation in this fashion.

• Wages and PCE are the components of GDP that correspond most

closely to the products and materials which, when purchased and discarded, form the MSW stream.

Analysis began with data on the tonnage of MSW, MFW, and OW generated

for the period 1960 through 1996. Using each driving factor, the average

annual change in the rate of waste generation for both 1960 to 1990 and

1990 to 1996 was developed. The results of this analysis for MSW are shown

in Table A-1 on page 68. The average annual changes in rate were computed

as indicated by the headings. In the column headed “1960 - 1990,” for example, the rate in 1990 was subtracted from the rate in 1960, and the result

divided by 30 years. The average annual change in rate was calculated in this

National Source Reduction Characterization Report 67

2 Note: Throughout this report, the term "consumer spending (PCE)" is used to refer to the

value of real or inflation-adjusted PCE. For this section on driving factor selection, however, where it is important to distinguish between the real and nominal values of PCE, the

terms real and nominal PCE are used. The values for “consumer spending (PCE)” used in

this report are non-product specific and an aggregate of overall consumer spending as

reported in the 1997 Statistical Abstract of the United States.

A.5 Support for

Selection of

Consumer

Spending as the

Driving Factor
fashion so the resulting data would conform with the source reduction equation. As shown in equation (3) on page 63, source reduction for the period

1990 to 1996 depends on the value of R90 - R96, the rate of waste generation

in 1990 minus the rate of waste generation in 1996.

In order for source reduction to occur, the rate of waste generation must

decline. In Table A1, positive entries in the columns headed “Average Annual

Change” indicate declines in rate, or source reduction. The results in Table

A-1 show the following:

68 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Table A-1: Possible Drivers of Waste Generation Rates for MSW

* Throughout the tables in this report, parentheses denote negative numbers, or source expansion. Positive numbers indicate source reduction.

Driving Factor

1960 1990 1996

Rate

1960 - 1990

Average Annual Change

1990 - 1996

• For the 1990 to 1996 period, source reduction occurs for all of the driving factors considered.

• For the period 1960 to 1990, source reduction occurs for all driving factors except population.

• For the real economic driving factors, reductions in rate are greater in

the 1990 to 1996 period than in the 1960 to 1990 period; for wages and

the other nominal data, the opposite is true.

The first two points confirm that source reduction has occurred during the

specified time periods. The choice of driving factor, however, significantly

affects the magnitude of the reduction. The third point illuminates an issue in

the use of the nominal data as driving factors. From 1960 to 1990, nominal

GDP and its components, including PCE, increased greatly due to inflation.

From 1990 to 1996, inflation was very low. For the nominal data, it is inflation that causes the waste generation rate to drop faster before, rather than

after, 1990. In order to avoid effects due to inflation, the use of real data is,

therefore, preferable when analyzing source reduction. 

Analyses similar to those summarized in Table A-1 were conducted for MFW,

OW, and their individual components. Results of these additional analyses

Population (tons per capita)

Wages (tons per million dollars)

Nominal GDP (tons per million dollars)

Real GDP (tons per million dollars)

Nominal PCE (tons per million dollars)

Real PCE (tons per million dollars)

0.49 0.82 0.79

323.02 74.42 57.76 

167.34 35.73 27.67

38.94 33.44 30.36

265.26 53.45 40.70

61.51 49.66 44.70 

(0.01)* 0.01

8.29 2.78

4.39 1.34

0.18 0.51

7.06 2.13

0.39 0.83
generally support the points made above for MSW. Selection of the best driving factor(s) for MFW, OW, and their components also was based on the use

of linear regression. The following analyses were undertaken:

• Data for the periods 1960 to 1990 and 1960 to 1994 were considered.

• For each time period, all six driving factors were used to analyze each

waste stream.

• For each time period and each driving factor, two regressions were performed. The trend and change equations defined as part of the threestep approach were produced, and their R2 values were recorded. (The

rate equation was used for another purpose as described later in this

appendix.)

