Recycling of Wood and

Paper Products in the

United States

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Forest

Products

Laboratory

General

Technical

Report

FPL–GTR–89

Peter J. Ince
Abstract

This report describes the current status of wood and paper

recycling in the United States and predicts the production and

market consequences of increased recycling. The results

suggest that the rate of paper recycling will rapidly rise in the

1990s, mainly as a result of the competitive evolution of

fiber markets and papermaking technologies. The consumption and export of paper and paperboard are also projected to

grow, but imports are projected to generally decline. In the

context of increased paper recycling, the production of lumber

and structural wood panels is projected to increase. However,

the greater demand for sawtimber, coupled with projected

declines in timber harvest on National Forests, will result in

higher softwood sawtimber stumpage prices.

The information presented here was prepared for the United

Nations Economic Commission in June 1994. Historical

data were derived from various sources, including government

agencies and industry trade associations. Economic projections were developed by the author and others in the USDA

Forest Service.

Keywords: Forest products, recycling, markets, trends

January 1996

Ince, Peter J. 1996. Recycling of wood and paper products in the United

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL–GTR–89. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 10 p.

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive,

Madison, WI 53705–2398. Laboratory publications are sent to more than

1,000 libraries in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the

University of Wisconsin.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication

of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact

the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720–2791. To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC 20250, or call (202) 720–7327 (voice), or (202) 720–1127

(TTD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.

Contents

Page

Background................................................................1

Evolution of Recycling

Legislation.................................................................1

Economic Trends in Paper

and Wood Recycling....................................................3

Trends in Supply and

Demand for Wood Fiber...............................................5

Consequences of

Increased Recycling......................................................5

Base Projections ......................................................6

Alternative Scenario..................................................9

Conclusions .............................................................10

Literature Cited.........................................................10
Recycling of Wood

and Paper Products

in the United States

Peter J. Ince, Research Forester

Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

Background

Large volumes of wood fiber have been recycled in the United

States and worldwide for many years, principally in the pulp

and paper sector. Market conditions and availability of technology have largely determined the evolution of wood and

paper recycling in the United States, and such recycling has

occurred primarily within the forest products sector. In the

past decade, mounting concerns about waste disposal and

legislative responses have also influenced markets and recycling rates.

In the United States, wood and wood fiber represent the

largest material component of municipal solid waste (MSW),

accounting for more than half of the total amount by weight

according to United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). Wood and wood fiber appear in MSW chiefly in the

form of discarded paper and wood product wastes, and also in

the form of yard wastes. In the United States, paper

(including paperboard) has long been the most heavily recycled component of MSW (accounting for more than

two-thirds of the total amount of material recovered from

MSW in l990).

Recovery of paper for recycling has increased in recent years

as a result of widespread expansion of paper collection and

sorting (e.g., community-based curbside collection, sorting,

and office wastepaper collection). The increase in collection

and sorting has been directly or indirectly a response to declining availability of landfills; long-term environmental,

economic, and human health problems associated with landfills and waste incineration; and increasing costs of waste

disposal. By collecting and sorting material for recycling,

disposal costs have been avoided. However, in simple economic terms, expansion of collection and sorting programs

has led to cheaper and more abundant supplies of recovered

paper, providing the market incentive for industrial expansion

of paper recycling.

Prices for recovered paper vary in the United States over time

and by category of recovered paper: old newspapers and mixed

papers have the lowest prices, pulp substitutes and high grade

deinking grades of recovered paper the highest prices, and old

corrugated containers intermediate prices. However, in general, prices for all the grades have been at historically low

levels in the 1990s, as a result of increased collection and

recovery. This is the so-called “glut” in recovered paper

markets. The paper industry has responded to the market

signal of sustained low prices for recovered paper by increasing the use of recycled fiber relative to virgin fiber. Since the

late 1980s, there has been a significant and continuous upward shift in paper recycling rates in response to market

conditions.

Evolution of Recycling

Legislation

Understanding the evolution of legislation related to wood

and paper recycling in the United States requires an understanding of the landfill crisis and how it evolved since the

1970s. In 1978, there were approximately 20,000 MSW

landfills operating in the United States, but more than

14,000 were closed in subsequent years as a result of environmental risks, operating costs, or limits on capacity. By

1990, there were only about 6,000 MSW landfills in operation (Denison and Ruston 1990). In the United States, more

than half the states are now projected to have less than

10 years of remaining landfill capacity (according to recent

surveys by the National Solid Waste Management Association [NSWMA] 1992).

In the meantime, MSW volumes have increased to

178 million metric tonnes per year in the United States (EPA

1992), having doubled from the 1960s to 1990s (NSWMA

1992). The huge volumes of MSW generated in the United

States have been projected to increase substantially in the

years ahead. Without additional source reduction the amount

of MSW generated will exceed 200 million tonnes by the

year 2000 (EPA 1992). It was estimated that in 1990,

37.5 percent (by weight) of all MSW generated in the United

States was paper and paperboard (EPA 1992). Paper and

paperboard was by far the largest single component of MSW.

These circumstances have led to a solid waste management
2

dilemma (that is, what to do about increasing volumes of

waste, including substantial volumes of wastepaper, against a

backdrop of limited landfill space and availability).