The analyses required to develop all the necessary linear regressions were

data-intensive. Thousands of individual regressions needed to be performed

and analyzed. These regressions were not performed one equation at a time,

but processed in batches using a spreadsheet model. Batch processing allowed

all the linear regressions for each time period (e.g., 1960 to 1990, 1960 to

1994) to be performed in a single operation. Table A-2 presents the R2 values

for the three sets of regressions performed for MSW for the period 1960 to

1994.

As shown in Table A-2, for the trend equation, the R2 values for all six driving

factors were above 0.96, and it was difficult to distinguish which one was the

best driving factor. The change equation was then used as a second level of

analysis. The change equation, which explains year-to-year fluctuations, offers

a more refined method of capturing the underlying movement of MSW generation. Using the change equation, only R2 values for two of the six driving

factors—real PCE and real GDP—rose above 0.90, and real PCE produced a

higher R2 than real GDP. Real PCE, therefore, was selected as the most

appropriate driving factor to use when calculating source reduction. 

Similar analyses were performed for MFW for the period 1960 to 1994 using

total PCE. OW was analyzed in a similar fashion, but using 1960 to 1990 data

rather than 1990 to 1994 data because,

as shown in Figure A-2 on page 65, the

break in OW’s average annual growth

pattern is in 1990, not 1994. That is to

say that 1990 is the year in which

growth in OW generation began to

decrease. As with MSW, real PCE and

real GDP were the best driving factors

for MFW and OW based on R2 values.

For both, the R2 values also suggest real

PCE is a better driving factor than real

GDP. The major components of MFW

National Source Reduction Characterization Report 69

Table A-2: R2 Values for MSW-Related Regressions for 1960 to 1994 

Trend

R2 By Type of Equation

Change

Population 0.987 0.769

Wages 0.975 0.708

Nominal GDP 0.969 0.657

Real GDP 0.996 0.938

Nominal PCE 0.964 0.632

Real PCE 0.998 0.969

Driving Factor
(i.e., durable goods, nondurable goods, and containers and packaging) and

OW (i.e., yard trimmings, food scraps, and miscellaneous inorganic waste)

also were analyzed, leading generally to the same conclusions.

In order to fully explore the impact of driving factor choice on the measurement of source reduction, however, analyses were initially conducted using all

of the driving factors shown in Table A-2. Table A-3 below summarizes the

results obtained for MSW. For each driving factor, two values for source

reduction were computed: a value based on the change in the rate of waste

generation, as in equation (3), and a regression-based value developed using

equation (5) from Section A.4 above.

As shown in Table A-3, based on the choice of driving factor and measurement technique, values for source reduction range from about 7.5 million

tons to 65.7 million tons. In addition to the analyses shown in Table A-3,

analyses of source reduction for MSW were made that took into account the

change in waste generation growth occurring in 1994. To do this, regressions

covering 1990 to 1994 and 1994 to 1996 were used. These methods obtained

essentially the same values for source reduction as those developed using the

regression covering 1990 to 1996 as a whole. 

The range of source reduction values

discussed in Chapter 2 is taken from the

“Change in Rate of Waste Generation”

column of Table A-3, which shows a

range of 8.6 million tons to 65.7 million

tons. Since the results from both the

regression-based and nonregressionbased analyses yielded similar source

reduction values using real PCE,

Chapter 2 presents only the nonregression-based findings. The following section presents the results from both the

regression-based and nonregressionbased approaches.

70 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Using 1990 to 1996

Regression Method

Using Change in 

Rate of Waste

Generation Method

Source Reduction

Table A-3: Source Reduction Values for MSW (Thousands of Tons)

Population 8,621 7,495

Wages 60,488 59,451

Nominal GDP 61,013 61,117

Real GDP 21,317 21,423

Nominal PCE 65,682 65,537

Real PCE 23,286 23,434

Driving Factor
The bulk of the analyses of source reduction conducted for this report were

more specific than those presented in Table A-3. Source reduction was quantified using the following techniques and assumptions:

• Waste Streams. The MSW stream, as well as its two major components, MFW and OW, were considered in the aggregate. Each of the 47

products included in MFW, as well as the three components of OW

(i.e., yard trimmings, food scraps, miscellaneous inorganic waste) also

were considered individually. (Analyses also were conducted for the

material components of MSW—paper and paperboard, glass packaging,

etc. These did not, however, prove particularly useful.)

• Measurement Techniques. Source reduction was computed based on

the change in the waste generation rate between 1990 and 1996 and by

using linear regression. 

The resulting source reduction values produced for MSW, MFW, and OW,

using consumer spending (real PCE) as the driving factor, are shown in Table

A-4 below.

3

The results in Table A-4 reveal that source reduction “adds up” in a logical

fashion: source reduction for MSW is equal to source reduction for MFW

plus source reduction for OW. (Small

differences are due to rounding.) This is

true whenever the same driving factor is

used for all components of a waste

stream, even if some components experience source expansion.

Waste generation data for the individual

products and materials in both MFW

and OW were then analyzed. Table A-5

on pages 72-75 presents the source

reduction values calculated for each

component of the MFW and OW

streams, using consumer spending as the

driving factor for the two types of analyses performed: change in the rate of

waste generation and 1990 to 1996 regression. The values for “change in rate

of waste generation” correspond to those values found in Table 3-8 (see page

18) of Chapter 3.

National Source Reduction Characterization Report 71

Table A-4: Source Reduction Values for MSW, MFW, and OW

(Thousands of Tons)

Waste Stream

Source Reduction Based

on Consumer Spending

Using Change in 

Rate of Waste

Generation Method

Using 1990 to 1996

Regression Method

Materials Flow Waste (MFW) 9,752 9,123

Other Waste (OW) 13,534 14,311

Municipal Solid Waste 23,286 23,434

(MSW = MFW + OW)

A.6 Additional

Analysis of Source

Reduction and

Source Expansion

3 It should be noted that an annual value of PCE for total U.S. expenditures is used consistently throughout all analyses in this report including the analysis of individual products and

materials. This is done so that the reduction and expansion effects can be counted from the

occurrence of both material specific lightweighting as well as material substitution of interchangeable materials within the same functional categories. Furthermore, while values of

PCE for specific consumer expenditures do exist, as in cases like food and clothing, such

expenditure-specific PCE values are not easily correlated with, or available for, all of the

materials found in MSW. Consequently, this report does not utilize expenditure-specific PCE

values when calculating source reduction (expansion) estimates for individual materials nor

for functional product categories.
72 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Components of MFW

Durable Goods

Major Appliances

Small Appliances

Furniture/Furnishings

Carpets/Rugs

Tires

Lead-Acid Batteries

Miscellaneous Durable Goods 

Source Reduction Subtotal for

Durable Goods

Source Expansion Subtotal for

Durable Goods

Net Value Subtotal for Durable

Goods

Nondurable Goods

Newspapers

Books

Magazines

Office Paper

Telephone Directories

Third-Class Mail

Other Commercial Printing

Tissue Paper/Towels

Paper Plates/Cups

Plastic Plates/Cups

237 

(258)

388

(426)

188

(96)

2,145

2,958

(779)

2,179

2,955 

161 

1,242 

616 

222 

(174)

(1,497)

380 

(212)

(72)

273

(263)

473

(454)

165

(189)

2,441

3,352

(905)

2,447

2,447 

31 

1,015 

655 

282 

(462)

(1,605)

333 

(269)

(85)

Table A-5: Source Reduction Values for the Individual Components of MSW*

(Thousands of Tons)

Source Reduction Based on

Consumer Spending

Change in Rate

of Waste

Generation**

1990 to 1996

Regression**

* MFW + OW = MSW

**Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.

Waste Stream
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 73

* MFW + OW = MSW

**Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.

Trash Bags

Disposable Diapers

Other Nonpackaging Paper

Clothing/Footwear

Towels, Sheets, Pillowcases

Other Misc. Nondurables

Source Reduction Subtotal for

Nondurable Goods

Source Expansion Subtotal for

Nondurable Goods

Net Value Subtotal for

Nondurable Goods

Containers and Packaging

Glass Beer/Soft Drink Bottles

Glass Wine/Liquor Bottles

Glass Food/Other Bottles & Jars

Steel Beer/Soft Drink Cans

Steel Food/Other Cans

Other Steel Packaging

Aluminum Beer/Soft Drink Cans

Other Aluminum Cans

Aluminum Foils/Closures

Corrugated Boxes

Milk Cartons

Folding Cartons

Other Paperboard Packaging

25 

15 

289 

(788)