Current systems for MSW disposal in the United States are

based on three principal approaches: landfilling, recycling,

and incineration. While waste volumes have increased, recycling and incineration have increased proportionately faster

than landfilling in recent years. In 1992, the EPA estimated

that 17 percent of MSW was recovered for recycling or composting, 16 percent was incinerated, and 67 percent was

landfilled or otherwise disposed of (EPA 1992). These percentages vary by type of waste material (e.g., higher proportions of paper are recovered for recycling, roughly 40 percent

by 1993). However, landfilling remains a primary disposal

mechanism despite the fact that landfill space and availability

are declining.

Although landfilling was once viewed as a benign and efficient option for waste disposal, that perspective has substantially changed, both from a scientific and technical standpoint

as well as from an economic and public perspective. Basic

problems associated with landfills are now widely recognized,

including potential for groundwater contamination by landfill

leachate and landfill gas emissions. Surveys have shown that

MSW landfill leachate may contain concentrations of toxic

and carcinogenic substances that greatly exceed human health

exposure standards (EPA 1988; OTA 1989). Contamination

of groundwater by landfill leachate and surface water by

landfill runoff is a serious concern in the United States,

where virtually all municipal and rural drinking water comes

from groundwater wells or surface water sources. Gas emissions include carbon dioxide and methane (hazardous as toxic

and explosive) from decomposition of organic materials, and

carcinogenic compounds such as benzene, vinyl chloride, and

methylene chloride. Although severity and risk of these

problems can vary significantly depending on materials

placed in landfills, local climate (rainfall and temperature),

soil conditions, elevation of the water table, and proximity to

local population, such problems are in fact being encountered

in all regions of North America where landfills have been

sited in recent decades.

In the United States, cleanup costs for particularly hazardous

sites are borne in part by Federal funding via the so-called

“Superfund” administered by EPA, while local communities

and states bear costs of cleaning up other less hazardous sites.

In the United States, billions of dollars have been spent in

recent years on remediation and cleanup of abandoned landfills, dumps, and other waste disposal sites. By 1988, more

than 20 percent of toxic waste sites on the Superfund

National Priority List (NPL) were MSW landfills (249 of

1,177 Superfund NPL sites), and 8 of the 20 worst Superfund

NPL sites were MSW landfills (Denison and Ruston 1990).

Many communities in the United States now face very

substantial costs to clean up or remedy the contamination

problems associated with locally abandoned landfills, or to

enhance the performance of existing waste management and

disposal systems. Such costs can place very heavy financial

burdens on local governments, which must also provide

education, police protection, and other local community

services. Thus, the landfill crisis has also contributed to

problems of community welfare and stability in many localities. In addition, landfill sites tend to depress local real estate

values as a result of the nuisance problems of equipment

noise, odors, traffic congestion, drifting debris, and attraction

of insects and birds.

Widespread recognition of the environmental, economic, and

human health problems led to a significant decline in siting

of new landfills in the 1980s and to siting of landfills in

more remote locations (in neighboring states in some cases).

As local availability of new landfills began to decline in the

1980s and landfills were located in more remote locations,

fees increased substantially for disposal of waste in landfills.

Such fees are called “landfill tipping fees.” Tipping fees

increased the most in the more densely urbanized U.S. North

and East, but also substantially in the South and West.

Between 1982 and 1990, tipping fees (measured in constant

1986 dollars) increased 386 percent in the North (nearly

500 percent in New England), 221 percent in the South, and

210 percent in the west ( NSWMA 1992). Rapidly escalating tipping fees, along with concern about other economic,

environmental, and health problems of landfills, prompted

many local and state governments and other institutions to

initiate programs for collection and sorting of materials for

recycling, to divert waste from landfills and avoid disposal

costs.

Between 1983 and 1991, 25 states enacted laws mandating

that their local communities make provisions for recycling

(i.e., collection of recyclables) or otherwise provide their

citizens with the opportunity to recycle (Alig 1992). The

number of communities with active collection programs

soared from less than 1,000 in the late 1980s to more than

4,000 by 1992. Since paper and paperboard has generally

represented the largest single component of MSW, it was

natural that paper recovery would become a major focus of

the new collection and sorting programs. Most community

collection programs encompassed collection and sorting of

paper or paperboard materials. In the meantime, countless

business establishments and other institutions also initiated

paper collection and recovery programs.

Ironically, increased collection of recyclable paper helped to

create a glut of supply in U.S. markets for recovered paper

by the early 1990s, as growing demand could not match the

rapidly increasing supply. The glut in recovered paper

markets has been most acute in the Northeast and upper

Midwest in recent years, with prices significantly depressed

for old newspapers (ONP), old corrugated containers (OCC),

and mixed grades. In addition, the increased collection has
3

stimulated a significant increase in recycling, as the paper

industry has been attracted to use of recycled fiber as a result

of the sustained low prices. Generally, the collection programs have achieved the purpose of diverting significant

quantities of materials from local landfills.

In the face of the market glut and depressed prices created by

increased collection, some states have enacted laws aimed at

further “stimulating” demand for recyclables, such as the

minimum mandatory recycled content laws for newsprint that

were passed by 12 states between 1989 and 1992. Such laws

generally require newspaper publishers to certify that the

newsprint they use in publishing newspapers contains a

certain minimum percentage of recycled fiber (usually around

40%), with a graduated timetable for implementation of the

law (usually by the year 2000). Voluntary agreements by

publishers to use recycled newsprint exist in 13 other states.