56 

351 

6,314 

(2,743)

3,571

1,192

364

832

170

63

57

199

(17)

15 

(1,765)

119

(509)

99

55 

38 

217 

(759)

58 

425 

5,557 

(3,181)

2,376 

1,307 

447 

515 

180 

111 

29 

186 

(18)

16 

(2,115)

92 

(574)

88 

Table A-5: Source Reduction Values for the Individual Components of MSW*

(Thousands of Tons)

Source Reduction Based on

Consumer Spending

Change in Rate

of Waste

Generation**

1990 to 1996

Regression**

Waste Stream

(continued)
74 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 

Paper Bags/Sacks

Wrapping Papers

Other Paper Packaging

Plastic Soft Drink Bottles

Plastic Milk Bottles

Other Plastic Containers

Plastic Bags/Sacks

Plastic Wraps

Other Plastic Packaging

Wood Packaging

Other Misc. Packaging 

Source Reduction Subtotal for

Containers and Packaging

Source Expansion Subtotal for

Packaging

Net Value Subtotal for Containers

and Packaging

Source Reduction Subtotal for MFW

Source Expansion Subtotal for MFW

Net Value Subtotal for MFW

790

75

(192)

(212)

(48)

343

(293)

(123)

16

2,806

20

7,161

(3,159)

4,002 

16,434

(6,682)

9,752

824 

66 

(101)

(209)

(56)

462

(309)

(4)

52 

3,289 

24

7,687 

(3,387)

4,300

16,596 

(7,473)

9,123 

Table A-5: Source Reduction Values for the Individual Components of MSW*

(Thousands of Tons)

Source Reduction Based on

Consumer Spending

Change in Rate

of Waste

Generation**

1990 to 1996

Regression**

Waste Stream

* MFW + OW = MSW

**Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.

(continued)
National Source Reduction Characterization Report 75

As Table A-5 shows, both of the analyses using consumer spending as the driving

factor (i.e., change in the rate of waste generation and 1990 to 1996 regression)

support the computation of 23 million tons as the value for MSW source reduction in 1996, relative to the base year of 1990.

Components of OW

Yard Trimmings

Food Scraps

Miscellaneous Inorganics

Source Reduction Subtotal for OW

Source Expansion Subtotal for OW

Net Value Subtotal for OW

Source Reduction Total for MSW

Source Expansion Total for MSW

Net Value Total for MSW

11,731

1,711

92

13,534

0

13,534

29,967

(6,681)

23,286

12,455 

1,746 

110 

14,311 

0 

14,311

30,907 

(7,473)

23,434

Table A-5: Source Reduction Values for the Individual Components of MSW*

(Thousands of Tons)

Source Reduction Based on

Consumer Spending

Change in Rate

of Waste

Generation**

1990 to 1996

Regression**

Waste Stream

* MFW + OW = MSW

**Discrepancies in calculations may occur due to rounding.

(continued)
Additional Source Reduction Resources

EPA MSW Source Reduction Programs

EPA promotes source reduction through a variety of programs, including the following:

■ Pay-As-You-Throw Programs. EPA provides technical and outreach assistance to encourage communities

to implement pay-as-you-throw programs for solid

waste. Under pay-as-you-throw, residents are charged

for MSW services based on the amount of trash they

discard, creating an incentive to generate less trash and

increase recycling. On average, communities with payas-you-throw achieve waste reductions of 14 to 27 

percent. For more information about these programs,

access EPA’s Pay-As-You-Throw Web site at

<www.epa.gov/payt> or call 888 EPA-PAYT (372-

7298).