Similar state laws for telephone directories have been passed

by a few states, but so far no other paper products have been

thus regulated (Alig 1992). Consideration has been given to

such regulation at the Federal level (most notably in bills

submitted recently for reauthorization of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1972, and in proposals by

various public interest groups), but no Federal action has

been taken thus far that would directly regulate recycled fiber

content of paper consumed in the private sector. In 1993,

President Clinton issued an Executive Order to Federal government agencies specifying minimum recycled content in

various grades of office paper purchased by the government

(requiring 20 to 50 percent recycled content, depending on

grade). However, government purchases are thought to be

less than 3 percent of total consumption in those grades, and

many government agencies already exclusively use office

paper made with recycled fiber.

The most recent U.S. legislative and policy trends related to

wood and paper recycling are related to government programs

that will facilitate market development for recyclables or that

will promote economic development based on technologies

that use recycled materials. State legislatures have recently

turned their attention away from landfill bans and collection

programs toward programs that will help ensure utilization of

recyclables (Miller 1994). Since 1993, the number of states

considering and offering investment tax credits or other tax

incentives for recycling technologies has increased. Tax

credits or tax incentives for recycling technologies were

available in 28 states by 1994. Also, by 1994, 16 states had

market development councils to promote recycling

At the Federal level, the EPA recently launched the Recover

America recycling program, which consists of an aggregate

of projects and new initiatives that aim to protect the environment and conserve natural resources, and at the same time

stimulate economic growth, corporate competitiveness, and

job creation (Leroux–Duncan and Carr 1994). Goals and

objectives of EPA include market development, by providing

assistance to recycling businesses, maximizing Federal purchases of recycled products, increasing access to Federal

information and research, and fostering exchange of market

development information. The EPA recycling programs are

being implemented partly under the auspices of the Climate

Change Action Plan (October 1993), which was developed in

connection with the Rio Earth Summit. The Action Plan

recognized a significant role for increased paper recycling and

wood recycling in helping to stabilize or reduce greenhouse

gas emissions in the United States. The Action Plan also

announced increased funding for research on developing new

technologies for paper and wood recycling.

Economic Trends in Paper

and Wood Recycling

In the meantime, while there have been legislative and government attempts to grapple with waste disposal and recycling, the U.S. pulp and paper industry has responded to the

increased collection of paper by substantially increasing the

use of recovered paper in production processes. As late as

1986, recycled wood fiber (as recovered paper) accounted for

less than one-fourth of fiber input to the U.S. pulp and paper

industry. By 1993, recycled fiber accounted for nearly

one-third of the fiber input, while the remainder was mostly

“virgin” wood fiber. In 1993, around 32 million metric

tonnes of paper and paperboard were recovered for recycling in

the United States, with about 26 million tonnes used in

domestic paper and paperboard mills, about 5 million tonnes

exported, and almost 1 million tonnes used for miscellaneous

products (such as insulation and molded pulp products).

In addition, in 1993 about one-third of the virgin wood fiber

input to the U.S. pulp and paper sector consisted of wood

residues (of 205 million cubic meters of pulpwood inputs,

73 million cubic meters were wood residues from sawmills

and plywood mills). Residues were also used for particleboard

(9 million cubic meters) and fuelwood (48 million cubic

meters). However, residues are not considered to be a

“recycled” material in the United States. Residues are considered to be “virgin” wood fiber since they are derived as byproducts directly from the processing of sawlogs and veneer

logs. In contrast to paper production, very little recycled

wood fiber has been used in the production of “solid wood”

products such as lumber and plywood or in end-uses for those

products, such as in housing and furniture. The solid wood

products rely primarily on virgin wood resources (or wood

residues in the case of particleboard).

The sustained glut in recovered paper markets (by 1993,

prices had been depressed for several years ) provided strong

economic incentive for substantial investment in recycling

capacity by the pulp and paper industry in the 1990s. Although the capital investment and construction process was
4

prudently graduated in response to market conditions

(recovered paper prices have historically been rather volatile

and new paper mills represent large capital investments), it

has become clear that the pulp and paper sector is experiencing a major upturn in recycling in the 1990s. According to

the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), by

1993 the pulp and paper industry had announced more than

140 major mill projects for expansion of existing capacity or

siting of new mills for use of recycled fiber.

The addition of paper recycling capacity continues to be met

by increased collection and recovery of paper for recycling.

However, demand will gradually catch up with supply, resulting in price increases for recovered paper commodities. While

much of the new recycling capacity has been added at integrated pulp and paper mills, much of the new capacity has

been geared exclusively toward use of recycled fiber. This has

created a growing source of inelastic demand for recycled

fiber in North America, which will eventually result in

higher prices for recovered paper commodities as demand

gradually catches up with supply. It is now anticipated that

the market glut for recovered paper will be eliminated, as

demand comes more closely in line with growing supply

toward the end of the 1990s. Recovered paper prices will be

pushed at that time to significantly higher levels, perhaps

obviating the intent of mandatory recycled content laws

(designed to help create markets for recyclables).

In addition to recycling, incineration and other disposal options are alternatives to landfilling. Wood or wood fiber alone

is a fairly clean combustion fuel, with insignificant quantities of sulfur compared to coal, for example, but with moderately low combustion heat value (approximately half to twothirds that of low-grade coal on a dry weight basis). In the

United States, incineration of wastepaper and waste wood

occurs primarily in MSW incineration facilities. Two types

of facilities are common, the so-called “mass-burn” facilities

and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) facilities. Examples of each

type of facility exist at many locations in the United States.

The mass-burn facilities consume primarily unsorted MSW,

which may contain substantial quantities of wastepaper. The

RDF facilities operate with a presorting or classification

system that separates the more highly combustible components of MSW for fuel (e.g., including wastepaper, plastics,

and organics). By 1990, approximately 160 large waste

combustion facilities were operating nationwide (Denison and

Ruston 1990).

Such combustion facilities generally require enormous capital

investments, in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars,

largely to maintain adequate control over air emissions

(Denison and Ruston 1990). In addition, as affirmed in a

recent U.S. Supreme Court case, the ash residue from such

combustion facilities may be regarded as a hazardous waste,

requiring costly treatment and disposal mechanisms. Thus,

the primary source of revenue at MSW incineration facilities

are payments received for accepting garbage (tipping fee

revenues), while revenues from sale of energy generally cover

only a small fraction of costs. A greater degree of fuel presorting can help remove the more hazardous materials prior

to combustion, but sorting can be costly and may approach

the cost of sorting required for recycling. Thus, it would

appear that waste incineration will remain economical in the

future only to the extent that MSW or refuse-derived fuels

have low or negative values, and if payments (tipping fees)

are received for accepting such materials, or energy prices

increase dramatically. If prices for sorted recovered paper were

to increase substantially in the future as expected, without

energy price increases, use of recovered paper as fuel may

become less economical.

Composting and similar uses are additional alternatives to

landfilling, incineration, and recycling. In many communities, MSW or sorted organic material from MSW is composted, producing a relatively inert soil amendment or mulching material. Composting can be applied to wastepaper and

waste wood. Composting of MSW is done most efficiently

in composting facilities, which commonly feature a large

composting vessel or digester that can reduce organic material

to acceptable compost in a matter of weeks or days. An

economic drawback to the composting option for wastepaper

is the relatively low potential value of the end product, at

most having the value of a gardening soil or mulching material. As with incineration, composting will remain economically viable only as long as the input waste materials have

little or no alternative value, or if payment is received for

accepting such materials (e.g., as tipping fees). As recycling

increases and recyclables gain value as alternative raw materials for production processes, disposal options such as composting will likely become less economical.

Other utilization options that have been applied commercially to wastepaper include cellulose insulation, molded pulp

products, animal bedding, paper mulch, packaging cushioning material, and wallboard panels. Actual use of recovered

paper for molded pulp products (such as egg cartons and

containers), cellulose insulation, and other uses is estimated

to have nearly doubled between 1986 and 1991 (AF&PA),

but the total quantity is still estimated to be only around

0.8 million tonnes per year. Many such products have low

value, either because recovered paper is used as a substitute

for other low-value materials such as animal bedding straw

and garden mulch or because the cellulose products compete

against materials with better perceived product performance

(insulating materials such as foam or fiberglass, or foam

plastics used in lightweight containers).

Exceptions to this rule include higher value composite products or structural products that can be made with recycled

wood fiber. One example is the composite plasterboard wallboard panel, introduced recently in the United States as a

substitute for conventional gypsum wallboard. The new
5

panels are a composite of recycled fiber (from old newspapers) and gypsum. Instead of having a solid gypsum core and

recycled paperboard facing as in conventional gypsum wallboard, the new panels are made with a composite blend of

gypsum and a large fraction of recycled fiber. They are reputed to have advantages of lighter weight and better fastening performance than conventional gypsum wallboard. Other

types of composite products have been explored, including

composites of recycled wood fiber with recycled plastics.

Also, it has been demonstrated that certain types of molded

structural products can be made from recycled wood fiber,

using press drying technology; the products have been shown

to have some excellent material properties. Thus, recycling

paper or waste wood into higher value composite products or

structural products might represent an economically viable

option, even if recovered paper prices increase in the future.

However, current technological developments within the area

of wood recycling (outside of paper recycling) are aimed

mainly at nonwood markets, or at relatively small niche

markets, mostly in the category of miscellaneous wood

products that offer high value but limited volume. Very little

development is aimed at direct competition in mass commodity markets of lumber, plywood, or oriented strandboard

(OSB), although such development could begin in the future.

Thus, at least within the next decade, it is unlikely that

composite or structural products made with recycled wood

fiber will capture a significant share of mass commodity

markets for conventional wood products.

Trends in Supply and

Demand for Wood Fiber

Increased paper recycling will reduce future growth in pulpwood demand and will extend timber supplies, making timber

harvesting more economically attractive than it would be

otherwise. Many trees that are “saved” by recycling will

likely be harvested instead for other end-uses besides paper.

Demand for wood and wood fiber always tends to equal supply. Thus, increased paper recycling will tend to favor greater

overall consumption of forest products in domestic and overseas markets. However, other developments will also affect

timber supply and demand. Ongoing efforts to preserve native

ecosystems, particularly on public forest lands in the western

United States, will involve less intensive forest management

practices and reductions in timber harvest levels, which will

constrain timber supplies.

Paper recycling rates have been increasing rapidly in the

1990s, and they are projected to increase throughout the

decade, followed by more gradual increases into the next

century. The rate of increase in recycling will tend to decline

toward the end of this decade, as prices for recovered paper

commodities increase. Roundwood pulpwood demand is

projected to increase at a more modest rate than it has in

recent decades, as a result of increased paper recycling. In the

early part of the next century, pulpwood supplies are projected to increase (particularly for softwoods) as a result of

intensified tree planting programs of the past decade

(particularly in the U.S. South). Consequently, pulpwood

prices are expected to remain stable in the United States, or

perhaps decline. The balance of trade in pulp and paper is

projected to swing in favor of U.S. exports, as a result of the

relative abundance of virgin and recycled fiber supplies in

North America. In general, U.S. production of pulp, paper,

and paperboard will continue to increase, with growth in fiber

demands matched by growth in domestic fiber supplies.

Although increased recycling will extend pulpwood and fiber

supply, the United States still appears to face serious supply

problems for large dimension sawtimber, particularly softwood sawtimber. National Forest timber harvest levels have

declined, particularly in the major softwood sawtimber producing region of the U.S. West, and National Forest harvests

are expected to remain at levels much lower than experienced

in the 1980s. Consequently, growth in domestic sawtimber

supply is not expected to match growth in sawtimber demand. Softwood lumber prices are expected to increase in the

1990s, and indeed substantial price jumps have already been

experienced. Softwood sawtimber prices are expected to

increase substantially in the decades ahead, despite increased

paper recycling. Increased paper recycling will help ameliorate timber price increases to some extent, but it will not

solve the relative shortage of softwood sawtimber in the next

decade or two. Thus, economic conditions will tend to favor

development of alternative technologies that can substitute

for conventional solid-wood products technologies, perhaps

including new technologies based on recycled wood resources.

However, difficulties are presented by the need to penetrate

mass commodity markets that are traditionally based on solid

wood products and that are encumbered by building codes and

other constraints that may limit the immediate acceptance of

recycled wood products. The following section discusses

likely consequences of increased recycling in terms of overall

wood and wood fiber utilization.

Consequences of Increased

Recycling

Consequences of increased paper and wood recycling, in

combination with other developments, can be understood by

comparing the overall pattern of wood and wood fiber use at

different points in time, including historical and projected

points in time. Consequences are illustrated here by a series

of figures showing overall wood and wood fiber inputs and

outputs in the U.S. forest products sector at several points in

time. The figures illustrate the wood and wood fiber inputs

and primary product outputs for the entire forest product

sector, including recycled wood and wood fiber, residues, and

virgin timber resources. Timber and solid-wood product
6

volumes are shown in millions of cubic meters, solid volume. Paper, paperboard, and recovered paper volumes are

shown in millions of metric tonnes.

Figure 1 shows historical data for the year 1986, a year prior

to the recent acceleration in U.S. paper recycling rates.

Figure 2 shows historical data for the year 1993, representing

current conditions, and showing the consequences of increased

recycling since 1986. Figures 3 and 4 show projections for

the year 2005 under two alternative future scenarios. One

scenario is a “Base” projection, based on likely market and

technology evolution. The other is an alternative scenario

(“ALT”), reflecting possible higher wood and paper recycling

rates, potential effects of waste reduction policies, and introduction of new technologies for wood and paper recycling.

Projections were based in part on timber supply and demand

studies done recently for the USDA Forest Service, with

some updated adjustments (Ince 1994).

Figure 1 illustrates volumes of wood and wood fiber raw

materials and output commodities in the United States forest

product sector for the year 1986. As Figure 1 shows, the

pulp and paper sector consumed by far the largest volume of

recycled wood fiber in 1986 (in the form of recovered paper),

approximately 16.3 million tonnes, compared with

0.4 million tonnes recycled into miscellaneous products and

3.7 million tonnes exported. In 1986, 28 percent of paper and

paperboard consumed in the United States was recovered for

domestic recycling and export (20.4 million tonnes). The

recyclable paper utilization rate in the U.S. pulp and paper

industry was approximately 25 percent (tonnage of recovered

paper recycled in proportion to tonnage of paper and paperboard output). The year 1986 was significant for two reasons.

One reason was that substantial increases in paper recycling

began to occur just after 1986. The other reason was that

National Forest timber harvest levels also began to decline

after 1986. In 1986, the National Forests provided a timber

harvest of approximately 64 million cubic meters, of a total

U.S. timber harvest of 493 million cubic meters. However,

most of the National Forest timber harvest consisted of large

diameter softwood sawtimber, used primarily for sawnwood

and plywood production.

Figure 2 illustrates the volumes of wood and wood fiber raw

materials and primary product outputs in the United States

forest product sector for the year 1993. By that year,

40 percent of paper and paperboard consumed in the United

States was recovered for domestic recycling and export

(approximately 32.5 million tonnes, of which 26.4 million

tonnes was recycled in domestic paper and paperboard mills,

5.3 million tonnes exported, and 0.8 million tonnes used in

miscellaneous products). The recyclable paper utilization rate

in the pulp and paper industry had climbed to approximately

34 percent by 1993. In comparison with Figure l, the data

shown in Figure 2 illustrate the fact that net U.S. production

of primary pulp and paper products had increased substantially between 1986 and 1993 (from around 70 million tonnes to nearly 84 million tonnes, a 19-percent increase, taking

into account total paper and paperboard production plus

production of market pulp for export). Nevertheless, as a

result of increased paper recycling, pulpwood inputs to the

pulp and paper sector grew very modestly (193 to 205 million cubic meters, an increase of only 6 percent). Thus,

increased recycling helped to facilitate the substantial increases in pulp and paper production of recent years, without

substantial increases in pulpwood consumption. In 1993, the

National Forests provided a timber harvest of approximately

30 million cubic meters (less than half the National Forest

harvest volume of 1986). The decline in National Forest

timber harvest volume was one of several factors that contributed to recent softwood lumber price increases (upward

spikes in lumber price occurred in 1992 and 1993, and softwood lumber and sawtimber price increases are expected in

the years ahead).

Although National Forest timber harvest declined between

1986 and 1993, total U.S. timber harvest in 1993 remained

at close to 500 million cubic meters, with declines in

National Forest harvest volume being compensated mainly

by increased harvest on private forest lands. Canadian softwood lumber imports were subjected to an injunctive

(temporary) tariff in 1992 and 1993, and the tariff issue

remains tied up in the dispute resolution process. By 1993,

U.S. solid wood product imports (mostly softwood lumber

imports from Canada) had reached a record high of approximately 42 million cubic meters, up from 39 million cubic

meters in 1986). Exports of solid wood products, mostly

lumber and plywood, increased as well (from 7 million cubic

meters in 1986 to 11 million cubic meters in 1993). Apparent domestic consumption of solid wood products increased

from 167 to 169 million cubic meters. The volume of domestic lumber production in 1993 (84 million cubic meters)

was essentially the same as that in 1986, although domestic

softwood lumber production had declined slightly and hardwood lumber production had increased. The OSB product

output had increased substantially (from roughly 3 to

6 million cubic meters), while plywood and veneer product

output had declined from 20 to 17 million cubic meters. The

OSB products substitute for softwood plywood, and OSB can

be generally made from smaller diameter timber than that

required for plywood. Continued substitution of OSB for

plywood is likely to occur as the prices of larger diameter

softwood sawtimber increase in the future.

Base Projections

Figure 3 illustrates the Base projections of wood and wood

fiber volumes for the year 2005. The Base projections were

derived in part from economic analysis of supply and demand

for timber and recycled material resources, including analysis
7

Sawnwood

Plywood

& veneer

OSB products

Particleboard

Fuelwood

Miscellaneous

& unused

Pulp & paper

Exported chips

& roundwood

Domestic

roundwood

harvest

Softwoods

318 x106 m3

Hardwoods

175 x106 m3

Domestic

consumption

Solid-wood

products

167 x106 m3

Paper & board

72.7 x106 t

Fuelwood

137 x106 Imported m3

roundwood

and chips

Product

imports

Exports

198 x106 m3

3 x106 m3

493 x106 m3

8.6 x106 t

7 x106 m3

84 x106 m3

20 x106 m3

(residues)

(residues)

3 x106 m3

137 x106 m3

8 x106 m3

20 x106 m3

70 x106 t

42 x106 m3

3 x106 m3

123 x106 m3

89 x106 m3

19 x106 m3

0.4 x106 t

11 x106 m3

8 x106 m3

48 x106 m3

70 x106 m3

16.3 x106 t

22 x106 m3

39 x106 m3

15 x106 t

3.7 x106 t

(Recovered

for recycling)

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼ ▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

Figure 1—Wood and fiber inputs, primary product outputs, and recovery for recycling in U.S. forest products, 1986.

Sawnwood

Plywood

& veneer

OSB products

Particleboard

Fuelwood

Miscellaneous

& unused

Pulp & paper

Exported chips

& roundwood

Domestic

roundwood

harvest

Softwoods

314 x106 m3

Hardwoods

188 x106 m3

Domestic

consumption

Solid-wood

products

169 x106 m3

Paper & board

82.7 x106 t

Fuelwood

136 x106 Imported m3

roundwood

and chips

Product

imports

Exports

200 x106 m3

3 x106 m3

501 x106 m3

12.8 x106 t

11 x106 m3

84 x106 m3

17 x106 m3

(residues)

(residues)

6 x106 m3

136 x106 m3

9 x106 m3

22 x106 m3

83.6 x106 t

36 x106 m3

8 x106 m3

132 x106 m3

88 x106 m3

18 x106 m3

0.8 x106 t

5 x106 m3

9 x106 m3

48 x106 m3

73 x106 m3

26.4 x106 t

22 x106 m3

42 x106 m3

17.2 x106 t

5.3 x106 t

(Recovered

for recycling)

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼ ▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

Figure 2—Wood and fiber inputs, primary product outputs, and recovery for recycling in U.S. forest products, 1993.
8

Sawnwood

Plywood

& veneer

OSB products

Particleboard

Fuelwood

Miscellaneous

& unused

Pulp & paper

Exported chips

& roundwood

Domestic

roundwood

harvest

Softwoods

305 x106 m3

Hardwoods

241 x106 m3

Domestic

consumption

Solid-wood

products

185 x106 m3

Paper & board

91.8 x106 t

Fuelwood

156 x106 Imported m3

roundwood

and chips

Product

imports

Exports

202 x106 m3

3 x106 m3

546 x106 m3

15.5 x106 t

11 x106 m3

87 x106 m3

14 x106 m3

(residues)

(residues)

11 x106 m3

156 x106 m3

8 x106 m3

31 x106 m3

97.3 x106 t

28 x106 m3

15 x106 m3

148 x106 m3

108 x106 m3

20 x106 m3

3.6 x106 t

3 x106 m3

8 x106 m3

48 x106 m3

70 x106 m3

37.3 x106 t

28 x106 m3

45 x106 m3

14.5 x106 t

7.3 x106 t

(Recovered

for recycling)

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼ ▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

Figure 3—Wood and fiber inputs, primary product outputs, and recovery for recycling in

U.S. forest products, 2005, Base scenario.

Sawnwood

Plywood

& veneer

OSB products

Particleboard

Fuelwood

Miscellaneous

& unused

Pulp & paper

Exported chips

& roundwood

Domestic

roundwood

harvest

Softwoods

294 x106 m3

Hardwoods

232 x106 m3

Domestic

consumption

Solid-wood

products

188 x106 m3

Paper & board

85.5 x106 t

Fuelwood

158 x106 Imported m3

roundwood

and chips

Product

imports

Exports

207 x106 m3

3 x106 m3

527 x106 m3

16.4 x106 t

14 x106 m3

90 x106 m3

17 x106 m3

(residues)

(residues)

8 x106 m3

158 x106 m3

8 x106 m3

34 x106 m3

93.6 x106 t

34 x106 m3

11 x106 m3

118 x106 m3

110 x106 m3

22 x106 m3

4.5 x106 t

3 x106 m3

8 x106 m3

48 x106 m3

70 x106 m3

44.5 x106 t

28 x106 m3

45 x106 m3

9.1 x106 t

10.9 x106 t

(Recovered

for recycling)

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼ ▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

Figure 4—Wood and fiber inputs, primary product outputs, and recovery for recycling in

U.S. forest products, 2005, ALT scenario.
9

of trends in paper recycling and other technological developments in the forest product sector. The Base projections

indicate that by the year 2005, approximately 52 percent of

paper and paperboard consumed in the United States will be

recovered for domestic recycling and export. The recyclable

paper utilization rate in the U.S. pulp and paper industry is

expected to reach approximately 40 percent by 2005. In

addition to recycling of paper into paper and paperboard

products, it is anticipated that approximately 3.6 million

tonnes of recovered paper will be recycled into products

classified as “miscellaneous wood products” by 2005. These

include various new composite recycled products and other

recycled products. National Forest timber harvests are

expected to remain at less than 30 million cubic meters

annually throughout the period from 1993 to 2005, while

total timber harvest increases by about 9 percent to approximately 546 million cubic meters.

Increased recycling will help sustain increases in paper and

paperboard production in the United States, despite limited

growth in timber supply. Exports of paper and paperboard

products are projected to grow, while imports are projected to

generally decline (particularly imports from Canada) as the

United States becomes more self-sustaining in fiber needs

with increased recycling. Net annual production of pulp,

paper, and paperboard in the United States was around

84 million tonnes in 1993, and in the Base scenario it is

projected to reach approximately 97 million tonnes by the

year 2005 (an increase of more than 15 percent, including

total domestic production of paper and paperboard, plus

market pulp exports). In the Base scenario, rapid increases in

paper recycling and slower growth in per capita paper and

paperboard consumption contribute to relatively slow projected growth in pulpwood consumption (rising from

205 million cubic meters in 1993 to 218 million cubic

meters by 2005). Roundwood pulpwood consumption and

overall timber harvest are projected to increase. Supplies of

pulpwood in the form of mill residues will be constrained as

a result of limited projected growth in lumber and plywood

production. Technological changes and market conditions are

also projected to favor more use of hardwood pulpwood by

the year 2005, with hardwood increasing from approximately

30 percent to approximately 40 percent of pulpwood supply.

Economic projections indicate that very substantial increases

will occur in U.S. softwood sawtimber stumpage prices by

the year 2005. Although the Base analysis projects very

substantial increases in recycling, which will extend pulpwood supplies, other adjustments (particularly reductions in

timber harvest on National Forests) have an offsetting impact

on projected sawtimber markets. It is anticipated that real

prices for softwood sawtimber stumpage could nearly double

within the next decade. In the United States, imports of

softwood lumber are mainly from Canada (around 99 percent

of total softwood lumber imports were from Canada in

1993). The Base projections indicate that growth in U.S.

softwood lumber production will be constrained in the decade

ahead, partly as a result of projected increases in sawtimber

stumpage prices in the West and South. Total U.S. softwood

lumber production is projected to remain relatively flat, while

imports of softwood lumber (mainly from Canada) are projected to increase. Total U.S. imports of solid wood products

are projected to reach 45 million cubic meters by the year

2005.

In recent decades, softwood plywood has been the dominant

category of structural wood panel products produced in the

United States. However, in the last decade, OSB has gained a

substantial share of the market, as a substitute for softwood

plywood. Technologically, softwood plywood production

generally requires softwood veneer logs or larger-diameter

sawtimber, whereas OSB can be made from a wider range of

species (including hardwoods) and from smaller diameter

pulpwood-quality logs. Thus, as softwood sawtimber prices

are projected to increase substantially in the decades ahead,

U.S. structural panel production is projected to shift toward

greater OSB production. The projections are in line with

historical trends of the past decade. Projections indicate that

OSB production in the United States will reach 11 million

cubic meters by 2005, while U.S. plywood production will

decline to 14 million cubic meters.

Total U.S. timber harvest is projected to increase in the Base

scenario, although the level of softwood timber harvest is

projected to decrease slightly by the year 2005. Hardwood

timber harvest is projected to increase by the year 2005, but

remain less than softwood timber harvest.

Alternative Scenario

Figure 4 illustrates an alternative scenario (ALT) that includes somewhat reduced growth in paper product consumption, due in part to waste reduction efforts such as increased

disposal fees and public education about waste disposal problems. The ALT scenario also assumes increased intensification of collection programs for recycling to reduce landfill

burdens and increased recycling of paper and wood products.

In addition, the ALT scenario assumes greater development of

new wood recycling technologies, particularly in the category

of miscellaneous wood products, such as hardboard,

insulating paperboard, and composite wood panels. However,

again, such opportunities are not likely to make significant

inroads within conventional mass commodity markets

(lumber, plywood, OSB) by the year 2005. Thus, by that

year, the impacts of new wood recycling technologies aimed

at niche markets are relatively minor in the overall context of

wood and wood fiber consumption. It was anticipated in the

ALT scenario that consumption of recycled wood fiber in

miscellaneous wood products could increase from 3.6 million

tonnes (Base) to 4.5 million tonnes (ALT), as a result of

further development of the new technologies and niche

markets for recyclables.
10

The impacts of the ALT scenario, shown in Figure 4, include

a reduction in projected paper and paperboard consumption

from roughly 92 million tonnes (Base) to only 85.5 million

tonnes (ALT), an increase in utilization of recovered paper in

the pulp and paper sector from roughly 37 million tonnes

(Base) to 44.5 million tonnes (ALT), and an increase in

export of recovered paper from roughly 7 million tonnes

(Base) to 10.9 million tonnes (ALT). The effect of such

changes would be to reduce projected roundwood pulpwood

consumption from 148 million cubic meters (Base) to only

118 million cubic meters (ALT). In addition, such changes

would facilitate substantial reductions in the MSW disposal

burden of the United States by the year 2005, reducing the

gross wastepaper disposal burden by about one-third relative

to the Base scenario, by increasing the recycling and export

of recovered paper.

The reduced roundwood pulpwood consumption of the ALT

scenario (Figure 4) would also reduce timber harvest and

extend overall timber supply. Softwood sawtimber prices are

still projected to increase in the ALT scenario, but the sawtimber price increase would be somewhat less than that in the

Base scenario. Consequently, projected sawnwood (lumber)

and plywood production would be somewhat higher, and OSB

production somewhat lower (as a result of reduced substitution for plywood).

Conclusions

In general, the results of this analysis suggest that rapid

increases will occur in the rate of paper recycling in the

1990s, in line with current trends, mainly as a result of

competitive evolution of fiber markets and available pulp and

paper technology. Rapid increases in paper recycling rates and

export of recovered paper will result in a recovery from the

current market glut, with projected increases in most recovered paper commodity prices by the end of the 1990s. Paper

recycling rates will continue to increase, but the rate of

increase will subside toward the end of this decade and into

the next century.

With more abundant fiber resources (as a result of increased

recycling) paper and paperboard consumption in the United

States and production of pulp, paper, and paperboard commodities are projected to increase by the year 2005. Exports

of paper and paperboard products are also projected to grow,

while imports are projected to generally decline (particularly

those from Canada). Thus, although recycling rates are projected to increase, annual consumption of pulpwood is also

projected to remain in the range of 190 to 220 million cubic

meters in the decade ahead. Delivered pulpwood prices are

projected to remain fairly stable, or perhaps decline slightly.

Technological changes and market conditions will also favor

more use of hardwood pulpwood.

In the context of increased paper recycling, the production of

lumber and structural wood panels will increase in the United

States. However, increased demand for sawtimber, coupled

with projected declines in timber harvest on National Forests,

will result in substantial increases in softwood sawtimber

stumpage prices, with roughly a doubling (in constant dollars) of real stumpage prices. Timber harvest in the United

States will continue to shift from the West to the South and

North. The bulk of timber harvest in the future will be on

private nonindustrial timberland, as it has been in the past,

with substantially lower harvest levels on National Forests.

New wood and paper recycling technologies offer the creation

of new and interesting niche markets for recyclables, but

apart from the ongoing increase in paper recycling based on

conventional papermaking technology, new technologies and

source reduction policies offer only modest opportunities to

substantially change the volume or value of wood and wood

fiber commodities consumed and produced in the forest product sector by the year 2005. However, waste reduction efforts

and increased collection offer a potential to further increase

paper recycling rates and to reduce the volume of wood and

wood fiber in the MSW waste stream.

Literature Cited

Alig, Joanne T. 1992. Legislative trends in paper recycling. Recycled Paper News. 3(3): 9.

Denison, Richard A.; John Ruston. 1990. Recycling

and incineration. Evaluating the choices. Washington, DC:

Island Press. 322 p.

EPA. 1988. Summary of data on municipal solid waste

landfill leachate characteristics— criteria for municipal solid

waste landfills. 40 CFR Part 258, EPA/530-SW-88-038.

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. 1992. Characterization of municipal solid waste in the

United States: 1992 update. Executive summary.

EPA/530-S-92-019.: Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Municipal and

Industrial Solid Waste Division. 10 p.

Ince, Peter J. 1994. Recycling and long-range timber

outlook. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-242. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 23 p.

Leroux–Duncan, Kivi; Carr, Kim. 1994. Recycling

means business at EPA. Resource Recycling. 8(5): 40–43.

Miller, Chaz. 1994. Recycling in the states: 1993 Update.

Waste Age. March: 61-70.

NSWMA. 1992. Waste age. National Solid Waste Management Association. May.

OTA. 1989. Facing America's trash: What's next for municipal solid waste. OTA-0-424. Congress of the United

States, Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office. 377 p.