■ WasteWise. WasteWise is a voluntary partnership

between EPA and U.S. businesses, institutions, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies to prevent waste, recycle, and buy and manufacture recycledcontent products. By eliminating more than 1.8 million

tons of waste through source reduction in the first 4

years of the program, WasteWise partners prevented

the emission of 1.1 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (the basic unit of measure for greenhouse gases)

into the atmosphere. More than 750 organizations participated in the WasteWise program in 1998. For more

information about the program, access EPA’s

WasteWise Web site at <www.epa.gov/wastewise> or

call 800 EPA-WISE (372-9473).

Information Available From 

Other EPA Programs

The following publications are available on EPA’s Public

Access Server at <www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw>. They also

are available through the RCRA Hotline. To order a document, call 800 424-9346 (or 800 553-7672 for the hearing impaired) and request the document number listed

below in parentheses. In Washington, DC, the number is

703 412-9810 or TDD 703 412-3323. The RCRA

Hotline is open from Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 

6 p.m., e.s.t.

EPA’s Climate Change and Waste Web Site 

www.epa.gov/mswclimate

EPA’s Office of Solid Waste

www.epa.gov/osw

EPA's Composting www.epa.gov/compost

The Consumer’s Handbook for Reducing Solid Waste

(EPA530-K-92-003) 

Business Guide for Reducing Solid Waste

(EPA530-K-92-004)

Environmental Fact Sheet: Recycling Grass Clippings 

(EPA530-F-92-012) t

Environmental Fact Sheet: Yard Waste Composting 

(EPA530-SW-91-009)

Enviro$en$e

www.epa.gov/envirosense

Pay-As-You-Throw: Throw Away Less and Save 

(EPA530-F-96-028)

Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting

Options: Lessons From 30 Communities 

(EPA530-R-92-015)

76 National Source Reduction Characterization Report 
Other Selected Sources of Information

Some of the publications listed below might require an

ordering fee.

Reuse It, Repair It, Rent It, Donate It—But Don’t

Throw It Away!

To order, contact: 

New York City Department of Sanitation 

Phone: 212 219-8090

Making Source Reduction and Reuse Work in Your

Community

To order, contact:

National Recycling Coalition, Inc. 

1727 King Street

Suite 105 

Alexandria, VA 22314-2720 

Phone: 703 683-9025

Making Less Garbage: A Planning Guide for

Communities

Making Less Garbage on Campus: A Hands-On

Guide

Reducing Office Paper Waste

To order, contact:

Inform, Inc.

120 Wall Street

New York, NY 10005-4001 

Phone: 212 361-2400, Ext. 240

Source Reduction Now

How to implement a source reduction program at an

organization. 

To order, contact:

Minnesota Office of 

Environmental Assistance

520 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, MN 55155

Phone: 651 215-0232

Weaving Textile Reuse into Waste Reduction

To order, contact:

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

2425 18th Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20009-2096

Phone: 202 232-4108

Selected Internet Resources

California Integrated Waste Management Board

(CIWMB)

www.ciwmb.ca.gov

Indiana Institute on Recycling (IIR)

web.indstate.edu:80/recycle

INFORM

www.informinc.org/

National Pollution Prevention Roundtable

www.p2.org

National Waste Prevention Coalition (NWPC)

www.metrokc.gov/nwpc

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse’s Reducing Junk Mail

Fact Sheet

www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs4-junk.htm

The Solid Waste Association of North America

(SWANA)

www.swana.org

National Reuse Organizations

Reuse organizations are points of contact for organizations interested in buying, selling, or donating excess

material that would otherwise go to waste. Contact your

state recycling agency for information about local and

regional reuse organizations. 

Reuse Development Organization, Inc.

P.O. Box 441363

Indianapolis, IN 46244

Phone: 317 631-5396 

E-mail: info@redo.org

Internet: www.redo.org

Chicago Board of Trade Recyclables Exchange 

141 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604-2994

Phone: 312 435-7223

Internet: www.cbot-recycle.com

National Association for the Exchange of Industrial

Resources 

560 McClure Street

Galesburg, IL 61401

Phone: 800 562-0955 

E-mail: donor.naier@misslink.net

Internet: www.freegoods.com/
 Efficiency

Reuse

2 Printed on paper that contains at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber.