2009 

Facts and 

Figures

Municipal Solid Waste in

The United States
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste (5306P)

EPA530-R-10-012

December 2010

www.epa.gov 
iii

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN 

THE UNITED STATES: 

2009 FACTS AND FIGURES 

Table of Contents 

Chapter Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1 

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 1 

WHAT IS INCLUDED IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE? ...................................................... 4 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN PERSPECTIVE.................................................................... 5 

Trends Over Time ................................................................................................................... 5 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN 2009...................................................................................... 5 

Materials in MSW................................................................................................................... 6 

Products in MSW.................................................................................................................... 8 

RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOURCES OF MSW ................................................ 11 

MANAGEMENT OF MSW ..................................................................................................... 11 

Overview............................................................................................................................... 11 

Source Reduction.................................................................................................................. 12 

Recycling .............................................................................................................................. 13 

Combustion with Energy Recovery ...................................................................................... 14 

Disposal................................................................................................................................. 14 

THE BENEFITS OF RECYCLING.......................................................................................... 16 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 17 

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY ................................................... 18 

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 18 

BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 18 

The Solid Waste Management Hierarchy ............................................................................. 18 

Overview of the Methodology .............................................................................................. 19 

HOW THIS REPORT CAN BE USED..................................................................................... 21 

CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: IN PERSPECTIVE.................. 24 

The Two Methodologies for Characterizing MSW: Site-Specific Versus Materials Flow .. 24 

Municipal Solid Waste Defined in Greater Detail................................................................ 26 

Other Subtitle D Wastes........................................................................................................ 27 

Materials and Products Not Included in These Estimates..................................................... 29 

OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT.............................................................................................. 30 

CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 31 

CHAPTER 2 CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BY WEIGHT 34 

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 34 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: CHARACTERIZED BY MATERIAL TYPE........................ 35 

Paper and Paperboard............................................................................................................ 39 

Glass...................................................................................................................................... 43 

Ferrous Metals ...................................................................................................................... 46 

Aluminum ............................................................................................................................. 49 
iv

Other Nonferrous Metals ...................................................................................................... 50 

Plastics .................................................................................................................................. 50 

Other Materials ..................................................................................................................... 55 

Food Scraps........................................................................................................................... 58 

Yard Trimmings.................................................................................................................... 59 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes........................................................................................... 60 

Summary of Materials in Municipal Solid Waste................................................................. 61 

PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE....................................................................... 66 

Durable Goods ...................................................................................................................... 67 

Nondurable Goods ................................................................................................................ 77 

Containers and Packaging..................................................................................................... 85 

Summary of Products in Municipal Solid Waste.................................................................. 97 

SUMMARY............................................................................................................................ 101 

MSW Generation ................................................................................................................ 101 

MSW Recovery................................................................................................................... 102 

Long Term Trends .............................................................................................................. 104 

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES................................................................................................. 105 

CHAPTER 3 MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE................................... 148 

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 148 

SOURCE REDUCTION......................................................................................................... 149 

Source Reduction Through Redesign ................................................................................. 151 

Modifying Practices to Reduce Materials Use.................................................................... 152 

Reuse of Products and Packages......................................................................................... 153 

Management of Organic Materials...................................................................................... 155 

Measuring Source Reduction.............................................................................................. 156 

RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING (INCLUDING COMPOSTING)....................................... 156 

Recyclables Collection........................................................................................................ 156 

Recyclables Processing ....................................................................................................... 161 

COMBUSTION WITH ENERGY RECOVERY.................................................................... 166 

RESIDUES FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ............................................... 168 

LANDFILLS ........................................................................................................................... 168 

SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MSW MANAGEMENT ........................ 170 

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES................................................................................................. 173 

APPENDIX A MATERIALS FLOW METHODOLOGY.................................................... 185 

DOMESTIC PRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 185 

CONVERTING SCRAP ......................................................................................................... 185 

ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPORTS/EXPORTS ...................................................................... 185 

DIVERSION ........................................................................................................................... 186 

ADJUSTMENTS FOR PRODUCT LIFETIME ..................................................................... 186 

RECOVERY........................................................................................................................... 186 

DISCARDS............................................................................................................................. 187 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION, RECOVERY, AND DISCARDS.................. 187 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

ES-1 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with Energy 

Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 – 2009 (In millions 

of tons) .................................................................................................................................2 


ES-2 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with Energy
 

Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 – 2009 (In percent 

of total generation)...............................................................................................................2 


ES-3 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with Energy
 

Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 – 2009 (In pounds 

per person per day)...............................................................................................................3 


ES-4 Generation and Recovery of Materials in MSW, 2009........................................................7 


ES-5 Generation and Recovery of Products in MSW by Material, 2009 ...................................10 


Materials in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream, 1960 to 2009 


1 Generated ...........................................................................................................................36 


2 Recovery ............................................................................................................................37 


3 Discarded ...........................................................................................................................38 


Products in Municipal Solid Waste, 2009 


4 Paper and Paperboard.........................................................................................................40 


5 Glass...................................................................................................................................44 


6 Metal ..................................................................................................................................47 


7 Plastics ...............................................................................................................................52 


8 Rubber and Leather............................................................................................................56 


Categories of Products in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream, 1960 to 2009 


9 Generated ...........................................................................................................................68 


10 Recovery ............................................................................................................................69 


11 Discarded ...........................................................................................................................70 


Products in MSW with Detail on Durable Goods, 1960 to 2009 


12 Generated ...........................................................................................................................72 


13 Recovery ............................................................................................................................73 


14 Discarded ...........................................................................................................................74 


Products in MSW with Detail on Nondurable Goods, 1960 to 2009 


15 Generated ...........................................................................................................................81 


16 Recovery ............................................................................................................................82 


17 Discarded ...........................................................................................................................83 


v 
 

 

 

Products in MSW with Detail on Containers and Packaging, 1960 to 2009 


18 Generated (by weight)........................................................................................................89 


19 Generated (by percent).......................................................................................................90 


20 Recovery (by weight).........................................................................................................91 


21 Recovery (by percent) ........................................................................................................92 


22 Discarded (by weight)........................................................................................................93 


23 Discarded (by percent) .......................................................................................................94 


Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

24 Selected Examples of Source Reduction Practices..........................................................151 


25 Number and Population Served by Curbside Recyclables Collection 


Programs, 2009 ................................................................................................................157 


26 Materials Recovery Facilities, 2009.................................................................................161 


27 Municipal Waste-to-Energy Projects, 2009 .....................................................................167 


28 Landfill Facilities, 2009 ...................................................................................................169 


29 Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion, and Discards
 

of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2009 .........................................................................171 


List of Figures 

Figure Page 

ES-1 MSW Generation Rates, 1960 to 2009 ................................................................................3 


ES-2 MSW Recycling Rates, 1960 to 2009..................................................................................4 


ES-3 Materials Generation in MSW, 2009 – 243 Million Tons...................................................6 


ES-4 Products Generated in MSW, 2009 – 243 Million Tons .....................................................8 


ES-5 Number of Landfills in the U.S., 1988 – 2009...................................................................15 


ES-6 Management of MSW in the U.S., 2009............................................................................16 


1-A Municipal Solid Waste in the Universe of Subtitle D Wastes...........................................27 


1-B Definition of Terms............................................................................................................28 


Materials Generated and Recovered in Municipal Solid Waste
 

2 Paper and Paperboard Products Generated in MSW, 2009 ...............................................39 


3 Paper and Paperboard Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2009........................................41 


4 Glass Products Generated in MSW, 2009..........................................................................44 


5 Glass Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2009..................................................................45 


6 Metal Products Generated in MSW, 2009 .........................................................................48 


7 Metals Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2009................................................................48 


8 Plastics Products Generated in MSW, 2009 ......................................................................51 


9 Plastics Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2009...............................................................55 


10 Generation of Materials in MSW, 1960 to 2009................................................................62 


11 Recovery and Discards of Materials in MSW, 1960 to 2009 ............................................63 


12 Materials Recovery, 2009 ..................................................................................................64 


13 Materials Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2009 ..........................................................65 


vi 
Products Generated and Recovered in Municipal Solid Waste
 

14 Generation of Products in MSW, 1960 to 2009.................................................................97 


15 Nondurable Goods Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2009 ...........................................99 


16 Containers and Packaging Generated and Discarded in MSW, 2009..............................100 


Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

17 Diagram of Solid Waste Management.............................................................................149 


18 Population Served by Curbside Recycling, 2009.............................................................158 


19 States With Bottle Deposit Rules.....................................................................................160 


20 Estimated MRF Throughput, 2009 ..................................................................................162 


21 Mixed Waste Processing Estimated Throughput, 2009...................................................163 


22 MSW Composting Capacity, 2009 ..................................................................................164 


23 Yard Trimmings Composting Programs, 2009................................................................165 


24 Municipal Waste-to-Energy Capacity, 2009....................................................................167 


25 Number of Landfills in the U.S., 2009.............................................................................169 


26 Municipal Solid Waste Management, 1960 to 2009........................................................172 


Materials Flow Methodology 

A-1 Materials Flow Methodology for Estimating Generation of Products and 

Materials in MSW............................................................................................................188 


A-2 Materials Flow Methodology for Estimating Discards of Products and 


Materials in MSW............................................................................................................189 


vii 
 

 

Executive Summary
 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
 

IN THE UNITED STATES: 2009 FACTS AND FIGURES
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

OVERVIEW
 

This report describes the national municipal solid waste (MSW) stream based on data 

collected for 1960 through 2009. The historical perspective is useful for establishing trends in 

types of MSW generated and in the ways it is managed. In this Executive Summary, we briefly 

describe the methodology used to characterize MSW in the United States and provide the latest 

facts and figures on MSW generation, recycling, and disposal. 

In the United States, we generated 243 million tons of MSW in 2009—eight million tons 

less than generated in 2008. Excluding composting, 61.3 million tons of MSW were recycled, a 

slight decrease of 0.5 million tons from 2008. The tons of food scrap and yard trimmings 

recovered for composting were 20.8 million tons in 2008. The recovery rate for recycling 

(including composting) was 33.8 percent in 2009, up from 33.4 percent in 2008. Although the 

tons recycled and composted decreased in 2009, the tons generated also decreased resulting in an 

increase in the recycling rate (see Tables ES-1 and ES-2 and Figures ES-1 and ES-2). 

MSW generation in 2009 declined to 4.34 pounds per person per day. This is a decrease 

of 4 percent from 2008 to 2009. The recycling rate in 2009 was 1.46 pounds per person per day. 

Discards sent for combustion with energy recovery was 0.52 pounds per person per day. Discards 

sent to landfills after recycling and combustion with energy recovery declined to 2.36 pounds per 

person per day in 2009. This is a decrease of 3.3 percent from 2008 to 2009 (see Table ES-3). 

1 
otal Materials Recovery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary
 

Table ES-1. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with
 

Energy Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 – 2009 


(In millions of tons)
 

Activity 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Generation 88.1 121.1 151.6 208.3 242.5 252.4 255.0 251.0 243.0 

Recovery for recycling 5.6 8.0 14.5 29.0 53.0 59.3 63.1 61.8 61.3 

Recovery for composting* Neg. Neg. Neg. 4.2 16.5 20.6 21.7 22.1 20.8 

Total materials recovery 5.6 8.0 14.5 33.2 69.5 79.9 84.8 83.9 82.0 

Combustion with energy 

recovery† 0.0 0.4 2.7 29.7 33.7 31.6 32.0 31.6 29.0 

Discards to landfill, other 

disposal‡ 82.5 112.7 134.4 145.3 139.4 140.9 138.2 135.6 131.9 

*	 Composting of yard trimmings, food scraps and other MSW organic material. Does not include backyard composting. 

†	 Includes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse-derived fuel form, and combustion with energy 

recovery of source separated materials in MSW (e.g., wood pallets and tire-derived fuel). See Table 29 footnote for more detail. 

‡	 Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy recovery. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Table ES-2. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with
 

Energy Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 – 2009 


(In percent of total generation)
 

Activity 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Generation 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Recovery for recycling 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 14.0% 21.9% 23.5% 24.8% 24.6% 25.2% 

Recovery for composting* Neg. Neg. Neg. 2.0% 6.7% 8.1% 8.5% 8.8% 8.6% 

T Total materials recovery 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 16.0% 28.6% 31.6% 33.3% 33.4% 33.8% 

Combustion with energy 

recovery† 0.0% 0.3% 1.8% 14.2% 13.9% 12.5% 12.5% 12.6% 11.9% 

Discards to landfill, other 

disposal‡ 93.6% 93.1% 88.6% 69.8% 57.5% 55.9% 54.2% 54.0% 54.3% 

*	 Composting of yard trimmings, food scraps and other MSW organic material. Does not include backyard composting. 

†	 Includes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse-derived fuel form, and combustion with energy 

recovery of source separated materials in MSW (e.g., wood pallets and tire-derived fuel). See Table 29 footnote for more detail. 

‡	 Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy recovery. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary
 

Table ES-3. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, Combustion with
 

Energy Recovery, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 – 2009 


(In pounds per person per day)
 

Activity 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Generation 2.68 3.25 3.66 4.57 4.72 4.67 4.63 4.52 4.34 

Recovery for recycling 0.17 0.22 0.35 0.64 1.03 1.10 1.15 1.11 1.09 

Recovery for composting* Neg. Neg. Neg. 0.09 0.32 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.37 

Total materials recovery 0.17 0.22 0.35 0.73 1.35 1.48 1.54 1.51 1.46 

Combustion with energy 

recovery† 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.65 0.66 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.52 

Discards to landfill, other 

disposal‡ 2.51 3.02 3.24 3.19 2.71 2.61 2.51 2.44 2.36 

Population (millions) 179.979 203.984 227.255 249.907 281.422 296.410 301.621 304.060 307.007 

* Composting of yard trimmings, food scraps and other MSW organic material. Does not include backyard composting. 

†	 Includes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse-derived fuel form, and combustion with energy 

recovery of source separated materials in MSW (e.g., wood pallets and tire-derived fuel). See Table 29 footnote for more detail. 

‡	 Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy recovery. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Figure ES-1. MSW Generation Rates, 1960 to 2009 

300 

243.0 

255.0 

252.4 242.5 

217.3

208.3 

166.3 

151.6 

127.8 121.1 

104.4 

88.1 4.34 

2.96 

2.68 

3.25 3.25 

3.66 

3.83 

4.57 4.52 4.72 4.63 4.67 

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

2 

50 

0 0 

2007 2009 

250 

Total MSW generation (million tons) 

Per capita generation (lbs/person/day) 

200 

150 

100 

Total MSW generation Per capita generation 

3 

4 

6 

8 

10 
 

 

0 

10 

90 

Executive Summary
 

Figure ES-2. MSW Recycling Rates, 1960 to 2009 


82.0 84.8 

33.2 

16.7 

14.5 

6.5 8.0 5.6 

9.3 

55.8 

69.5

79.9 

33.8% 33.3% 

16.0% 9.6% 

6.6% 7.3% 6.4% 6.2% 

10.1% 

25.7% 

28.6% 

31.6% 

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

50% 

80 

70 

60 

Total MSW recycling (million tons) 

40% 

Percent of generation recycled 

30% 

50 

40 

20% 

30 

20 10% 

0% 

2007 2009 

Total MSW recycling Percent recycling 

Figures ES-1 and ES-2 show decreases in MSW generation and recycling from 2007 to 

2009. The state of the economy has a strong impact on consumption and waste generation. 

Waste generation increases during times of strong economic growth and decreases during times 

of economic decline. 

WHAT IS INCLUDED IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE? 

MSW—otherwise known as trash or garbage—consists of everyday items such as product 

packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, and 

batteries. Not included are materials that also may be disposed in landfills but are not generally 

considered MSW, such as construction and demolition materials, municipal wastewater 

treatment sludges, and non-hazardous industrial wastes. 

4 
 

 

 

Executive Summary
 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN PERSPECTIVE 

Trends Over Time 

Over the last few decades, the generation, recycling, and disposal of MSW have changed 

substantially (see Tables ES-1, ES-2, and ES-3 and Figures ES-1 and ES-2). Annual MSW 

generation continued to increase from 1960, when it was 88 million tons, until 2007. After 2007, 

the tons of MSW generated started to decrease. The generation rate in 1960 was just 2.68 pounds 

per person per day; it grew to 3.66 pounds per person per day in 1980, reached 4.72 pounds per 

person per day in 2000, and decreased to 4.67 pounds per person per day in 2005. Since 2005, 

MSW generation per capita rate has continued to decrease. The generation rate was 4.34 pounds 

per person per day in 2009. 

Over time, recycling rates have increased from just over 6 percent of MSW generated in 

1960 to about 10 percent in 1980, to 16 percent in 1990, to 29 percent in 2000, and to about 34 

percent in 2009. Disposal of waste to landfills has decreased from 94 percent of the amount 

generated in 1960 to just over 54 percent of the amount generated in 2009. 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN 2009 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses two methods to characterize the 

243 million tons of MSW generated in 2009. The first is by material (paper and paperboard, 

yard trimmings, food scraps, plastics, metals, glass, wood, rubber, leather and textiles, and other); 

the second is by several major product categories. The product-based categories are containers 

and packaging; nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers); durable goods (e.g., appliances); food 

scraps; and other materials. See Figure 1-B in Chapter 1 for product category definitions. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary
 

Materials in MSW
 

A breakdown, by weight, of the MSW materials generated in 2009 is provided in Figure 

ES-3. Paper and paperboard made up the largest component of MSW generated (28.2 percent), 

food scraps were the second-largest component (14.1 percent) and yard trimmings were the third 

largest (13.7 percent). Metals, plastics, and wood each constituted between 6 and 13 percent of 

the total MSW generated. Glass made up 4.8 percent, rubber, leather, and textiles combined 

made up 8.3 percent of MSW, while other miscellaneous wastes made up 3.5 percent of the 

MSW generated in 2009. 

Figure ES-3. Materials Generation in MSW, 2009 

243 Million Tons (before recycling) 

Food scraps 14.1% 

Other 3.5% 

Yard trimmings 13.7% 

Wood 6.5% 

Metals 8.6% 

Paper and paperboard 28.2% 

Rubber, leather & textiles 

8.3% 

Plastics 12.3% 

Glass 4.8% 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary
 

A portion of each material category in MSW was recycled or composted in 2009. The 

highest rates of recovery were achieved with paper and paperboard, yard trimmings, and metals. 

Over 62 percent (42.5 million tons) of paper and paperboard was recovered for recycling in 2009. 

About 60 percent (19.9 million tons) of yard trimmings was recovered for composting or 

mulching in 2009. This represents about a five-fold increase since 1990. Recycling paper and 

paperboard and yard trimmings alone diverted about 26 percent of municipal solid waste from 

landfills and combustion facilities. In addition, about 7.2 million tons, or 34.5 percent, of metals 

were recovered for recycling. Recycling rates for all materials categories in 2009 are listed in 

Table ES-4. 

Table ES-4. Generation and Recovery of Materials in MSW, 2009 

(In millions of tons and percent of generation of each material) 

Material 

Weight 

Generated 

Weight 

Recovered 

Recovery As 

a Percent 

of Generation 

Paper and paperboard 68.43 42.50 62.1% 

Glass 11.78 3.00 25.5% 

Metals 

Steel 15.62 5.23 33.5% 

Aluminum 3.40 0.69 20.3% 

Other nonferrous metals* 1.89 1.30 68.8% 

Total metals 20.91 7.22 34.5% 

Plastics 29.83 2.12 7.1% 

Rubber and leather 7.49 1.07 14.3% 

Textiles 12.73 1.90 14.9% 

Wood 15.84 2.23 14.1% 

Other materials 4.64 1.23 26.5% 

Total Materials in Products 171.65 61.27 35.7% 

Other wastes 

Food, other** 34.29 0.85 2.5% 

Yard trimmings 33.20 19.90 59.9% 

Miscellaneous inorganic wastes 3.82 Neg. Neg. 

Total Other Wastes 71.31 20.75 29.1% 

TOTAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 242.96 82.02 33.8% 

Includes waste from residential, commercial, and institutional sources. 

*	 Includes lead from lead-acid batteries. 

**	 Includes recovery of other MSW organics for composting. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary
 

Products in MSW
 

The breakdown, by weight, of product categories generated in MSW in 2009 is shown 

in Figure ES-4. Containers and packaging comprised the largest portion of products generated in 

MSW, at 29.5 percent (71.6 million tons). Nondurable goods were the second-largest fraction, at 

22 percent (53.4 million tons). The third-largest category of products is durable goods, which 

made up 19.2 percent (46.6 million tons) of total MSW generation. 

Figure ES-4. Products Generated in MSW, 2009 

243 Million Tons (before recycling) 

Containers & Packaging
 

29.5%
 

Food Scraps 14.1% 

Yard Trimmings 13.7% 

Nondurable Goods 22.0% 

Other Wastes 1.5% 

Durable Goods 19.2% 

8 
 

 

Executive Summary
 

The generation and recovery of the product categories in MSW in 2009 are shown in 

Table ES-5. This table shows that recovery of containers and packaging was the highest of the 

three product categories—47.8 percent of containers and packaging generated in MSW in 2009 

were recovered for recycling. About 51 percent of all aluminum cans in MSW was recovered 

(37.5 percent of all aluminum packaging, including foil), while 66.2 percent of steel packaging 

(mostly cans) in MSW was recovered. Paper and paperboard containers and packaging were 

recovered at a rate of 62.4 percent; corrugated containers accounted for most of that amount. 

Approximately 31 percent of glass containers in MSW were recovered, while about 22 

percent of wood packaging (mostly wood pallets removed from service) was recovered for 

recycling. About 14 percent of plastic containers and packaging in MSW were recovered— 

mostly bottles and jars. 

Overall recovery of nondurable goods in MSW was at 35.3 percent in 2009. Most of this 

recovery comes from paper products such as newspapers and high-grade office papers (e.g., 

white papers). Newspapers constituted the largest portion of this recovery, with 88 percent of 

newspapers generated being recovered for recycling. An estimated 74 percent of high-grade 

office papers and 66 percent of other commercial printing was recovered in 2009. Newspaper, 

high-grade office paper, and other commercial printing recovery increased in percentage from 

2008 to 2009. 

Recovery percentages of the other paper products in the nondurable goods category also 

increased between 2008 and 2009, with standard mail *

 recovered at an estimated 63 percent, and 

magazines at an estimated 54 percent. 

* Standard mail was formerly called Third Class mail by the U.S. Postal Service. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary
 

Table ES-5. Generation and Recovery of Products in MSW by Material, 2009 


(In millions of tons and percent of generation of each product)
 

Products 

Weight 

Generated 

Weight 

Recovered 

Recovery as 

a Percent 

of Generation 

Durable Goods 

Steel 13.34 3.72 27.9% 

Aluminum 1.35 Neg. Neg. 

Other non-ferrous metals* 1.89 1.30 68.8% 

Glass 2.12 Neg. Neg. 

Plastics 10.65 0.40 3.8% 

Rubber and leather 6.43 1.07 16.6% 

Wood 5.76 Neg. Neg. 

Textiles 3.49 0.44 12.6% 

Other materials 1.61 1.23 76.4% 

Total durable goods 46.64 8.16 17.5% 

Nondurable Goods 

Paper and paperboard 33.48 17.43 52.1% 

Plastics 6.65 Neg. Neg. 

Rubber and leather 1.06 Neg. Neg. 

Textiles 9.00 1.46 16.2% 

Other materials 3.25 Neg. Neg. 

Total nondurable goods 53.44 18.89 35.3% 

Containers and Packaging 

Steel 2.28 1.51 66.2% 

Aluminum 1.84 0.69 37.5% 

Glass 9.66 3.00 31.1% 

Paper and paperboard 34.94 25.07 71.8% 

Plastics 12.53 1.72 13.7% 

Wood 10.08 2.23 22.1% 

Other materials 0.24 Neg. Neg. 

Total containers and packaging 71.57 34.22 47.8% 

Other Wastes 

Food, other** 34.29 0.85 2.5% 

Yard trimmings 33.20 19.9 59.9% 

Miscellaneous inorganic wastes 3.82 Neg. Neg. 

Total other wastes 71.31 20.75 29.1% 

TOTAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 242.96 82.02 33.8% 

Includes waste from residential, commercial, and institutional sources. 

*	 Includes lead from lead-acid batteries. 

**	 Includes recovery of other MSW organics for composting. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. 

10 
 

 

Executive Summary
 

The nondurable goods category also includes clothing and other textile products—16.2 

percent of these products were recovered for recycling or export in 2009. 

Overall, durable goods were recovered at a rate of 17.5 percent in 2009. Nonferrous 

metals other than aluminum had one of the highest recovery rates, at 68.8 percent, due to the high 

rate of lead recovery from lead-acid batteries. Recovery of steel in all durable goods was 27.9 

percent, with high rates of recovery from appliances. 

One of the products with a very high recovery rate was lead-acid batteries, recovered at a 

rate of about 96 percent in 2009. Other products with particularly high recovery rates were 

newspapers (88 percent), corrugated boxes (81 percent), major appliances (67percent), steel 

packaging (66.2 percent), and aluminum cans (51 percent). About 35 percent of rubber tires in 

MSW were recovered for recycling. (Other tires were retreaded, and shredded rubber tires were 

made into tire-derived fuel.) 

RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOURCES OF MSW 

Sources of MSW, as characterized in this report, include both residential and commercial 

locations. We estimate residential waste (including waste from multi-family dwellings) to be 55 

to 65 percent of total MSW generation. Commercial waste (including waste from schools, 

institutions, and businesses) constitutes between 35 and 45 percent of MSW. Local and regional 

factors, such as climate and level of commercial activity, contribute to these variations. 

MANAGEMENT OF MSW 

Overview 

EPA’s integrated waste management hierarchy includes the following four components, 

listed in order of preference: 

11 
 

Executive Summary
 

•	 Source reduction (or waste prevention), including reuse of products and on-site 

(or backyard) composting of yard trimmings 

•	 Recycling, including off-site (or community) composting 

•	 Combustion with energy recovery 

•	 Disposal through landfilling. 

Although we encourage the use of strategies that emphasize the top of the hierarchy 

whenever possible, all four components remain important within an integrated waste 

management system. 

Source Reduction 

Our waste management hierarchy emphasizes the importance of reducing the amount of 

waste created, reusing whenever possible, and then recycling whatever is left. When municipal 

solid waste is reduced and reused, this is called “source reduction”—meaning the material never 

enters the waste stream. 

Source reduction, also called waste prevention, includes the design, manufacture, 

purchase, or use of materials, such as products and packaging, to reduce their amount or toxicity 

before they enter the MSW management system. Examples of source reduction activities are: 

•	 Designing products or packaging to reduce the quantity or the toxicity of the 

materials used or make them easy to reuse. 

•	 Reusing existing products or packaging, such as refillable bottles, reusable pallets, 

and reconditioned barrels and drums. 

12 
Executive Summary
 

•	 Lengthening the lives of products such as tires so fewer need to be produced and 

therefore fewer need to be disposed of. 

•	 Using packaging that reduces the amount of damage or spoilage to the product. 

•	 Managing nonproduct organic wastes (e.g., food scraps, yard trimmings) through 

onsite composting or other alternatives to disposal (e.g., leaving grass clippings on 

the lawn). 

Realizing the value of our resources, both financial and material, we have continued in 

our efforts to reduce waste generation. 

Recycling 

The second component of our waste management hierarchy is recycling, including off-site 

(or community) composting. Residential and commercial recycling turns materials and products 

that would otherwise become waste into valuable resources. Materials like glass, metal, plastics, 

paper, and yard trimmings are collected, separated, and sent to facilities that can process them 

into new materials or products. 

•	 Recycling (including community composting) recovered 33.8 percent (82 million 

tons) of MSW generation in 2009. 

•	 There were about 9,000 curbside recycling programs in the United States in 2009. 

•	 In 2009, close to 3,000 yard trimmings composting programs were documented. 

13 
 

Executive Summary
 

Combustion with Energy Recovery 

MSW combustion with energy recovery increased substantially between 1980 and 1990 

(from 2.7 million tons in 1980 to 29.7 million tons in 1990). From 1990 to 2000, the quantity of 

MSW combusted with energy recovery increased over 13 percent to 33.7 million tons. After 

2000, the quantity of MSW combusted with energy recovery has decreased to an estimated 29.0 

million tons (11.9 percent of MSW generation) in 2009 (see Tables ES-1 and ES-2), less than the 

29.7 million tons estimated in 1990. 

Disposal 

During 2009, about 54 percent of MSW was landfilled, similar to the percentage 

landfilled in 2007 and 2008. As shown in Figure ES-5, the number of MSW landfills decreased 

substantially over the past 21 years, from nearly 8,000 in 1988 to 1,900 in 2009—while average 

landfill size increased. At the national level, capacity does not appear to be a problem, although 

regional dislocations sometimes occur. 

•	 The percentage of MSW landfilled remained about the same as 2008. Over time, 

the tonnage of MSW landfilled in 1990 was 145.3 million tons (see Table ES-1), 

but decreased to 139.4 million tons in 2000. The tonnage increased to 140.9 

million tons in 2005, then declined to 131.9 in 2009. The tonnage landfilled 

results from an interaction among generation, recycling, and combustion with 

energy recovery, which do not necessarily rise and fall at the same time. In 

general, as recovery increases, discards decrease. 

14 
Executive Summary
 

Figure ES-5. Number of Landfills in the United States, 1988 - 2009 


8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

47,92

7,379 

6,326 

5,812 

5,386 

4,482 

3,558 

3,197 3,091 

2,514 2,314 2,216 

1,967 1,858 1,767 1,754 1,908 

Data Data 

not 

available 

not 

available 

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

•	 In 2009, the net per capita discard rate (after materials recovery and combustion 

with energy recovery) was 2.36 pounds per person per day. The net per capita 

discard rate has decreased steadily since 1990. The 1990 rate was 3.19 pounds per 

person per day, the 2000 rate was 2.71 pounds per person per day, the 2005 rate 

was 2.61 pounds per person per day (Table ES-3). 

MSW management through recovery for recycling (including composting), combustion 

with energy recovery, and discard to disposal in 2009 is shown in Figure ES-6. In 2009, 82 

millions tons (33.8 percent) of MSW were recycled, 29.0 million tons (11.9 percent) were 

combusted with energy recovery, and 131.9 million tons (54.3 percent) were landfilled or 

otherwise disposed. (Relatively small amounts of this total undoubtedly were incinerated without 

energy recovery, littered, or illegally dumped rather than landfilled.) 

15 
 

 

Executive Summary
 

Figure ES- 6. Management of MSW in the United States, 2009 


Recovery 33.8% 

Combustion with Energy 

Recovery 11.9% 

Discarded 54.3% 

THE BENEFITS OF RECYCLING 

Recycling has environmental benefits at every stage in the life cycle of a consumer 

product—from the raw material with which it’s made to its final method of disposal. Aside from 

reducing GHG emissions, which contribute to global warming, recycling also reduces air and 

water pollution associated with making new products from raw materials. By utilizing used, 

unwanted, or obsolete materials as industrial feedstocks or for new materials or products, we can 

each do our part to make recycling work. Recycling also provides significant economic and job 

creation impacts, a topic discussed at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/rmd/econ.htm. 

16 
 

Executive Summary
 

Nationally, we recycled and composted 82 million tons of MSW. This provides an annual 

benefit of 178 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reduced, comparable to 

the annual greenhouse gas emissions from almost 33 million passenger vehicles. But the ultimate 

benefits from recycling are cleaner land, air, and water, overall better health, and a more 

sustainable economy. 

The benefits of recycling and composting, such as elimination of GHG emissions, are 

calculated using EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM). Please see: www.epa.gov/warm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

This report and related additional data are available on the Internet at 

www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm. 

17 
 

 

 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

CHAPTER 1
 

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
 

INTRODUCTION
 

This report is the most recent in a series of reports sponsored by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency to characterize municipal solid waste (MSW) in the United States. Together 

with the previous reports, this report provides a historical database for a 49-year characterization 

(by weight) of the materials and products in MSW. 

Management of the nation’s municipal solid waste (MSW) continues to be a high priority 

for communities in the 21st century. The concept of integrated solid waste management⎯source 

reduction of wastes before they enter the waste stream, recovery of generated wastes for 

recycling (including composting), and environmentally sound management through combustion 

with energy recovery and landfilling that meet current standards⎯is being used by communities 

as they plan for the future. 

This chapter provides background on integrated waste management and this year’s 

characterization report, followed by a brief overview of the methodology. Next is a section on the 

variety of uses for the information in this report. Then, more detail on the methodology is 

provided, followed by a description of the contents of the remainder of the report. 

BACKGROUND 

The Solid Waste Management Hierarchy 

EPA’s 1989 Agenda for Action endorsed the concept of integrated waste management, by 

which municipal solid waste is reduced or managed through several different practices, which 

can be tailored to fit a particular community’s needs. The components of the hierarchy are: 

18 
 

Chapter 1 	 Introduction and Methodology
 

•	 Source reduction (or waste prevention), including reuse of products and on-site 

(or backyard) composting of yard trimmings. 

•	 Recycling, including off-site (or community) composting. 

•	 Combustion with energy recovery. 

•	 Disposal through landfilling. 

As done in previous versions of this report, combustion with energy recovery is shown as 

discards in the Chapter 2 tables and figures. 

Overview of the Methodology 

Readers should note that this report characterizes the municipal solid waste stream of the 

nation as a whole. Data in this report can be used at the national level. The report can also be 

used to address state, regional, and local situations, where more detailed data are not available or 

would be too expensive to gather. More detail on uses for this information in this report for both 

national and local purposes is provided later in this chapter. 

At the state or local level, recycling rates often are developed by counting and weighing 

all the recyclables collected, and then aggregating these data to yield a state or local recycling 

rate. At the national level, we use instead a materials flow methodology, which relies heavily on a 

mass balance approach. Using data gathered from industry associations, key businesses, and 

similar industry sources, and supported by government data from sources such as the Department 

of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau, we estimate tons of materials and products generated, 

recycled, or discarded. Other sources of data, such as waste characterizations and surveys 

performed by governments, industry, or the press, supplement these data. 

19 
 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

To estimate MSW generation, production data are adjusted by imports and exports from 

the United States, where necessary. Allowances are made for the average lifespans of different 

products. Information on amounts of disposed MSW managed by combustion comes from 

industry sources and the press. MSW not managed by recycling (including composting) or 

combustion is assumed to be landfilled. 

In any estimation of MSW generation, it is important to define what is and is not included 

in municipal solid waste. EPA includes those materials that historically have been handled in the 

municipal solid waste stream–those materials from municipal sources, sent to municipal landfills. 

In this report, MSW includes wastes such as product packaging, newspapers, office and 

classroom papers, bottles and cans, boxes, wood pallets, food scraps, grass clippings, clothing, 

furniture, appliances, automobile tires, consumer electronics, and batteries. 

A common error in using this report is to assume that all nonhazardous wastes are 

included. As shown later in this chapter, municipal solid waste as defined here does not include 

construction and demolition debris, biosolids (sewage sludges), industrial process wastes, or a 

number of other wastes that, in some cases, may go to a municipal waste landfill. These 

materials, over time, have tended to be handled separately and are not included in the totals in 

this report. EPA has addressed several of these materials separately, for instance, in Biosolids 

Generation, Use, and Disposal in the United States, EPA530-R-99-009, September 1999, and 

Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts, EPA530-R09-002, March 2009. Recycling (including composting) is encouraged for these materials as well. 

In addition, the source of municipal solid waste is important. EPA’s figures include 

municipal solid waste from homes, institutions such as schools and prisons, and commercial 

sources such as restaurants and small businesses. MSW does not include wastes of other types or 

from other sources, including automobile bodies, municipal sludges, combustion ash, and 

industrial process wastes that might also be disposed in municipal waste landfills or combustion 

units. 

20 
 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

HOW THIS REPORT CAN BE USED 

Nationwide. The data in this report provide a nationwide picture of municipal solid waste 

generation and management. The historical perspective is particularly useful in establishing 

trends and highlighting the changes that have occurred over the years, both in types of wastes 

generated and in the ways they are managed. This perspective on MSW and its management is 

useful in assessing national solid waste management needs and policy. The consistency in 

methodology and scope aids in the use of the document for reporting over time. The report is, 

however, of equal or greater value as a solid waste management planning tool for state and local 

governments and private firms. 

Local or state level. At the local or state level, the data in this report can be used to 

develop approximate (but quick) estimates of MSW generation in a defined area. That is, the data 

on generation of MSW per person nationally may be used to estimate generation in a city or other 

local area based on the population in that area. This can be of value when a “ballpark” estimate 

of MSW generation in an area is needed. For example, communities may use such an estimate to 

determine the potential viability of regional versus single community solid waste management 

facilities. This information can help define solid waste management planning areas and the 

planning needed in those areas. However, for communities making decisions where knowledge 

of the amount and composition of MSW is crucial, (e.g., where a solid waste management 

facility is being sited), local estimates of the waste stream should be made. 

Another useful feature of this report for local planning is the information provided on 

MSW trends. Changes over time in total MSW generation and the mix of MSW materials can 

affect the need for and use of various waste management alternatives. Observing trends in MSW 

generation can help in planning an integrated waste management system that includes facilities 

sized and designed for years of service. 

21 
Chapter 1 	 Introduction and Methodology
 

While the national average data are useful as a checkpoint against local MSW 

characterization data, any differences between local and national data should be examined 

carefully. There are many regional variations that require each community to examine its own 

waste management needs. Such factors as local and regional availability of suitable landfill 

space, proximity of markets for recovered materials, population density, commercial and 

industrial activity, and climatic and groundwater variations all may motivate each community to 

make its own plans. 

Specific reasons for regional differences may include: 

•	 Variations in climate and local waste management practices, which greatly 

influence generation of yard trimmings. For instance, yard trimmings exhibit 

strong seasonal variations in most regions of the country. Also, the level of 

backyard composting in a region will affect generation of yard trimmings. 

•	 Differences in the scope of waste streams. That is, a local landfill may be 

receiving construction and demolition wastes in addition to MSW, but this report 

addresses MSW only. 

•	 Variance in the per capita generation of some products, such as newspapers and 

telephone directories, depending upon the average size of the publications. 

Typically, rural areas will generate less of these products on a per person basis 

than urban areas. 

•	 Level of commercial activity in a community. This will influence the generation 

rate of some products, such as office paper, corrugated boxes, wood pallets, and 

food scraps from restaurants. 

22 
Chapter 1 	 Introduction and Methodology
 

•	 Variations in economic activity, which affect waste generation in both the 

residential and the commercial sectors. 

•	 Local and state regulations and practices. Deposit laws, bans on landfilling of 

specific products, and variable rate pricing for waste collection are examples of 

practices that can influence a local waste stream. 

While caution should be used in applying the data in this report, for some areas, the 

national breakdown of MSW by material may be the only such data available for use in 

comparing and planning waste management alternatives. Planning a curbside recycling program, 

for example, requires an estimate of household recyclables that may be recovered. If resources 

are not available to adequately estimate these materials by other means, local planners may turn 

to the national data. National data are also useful in areas where appropriate adjustments in the 

data can be made to account for regional conditions as mentioned above. 

In summary, the data in this report can be used in local planning to: 

•	 Develop approximate estimates of total MSW generation in an area. 

•	 Check locally developed MSW data for accuracy and consistency. 

•	 Account for trends in total MSW generation and the generation of individual 

components. 

•	 Help set goals and measure progress in source reduction and recycling (including 

composting). 

23 
 

 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: IN PERSPECTIVE 

The Two Methodologies for Characterizing MSW: Site-Specific Versus Materials 

Flow 

There are two basic approaches to estimating quantities of municipal solid waste at the 

local, state, or national levels—site-specific and materials flow. This report is based on the 

materials flow approach because site-specific approaches are problematic for national estimates. 

Site-specific studies. In the first methodology, which is site-specific, sampling, sorting, 

and weighing the individual components of the waste stream could be used. This methodology is 

useful in defining a local waste stream, especially if large numbers of samples are taken over 

several seasons. Results of sampling also increase the body of knowledge about variations due to 

climatic and seasonal changes, population density, regional differences, and other factors. In 

addition, quantities of MSW components such as food scraps and yard trimmings can only be 

estimated through sampling and weighing studies. 

A disadvantage of sampling studies based on a limited number of samples is that they 

may be skewed and misleading if, for example, atypical circumstances were experienced during 

the sampling. These circumstances could include an unusually wet or dry season, delivery of 

some unusual wastes during the sampling period, or errors in the sampling methodology. Any 

errors of this kind will be greatly magnified when a limited number of samples are taken to 

represent a community’s entire waste stream for a year. Magnification of errors could be even 

more serious if a limited number of samples was relied upon for making the national estimates of 

MSW. Also, extensive sampling would be prohibitively expensive for making the national 

estimates. An additional disadvantage of sampling studies is that they do not provide information 

about trends unless performed in a consistent manner over a long period of time. 

24 
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

Of course, at the state or local level, sampling may not be necessary⎯many states and 

localities count all materials recovered for recycling, and many weigh all wastes being disposed 

to generate state or local recycling rates from the “ground up.” To use these figures at the 

national level would require all states to perform these studies, and perform them in a consistent 

manner conducive to developing a national summary, which so far has not been practical. 

Materials flow. The second approach to quantifying and characterizing the municipal 

solid waste stream–the methodology used for this report–utilizes a materials flow approach to 

estimate the waste stream on a nationwide basis. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, EPA’s Office 

of Solid Waste and its predecessors at the Public Health Service sponsored work that began to 

develop this methodology. This report represents the latest version of this database that has been 

evolving for over 30 years. 

The materials flow methodology is based on production data (by weight) for the materials 

and products in the waste stream. To estimate generation data, specific adjustments are made to 

the production data for each material and product category. Adjustments are made for imports 

and exports and for diversions from MSW (e.g., for building materials made of plastic and 

paperboard that become construction and demolition debris.) Adjustments are also made for the 

lifetimes of products. Finally, food scraps, yard trimmings, and a small amount of miscellaneous 

inorganic wastes are accounted for by compiling data from a variety of waste sampling studies. 

One problem with the materials flow methodology is that product residues associated 

with other items in MSW (usually containers) are not accounted for. These residues would 

include, for example, food left in a jar, detergent left in a box or bottle, and dried paint in a can. 

Some household hazardous wastes, (e.g., pesticide left in a can) are also included among these 

product residues. 

25 
 

 

 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

Municipal Solid Waste Defined in Greater Detail 

As stated earlier, EPA includes those materials that historically have been handled in the 

municipal solid waste stream–those materials from municipal sources, sent to municipal landfills. 

In this report, MSW includes wastes such as product packaging, newspapers, office and 

classroom paper, bottles and cans, boxes, wood pallets, food scraps, grass clippings, clothing, 

furniture, appliances, automobile tires, consumer electronics, and lead-acid batteries. For 

purposes of analysis, these products and materials are often grouped in this report into the 

following categories: durable goods, nondurable goods, containers and packaging, food scraps 

and yard trimmings, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes. 

Municipal solid wastes characterized in this report come from residential, commercial, 

institutional, or industrial sources. Some examples of the types of MSW that come from each of 

the broad categories of sources are: 

Sources and Examples Example Products 

Residential (single-and multi-family homes) Newspapers, clothing, disposable tableware, 

food packaging, cans and bottles, food scraps, 

yard trimmings 

Commercial (office buildings, retail and 

wholesale establishments, restaurants) 

Corrugated boxes, food scraps, office papers, 

disposable tableware, paper napkins, yard 

trimmings 

Institutional (schools, libraries, hospitals, 

prisons) 

Cafeteria and restroom trash can wastes, office 

papers, classroom wastes, yard trimmings 

Industrial (packaging and administrative; not 

process wastes) 

Corrugated boxes, plastic film, wood pallets, 

lunchroom wastes, office papers. 

26 
 

 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

The materials flow methodology used in this report does not readily lend itself to the 

quantification of wastes according to their sources. For example, corrugated boxes may be 

unpacked and discarded from residences, commercial establishments such as grocery stores and 

offices, institutions such as schools, or factories. Similarly, office papers are mostly generated in 

offices, but they also are generated in residences and institutions. The methodology estimates 

only the total quantity of products generated, not their places of disposal or recovery for 

recycling. 

Other Subtitle D Wastes 

Some people assume that “municipal solid waste” must include everything that is 

landfilled in Subtitle D landfills. (Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

deals with wastes other than the hazardous wastes covered under Subtitle C.) As shown in Figure 

1-A, however, RCRA Subtitle D includes many kinds of wastes. It has been common practice to 

landfill wastes such as municipal sludges, nonhazardous industrial wastes, residue from 

automobile salvage operations, and construction and demolition debris along with MSW, but 

these other kinds of wastes are not included in the estimates presented in this report. 

Figure 1-A. Municipal Solid Waste in the Universe of Subtitle D Wastes 

Subtitle D Wastes 

The Subtitle D Waste included in this report is Municipal Solid Waste, which includes: 

Containers and packaging such as soft drink bottles and corrugated boxes 

Durable goods such as furniture and appliances 

Nondurable goods such as newspapers, trash bags, and clothing 

Other wastes such as food scraps and yard trimmings. 

Subtitle D Wastes not included in this report are: 

Municipal sludges 

Industrial nonhazardous process wastes 

Construction and demolition debris 

Land clearing debris 

Transportation parts and equipment 

Agricultural wastes 

Oil and gas wastes 

Mining wastes 

Auto bodies 

Fats, grease, and oils 

27 
 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

Figure 1-B. Definition of Terms
 

The materials flow methodology produces an estimate of total municipal solid waste generation, 

recovery, and discards in the United States by materials and by product categories. 

The term generation as used in this report refers to the weight of materials and products as they enter 

the waste management system from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources and before 

materials recovery or combustion takes place. Preconsumer (industrial) scrap is not included in the generation 

estimates. Source reduction activities (e.g., backyard composting of yard trimmings) take place ahead of 

generation. 

Source reduction activities reduce the amount or toxicity of wastes before they enter the municipal 

solid waste management system. Reuse is a source reduction activity involving the recovery or reapplication 

of a package, used product, or material in a manner that retains its original form or identity. Reuse of products 

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

considered to be source reduction, not recycling. 

Recovery of materials as estimated in this report includes products and yard trimmings removed 

from the waste stream for the purpose of recycling or composting. For recovered products, recovery equals 

reported purchases of postconsumer recovered material (e.g., glass cullet, old newspapers) plus net exports (if 

any) of the material. Thus, recovery of old corrugated containers (OCC) is the sum of OCC purchases by 

paper mills plus net exports of OCC. If recovery as reported by a data source includes converting or 

fabrication (preconsumer) scrap, the preconsumer scrap is not counted towards the recovery estimates in this 

report. Imported secondary materials are also not counted in recovery estimates in this report. For some 

materials, additional uses, such as glass used for highway construction or newspapers used to make 

insulation, are added into the recovery totals. 

Combustion of MSW with energy recovery, often called “waste-to-energy,” is estimated in Chapter 3 

of this report. Combustion of separated materials–wood and rubber from tires–is included in the estimates of 

combustion with energy recovery in this report. 

Discards include MSW remaining after recovery for recycling or composting. These discards 

presumably would be combusted with or without energy recovery or landfilled, although some MSW is 

littered, stored or disposed onsite, or burned onsite, particularly in rural areas. No good estimates for these 

other disposal practices are available, but the total amounts of MSW involved are presumed to be small. 

28 
 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

For the analysis of municipal solid waste, products are divided into three basic categories: durable 

goods, nondurable goods, and containers and packaging. The durable goods and nondurable goods categories 

generally follow the definitions of the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Durable goods are those products that last 3 years or more. Products in this category include major 

and small appliances, furniture and furnishings, carpets and rugs, tires, lead-acid batteries, consumer 

electronics, and other miscellaneous durables. 

Nondurable goods are those products that last less than 3 years. Products in this category include 

newspapers, books, magazines, office papers, directories, mail, other commercial printing, tissue paper and 

towels, paper and plastic plates and cups, trash bags, disposable diapers, clothing and footwear, towels, sheets 

and pillowcases, other nonpackaging paper, and other miscellaneous nondurables. 

Containers and packaging are assumed to be discarded the same year the products they contain are 

purchased. Products in this category include bottles, containers, corrugated boxes, milk cartons, folding 

cartons, bags, sacks, and wraps, wood packaging, and other miscellaneous packaging. 

Materials and Products Not Included in These Estimates 

As noted earlier, other Subtitle D wastes (illustrated in Figure 1-A) are not included in 

these estimates, even though some may be managed along with MSW (e.g., by combustion or 

landfilling). Household hazardous wastes, while generated as MSW with other residential wastes, 

are not identified separately in this report. Transportation parts and equipment (including 

automobiles and trucks) are not included in the wastes characterized in this report. 

Certain other materials associated with products in MSW are often not accounted for 

because the appropriate data series have not yet been developed. These include, for example, inks 

and other pigments and some additives associated with packaging materials. Considerable 

additional research would be required to estimate these materials, which constitute a relatively 

small percentage of the waste stream. 

29 
 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

Some adjustments are made in this report to account for packaging of imported goods, 

but there is little available documentation of these amounts. 

OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT 

Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 presents the results of the municipal solid 

waste characterization (by weight). Estimates of MSW generation, recovery, and discards are 

presented in a series of tables, with discussion. Detailed tables and figures summarizing 2009 

MSW generation, recovery, and discards of products in each material category are included. 

In Chapter 3 of the report, estimates of MSW management by the various alternatives are 

summarized. These include recovery for recycling and composting, combustion, and landfilling. 

Summaries of the infrastructure currently available for each waste management alternative are 

also included in Chapter 3. 

A brief discussion of the materials flow methodology for estimating generation, recycling, 

and disposal is presented in Appendix A. 

30 
 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

CHAPTER 1 

REFERENCES 

Darnay, A., and W.E. Franklin, The Role of Packaging in Solid Waste Management, 1966 to 

1976. Public Health Service Publication No. 1855. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1969. 

Franklin, W.E., and A. Darnay. The Role of Nonpackaging Paper in Solid Waste Management, 

1966 to 1976. Public Health Service Publication No. 2040. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

1971. 

Darnay, A., and W.E. Franklin. Salvage Markets for Materials in Solid Wastes. Environmental 

Protection Publication SW-29c. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1972. 

Franklin, W.E., et al. Base Line Forecasts of Resource Recovery 1972 to 1990. Midwest 

Research Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 1975. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Second 

Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Source Reduction (SW-122). 1974. 

Smith, F.L., Jr. A Solid Waste Estimation Procedure: Material Flows Approach. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (SW-147). May 1975. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Third 

Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Source Reduction (SW-161). 1975. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Fourth 

Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction (SW-600). 1977. 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Baseline. Prepared 

for the Resource Conservation Committee. May 16, 1979. 

31 
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Baseline: Working 

Papers. Prepared for the Resource Conservation Committee. May 16, 1979. 

Resource Conservation Committee. Choices for Conservation: Final Report to the President and 

Congress (SW-779). July 1979. 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 

to 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 11, 1986. 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 

to 2000 (Update 1988). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 30, 1988. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1990 Update. (EPA/SW-90-042). June 1990. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1992 Update. (EPA/530-R-92-019). July 1992. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1994 Update. EPA/530-R-94-042. November 1994. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1995 Update. EPA/530-R-945-001. March 1996. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1996 Update. EPA/530-R-97-015. June 1997. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1997 Update. EPA/530-R-98-007. May 1998. 

32 
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1998 Update. EPA/530-R-99-021. September 1999. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and 

Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 1998. EPA/530-F-00-024. April 2000. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 1999 Facts 

and Figures. EPA/530-R-01-014. July 2001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2000 Facts 

and Figures. EPA/530-R-02-001. June 2002. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2001 Facts 

and Figures. EPA/530-R-03-011. October 2003. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/pubs/msw2001.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2005 Facts 

and Figures. EPA530-R-06-011. October 2006. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/pubs/mswchar05.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2007 Facts 

and Figures. EPA530-R-08-010. November 2008. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Task Force, Office of Solid 

Waste. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. February 1989. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. Subtitle D Study Phase I Report 

(EPA/530-SW-054). October 1986. 

33 
 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

CHAPTER 2
 

CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BY WEIGHT
 

INTRODUCTION
 

The tables and figures in this chapter present the results of the update of EPA’s municipal 

solid waste characterization report through 2009. The data presented also incorporate some 

revisions to previously reported data for 1990 through 2008. The revisions are generally due to 

improvements in the data available from data sources used in developing this report. 

This chapter discusses how much municipal solid waste (MSW) is generated, recovered, 

and disposed. First, an overview presents this information for the most recent years, and for 

selected years back to 1960. This information is summarized in Tables 1 to 3 and Figures 10 to 

13. Then, throughout the remainder of the chapter, MSW is characterized in more detail. 

Findings are presented in two basic ways: the first portion of the chapter presents data by 

material type. Some material types of most use to planners (paper and paperboard, glass, metals, 

plastics, and rubber and leather) are presented in detail in Tables 4 to 8 and Figures 2 to 9, while 

data on other materials also are summarized in Figures 12 and 13. 

The second portion of the chapter presents data by product type. This information is 

presented in Tables 9 to 23 and Figures 14 to 16. Products are classified into durable goods (e.g., 

appliances, furniture, tires); nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers, office-type papers, trash bags, 

clothing); and containers and packaging (e.g., bottles, cans, corrugated boxes). A fourth major 

category includes other wastes⎯yard trimmings, food scraps, and miscellaneous inorganic 

wastes. These wastes are not manufactured products, but to provide complete information in each 

table, they are included in both the product and the material tables. 

34 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

This chapter provides data on generation, recovery, and discards of MSW. (See Figure 1­

B in Chapter 1 for definitions of these terms.) Recovery, in this report, means that the materials 

have been removed from the municipal solid waste stream. Recovery of materials in products 

means that the materials are reported to have been purchased by an end user or have been 

exported from the United States. For yard trimmings and food scraps, recovery includes 

estimates of the material delivered to a composting facility (not backyard composting). Under 

these definitions, residues from a materials recovery facility (MRF) or other waste processing 

facility are counted as generation (and, of course, discards), since they are not purchased by an 

end user. Residues from an end user facility (e.g., sludges from a paper deinking mill) are 

considered to be industrial process wastes that are no longer part of the municipal solid waste 

stream. 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: CHARACTERIZED BY MATERIAL TYPE 

Generation, recovery, and discards of materials in MSW, by weight and by percentage of 

generation and discards, are summarized in Tables 1 through 3. Figures 10 and 11 (later in this 

chapter) illustrate these data over time. A snapshot, by material, for 2009 is provided in Figures 

12 and 13. In the following sections, each material is discussed in detail. 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 1 

MATERIALS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009 

(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation) 

Thousands of Tons 

Materials 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Paper and Paperboard 

Glass 

Metals 

Ferrous 

Aluminum 

Other Nonferrous 

Total Metals 

Plastics 

Rubber and Leather 

Textiles 

Wood 

Other ** 

29,990 

6,720 

10,300 

340 

180 

10,820 

390 

1,840 

1,760 

3,030 

70 

44,310 

12,740 

12,360 

800 

670 

13,830 

2,900 

2,970 

2,040 

3,720 

770 

55,160 

15,130 

12,620 

1,730 

1,160 

15,510 

6,830 

4,200 

2,530 

7,010 

2,520 

72,730 

13,100 

12,640 

2,810 

1,100 

16,550 

17,130 

5,790 

5,810 

12,210 

3,190 

87,740 

12,760 

14,110 

3,200 

1,600 

18,910 

25,540 

6,710 

9,440 

13,600 

4,000 

84,840 

12,540 

14,990 

3,330 

1,860 

20,180 

29,260 

7,360 

11,380 

14,790 

4,280 

82,530 

12,520 

15,640 

3,360 

1,880 

20,880 

30,750 

7,540 

11,940 

15,280 

4,550 

77,420 

12,150 

15,730 

3,410 

1,960 

21,100 

30,060 

7,630 

12,430 

15,540 

4,670 

68,430 

11,780 

15,620 

3,400 

1,890 

20,910 

29,830 

7,490 

12,730 

15,840 

4,640 

Total Materials in Products 54,620 83,280 108,890 146,510 178,700 184,630 185,990 181,000 171,650 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

12,200 

20,000 

1,300 

12,800 

23,200 

1,780 

13,000 

27,500 

2,250 

23,860 

35,000 

2,900 

29,810 

30,530 

3,500 

31,990 

32,070 

3,690 

32,610 

32,630 

3,750 

33,340 

32,900 

3,780 

34,290 

33,200 

3,820 

Total Other Wastes 33,500 37,780 42,750 61,760 63,840 67,750 68,990 70,020 71,310 

Total MSW Generated - Weight 88,120 121,060 151,640 208,270 242,540 252,380 254,980 251,020 242,960 

Percent of Total Generation 

Materials 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Paper and Paperboard 

Glass 

Metals 

Ferrous 

Aluminum 

Other Nonferrous 

Total Metals 

Plastics 

Rubber and Leather 

Textiles 

Wood 

Other ** 

34.0% 

7.6% 

11.7% 

0.4% 

0.2% 

12.3% 

0.4% 

2.1% 

2.0% 

3.4% 

0.1% 

36.6% 

10.5% 

10.2% 

0.7% 

0.6% 

11.4% 

2.4% 

2.5% 

1.7% 

3.1% 

0.6% 

36.4% 

10.0% 

8.3% 

1.1% 

0.8% 

10.2% 

4.5% 

2.8% 

1.7% 

4.6% 

1.7% 

34.9% 

6.3% 

6.1% 

1.3% 

0.5% 

7.9% 

8.2% 

2.8% 

2.8% 

5.9% 

1.5% 

36.2% 

5.3% 

5.8% 

1.3% 

0.7% 

7.8% 

10.5% 

2.8% 

3.9% 

5.6% 

1.6% 

33.6% 

5.0% 

5.9% 

1.3% 

0.7% 

8.0% 

11.6% 

2.9% 

4.5% 

5.9% 

1.7% 

32.4% 

4.9% 

6.1% 

1.3% 

0.7% 

8.2% 

12.1% 

3.0% 

4.7% 

6.0% 

1.8% 

30.8% 

4.8% 

6.3% 

1.4% 

0.8% 

8.4% 

12.0% 

3.0% 

5.0% 

6.2% 

1.9% 

28.2% 

4.8% 

6.4% 

1.4% 

0.8% 

8.6% 

12.3% 

3.1% 

5.2% 

6.5% 

1.9% 

Total Materials in Products 62.0% 68.8% 71.8% 70.3% 73.7% 73.2% 72.9% 72.1% 70.6% 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

13.8% 

22.7% 

1.5% 

10.6% 

19.2% 

1.5% 

8.6% 

18.1% 

1.5% 

11.5% 

16.8% 

1.4% 

12.3% 

12.6% 

1.4% 

12.7% 

12.7% 

1.5% 

12.8% 

12.8% 

1.5% 

13.3% 

13.1% 

1.5% 

14.1% 

13.7% 

1.6% 

Total Other Wastes 38.0% 31.2% 28.2% 29.7% 26.3% 26.8% 27.1% 27.9% 29.4% 

Total MSW Generated - % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

* Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial 

process wastes, or certain other wastes. 

** Includes electrolytes in batteries and fluff pulp, feces, and urine in disposable diapers. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 2
 

RECOVERY* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
 

(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each material)
 

Thousands of Tons 

Materials 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Paper and Paperboard 

Glass 

Metals 

Ferrous 

Aluminum 

Other Nonferrous 

Total Metals 

Plastics 

Rubber and Leather 

Textiles 

Wood 

Other ** 

5,080 

100 

50 

Neg. 

Neg. 

50 

Neg. 

330 

50 

Neg. 

Neg. 

6,770 

160 

150 

10 

320 

480 

Neg. 

250 

60 

Neg. 

300 

11,740 

750 

370 

310 

540 

1,220 

20 

130 

160 

Neg. 

500 

20,230 

2,630 

2,230 

1,010 

730 

3,970 

370 

370 

660 

130 

680 

37,560 

2,880 

4,680 

860 

1,060 

6,600 

1,480 

820 

1,320 

1,370 

980 

41,960 

2,590 

5,030 

690 

1,280 

7,000 

1,770 

1,100 

1,850 

1,830 

1,210 

44,480 

2,880 

5,280 

730 

1,300 

7,310 

2,100 

1,140 

1,920 

2,020 

1,240 

42,940 

2,810 

5,310 

720 

1,360 

7,390 

2,130 

1,140 

1,910 

2,130 

1,300 

42,500 

3,000 

5,230 

690 

1,300 

7,220 

2,120 

1,070 

1,900 

2,230 

1,230 

Total Materials in Products 5,610 8,020 14,520 29,040 53,010 59,310 63,090 61,750 61,270 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

4,200 

Neg. 

680 

15,770 

Neg. 

690 

19,860 

Neg. 

810 

20,900 

Neg. 

800 

21,300 

Neg. 

850 

19,900 

Neg. 

Total Other Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. 4,200 16,450 20,550 21,710 22,100 20,750 

Total MSW Recovered - Weight 5,610 8,020 14,520 33,240 69,460 79,860 84,800 83,850 82,020 

Percent of Generation of Each Material 

Materials 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Paper and Paperboard 

Glass 

Metals 

Ferrous 

Aluminum 

Other Nonferrous 

Total Metals 

Plastics 

Rubber and Leather 

Textiles 

Wood 

Other ** 

16.9% 

1.5% 

0.5% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

0.5% 

Neg. 

17.9% 

2.8% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

15.3% 

1.3% 

1.2% 

1.3% 

47.8% 

3.5% 

Neg. 

8.4% 

2.9% 

Neg. 

39.0% 

21.3% 

5.0% 

2.9% 

17.9% 

46.6% 

7.9% 

0.3% 

3.1% 

6.3% 

Neg. 

19.8% 

27.8% 

20.1% 

17.6% 

35.9% 

66.4% 

24.0% 

2.2% 

6.4% 

11.4% 

1.1% 

21.3% 

42.8% 

22.6% 

33.2% 

26.9% 

66.3% 

34.9% 

5.8% 

12.2% 

14.0% 

10.1% 

24.5% 

49.5% 

20.7% 

33.6% 

20.7% 

68.8% 

34.7% 

6.0% 

14.9% 

16.3% 

12.4% 

28.3% 

53.9% 

23.0% 

33.8% 

21.7% 

69.1% 

35.0% 

6.8% 

15.1% 

16.1% 

13.2% 

27.3% 

55.5% 

23.1% 

33.8% 

21.1% 

69.4% 

35.0% 

7.1% 

14.9% 

15.4% 

13.7% 

27.8% 

62.1% 

25.5% 

33.5% 

20.3% 

68.8% 

34.5% 

7.1% 

14.3% 

14.9% 

14.1% 

26.5% 

Total Materials in Products 10.3% 9.6% 13.3% 19.8% 29.7% 32.1% 33.9% 34.1% 35.7% 

Other Wastes 

Food, Other^ 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

12.0% 

Neg. 

2.3% 

51.7% 

Neg. 

2.2% 

61.9% 

Neg. 

2.5% 

64.1% 

Neg. 

2.4% 

64.7% 

Neg. 

2.5% 

59.9% 

Neg. 

Total Other Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. 6.8% 25.8% 30.3% 31.5% 31.6% 29.1% 

Total MSW Recovered - % 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 16.0% 28.6% 31.6% 33.3% 33.4% 33.8% 

* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap. 

** Recovery of electrolytes in batteries; probably not recycled. 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. 

^ Includes recovery of paper and mixed MSW for composting.
 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 3 

MATERIALS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009 

(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards) 

Thousands of Tons 

Materials 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Paper and Paperboard 

Glass 

Metals 

Ferrous 

Aluminum 

Other Nonferrous 

Total Metals 

Plastics 

Rubber and Leather 

Textiles 

Wood 

Other ** 

24,910 

6,620 

10,250 

340 

180 

10,770 

390 

1,510 

1,710 

3,030 

70 

37,540 

12,580 

12,210 

790 

350 

13,350 

2,900 

2,720 

1,980 

3,720 

470 

43,420 

14,380 

12,250 

1,420 

620 

14,290 

6,810 

4,070 

2,370 

7,010 

2,020 

52,500 

10,470 

10,410 

1,800 

370 

12,580 

16,760 

5,420 

5,150 

12,080 

2,510 

50,180 

9,880 

9,430 

2,340 

540 

12,310 

24,060 

5,890 

8,120 

12,230 

3,020 

42,880 

9,950 

9,960 

2,640 

580 

13,180 

27,490 

6,260 

9,530 

12,960 

3,070 

38,050 

9,640 

10,360 

2,630 

580 

13,570 

28,650 

6,400 

10,020 

13,260 

3,310 

34,480 

9,340 

10,420 

2,690 

600 

13,710 

27,930 

6,490 

10,520 

13,410 

3,370 

25,930 

8,780 

10,390 

2,710 

590 

13,690 

27,710 

6,420 

10,830 

13,610 

3,410 

Total Materials in Products 49,010 75,260 94,370 117,470 125,690 125,320 122,900 119,250 110,380 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

12,200 

20,000 

1,300 

12,800 

23,200 

1,780 

13,000 

27,500 

2,250 

23,860 

30,800 

2,900 

29,130 

14,760 

3,500 

31,300 

12,210 

3,690 

31,800 

11,730 

3,750 

32,540 

11,600 

3,780 

33,440 

13,300 

3,820 

Total Other Wastes 33,500 37,780 42,750 57,560 47,390 47,200 47,280 47,920 50,560 

Total MSW Discarded - Weight 82,510 113,040 137,120 175,030 173,080 172,520 170,180 167,170 160,940 

Percent of Total Discards 

Materials 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Paper and Paperboard 

Glass 

Metals 

Ferrous 

Aluminum 

Other Nonferrous 

Total Metals 

Plastics 

Rubber and Leather 

Textiles 

Wood 

Other ** 

30.2% 

8.0% 

12.4% 

0.4% 

0.2% 

13.1% 

0.5% 

1.8% 

2.1% 

3.7% 

0.1% 

33.2% 

11.1% 

10.8% 

0.7% 

0.3% 

11.8% 

2.6% 

2.4% 

1.8% 

3.3% 

0.4% 

31.7% 

10.5% 

8.9% 

1.0% 

0.5% 

10.4% 

5.0% 

3.0% 

1.7% 

5.1% 

1.5% 

30.0% 

6.0% 

5.9% 

1.0% 

0.2% 

7.2% 

9.6% 

3.1% 

2.9% 

6.9% 

1.4% 

29.0% 

5.7% 

5.4% 

1.4% 

0.3% 

7.1% 

13.9% 

3.4% 

4.7% 

7.1% 

1.7% 

24.9% 

5.8% 

5.8% 

1.5% 

0.3% 

7.6% 

15.9% 

3.6% 

5.5% 

7.5% 

1.8% 

22.4% 

5.7% 

6.1% 

1.5% 

0.3% 

8.0% 

16.8% 

3.8% 

5.9% 

7.8% 

1.9% 

20.6% 

5.6% 

6.2% 

1.6% 

0.4% 

8.2% 

16.7% 

3.9% 

6.3% 

8.0% 

2.0% 

16.1% 

5.5% 

6.5% 

1.7% 

0.4% 

8.5% 

17.2% 

4.0% 

6.7% 

8.5% 

2.1% 

Total Materials in Products 59.4% 66.6% 68.8% 67.1% 72.6% 72.6% 72.2% 71.3% 68.6% 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

14.8% 

24.2% 

1.6% 

11.3% 

20.5% 

1.6% 

9.5% 

20.1% 

1.6% 

13.6% 

17.6% 

1.7% 

16.8% 

8.5% 

2.0% 

18.1% 

7.1% 

2.1% 

18.7% 

6.9% 

2.2% 

19.5% 

6.9% 

2.3% 

20.8% 

8.3% 

2.4% 

Total Other Wastes 40.6% 33.4% 31.2% 32.9% 27.4% 27.4% 27.8% 28.7% 31.4% 

Total MSW Discarded - % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

* Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery. 

Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes. 

** Includes electrolytes in batteries and fluff pulp, feces, and urine in disposable diapers. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Paper and Paperboard
 

Collectively, the many products made of paper and paperboard1 materials comprise the 

largest component of MSW. The paper and paperboard materials category includes products such 

as office papers, newspapers, corrugated boxes, milk cartons, tissue paper, and paper plates and 

cups (Figure 2 and Table 4). 

Figure 2. Paper and paperboard products generated in MSW, 2009 

Corrugated boxes 

Newspapers 

Gable top/aseptic and folding cartons 

Office-type papers 

Standard mail 

Other papers 

Commercial printing 

Tissue paper and towels 

Magazines 

Other packaging 

Paper plates and cups 

Books 

Bags and sacks 

Directories 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

million tons 

Total generation of paper and paperboard in MSW has grown from 30 million tons in 

1960 to 68 million tons in 2009 (Table 1). As a percentage of total MSW generation, paper 

represented 34 percent in 1960 (Table 1). The percentage has varied over time, but is estimated 

to be 28.2 percent of total MSW generation in 2009. 

The term “cardboard” is often used for products made of paperboard (boxboard and containerboard), but this 

inexact term is not used in the paper industry. 

39 

30 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 4 

PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2009 

(In thousands of tons and percent of generation) 

Generation Recovery† Discards 

(Thousand (Thousand (Percent of (Thousand 

Product Category tons) tons) generation) tons) 

Nondurable Goods 

Newspapers 

Newsprint 5,060 4,490 88.7% 570 

Groundwood Inserts 2,700 2,350 87.0% 350 

Total Newspapers 7,760 6,840 88.1% 920 

Books 960 320 33.3% 640 

Magazines 1,450 780 53.8% 670 

Office-type Papers* 5,380 3,990 74.2% 1,390 

Telephone Directories 650 240 36.9% 410 

Standard Mail** 4,650 2,950 63.4% 1,700 

Other Commercial Printing 3,490 2,310 66.2% 1,180 

Tissue Paper and Towels 3,490 Neg. Neg. 3,490 

Paper Plates and Cups 1,170 Neg. Neg. 1,170 

Other Nonpackaging Paper*** 4,480 Neg. Neg. 4,480 

Total Paper and Paperboard 

Nondurable Goods 33,480 17,430 52.1% 16,050 

Containers and Packaging 

Corrugated Boxes 27,190 22,100 81.3% 5,090 

Gable Top/Aseptic Cartons‡ 460 30 6.5% 430 

Folding Cartons 4,980 2,490 50.0% 2,490 

Other Paperboard Packaging 90 Neg. Neg. 90 

Bags and Sacks 910 450 49.5% 460 

Other Paper Packaging 1,310 Neg. Neg. 1,310 

Total Paper and Paperboard 

Containers and Packaging 34,940 25,070 71.8% 9,870 

Total Paper and Paperboard^ 68,420 42,500 62.1% 25,920 

† Since 2008, recycling rates increased due to generation going down and applying default 

values to increased single stream recovered mixed paper products. 

* High-grade papers such as copy paper and printer paper; both residential and commercial. 

** Formerly called Third Class Mail by the U.S. Postal Service. 

*** Includes tissue in disposable diapers, paper in games and novelties, cards, etc. 

‡ Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons 

^ Table 4 does not include 10,000 tons of paper used in durable goods (Table 1).
 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

40 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

As Figure 3 illustrates, paper generation has generally increased since 1960, peaked at 

about 88 million tons in 2000, and declined after 2000 to 68 million tons in 2009. 

Figure 3. Paper and paperboard generation and recovery, 1960 to 2009
 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

million tons 

Generation 

Recovery 

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
 

The sensitivity of paper products to economic conditions can be observed in Figure 3. 

The tonnage of paper generated in 1975⎯a severe recession year⎯was actually less than the 

tonnage in 1970. Similar but less pronounced declines in paper generation can be seen in other 

recession years. This sensitivity is most obvious after 2006. 

The wide variety of products that comprise the paper and paperboard materials total is 

illustrated in Table 4 and Figure 2. In this report, these products are classified as nondurable 

goods or as containers and packaging, with nondurable goods being the larger category. 

41
 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Generation. Estimates of paper and paperboard generation are based on statistics 

published by the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). These statistics include data 

on new supply (production plus net imports) of the various paper and paperboard grades that go 

into the products found in MSW. The AF&PA new supply statistics are adjusted to deduct 

converting scrap, which is generated when sheets or rolls of paper or paperboard are cut to make 

products such as envelopes or boxes. Converting scrap rates vary from product to product; the 

rates used in this report were developed as part of a 1992 report for the Recycling Advisory 

Council, with a few more revisions as new data became available. Various deductions also are 

made to account for products diverted out of municipal solid waste, such as gypsum wallboard 

facings (classified as construction and demolition debris) or toilet tissue (which goes to 

wastewater treatment plants). 

Recovery. Estimates of recovery of paper and paperboard products for recycling are 

based on annual reports of recovery published by AF&PA. The AF&PA reports include recovery 

of paper and paperboard purchased by U.S. paper mills, plus exports of recovered paper, plus a 

relatively small amount estimated to have been used in other products such as insulation and 

animal bedding. Recovery as reported by AF&PA includes both preconsumer and postconsumer 

paper. 

To estimate recovery of postconsumer paper products for this EPA report, estimates of 

recovery of converting scrap (preconsumer industrial process waste) are deducted from the total 

recovery amounts reported by AF&PA. In earlier versions of this EPA report, a simplifying 

assumption that all converting scrap is recovered was made. For more recent updates, various 

converting scrap recovery rates ranging from 70 percent to 98 percent were applied to the 

estimates for 1990 through 2009. The converting scrap recovery rates were developed for a 1992 

report for the Recycling Advisory Council. Because recovered converting scrap is deducted, the 

paper recovery rates presented in this report are always lower than the total recovery rates 

published by AF&PA. 

42 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

When recovered paper is repulped, and often deinked, at a recycling paper mill, 


considerable amounts of sludge are generated in amounts varying from 5 percent to 35 percent of 

the paper feedstock. Since these sludges are generated at an industrial site, they are considered to 

be industrial process waste, not municipal solid waste; therefore they have been removed from 

the municipal waste stream. 

Recovery of paper and paperboard for recycling is among the highest rates overall 

compared to other materials in MSW (Table 2). As Table 4 shows, 81.3 percent of all corrugated 

boxes were recovered for recycling in 2009; this is up from 67.3 percent in 2000 (Table 21). 

Newspapers were recovered at a rate of 88.1 percent, and high grade office papers at 74.2 

percent, with lesser percentages of other papers being recovered also. Approximately 43 million 

tons of postconsumer paper were recovered in 2009–−62.1 percent of total paper and paperboard 

generation. This is up from 42.8 percent in 2000 (Table 2). 

Discards After Recovery. After recovery of paper and paperboard for recycling, discards 

were 25.9 million tons in 2009, or 16.1 percent of total MSW discards (Table 3). 

Glass 

Glass is found in MSW primarily in the form of containers (Table 5 and Figures 4 and 5), 

but also in durable goods like furniture, appliances, and consumer electronics. In the container 

category, glass is found in beer and soft drink bottles, wine and liquor bottles, and bottles and 

jars for food, cosmetics, and other products. More detail on these products is included in the later 

section on products in MSW. 

43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 	 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 5 

GLASS PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2009 

(In thousands of tons and percent of generation) 

Generation Recovery Discards 

(Thousand (Thousand (Percent of (Thousand 

Product Category tons) tons) generation) tons) 

Durable Goods* 2,120 Neg. Neg. 2,120 

Containers and Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Bottles** 6,000 2,340 39.0% 3,660 

Wine and Liquor Bottles 1,710 310 18.1% 1,400 

Other Bottles and Jars 1,950 350 17.9% 1,600 

Total Glass Containers 9,660 3,000 31.1% 6,660 

Total Glass 11,780 3,000 25.5% 8,780 

*	 Glass as a component of appliances, furniture, consumer electronics, etc. 

**	 Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink 

alcoholic coolers and cocktails. 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

Figure 4. Glass products generated in MSW, 2009 

Beer & soft drink bottles* 

Durable goods 

Other bottles & jars 

Wine & liquor bottles * Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and readyto-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 

million tons 

44 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Generation. Glass accounted for 6.7 million tons of MSW in 1960, or 7.6 percent of total 

generation. Generation of glass continued to grow over the next two decades, but then glass 

containers were widely displaced by other materials, principally aluminum and plastics. Thus the 

tonnage of glass in MSW declined in the 1980s, from approximately 15.1 million tons in 1980 to 

13.1 million tons in 1990. Beginning about 1987, however, the decline in generation of glass 

containers slowed (Figure 5). During the 1990s glass generation varied from 12.0 to 13.6 million 

tons per year. After 2000, glass generation trended downward from 12.8 to 11.8 million tons in 

2009. Glass was 10 percent of MSW generation in 1980, declining to 4.8 percent in 2009. 

Figure 5. Glass generation and recovery, 1960 to 2009 

million tons 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Generation 

Recovery 

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

45 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight 

46

Recovery. Recovered glass containers (bottles) are used to make new glass containers 

and other uses such as fiberglass insulation, aggregate, and glasphalt for road construction. Until 

1998, the Glass Packaging Institute published estimates of glass bottle recovery annually. Since 

this data source is no longer available, industry and state agency sources were contacted for 

recovery data. Recovery of glass containers was estimated at 3.0 million tons in 2009, up from an 

estimated 2.8 million tons in 2008. 

Discards After Recovery. Recovery for recycling lowered discards of glass to 8.8 

million tons in 2009 or 5.5 percent of total MSW discards (Table 3). 

Ferrous Metals 

 By weight, ferrous metals (iron and steel) are the largest category of metals in MSW 

(Table 6 and Figure 6). The largest quantities of ferrous metals in MSW are found in durable 

goods such as appliances, furniture, and tires. Containers and packaging are the other source of 

ferrous metals in MSW. Large quantities of ferrous metals are found in construction materials 

and in transportation parts and products such as automobiles, locomotives, and ships, but these 

are not counted as MSW in this report. 

 Total generation and recovery of all metals in MSW from 1960 to 2009 are shown in 

Figure 7. 

Generation. Approximately 10.3 million tons of ferrous metals were generated in 1960. 

Like glass, the tonnages grew during the 1960s, but began to slow as lighter materials like 

aluminum and plastics replaced steel in many applications. Since 1970, generation of ferrous 

metals has varied between about 12.4 million tons in 1970 to 15.6 million tons in 2009 (Table 1). 

The percentage of ferrous metals generation in total MSW has declined from 11.7 percent in 

1960 to 6.4 percent in 2009. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 	 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 6 

METAL PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2009 

(In thousands of tons and percent of generation) 

Generation Recovery Discards 

(Thousand (Thousand (Percent of (Thousand 

Product Category tons) tons) generation) tons) 

Durable Goods 

Ferrous Metals* 13,340 3,720 27.9% 9,620 

Aluminum** 1,350 Neg. Neg. 1,350 

Lead† 1,350 1,300 96.3% 50 

Other Nonferrous Metals‡ 540 Neg. Neg. 540 

Total Metals in Durable Goods 16,580 5,020 30.3% 11,560 

Nondurable Goods 

Aluminum 210 Neg. Neg. 210 

Containers and Packaging 

Steel 

Cans 1,940 1,280 66.0% 660 

Other Steel Packaging 340 230 67.6% 110 

Total Steel Packaging 2,280 1,510 66.2% 770 

Aluminum 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans 1,360 690 50.7% 670 

Other Cans 70 NA 70 

Foil and Closures 410 NA 410 

Total Aluminum Packaging 1,840 690 37.5% 1,150 

Total Metals in 

Containers and Packaging 4,120 2,200 53.4% 1,920 

Total Metals 20,910 7,220 34.5% 13,690 

Ferrous 15,620 5,230 33.5% 10,390 

Aluminum 3,400 690 20.3% 2,710 

Other nonferrous 1,890 1,300 68.8% 590 

* Ferrous metals (iron and steel) in appliances, furniture, tires, and miscellaneous durables. 

** Aluminum in appliances, furniture, and miscellaneous durables. 

†	 Lead in lead-acid batteries. 

‡	 Other nonferrous metals in appliances and miscellaneous durables. 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. NA = Not Available 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

47 
 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Figure 6. Metal products generated in MSW, 2009 

Nondurables 

Packaging 

Durables 

Ferrous metals Aluminum Other nonferrous 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 

million tons 

Figure 7. Metals generation and recovery, 1960 to 2009 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

20 

22 

million tons 

Generation 

Recovery 

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

48 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Recovery. The renewed emphasis on recovery and recycling in recent years has included 

ferrous metals. Based on data from the Steel Recycling Institute, recovery of ferrous metals from 

appliances (“white goods”) was estimated at a rate of 90 percent in 2009. Recovery of all 

materials in appliances (including ferrous metals) was estimated at 66.8 percent (Table 13). 

Overall recovery of ferrous metals from durable goods (large and small appliances, furniture, and 

tires) was estimated to be 27.9 percent (3.7 million tons) in 2009 (Table 6). 

Steel cans were estimated to be recovered at a rate of 66.0 percent (1.3 million tons) in 

2009. Approximately 230,000 tons of other steel packaging, including strapping, crowns, and 

drums, were estimated to have been recovered for recycling in 2008. Recovery of ferrous metals 

includes material collected through recycling programs as well as metal recovered at combustion 

facilities. 

Discards After Recovery. In 2009, discards of ferrous metals after recovery were 10.4 

million tons, or 6.5 percent of total discards (Table 3). 

Aluminum 

The largest source of aluminum in MSW is aluminum cans and other packaging (Table 6 

and Figure 6). Other sources of aluminum are found in durable and nondurable goods. 

Generation. In 2009, 1.8 million tons of aluminum were generated as containers and 

packaging, while approximately 1.6 million tons were found in durable and nondurable goods. 

The total–3.4 million tons–was 1.4 percent of total MSW generation in 2009 (Table 1). 

Aluminum generation was only 340,000 tons (0.4 percent of MSW generation) in 1960. 

Recovery. Aluminum beverage containers were recovered at a rate of 50.7 percent of 

generation (0.7 million tons) in 2009, and 37.5 percent of all aluminum in containers and 

packaging (beverage containers, food containers, foil, and other aluminum packaging) was 

recovered for recycling in 2009. 

49 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Discards After Recovery. In 2009, about 2.7 million tons of aluminum were discarded in 

MSW after recovery, which was 1.7 percent of total MSW discards (Table 3). 

Other Nonferrous Metals 

Other nonferrous metals (e.g., lead, copper, zinc) are found in durable products such as 

appliances, consumer electronics, etc. Lead in lead-acid batteries is the most prevalent nonferrous 

metal (other than aluminum) in MSW. Note that only lead-acid batteries from passenger cars, 

trucks, and motorcycles are included. Lead-acid batteries used in large equipment or industrial 

applications are not included. 

Generation. Generation of other nonferrous metals in MSW totaled 1.9 million tons in 

2009. Lead in batteries accounted for 1.4 million tons of this amount. Generation of these metals 

has increased slowly, up from 180,000 tons in 1960, 1.1 million tons in 1990, and 1.6 million 

tons in 2000. As a percentage of total generation, nonferrous metals have never exceeded one 

percent. 

Recovery. Recovery of the other nonferrous metals was 1.3 million tons in 2009, with 

most of this being lead recovered from batteries. It was estimated about 96 percent of battery lead 

was recovered in 2009. 

Discards After Recovery. In 2009, 590,000 tons of nonferrous metals were discarded in 

MSW. Percentages of total discards remained less than one percent over the entire period. 

Plastics 

Plastics are a rapidly growing segment of MSW. While plastics are found in all major 

MSW categories, the containers and packaging category (bags, sacks, and wraps, other 

packaging, PET bottles, jars and HDPE natural bottles, and other containers) has the most plastic 

tonnage at 12.5 million tons in 2009 (Figure 8 and Table 7). 

50 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Figure 8. Plastics products generated in MSW, 2009 

Durable goods 

Nondurable goods 

Bags, sacks and wraps 

Other packaging 

PET bottles & jars and 

HDPE natural bottles 

Other containers 

0 2 4 6 8 10 

million tons 

In durable goods, plastics are found in appliances, furniture, casings of lead-acid batteries, 

and other products. (Note that plastics in transportation products other than lead-acid batteries are 

not included in this report.) As shown in Table 7, a wide range of resin types is found in durable 

goods. While some detail is provided in Table 7 for resins in durable goods, there are hundreds 

of different resin formulations used in appliances, carpets, and other durable goods; a complete 

listing is beyond the scope of this report. 

51 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 	 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 7
 

PLASTICS IN PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2009
 

(In thousands of tons, and percent of generation by resin)
 

Generation Recovery Discards 

(Thousand (Thousand (Percent (Thousand 

Product Category tons) tons) of Gen.) tons) 

Durable Goods 

PET 410 

HDPE 1,190 

PVC 360 

LDPE/LLDPE 900 

PP 2,630 

PS 710 

Other resins 4,450 

Total Plastics in Durable Goods 10,650 400 3.8% 10,250 

Nondurable Goods 

Plastic Plates and Cups 

LDPE/LLDPE 20 20 

PP 170 170 

PS 710 710 

Subtotal Plastic Plates and Cups 900 Neg. 900 

Trash Bags 

HDPE 230 230 

LDPE/LLDPE 770 770 

Subtotal Trash Bags 1,000 1,000 

All other nondurables* 

PET 400 400 

HDPE 410 410 

PVC 330 330 

LDPE/LLDPE 1,390 1,390 

PP 890 890 

PS 580 580 

Other resins 750 750 

Subtotal All Other Nondurables 4,750 4,750 

Total Plastics in Nondurable Goods, by resin 

PET 400 400 

HDPE 640 640 

PVC 330 330 

LDPE/LLDPE 2,180 2,180 

PP 1,060 1,060 

PS 1,290 1,290 

Other resins 750 750 

Total Plastics in Nondurable Goods 6,650 Neg. Neg. 6,650 

Plastic Containers & Packaging 

Bottles and Jars** 

PET 2,570 720 28.0% 1,850 

Natural Bottles† 

HDPE 760 220 28.9% 540 

HDPE = High density polyethylene PET = Polyethylene terephthalate PS = Polystyrene 

LDPE = Low density polyethylene PP = Polypropylene PVC = Polyvinyl chloride 

LLDPE = Linear low density polyethylene Neg. = negligible, less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent 

*	 All other nondurables include plastics in disposable diapers, clothing, footwear, etc. 

**	 Injection stretch blow molded PET containers as defined in the 2008 Report on Postconsumer PET Container Recycling 

Activity Final Report. National Association for PET Container Resources. 

†	 White translucent homopolymer bottles as defined in the 2007 United States National Postconsumer Plastics Bottles 

Recycling Report. American Chemistry Council and the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers.
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 7 (continued)
 

PLASTICS IN PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2009
 

(In thousands of tons, and percent of generation by resin)
 

Generation Recovery Discards 

(Thousand (Thousand (Percent (Thousand 

Product Category tons) tons) of Gen.) tons) 

Plastic Containers & Packaging, cont. 

Other plastic containers 

HDPE 1,340 270 20.1% 1,070 

PVC 30 Neg. 30 

LDPE/LLDPE 40 Neg. 40 

PP 270 20 7.4% 250 

PS 70 Neg. 70 

Subtotal Other Containers 1,750 290 16.6% 1,460 

Bags, sacks, & wraps 

HDPE 660 40 6.1% 620 

PVC 60 60 

LDPE/LLDPE 2,380 320 13.4% 2,060 

PP 640 640 

PS 110 110 

Subtotal Bags, Sacks, & Wraps 3,850 360 9.4% 3,490 

Other Plastics Packaging‡ 

PET 150 10 6.7% 140 

HDPE 620 60 9.7% 560 

PVC 340 Neg. 340 

LDPE/LLDPE 800 Neg. 800 

PP 930 30 3.2% 900 

PS 290 20 6.9% 270 

Other resins 470 10 2.1% 460 

Subtotal Other Packaging 3,600 130 3.6% 3,470 

Total Plastics in Containers & Packaging, by resin 

PET 2,720 730 26.8% 1,990 

HDPE 3,380 590 17.5% 2,790 

PVC 430 430 

LDPE/LLDPE 3,220 320 9.9% 2,900 

PP 1,840 50 2.7% 1,790 

PS 470 20 4.3% 450 

Other resins 470 10 2.1% 460 

Total Plastics in Cont. & Packaging 12,530 1,720 13.7% 10,810 

Total Plastics in MSW, by resin 

PET 3,530 730 20.7% 2,800 

HDPE 5,210 590 11.3% 4,620 

PVC 1,120 1,120 

LDPE/LLDPE 6,300 320 5.1% 5,980 

PP 5,530 50 0.9% 5,480 

PS 2,470 20 0.8% 2,450 

Other resins 5,670 410 7.2% 5,260 

Total Plastics in MSW 29,830 2,120 7.1% 27,710 

HDPE = High density polyethylene PET = Polyethylene terephthalate PS = Polystyrene 

LDPE = Low density polyethylene PP = Polypropylene PVC = Polyvinyl chloride 

LLDPE = Linear low density polyethylene NA = Not Available 

‡ Other plastic packaging includes coatings, closures, lids, caps, clamshells, egg cartons, produce baskets, trays, shapes, 

loose fill, etc. 

Some detail of recovery by resin omitted due to lack of data. 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

53 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Plastics are found in such nondurable products as disposable diapers, trash bags, cups, 

eating utensils, medical devices, and household items such as shower curtains. The plastic food 

service items are generally made of clear or foamed polystyrene, while trash bags are made of 

high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or low-density polyethylene (LDPE). A wide variety of other 

resins are used in other nondurable goods. 

Plastic resins are also used in a variety of container and packaging products such as 

polyethylene terephthalate (PET) beverage bottles, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles for 

milk and water, and a wide variety of other resin types used in other plastic containers, bags, 

sacks, wraps, and lids. 

Generation. Production data on plastics resin use in products are taken from the 

American Chemistry Council’s annual resin reports. The basic data are adjusted for product 

service life, fabrication losses, and net imports of plastic products to derive generation of plastics 

in the various products in MSW. 

Plastics made up an estimated 390,000 tons of MSW generation in 1960. The quantity has 

increased relatively steadily to 29.8 million tons in 2009 (Figure 9). As a percentage of MSW 

generation, plastics were less than one percent in 1960, increasing to 12.3 percent in 2009. 

Recovery for Recycling. While overall recovery of plastics for recycling is relatively 

small – 2.1 million tons, or 7.1 percent of plastics generation in 2009 (Table 7) – recovery of 

some plastic containers is more significant. PET bottles and jars were recovered at a rate of 28.0 

percent in 2009. Recovery of high-density polyethylene natural bottles was estimated at 28.9 

percent in 2009. Significant recovery of plastics from polypropylene lead-acid battery casings 

and from some other containers was also reported. The primary sources of data on plastics 

recovery are annual product recovery surveys conducted for the American Chemistry Council and 

the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR). 

54 
 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Discards After Recovery. Discards of plastics in MSW after recovery were 27.7 million 

tons, or 17.2 percent of total MSW discards in 2009 (Table 3). 

Figure 9. Plastics generation and recovery, 1960 to 2009 

million tons

32 

28 

24 

20 

16 

12 

8 

4 

0 

Generation 

Recovery 

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

Other Materials 

Rubber and Leather. The predominant source of rubber in MSW is rubber tires from 

automobiles and trucks (Table 8). Other sources of rubber and leather include clothing and 

footwear and other miscellaneous durable and nondurable products. These other sources are quite 

diverse, including such items as gaskets on appliances, furniture, and hot water bottles, for 

example. 

55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Generation. Generation of rubber and leather in MSW has shown slow growth over the 

years, increasing from 1.8 million tons in 1960 to 7.5 million tons in 2009. One reason for the 

relatively slow rate of growth is that tires have been made smaller and longer-wearing than in 

earlier years. 

As a percentage of total MSW generation, rubber and leather has been about 3 percent for 

many years. 

Recovery for Recycling. The only recovery for recycling identified in this category is 

rubber from tires, and that was estimated to be 1.1 million tons in 2009. This is 35.2 percent of 

rubber in tires in 2009 (Table 8). (This recovery estimate does not include tires retreaded or 

energy recovery from tires.) Overall, 14.3 percent of rubber and leather in MSW was recovered 

in 2009. 

Table 8 

RUBBER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS IN MSW, 2009 

(In thousands of tons and percent of generation) 

Generation Recovery Discards 

(Thousand (Thousand (Percent of (Thousand 

Product Category tons) tons) generation) tons) 

Durable Goods 

Rubber in Tires* 3,040 1,070 35.2% 1,970 

Other Durables** 3,390 Neg. Neg. 3,390 

Total Rubber & Leather 

Durable Goods 6,430 1,070 16.6% 5,360 

Nondurable Goods 

Clothing and Footwear 790 Neg. Neg. 790 

Other Nondurables 270 Neg. Neg. 270 

Total Rubber & Leather 

Nondurable Goods 1,060 Neg. Neg. 1,060 

Total Rubber & Leather 7,490 1,070 14.3% 6,420 

* Automobile and truck tires. Does not include other materials in tires. 

** Includes carpets and rugs and other miscellaneous durables. 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

56 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Discards After Recovery. Discards of rubber and leather after recovery were 6.4 million 

tons in 2009 (4.0 percent of total discards). 

Textiles. Textiles in MSW are found mainly in discarded clothing, although other sources 

were identified to be furniture, carpets, tires, footwear, and other nondurable goods such as 

sheets and towels. 

Generation. An estimated 12.7 million tons of textiles were generated in 2009 or 5.2 

percent of total MSW generation (Table 1). Significant amounts of textiles enter the reuse 

market. However, the reused garments and wiper rags re-enter the waste stream eventually 

becoming part of MSW generation. Since reuse occurs prior to generation, the amount of reused 

textiles is not included in the generation estimates (or estimated separately). 

Recovery for Recycling and Discards. It was estimated that 13.8 percent of textiles in 

clothing and footwear and 17.1 percent of items such as sheets and pillowcases was recovered for 

export or reprocessing in 2009 (1.4 million tons) (Table 16). The recovery rate for all textiles is 

14.9 percent in 2009 (1.9 million tons) (Table 2). 

Wood. The sources of wood in MSW include furniture, other durable goods (e.g., 

cabinets for electronic equipment), wood packaging (crates, pallets), and some other 

miscellaneous products. Generation and recovery methodologies for wood pallets are based on 

data from the Center for Forest Products Marketing and Management (Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute). 

Generation. Generation of wood in MSW was 15.8 million tons in 2009 (6.5 percent of 

total MSW generation). 

Recovery for Recycling and Discards. Wood pallet recovery for recycling (usually by 

chipping for uses such as mulch or bedding material, but excluding wood combusted as fuel) was 

estimated at 2.2 million tons in 2009. 

57 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Accounting for recovery for recycling, wood discards were 13.6 million tons in 2009, or 

8.5 percent of total MSW discards (Table 3). 

Other Materials. Generation of “other materials” waste is mainly associated with 

disposable diapers, which are discussed under Products in Municipal Solid Waste. The only other 

significant sources of materials in this category are the electrolytes and other materials associated 

with lead-acid batteries that are not classified as plastics or nonferrous metal. 

Food Scraps 

Food scraps included here consist of uneaten food and food preparation wastes from 

residences, commercial establishments such as grocery stores and sit-down and fast food 

restaurants, institutional sources such as school cafeterias, and industrial sources such as factory 

lunchrooms. Preconsumer food waste generated during the manufacturing and packaging of food 

products is considered industrial waste and therefore not included in MSW food scrap estimates. 

Generation. No production data are available for food scraps. Food scraps from 

residential and commercial sources were estimated using data from sampling studies in various 

parts of the country in combination with demographic data on population, grocery store sales, 

restaurant sales, numbers of employees, and numbers of prisoners, students, and patients in 

institutions. Generation of food scraps was estimated to be 34.3 million tons in 2009 (14.1 

percent of total generation) (Table 1). Food scrap generation has increased, from earlier versions 

of this report, due to increased population and revised commercial sampling study data. 

Significant amounts of food products are donated by residents and commercial 

establishments (such as grocery stores and restaurants) to local food banks and charities. A good 

portion of these food donations (in particular, the commercial establishment donations of 

wholesome but not-for-retail food products) represents waste diversion by removing food scraps 

that would otherwise need to be managed either through composting or disposal. Data on these 

types of programs are limited. For example, Portland, Oregon reported 14,000 tons of food 

58 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

products diverted from the commercial sector through donations. This diversion takes place prior 

to generation and therefore is not included in the generation estimates presented in this report. 

Recovery for Composting and Discards. Beginning in 1994 for this series of reports, a 

significant amount of food scraps composting from commercial sources was identified. As the 

data source (a survey published by BioCycle magazine) improved, it became apparent that some 

other composted materials (e.g., industrial food processing wastes) had been included with food 

scraps classified as MSW in the past. Beginning in 2004, BioCycle staff conducted more targeted 

data gathering of MSW food waste composting from primary sources including state solid waste 

officials, large-scale municipal and commercial composting facilities, and large generators (e.g., 

supermarkets and restaurants). 

The targeted data gathering of MSW food scrap composting operations resulted in an 

estimate of 560,000 tons food scraps composted in 2009 (an increase of 100,000 tons from 

2008). A separate BioCycle publication estimated 290,000 tons of MSW composted in 2009 (a 

decrease of 50,000 tons from 2008). MSW composting includes the composting of food scraps as 

well as other organic materials found in MSW. The total – 850,000 tons of food scraps and other 

organic materials composted in 2009 – is shown in the recovery tables. 

Yard Trimmings 

Yard trimmings2

 include grass, leaves, and tree and brush trimmings from residential, 

institutional, and commercial sources. 

Generation. In earlier versions of this report, generation of yard trimmings was estimated 

using sampling studies and population data. While in past years generation of yard trimmings had 

been increasing steadily as population and residential housing grew (i.e., constant generation on a 

per capita basis), in the 1990s local and state governments started enacting legislation that 

discouraged yard trimmings disposal in landfills. 

Although limited data are available on the composition of yard trimmings, it is estimated that the average 

composition by weight is about 50 percent grass, 25 percent brush, and 25 percent leaves. These are “ballpark” 

numbers that will vary widely according to climate and region of the country. 

59 

2 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Legislation affecting yard trimmings disposal in landfills was tabulated, using published 

sources. In 1992, 11 states and the District of Columbia–accounting for more than 28 percent of 

the nation’s population–had legislation in effect that bans or discourages yard trimmings disposal 

in landfills. The tabulation of current legislation shows 23 states representing about 50 percent of 

the nation’s population have legislation affecting disposal of yard trimmings. In addition, some 

local and regional jurisdictions regulate disposal of yard trimmings. This has led to an increase in 

backyard composting and the use of mulching mowers to allow grass trimmings to remain in 

place since the early 1990’s. However, we are unable to estimate the influence of backyard 

composting and use of mulching mowers on a yearly basis. 

Using these facts, it was estimated that yard trimmings generation has declined since 

1990. In the absence of significant new legislation, yard trimmings generation has been 

increasing slightly since 2000 (i.e., increasing as natural population and residential dwelling units 

increase). An estimated 33.2 million tons of yard trimmings were generated in MSW in 2009. 

Recovery for Composting and Discards. Recovery for composting of yard trimmings 

was estimated using information from state composting programs that estimated tonnages 

composted or mulched in 2009. State reported composting tonnages may vary on a yearly basis 

with the amount of storm debris composted. Analysis of this information resulted in an estimate 

of 19.9 million tons of yard trimmings removed for composting or wood waste mulching in 2009 

– a significant increase over the 2000 estimate of 15.8 million tons. 

It should be noted that the estimated 19.9 million tons recovered for composting in 2009 

does not include yard trimmings recovered for direct landspreading disposal. It also should be 

noted that these recovery estimates do not account for backyard composting by individuals and 

practices such as less bagging of grass clippings. These are source reduction activities taking 

place onsite, while the yard trimmings recovery estimates are based on material sent off-site. 

60 
 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

This relatively small category of MSW is derived from sampling studies. It is not well 

defined and often shows up in sampling reports as “fines” or “other.” It includes soil, bits of 

concrete, stones, and the like. 

Generation, Recovery, and Discards. This category contributed an estimated 3.8 

million tons of MSW in 2009. No recovery of these products was identified; discards are the 

same as generation. 

Summary of Materials in Municipal Solid Waste 

Generation. Changing quantities and composition of municipal solid waste generation 

are illustrated in Figure 10. Generation of MSW has grown relatively steadily, from 88.1 million 

tons in 1960 to 243.0 million tons in 2009. 

Over the years paper and paperboard has been the dominant material category generated 

in MSW, accounting for 68 million tons (28.2 percent of generation) in 2009. Food scraps, the 

second largest material component of MSW at 34.3 million tons (14.1 percent of MSW 

generation) have increased in terms of MSW tonnage and percentage of total MSW. Yard 

trimmings, the third largest material component of MSW at 33.2 million tons (13.7 percent of 

generation) has declined as a percentage of MSW since 1990 due to state and local legislated 

landfill disposal restrictions and increased emphasis on backyard composting and other source 

reduction measures such as the use of mulching mowers. 

61 
 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Metals account for 20.9 million tons (8.6 percent of MSW generation) and have remained 

fairly constant as a source of MSW since 2000. Glass increased until the 1980s; decreasing in 

tonnage and as a percent of MSW generation since the 1990s. Glass generation was 11.8 million 

tons in 2009, 4.8 percent of generation. Plastics have increasingly been used in a variety of 

products and thus have been a rapidly growing component of MSW. In terms of tonnage 

contributed they ranked fourth in 2009 (behind paper, food scraps, and yard trimmings) at 29.8 

million tons, and account for 12.3 percent of MSW generation. 

Figure 10. Generation of materials in MSW, 1960 to 2009 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

* "All Other" includes primarily wood, rubber and leather, and textiles. 

million tons 

All other* 

Yard 

Food 

Plastics 

Metals 

Glass 

Paper 

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

62 
 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Recovery and Discards. The effect of recovery on MSW discards is illustrated in Figure 

11. Recovery of materials for recycling and composting grew at a rather slow pace from 1960 to 

the 1980s, increasing only from 5.6 million tons (6.4 percent of generation) in 1960 to 14.5 

million tons (9.6 percent) in 1980. Renewed interest in recycling (including composting) as waste 

management alternatives came about in the late 1980s, and the recovery rate in 1990 was 

estimated to be 16.0 percent of generation (33.2 million tons), increasing to 69.5 million tons 

(28.6 percent) in 2000, and 82 million tons (33.8 percent of generation) in 2009. 

Figure 11. Recovery and discards of materials in MSW, 1960 to 2009 

million tons 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Generation 

Recovery 

Discards including 

energy recovery 

combustion with 

Generation minus recovery = discards 

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

Estimated recovery of materials (including composting) is shown in Figure 12. In 2009, 

recovery of paper and paperboard dominated materials recovery at 51 percent of total tonnage 

recovered, while yard trimmings contributed 24 percent of total recovery. Recovery of other 

materials, while generally increasing, contributes much less tonnage, reflecting in part the 

relatively smaller amounts of materials generated in those categories. 

63 
 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Yard trimmings 

24% 

Metals 

9% 

Plastics 

3% 

Glass 

4% 

9% 

Figure 12. Materials recovery,* 2009 

All other 

Paper & paperboard 

51% 

* In percent by weight of total recovery 

Figure 13 illustrates the effect of recovery of materials for recycling, including 

composting, on the composition of MSW discards. For example, paper and paperboard products 

were 28.2 percent of MSW generated in 2009, but after recovery, paper and paperboard products 

were 16.1 percent of discards. Materials that have less recovery exhibit a larger percentage of 

MSW discards compared to generation. For example, plastic products were 12.3 percent of MSW 

generated in 2009 and, after recovery, were 17.2 percent of discards. 

64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Figure 13. Materials generated and discarded*
 

in municipal solid waste, 2009
 

(In percent of total generation and discards)
 

Other wastes 

Yard trimmings 

13.7% 

18.3% 

Paper & paperboard 

28.2% 

Glass 

4.8% 

Metals 

Food wastes 8.6% 

14.1% 

Plastics
 

12.3%
 

Generation 

Paper & paperboard 

16.1% 

Glass 

5.5% 

Metals 

8.5% 

Plastics 

Food wastes 17.2% 

Other wastes 

23.6% 

Yard trimmings 

8.3% 

20.8% 

Discards 

*Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery. 

65 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

The Chapter 2 section above gave a breakdown of municipal solid waste by material. It 

described how the 243 million tons of MSW were generated, recycled (including composted) and 

disposed of. The following section breaks out the same 243 million tons of MSW by product. 

PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 

The purpose of this section is to show how the products that make up municipal solid 

waste are generated, recycled (including composted) and discarded. For the analysis, products are 

divided into three basic categories: durable goods, nondurable goods, and containers and 

packaging. These three categories generally follow the definitions of the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, one of EPA’s data sources. By these definitions, durable goods, (e.g., appliances) are 

those that last 3 years or more, while nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers and trash bags) last less 

than 3 years. For this report, containers and packaging are assumed to be discarded the same year 

the products they contain are purchased. 

The following 15 tables (Tables 9 through 23) show generation, recycling (including 

composting) and discards of municipal solid waste in the three categories−durable goods, 

nondurable goods, and containers and packaging. Within these three categories, products are 

listed by type – for instance, carpets and rugs, office paper, or aluminum cans. The material the 

product is made of may be stated as well (for instance, glass beverage containers or steel cans), or 

may be obvious (for instance, magazines are made of paper.) Some products, such as tires and 

appliances, are made of several different material types. 

At the bottom of each of these 15 tables (Tables 9 through 23) there is a section titled 

“Other Wastes.” This contains information on food scraps, yard trimmings, and miscellaneous 

inorganic wastes. These wastes are not products that can be estimated through the materials flow 

methodology, but they are estimated by other means, as described earlier. 

66 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Within Tables 9 through 23, the first three tables – Tables 9 through 11 – serve as an 

index to the other tables. Table 9 shows what tables to consult for detailed information on 

generation; Table 10 shows what tables to consult for detailed information on recovery; and 

Table 11 does the same for detailed information on discards. The tables on generation all have 

the same “bottom line” – 242.96 million tons in 2009 – with detail provided in different 

categories – durable goods, nondurable goods, or containers and packaging. For Table 10 and 

related tables, the “bottom line” is MSW is recovered – 82.02 million tons; and for Table 11 and 

related tables, the “bottom line” is MSW discarded – 160.94 million tons. The “bottom line” for 

each of the quantity tables is calculated by adding the major category subtotal lines. 

Durable Goods 

Durable goods generally are defined as products having a lifetime of three years or more, 

although there are some exceptions. In this report, durable goods include large and small 

appliances, furniture and furnishings, carpets and rugs, rubber tires, lead-acid automotive 

batteries, consumer electronics, and other miscellaneous durable goods (e.g., luggage, sporting 

goods, miscellaneous household goods) (see Tables 12 through 14). These products are often 

called “oversize and bulky” in municipal solid waste management practice and they are generally 

handled in a somewhat different manner than other components of MSW. That is, they are often 

picked up separately, and may not be mixed with other MSW at the landfill, combustor, or other 

waste management facility. Durable goods are made up of a wide variety of materials. In order of 

tonnage in MSW in 2009, these include: ferrous metals, plastics, rubber and leather, wood, 

textiles, glass, other nonferrous metals (e.g., lead, copper), and aluminum. 

Generation of durable goods in MSW totaled 46.6 million tons in 2009 (19.2 percent of 

total MSW generation). After recovery for recycling, 38.5 million tons of durable goods 

remained as discards in 2009. 

67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 9 

CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009 

(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation) 

Thousands of Tons 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 12) 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 15) 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 18) 

9,920 

17,330 

27,370 

14,660 

25,060 

43,560 

21,800 

34,420 

52,670 

29,810 

52,170 

64,530 

38,850 

64,010 

75,840 

44,650 

63,650 

76,330 

45,770 

61,760 

78,460 

46,400 

58,690 

75,910 

46,640 

53,440 

71,570 

Total Product** Wastes 54,620 83,280 108,890 146,510 178,700 184,630 185,990 181,000 171,650 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

12,200 

20,000 

1,300 

12,800 

23,200 

1,780 

13,000 

27,500 

2,250 

23,860 

35,000 

2,900 

29,810 

30,530 

3,500 

31,990 

32,070 

3,690 

32,610 

32,630 

3,750 

33,340 

32,900 

3,780 

34,290 

33,200 

3,820 

Total Other Wastes 33,500 37,780 42,750 61,760 63,840 67,750 68,990 70,020 71,310 

Total MSW Generated - Weight 88,120 121,060 151,640 208,270 242,540 252,380 254,980 251,020 242,960 

Percent of Total Generation 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 12) 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 15) 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 19) 

11.3% 

19.7% 

31.1% 

12.1% 

20.7% 

36.0% 

14.4% 

22.7% 

34.7% 

14.3% 

25.0% 

31.0% 

16.0% 

26.4% 

31.3% 

17.7% 

25.2% 

30.2% 

18.0% 

24.2% 

30.8% 

18.5% 

23.4% 

30.2% 

19.2% 

22.0% 

29.5% 

Total Product** Wastes 62.0% 68.8% 71.8% 70.3% 73.7% 73.2% 72.9% 72.1% 70.6% 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

13.8% 

22.7% 

1.5% 

10.6% 

19.2% 

1.5% 

8.6% 

18.1% 

1.5% 

11.5% 

16.8% 

1.4% 

12.3% 

12.6% 

1.4% 

12.7% 

12.7% 

1.5% 

12.8% 

12.8% 

1.5% 

13.3% 

13.1% 

1.5% 

14.1% 

13.7% 

1.6% 

Total Other Wastes 38.0% 31.2% 28.2% 29.7% 26.3% 26.8% 27.1% 27.9% 29.4% 

Total MSW Generated - % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

* Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial 

process wastes, or certain other wastes. 

** Other than food products. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 10
 

RECOVERY* OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
 

(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each category)
 

Thousands of Tons 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 13) 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 16) 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 20) 

350 

2,390 

2,870 

940 

3,730 

3,350 

1,360 

4,670 

8,490 

3,460 

8,800 

16,780 

6,580 

17,560 

28,870 

8,040 

19,770 

31,500 

8,220 

20,970 

33,900 

8,360 

19,310 

34,080 

8,160 

18,890 

34,220 

Total Product** Wastes 5,610 8,020 14,520 29,040 53,010 59,310 63,090 61,750 61,270 

Other Wastes 

Food, Other^ 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

4,200 

Neg. 

680 

15,770 

Neg. 

690 

19,860 

Neg. 

810 

20,900 

Neg. 

800 

21,300 

Neg. 

850 

19,900 

Neg. 

Total Other Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. 4,200 16,450 20,550 21,710 22,100 20,750 

Total MSW Recovered - Weight 5,610 8,020 14,520 33,240 69,460 79,860 84,800 83,850 82,020 

Percent of Generation of Each Category 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 13) 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 16) 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 21) 

3.5% 

13.8% 

10.5% 

6.4% 

14.9% 

7.7% 

6.2% 

13.6% 

16.1% 

11.6% 

16.9% 

26.0% 

16.9% 

27.4% 

38.1% 

18.0% 

31.1% 

41.3% 

18.0% 

34.0% 

43.2% 

18.0% 

32.9% 

44.9% 

17.5% 

35.3% 

47.8% 

Total Product** Wastes 10.3% 9.6% 13.3% 19.8% 29.7% 32.1% 33.9% 34.1% 35.7% 

Other Wastes 

Food, Other^ 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

12.0% 

Neg. 

2.3% 

51.7% 

Neg. 

2.2% 

61.9% 

Neg. 

2.5% 

64.1% 

Neg. 

2.4% 

64.7% 

Neg. 

2.5% 

59.9% 

Neg. 

Total Other Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. 6.8% 25.8% 30.3% 31.5% 31.6% 29.1% 

Total MSW Recovered - % 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 16.0% 28.6% 31.6% 33.3% 33.4% 33.8% 

* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap. 

** Other than food products. 

^ Includes recovery of paper and mixed MSW for composting. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 11 

CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009 

(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards) 

Thousands of Tons 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 14) 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 17) 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 22) 

9,570 

14,940 

24,500 

13,720 

21,330 

40,210 

20,440 

29,750 

44,180 

26,350 

43,370 

47,750 

32,270 

46,450 

46,970 

36,610 

43,880 

44,830 

37,550 

40,790 

44,560 

38,040 

39,380 

41,830 

38,480 

34,550 

37,350 

Total Product** Wastes 49,010 75,260 94,370 117,470 125,690 125,320 122,900 119,250 110,380 

Other Wastes 

Food Wastes 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

12,200 

20,000 

1,300 

12,800 

23,200 

1,780 

13,000 

27,500 

2,250 

23,860 

30,800 

2,900 

29,130 

14,760 

3,500 

31,300 

12,210 

3,690 

31,800 

11,730 

3,750 

32,540 

11,600 

3,780 

33,440 

13,300 

3,820 

Total Other Wastes 33,500 37,780 42,750 57,560 47,390 47,200 47,280 47,920 50,560 

Total MSW Discarded - Weight 82,510 113,040 137,120 175,030 173,080 172,520 170,180 167,170 160,940 

Percent of Total Discards 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 14) 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 17) 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 23) 

11.6% 

18.1% 

29.7% 

12.1% 

18.9% 

35.6% 

14.9% 

21.7% 

32.2% 

15.1% 

24.8% 

27.3% 

18.6% 

26.8% 

27.1% 

21.2% 

25.4% 

26.0% 

22.1% 

24.0% 

26.2% 

22.8% 

23.6% 

25.0% 

23.9% 

21.5% 

23.2% 

Total Product** Wastes 59.4% 66.6% 68.8% 67.1% 72.6% 72.6% 72.2% 71.3% 68.6% 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

14.8% 

24.2% 

1.6% 

11.3% 

20.5% 

1.6% 

9.5% 

20.1% 

1.6% 

13.6% 

17.6% 

1.7% 

16.8% 

8.5% 

2.0% 

18.1% 

7.1% 

2.1% 

18.7% 

6.9% 

2.2% 

19.5% 

6.9% 

2.3% 

20.8% 

8.3% 

2.4% 

Total Other Wastes 40.6% 33.4% 31.2% 32.9% 27.4% 27.4% 27.8% 28.7% 31.4% 

Total MSW Discarded - % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

* Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery. 

Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes. 

** Other than food products. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

70 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Major Appliances. Major appliances in MSW include refrigerators, washing machines, 

water heaters, etc. They are often called “white goods” in the trade. Data on unit production of 

appliances are taken from Appliance Manufacturer Market Profile, Appliance Manufacturer 

Shipments Forecasts, and Appliance Statistical Review. The unit data are converted to weight 

using various conversion factors developed over the years, plus data on the materials 

composition of the appliances. Adjustments are also made for the estimated lifetimes of the 

appliances, which range up to 25 years. 

Generation of major appliances has increased very slowly over the years. In 2009, 

generation was 3.8 million tons, or 1.5 percent of total MSW generation. In general, the number 

of units of appliances has increased but average weight per unit has decreased over the years. 

Ferrous metals (steel and iron) are the predominant materials in major appliances, but other 

metals, plastics, glass, and other materials are also present. 

Data on recovery of ferrous metals from major appliances are taken from a survey 

conducted by the Steel Recycling Institute. Recovery of ferrous metals from shredded appliances 

was estimated to be 2.5 million tons in 2009, leaving 1.3 million tons of appliances to be 

discarded. 

Small Appliances. This category includes items such as toasters, hair dryers, electric 

coffee pots, and the like. Information on shipments of small appliances was obtained from 

Department of Commerce data and Appliance Statistical Review. Information on weights and 

materials composition of discarded small appliances was obtained through manufacturer 

specifications and interviews. It was estimated that 1.6 million tons of small appliances were 

generated in 2009. A small amount of ferrous metals in small appliances is recovered through 

magnetic separation. 

71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 12
 

PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
 

(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
 

(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
 

Thousands of Tons 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

Major Appliances 

Small Appliances** 

Furniture and Furnishings 

Carpets and Rugs** 

Rubber Tires 

Batteries, Lead-Acid 

Miscellaneous Durables 

Selected Consumer Electronics*** 

Other Miscellaneous Durables 

Total Miscellaneous Durables 

1,630 

2,150 

1,120 

Neg. 

5,020 

2,170 

2,830 

1,890 

820 

6,950 

2,950 

4,760 

2,720 

1,490 

9,880 

3,310 

460 

6,790 

1,660 

3,610 

1,510 

12,470 

3,640 

1,040 

7,990 

2,570 

4,930 

2,280 

1,900 

14,500 

16,400 

3,610 

1,180 

8,870 

2,980 

4,960 

2,740 

2,630 

17,680 

20,310 

3,620 

1,390 

9,340 

3,140 

5,000 

2,800 

3,010 

17,470 

20,480 

3,690 

1,530 

9,610 

3,220 

5,020 

2,930 

3,160 

17,240 

20,400 

3,760 

1,630 

9,870 

3,450 

4,730 

2,800 

3,190 

17,210 

20,400 

Total Durable Goods 9,920 14,660 21,800 29,810 38,850 44,650 45,770 46,400 46,640 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 15) 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 18) 

Total Product Wastes† 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

Total Other Wastes 

17,330 

27,370 

54,620 

12,200 

20,000 

1,300 

33,500 

25,060 

43,560 

83,280 

12,800 

23,200 

1,780 

37,780 

34,420 

52,670 

108,890 

13,000 

27,500 

2,250 

42,750 

52,170 

64,530 

146,510 

23,860 

35,000 

2,900 

61,760 

64,010 

75,840 

178,700 

29,810 

30,530 

3,500 

63,840 

63,650 

76,330 

184,630 

31,990 

32,070 

3,690 

67,750 

61,760 

78,460 

185,990 

32,610 

32,630 

3,750 

68,990 

58,690 

75,910 

181,000 

33,340 

32,900 

3,780 

70,020 

53,440 

71,570 

171,650 

34,290 

33,200 

3,820 

71,310 

Total MSW Generated - Weight 88,120 121,060 151,640 208,270 242,540 252,380 254,980 251,020 242,960 

Percent of Total Generation 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

Major Appliances 

Small Appliances** 

Furniture and Furnishings 

Carpets and Rugs** 

Rubber Tires 

Batteries, Lead-Acid 

Miscellaneous Durables 

Selected Consumer Electronics*** 

Other Miscellaneous Durables 

Total Miscellaneous Durables 

1.8% 

2.4% 

1.3% 

Neg. 

5.7% 

1.8% 

2.3% 

1.6% 

0.7% 

5.7% 

1.9% 

3.1% 

1.8% 

1.0% 

6.5% 

1.6% 

0.2% 

3.3% 

0.8% 

1.7% 

0.7% 

6.0% 

1.5% 

0.4% 

3.3% 

1.1% 

2.0% 

0.9% 

0.8% 

6.0% 

6.8% 

1.4% 

0.5% 

3.5% 

1.2% 

2.0% 

1.1% 

1.0% 

7.0% 

8.0% 

1.4% 

0.5% 

3.7% 

1.2% 

2.0% 

1.1% 

1.2% 

6.9% 

8.0% 

1.5% 

0.6% 

3.8% 

1.3% 

2.0% 

1.2% 

1.3% 

6.9% 

8.1% 

1.5% 

0.7% 

4.1% 

1.4% 

1.9% 

1.2% 

1.3% 

7.1% 

8.4% 

Total Durable Goods 11.3% 12.1% 14.4% 14.3% 16.0% 17.7% 18.0% 18.5% 19.2% 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 15) 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 19) 

Total Product Wastes† 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

Total Other Wastes 

19.7% 

31.1% 

62.0% 

13.8% 

22.7% 

1.5% 

38.0% 

20.7% 

36.0% 

68.8% 

10.6% 

19.2% 

1.5% 

31.2% 

22.7% 

34.7% 

71.8% 

8.6% 

18.1% 

1.5% 

28.2% 

25.0% 

31.0% 

70.3% 

11.5% 

16.8% 

1.4% 

29.7% 

26.4% 

31.3% 

73.7% 

12.3% 

12.6% 

1.4% 

26.3% 

25.2% 

30.2% 

73.2% 

12.7% 

12.7% 

1.5% 

26.8% 

24.2% 

30.8% 

72.9% 

12.8% 

12.8% 

1.5% 

27.1% 

23.4% 

30.2% 

72.1% 

13.3% 

13.1% 

1.5% 

27.9% 

22.0% 

29.5% 

70.6% 

14.1% 

13.7% 

1.6% 

29.4% 

Total MSW Generated - % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

* Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process 

wastes, or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

** Not estimated separately prior to 1990. *** Not estimated separately prior to 1999. Preliminary data; may undergo revision. 

† Other than food products. 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 13
 

RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
 

(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
 

(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
 

Thousands of Tons 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

Major Appliances 

Small Appliances** 

Furniture and Furnishings 

Carpets and Rugs** 

Rubber Tires 

Batteries, Lead-Acid 

Miscellaneous Durables 

Selected Consumer Electronics*** 

Other Miscellaneous Durables 

Total Miscellaneous Durables 

10 

Neg. 

330 

Neg. 

10 

50 

Neg. 

250 

620 

20 

130 

Neg. 

150 

1,040 

40 

1,070 

10 

Neg. 

Neg. 

440 

1,470 

470 

2,000 

20 

Neg. 

190 

1,290 

2,130 

190 

760 

950 

2,420 

20 

Neg. 

250 

1,720 

2,630 

360 

640 

1,000 

2,430 

20 

Neg. 

280 

1,770 

2,690 

550 

480 

1,030 

2,470 

110 

10 

270 

1,780 

2,810 

560 

350 

910 

2,510 

110 

10 

270 

1,670 

2,680 

600 

310 

910 

Total Durable Goods 350 940 1,360 3,460 6,580 8,040 8,220 8,360 8,160 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 16) 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 20) 

Total Product Wastes† 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

Total Other Wastes 

2,390 

2,870 

5,610 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

3,730 

3,350 

8,020 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

4,670 

8,490 

14,520 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

8,800 

16,780 

29,040 

Neg. 

4,200 

Neg. 

4,200 

17,560 

28,870 

53,010 

680 

15,770 

Neg. 

16,450 

19,770 

31,500 

59,310 

690 

19,860 

Neg. 

20,550 

20,970 

33,900 

63,090 

810 

20,900 

Neg. 

21,710 

19,310 

34,080 

61,750 

800 

21,300 

Neg. 

22,100 

18,890 

34,220 

61,270 

850 

19,900 

Neg. 

20,750 

Total MSW Recovered - Weight 5,610 8,020 14,520 33,240 69,460 79,860 84,800 83,850 82,020 

Percent of Generation of Each Product 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

Major Appliances 

Small Appliances** 

Furniture and Furnishings 

Carpets and Rugs** 

Rubber Tires 

Batteries, Lead-Acid 

Miscellaneous Durables 

Selected Consumer Electronics*** 

Other Miscellaneous Durables 

Total Miscellaneous Durables 

0.6% 

Neg. 

29.5% 

Neg. 

0.2% 

2.3% 

Neg. 

13.2% 

75.6% 

0.3% 

4.4% 

Neg. 

5.5% 

69.8% 

0.4% 

32.3% 

2.2% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

12.2% 

97.4% 

3.8% 

54.9% 

1.9% 

Neg. 

7.4% 

26.2% 

93.4% 

10.0% 

5.2% 

5.8% 

67.0% 

1.7% 

Neg. 

8.4% 

34.7% 

96.0% 

13.7% 

3.6% 

4.9% 

67.1% 

1.4% 

Neg. 

8.9% 

35.4% 

96.1% 

18.3% 

2.7% 

5.0% 

66.9% 

7.2% 

0.1% 

8.4% 

35.5% 

95.9% 

17.7% 

2.0% 

4.5% 

66.8% 

6.7% 

0.1% 

7.8% 

35.3% 

95.7% 

18.8% 

1.8% 

4.5% 

Total Durable Goods 3.5% 6.4% 6.2% 11.6% 16.9% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 17.5% 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 16) 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 21) 

Total Product Wastes† 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

Total Other Wastes 

13.8% 

10.5% 

10.3% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

14.9% 

7.7% 

9.6% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

13.6% 

16.1% 

13.3% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

16.9% 

26.0% 

19.8% 

Neg. 

12.0% 

Neg. 

6.8% 

27.4% 

38.1% 

29.7% 

2.3% 

51.7% 

Neg. 

25.8% 

31.1% 

41.3% 

32.1% 

2.2% 

61.9% 

Neg. 

30.3% 

34.0% 

43.2% 

33.9% 

2.5% 

64.1% 

Neg. 

31.5% 

32.9% 

44.9% 

34.1% 

2.4% 

64.7% 

Neg. 

31.6% 

35.3% 

47.8% 

35.7% 

2.5% 

59.9% 

Neg. 

29.1% 

Total MSW Recovered - % 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 16.0% 28.6% 31.6% 33.3% 33.4% 33.8% 

* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap. 

** Not estimated separately prior to 1990. *** Not estimated separately prior to 1999. 

† Other than food products. 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 14
 

PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
 

(WITH DETAIL ON DURABLE GOODS)
 

(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
 

Thousands of Tons 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

Major Appliances 

Small Appliances** 

Furniture and Furnishings 

Carpets and Rugs** 

Rubber Tires 

Batteries, Lead-Acid 

Miscellaneous Durables 

Selected Consumer Electronics*** 

Other Miscellaneous Durables 

Total Miscellaneous Durables 

1,620 

2,150 

790 

Neg. 

5,010 

2,120 

2,830 

1,640 

200 

6,930 

2,820 

4,760 

2,570 

450 

9,840 

2,240 

450 

6,790 

1,660 

3,170 

40 

12,000 

1,640 

1,020 

7,990 

2,380 

3,640 

150 

1,710 

13,740 

15,450 

1,190 

1,160 

8,870 

2,730 

3,240 

110 

2,270 

17,040 

19,310 

1,190 

1,370 

9,340 

2,860 

3,230 

110 

2,460 

16,990 

19,450 

1,220 

1,420 

9,600 

2,950 

3,240 

120 

2,600 

16,890 

19,490 

1,250 

1,520 

9,860 

3,180 

3,060 

120 

2,590 

16,900 

19,490 

Total Durable Goods 9,570 13,720 20,440 26,350 32,270 36,610 37,550 38,040 38,480 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 17) 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 22) 

Total Product Wastes† 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

Total Other Wastes 

14,940 

24,500 

49,010 

12,200 

20,000 

1,300 

33,500 

21,330 

40,210 

75,260 

12,800 

23,200 

1,780 

37,780 

29,750 

44,180 

94,370 

13,000 

27,500 

2,250 

42,750 

43,370 

47,750 

117,470 

23,860 

30,800 

2,900 

57,560 

46,450 

46,970 

125,690 

29,130 

14,760 

3,500 

47,390 

43,880 

44,830 

125,320 

31,300 

12,210 

3,690 

47,200 

40,790 

44,560 

122,900 

31,800 

11,730 

3,750 

47,280 

39,380 

41,830 

119,250 

32,540 

11,600 

3,780 

47,920 

34,550 

37,350 

110,380 

33,440 

13,300 

3,820 

50,560 

Total MSW Discarded - Weight 82,510 113,040 137,120 175,030 173,080 172,520 170,180 167,170 160,940 

Percent of Total Discards 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

Major Appliances 

Small Appliances** 

Furniture and Furnishings 

Carpets and Rugs** 

Rubber Tires 

Batteries, Lead-Acid 

Miscellaneous Durables 

Selected Consumer Electronics*** 

Other Miscellaneous Durables 

Total Miscellaneous Durables 

2.0% 

2.6% 

1.0% 

Neg. 

6.1% 

1.9% 

2.5% 

1.5% 

0.2% 

6.1% 

2.1% 

3.5% 

1.9% 

0.3% 

7.2% 

1.3% 

0.3% 

3.9% 

0.9% 

1.8% 

0.0% 

6.9% 

0.9% 

0.6% 

4.6% 

1.4% 

2.1% 

0.1% 

1.0% 

7.9% 

8.9% 

0.7% 

0.7% 

5.1% 

1.6% 

1.9% 

0.1% 

1.3% 

9.9% 

11.2% 

0.7% 

0.8% 

5.5% 

1.7% 

1.9% 

0.1% 

1.4% 

10.0% 

11.4% 

0.7% 

0.8% 

5.7% 

1.8% 

1.9% 

0.1% 

1.6% 

10.1% 

11.7% 

0.8% 

0.9% 

6.1% 

2.0% 

1.9% 

0.1% 

1.6% 

10.5% 

12.1% 

Total Durable Goods 11.6% 12.1% 14.9% 15.1% 18.6% 21.2% 22.1% 22.8% 23.9% 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 17) 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 23) 

Total Product Wastes† 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 

Yard Trimmings 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 

Total Other Wastes 

18.1% 

29.7% 

59.4% 

14.8% 

24.2% 

1.6% 

40.6% 

18.9% 

35.6% 

66.6% 

11.3% 

20.5% 

1.6% 

33.4% 

21.7% 

32.2% 

68.8% 

9.5% 

20.1% 

1.6% 

31.2% 

24.8% 

27.3% 

67.1% 

13.6% 

17.6% 

1.7% 

32.9% 

26.8% 

27.1% 

72.6% 

16.8% 

8.5% 

2.0% 

27.4% 

25.4% 

26.0% 

72.6% 

18.1% 

7.1% 

2.1% 

27.4% 

24.0% 

26.2% 

72.2% 

18.7% 

6.9% 

2.2% 

27.8% 

23.6% 

25.0% 

71.3% 

19.5% 

6.9% 

2.3% 

28.7% 

21.5% 

23.2% 

68.6% 

20.8% 

8.3% 

2.4% 

31.4% 

Total MSW Discarded - % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

* Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery. 

Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes. 

** Not estimated separately prior to 1990. *** Not estimated separately prior to 1999. Preliminary data; may undergo revision. 

† Other than food products. 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

74 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Furniture and Furnishings. Data on sales of furniture and furnishings are provided by 

the Department of Commerce in dollars. These data are converted to tons using factors developed 

for this study over the years. For example, factors are developed by applying sales growth 

statistics (expressed as constant dollars) in household and office furniture, curtains, and 

mattresses to textile consumption (in tons) in household and office furniture, curtains, and 

mattresses manufacturing for those years where consumption data are available. These factors are 

then applied to those years where sales statistics are available but consumption data are not 

available. Adjustments are made for imports and exports and adjustments are made for the 

lifetimes of the furniture. 

Generation of furniture and furnishings represents products at the end-of-life (after 

primary use and reuse by secondary owners). Generation of furniture and furnishings in MSW 

has increased from 2.2 million tons in 1960 to 9.9 million tons in 2009 (4.1 percent of total 

MSW). The only recovery of materials from furniture identified was mattress recovery. 

According to an industry representative, mattress recovery is estimated at 10,000 tons. Wood is 

the largest material category in furniture, with ferrous metals second. Plastics, glass, and other 

materials are also found in furniture. 

Carpets and Rugs. An industry publication, Carpet and Rug Industrial Review, 

publishes data on carpet sales in square yards. These data are converted to tons using pounds per 

square yard factors developed for this report. In recent years, carpet sales from the Department of 

Commerce Current Industrial Report Carpet and Rug series have been used. An estimated 3.5 

million tons of carpets and rugs were generated in MSW in 2009, which was 1.4 percent of total 

generation. 

Recovery of carpet fiber, backing, and padding – estimated from industry data – was 

270,000 tons in 2009 (7.8 percent of carpet generation). 

75 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Vehicle Tires. The methodology for estimating generation of rubber tires for automobiles 

and trucks is based on data on replacement tires purchased and vehicles deregistered as reported 

by the U. S. Department of Commerce. It is assumed that for each replacement tire purchased, a 

used tire enters the waste management system, and that tires on deregistered vehicles also enter 

the waste management system. Retreaded tires are treated as a diversion out of the waste stream; 

they are assumed to re-enter the waste stream after two years of use. 

The quantities of tires in units are converted to weight and materials composition using 

factors developed for this series of reports. In addition to rubber, tires include relatively small 

amounts of textiles and ferrous metals. Generation of rubber tires increased from 1.1 million tons 

in 1960 to 4.7 million tons in 2009 (1.9 percent of total MSW). Since 2000, the generation of 

rubber tires has remained fairly constant. 

Data on recovery of tires are based on data from the Scrap Tire Management Council. 

The tire recovery rate increased from 26.2 percent in 2000 to 35.3 percent in 2009. From 2005 to 

2008, the quantity of tires generated and recovered through recycling remained relatively steady. 

In 2009, the quantity of tires generated and recovered through recycling decreased; however, the 

recycling rate remained about the same as 2008. After recovery, 3.1 million tons of tires were 

discarded in 2009. (Tires going to combustion facilities as fuel are included in the combustion 

estimates in Chapter 3.) 

Lead-Acid Batteries. The methodology for estimating generation of lead-acid batteries is 

similar to the methodology for rubber tires as described above. An estimated 2.8 million tons of 

lead-acid batteries from automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles were generated in MSW in 2009 

(1.2 percent of total generation). 

The Battery Council International provided the most recent data on recovery of batteries. 

Recovery of batteries for recycling has fluctuated between 70 percent and 96 percent; recovery 

has increased since 1980 as a growing number of communities have restricted batteries from 

disposal at landfills or combustion facilities. In 2009, 95.7 percent of the lead in these batteries 

was estimated to be recovered for recycling as well as substantial quantities of the polypropylene 

76 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

battery casings. Discards after recycling of these batteries were 120,000 tons in 2009. (Some 

electrolytes and other materials in batteries are removed from the municipal solid waste stream 

along with recovered lead and polypropylene; these materials are counted as “recovered” along 

with the recyclable materials.) 

Miscellaneous Durable Goods. Miscellaneous durable goods include consumer 

electronics such as television sets, videocassette recorders, and personal computers; luggage; 

sporting equipment; and the like. An estimated 20.4 million tons of these goods were generated 

in 2009, amounting to 8.4 percent of MSW generated. 

As in recent previous updates of this report, generation of selected consumer electronic 

products was estimated as a subset of miscellaneous durable goods. In 2009, an estimated 3.2 

million tons of these goods were generated. Of this, approximately 600,000 tons of selected 

consumer electronics were collected for recycling. Selected consumer electronics include 

products such as TVs, VCRs, DVD players, video cameras, stereo systems, telephones, and 

computer equipment. EPA has analyzed television, computer products, and cell phone 

management separately in the 2010 report Electronics Waste Management in the United States 

Through 2009. 

The miscellaneous durable goods category, as a whole, includes ferrous metals as well as 

plastics, glass, rubber, wood, and other metals. An estimated 310,000 tons of ferrous metals were 

estimated to have been recovered from this category through pre-combustion and postcombustion magnetic separation at MSW combustion facilities in 2009, bringing total recovery 

from this category to 910,000 tons. Discards of miscellaneous durable goods were 19.5 million 

tons in 2009. 

Nondurable Goods 

The Department of Commerce defines nondurable goods as those products having a 

lifetime of less than three years, and this definition was followed for this report to the extent 

possible. 

77 
 

 

 

Chapter 2 	 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Products made of paper and paperboard comprise the largest portion of nondurable goods. 

Other nondurable products include paper and plastic plates, cups, and other disposable food 

service products; disposable diapers; clothing and footwear; linens; and other miscellaneous 

products. (See Tables 15 through 17.) 

Generation of nondurable goods in MSW was 53.4 million tons in 2009 (22.0 percent of 

total generation). Recovery of paper products in this category is quite significant, resulting in 

18.9 million tons of nondurable goods recovered in 2009 (35.3 percent of nondurables 

generation). This means that 34.5 million tons of nondurable goods were discarded in 2009 (21.5 

percent of total MSW discards). 

Paper and Paperboard Products. Generation, recovery, and discards of paper and 

paperboard products in nondurable goods are summarized in Tables 15 through 17. A summary 

for 2009 was shown earlier in Table 4. Generation of paper and paperboard nondurable products 

declined from 47.8 million tons in 2000 to 33.5 million tons in 2009. Each of the paper and 

paperboard product categories in nondurable goods is discussed briefly below. 

•	 Newspapers are the largest single component of the paper products in the 

nondurable goods category, at 7.8 million tons generated in 2009 (3.2 percent of 

total MSW). In 2009, an estimated 6.8 million tons of newspapers generated were 

recovered for recycling. Estimates of newspaper generation are broken down into 

newsprint (the majority of the weight of the newspapers) and groundwood3

 inserts 

(primarily advertising) that are a significant portion of the total weight of 

newspapers. This breakdown is shown in Table 4. 

•	 Books amounted to approximately 960,000 tons, or 0.4 percent of total MSW 

generation, in 2009. Recovery of books is not well documented, but it was 

estimated that approximately 320,000 tons of books were recovered in 2009. 

Books are made of both groundwood and chemical pulp. 

Groundwood papers, like newsprint, are made primarily from pulp prepared by a mechanical process. The 

nature of the pulp (groundwood vs. chemical) affects the potential uses for the recovered paper. 

78 

3 
Chapter 2 	 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

•	 Magazines accounted for an estimated 1.5 million tons, or 0.6 percent of total 

MSW generation, in 2009. Like books, recovery of magazines is not well 

documented. It was estimated that 780,000 tons of magazines were recovered in 

2009. Magazines are predominantly made of coated groundwood, but some 

uncoated groundwood and chemical pulps are also used. 

•	 Many different kinds of papers are generated in offices. For this report, office-type 

paper estimates include the high grade papers such as copier paper, computer 

printout, stationery, etc. Generation of these office papers was 5.4 million tons, or 

2.2 percent of total MSW generation in 2009. These papers are almost entirely 

made of uncoated chemical pulp, although some amounts of groundwood are also 

used. It should be noted that some of these office-type papers are generated at 

locations other than offices, including homes and institutions such as schools. 

Also, other kinds of papers (e.g., newspapers, magazines, and packaging) are 

generated in offices, but are accounted for in other categories. An estimated 4.0 

million tons of office-type papers were recovered in 2009. 

•	 Directories were estimated to generate 650,000 tons (0.3 percent of total MSW) in 

2009. These directories are made of groundwood. It was estimated that 240,000 

tons of directories were recovered in 2009. 

•	 Standard mail includes catalogs and other direct bulk mailings; these amounted to 

an estimated 4.7 million tons, or 1.9 percent of MSW generation, in 2009. Both 

groundwood and chemical pulps are used in these mailings. It was estimated that 

3.0 million tons were recovered in 2009. The U.S. Postal Service has 

implemented a program to increase recovery of bulk mail, and many curbside 

collection programs also include mail. 

•	 Other commercial printing includes a wide range of paper items, including 

brochures, reports, menus, and invitations. Both groundwood and chemical pulps 

79 
Chapter 2 	 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

are used in these varied items. Generation was estimated at 3.5 million tons, or 1.4 

percent of MSW generation, in 2009, with recovery estimated at 2.3 million tons. 

•	 Tissue paper and towels generation includes facial and sanitary tissues and table 

napkins, but not bathroom tissue, which is nearly all diverted from MSW into the 

wastewater treatment system. Other examples include decorative and laminated 

tissue papers and crepe papers. Tissue products are used in homes, restaurants, 

other commercial establishments, and institutions such as hospitals. Tissue paper 

and towels (not including bathroom tissue) amounted to 3.5 million tons (1.4 

percent of total MSW generation) in 2009. No significant recovery of tissue 

products for recycling was identified, although there is some composting of these 

items. 

•	 Paper plates and cups include paper plates, cups, bowls, and other food service 

products used in homes, in commercial establishments like restaurants, and in 

institutional settings such as schools. Generation of these products was estimated 

at 1.2 million tons (0.4 percent of total MSW generation) in 2009. No significant 

recovery for recycling of these products was identified, although there is some 

composting of these items. 

•	 Other nonpackaging papers−including posters, photographic papers, cards, and 

games – accounted for 4.4 million tons (1.8 percent of total MSW generation) in 

2009. No significant recovery for recycling of these papers was identified. 

Overall, generation of paper and paperboard products in nondurable goods was 33.5 

million tons in 2009 (Table 4). While newspapers were recovered at the highest rate, other paper 

products, such as books, magazines, office papers, directories, standard mail, and other 

commercial printing also were recovered for recycling, and the overall recovery rate for paper in 

nondurables was 52.1 percent in 2009. Thus 16.1 million tons of paper in nondurables were 

discarded in 2009. 

80 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 15
 

PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
 

(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
 

(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
 

Thousands of Tons 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 12) 

9,920 14,660 21,800 29,810 38,850 44,650 45,770 46,400 46,640 

Nondurable Goods 

Newspapers 

Books and Magazines 

Books** 

Magazines** 

Office-Type Papers 

Directories** 

Standard Mail*** 

Other Commercial Printing 

Tissue Paper and Towels 

Paper Plates and Cups 

Plastic Plates and Cups† 

Trash Bags** 

Disposable Diapers 

Other Nonpackaging Paper 

Clothing and Footwear 

Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases** 

Other Miscellaneous Nondurables 

7,110 

1,920 

1,520 

1,260 

1,090 

270 

Neg. 

2,700 

1,360 

100 

9,510 

2,470 

2,650 

2,130 

2,080 

420 

350 

3,630 

1,620 

200 

11,050 

3,390 

4,000 

3,120 

2,300 

630 

190 

1,930 

4,230 

2,170 

1,410 

13,430 

970 

2,830 

6,410 

610 

3,820 

4,460 

2,960 

650 

650 

780 

2,700 

3,840 

4,010 

710 

3,340 

14,790 

1,240 

2,230 

7,420 

680 

5,570 

7,380 

3,220 

960 

870 

850 

3,230 

4,250 

6,470 

820 

4,030 

12,790 

1,100 

2,580 

6,620 

660 

5,830 

6,440 

3,460 

1,160 

930 

1,060 

3,410 

4,490 

7,890 

980 

4,250 

10,780 

1,270 

2,550 

6,060 

760 

5,910 

6,200 

3,500 

1,230 

860 

1,070 

3,730 

4,260 

8,320 

1,100 

4,160 

8,800 

1,340 

2,050 

6,050 

840 

5,510 

5,130 

3,460 

1,250 

780 

930 

3,770 

4,630 

8,820 

1,160 

4,170 

7,760 

960 

1,450 

5,380 

650 

4,650 

3,490 

3,490 

1,170 

900 

1,000 

3,810 

4,420 

9,080 

1,230 

4,000 

Total Nondurable Goods 17,330 25,060 34,420 52,170 64,010 63,650 61,760 58,690 53,440 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 18) 

Total Product Wastes‡ 

Other Wastes 

27,370 

54,620 

33,500 

43,560 

83,280 

37,780 

52,670 

108,890 

42,750 

64,530 

146,510 

61,760 

75,840 

178,700 

63,840 

76,330 

184,630 

67,750 

78,460 

185,990 

68,990 

75,910 

181,000 

70,020 

71,570 

171,650 

71,310 

Total MSW Generated - Weight 88,120 121,060 151,640 208,270 242,540 252,380 254,980 251,020 242,960 

Percent of Total Generation 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 12) 

11.3% 12.1% 14.4% 14.3% 16.0% 17.7% 18.0% 18.5% 19.2% 

Nondurable Goods 

Newspapers 

Books and Magazines 

Books** 

Magazines** 

Office-Type Papers*** 

Directories** 

Standard Mail§ 

Other Commercial Printing 

Tissue Paper and Towels 

Paper Plates and Cups 

Plastic Plates and Cups† 

Trash Bags** 

Disposable Diapers 

Other Nonpackaging Paper 

Clothing and Footwear 

Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases** 

Other Miscellaneous Nondurables 

8.1% 

2.2% 

1.7% 

1.4% 

1.2% 

0.3% 

Neg. 

3.1% 

1.5% 

0.1% 

7.9% 

2.0% 

2.2% 

1.8% 

1.7% 

0.3% 

0.3% 

3.0% 

1.3% 

0.2% 

7.3% 

2.2% 

2.6% 

2.1% 

1.5% 

0.4% 

0.1% 

1.3% 

2.8% 

1.4% 

0.9% 

6.4% 

0.5% 

1.4% 

3.1% 

0.3% 

1.8% 

2.1% 

1.4% 

0.3% 

0.3% 

0.4% 

1.3% 

1.8% 

1.9% 

0.3% 

1.6% 

6.1% 

0.5% 

0.9% 

3.1% 

0.3% 

2.3% 

3.0% 

1.3% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

1.3% 

1.8% 

2.7% 

0.3% 

1.7% 

5.1% 

0.4% 

1.0% 

2.6% 

0.3% 

2.3% 

2.6% 

1.4% 

0.5% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

1.4% 

1.8% 

3.1% 

0.4% 

1.7% 

4.2% 

0.5% 

1.0% 

2.4% 

0.3% 

2.3% 

2.4% 

1.4% 

0.5% 

0.3% 

0.4% 

1.5% 

1.7% 

3.3% 

0.4% 

1.6% 

3.5% 

0.5% 

0.8% 

2.4% 

0.3% 

2.2% 

2.0% 

1.4% 

0.5% 

0.3% 

0.4% 

1.5% 

1.8% 

3.5% 

0.5% 

1.7% 

3.2% 

0.4% 

0.6% 

2.2% 

0.3% 

1.9% 

1.4% 

1.4% 

0.5% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

1.6% 

1.8% 

3.7% 

0.5% 

1.6% 

Total Nondurables 19.7% 20.7% 22.7% 25.0% 26.4% 25.2% 24.2% 23.4% 22.0% 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 19) 

Total Product Wastes‡ 

Other Wastes 

31.1% 

62.0% 

38.0% 

36.0% 

68.8% 

31.2% 

34.7% 

71.8% 

28.2% 

31.0% 

70.3% 

29.7% 

31.3% 

73.7% 

26.3% 

30.2% 

73.2% 

26.8% 

30.8% 

72.9% 

27.1% 

30.2% 

72.1% 

27.9% 

29.5% 

70.6% 

29.4% 

Total MSW Generated - % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

* Generation before materials recovery or combustion. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial
 

process wastes, or certain other wastes. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 

** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
 

*** High-grade paper such as printer paper; generated in both commercial and residential sources. 

§ Not estimated separately prior to 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail and Standard (A) Mail by the U.S. Postal Service. 

† Not estimated separately prior to 1980. 

‡ Other than food products. 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 16
 

RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
 

(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
 

(In thousands of tons and percent of generation of each product)
 

Thousands of Tons 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 13) 

350 940 1,360 3,460 6,580 8,040 8,220 8,360 8,160 

Nondurable Goods 

Newspapers 

Books and Magazines 

Books** 

Magazines** 

Office-Type Papers 

Directories** 

Standard Mail*** 

Other Commercial Printing 

Tissue Paper and Towels 

Paper Plates and Cups 

Plastic Plates and Cups† 

Trash Bags** 

Disposable Diapers 

Other Nonpackaging Paper 

Clothing and Footwear 

Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases** 

Other Miscellaneous Nondurables 

1,820 

100 

250 

130 

Neg. 

Neg. 

40 

50 

Neg. 

2,250 

260 

710 

340 

Neg. 

Neg. 

110 

60 

Neg. 

3,020 

280 

870 

350 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

150 

Neg. 

5,110 

100 

300 

1,700 

50 

200 

700 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

520 

120 

Neg. 

8,720 

240 

710 

4,090 

120 

1,830 

810 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

900 

140 

Neg. 

9,360 

270 

960 

4,110 

120 

2,090 

1,440 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

1,250 

170 

Neg. 

8,550 

360 

1,010 

4,300 

140 

2,380 

2,790 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

1,250 

190 

Neg. 

7,740 

390 

820 

4,290 

180 

2,240 

2,200 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

1,250 

200 

Neg. 

6,840 

320 

780 

3,990 

240 

2,950 

2,310 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

1,250 

210 

Neg. 

Total Nondurable Goods 2,390 3,730 4,670 8,800 17,560 19,770 20,970 19,310 18,890 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 20) 

Total Product Wastes‡ 

Other Wastes 

2,870 

5,610 

Neg. 

3,350 

8,020 

Neg. 

8,490 

14,520 

Neg. 

16,780 

29,040 

4,200 

28,870 

53,010 

16,450 

31,500 

59,310 

20,550 

33,900 

63,090 

21,710 

34,080 

61,750 

22,100 

34,220 

61,270 

20,750 

Total MSW Recovered - Weight 5,610 8,020 14,520 33,240 69,460 79,860 84,800 83,850 82,020 

Percent of Generation of Each Product 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 13) 

3.5% 6.4% 6.2% 11.6% 16.9% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 17.5% 

Nondurable Goods 

Newspapers 

Books and Magazines 

Books** 

Magazines** 

Office-Type Papers*** 

Directories** 

Standard Mail§ 

Other Commercial Printing 

Tissue Paper and Towels 

Paper Plates and Cups 

Plastic Plates and Cups† 

Trash Bags** 

Disposable Diapers 

Other Nonpackaging Paper 

Clothing and Footwear 

Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases** 

Other Miscellaneous Nondurables 

25.6% 

5.2% 

16.4% 

10.3% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

1.5% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

23.7% 

10.5% 

26.8% 

16.0% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

3.0% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

27.3% 

8.3% 

21.8% 

11.2% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

38.0% 

10.3% 

10.6% 

26.5% 

8.2% 

5.2% 

15.7% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

13.0% 

16.9% 

Neg. 

59.0% 

19.4% 

31.8% 

55.1% 

17.6% 

32.9% 

11.0% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

13.9% 

17.1% 

Neg. 

73.2% 

24.5% 

37.2% 

62.1% 

18.2% 

35.8% 

22.4% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

15.8% 

17.3% 

Neg. 

79.3% 

28.3% 

39.6% 

71.0% 

18.4% 

40.3% 

45.0% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

15.0% 

17.3% 

Neg. 

88.0% 

29.1% 

40.0% 

70.9% 

21.4% 

40.7% 

42.9% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

14.2% 

17.2% 

Neg. 

88.1% 

33.3% 

53.8% 

74.2% 

36.9% 

63.4% 

66.2% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

13.8% 

17.1% 

Neg. 

Total Nondurables 13.8% 14.9% 13.6% 16.9% 27.4% 31.1% 34.0% 32.9% 35.3% 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 21) 

Total Product Wastes‡ 

Other Wastes 

10.5% 

10.3% 

Neg. 

7.7% 

9.6% 

Neg. 

16.1% 

13.3% 

Neg. 

26.0% 

19.8% 

6.8% 

38.1% 

29.7% 

25.8% 

41.3% 

32.1% 

30.3% 

43.2% 

33.9% 

31.5% 

44.9% 

34.1% 

31.6% 

47.8% 

35.7% 

29.1% 

Total MSW Recovered - % 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 16.0% 28.6% 31.6% 33.3% 33.4% 33.8% 

* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap.
 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 

** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
 

*** High-grade paper such as printer paper; generated in both commercial and residential sources. 

§ Not estimated separately prior to 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail and Standard (A) Mail by the U.S. Postal Service. 

† Not estimated separately prior to 1980. 

‡ Other than food products. 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

82 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 17
 

PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
 

(WITH DETAIL ON NONDURABLE GOODS)
 

(In thousands of tons and percent of total discards)
 

Thousands of Tons 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 14) 

9,570 13,720 20,440 26,350 32,270 36,610 37,550 38,040 38,480 

Nondurable Goods 

Newspapers 

Books and Magazines 

Books** 

Magazines** 

Office-Type Papers 

Directories** 

Standard Mail*** 

Other Commercial Printing 

Tissue Paper and Towels 

Paper Plates and Cups 

Plastic Plates and Cups† 

Trash Bags** 

Disposable Diapers 

Other Nonpackaging Paper 

Clothing and Footwear 

Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases** 

Other Miscellaneous Nondurables 

5,290 

1,820 

1,270 

1,130 

1,090 

270 

Neg. 

2,660 

1,310 

100 

7,260 

2,210 

1,940 

1,790 

2,080 

420 

350 

3,520 

1,560 

200 

8,030 

3,110 

3,130 

2,770 

2,300 

630 

190 

1,930 

4,230 

2,020 

1,410 

8,320 

870 

2,530 

4,710 

560 

3,620 

3,760 

2,960 

650 

650 

780 

2,700 

3,840 

3,490 

590 

3,340 

6,070 

1,000 

1,520 

3,330 

560 

3,740 

6,570 

3,220 

960 

870 

850 

3,230 

4,250 

5,570 

680 

4,030 

3,430 

830 

1,620 

2,510 

540 

3,740 

5,000 

3,460 

1,160 

930 

1,060 

3,410 

4,490 

6,640 

810 

4,250 

2,230 

910 

1,540 

1,760 

620 

3,530 

3,410 

3,500 

1,230 

860 

1,070 

3,730 

4,260 

7,070 

910 

4,160 

1,060 

950 

1,230 

1,760 

660 

3,270 

2,930 

3,460 

1,250 

780 

930 

3,770 

4,630 

7,570 

960 

4,170 

920 

640 

670 

1,390 

410 

1,700 

1,180 

3,490 

1,170 

900 

1,000 

3,810 

4,420 

7,830 

1,020 

4,000 

Total Nondurable Goods 14,940 21,330 29,750 43,370 46,450 43,880 40,790 39,380 34,550 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 22) 

Total Product Wastes‡ 

Other Wastes 

24,500 

49,010 

33,500 

40,210 

75,260 

37,780 

44,180 

94,370 

42,750 

47,750 

117,470 

57,560 

46,970 

125,690 

47,390 

44,830 

125,320 

47,200 

44,560 

122,900 

47,280 

41,830 

119,250 

47,920 

37,350 

110,380 

50,560 

Total MSW Discarded - Weight 82,510 113,040 137,120 175,030 173,080 172,520 170,180 167,170 160,940 

Percent of Total Discards 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 14) 

11.6% 12.1% 14.9% 15.1% 18.6% 21.2% 22.1% 22.8% 23.9% 

Nondurable Goods 

Newspapers 

Books and Magazines 

Books** 

Magazines** 

Office-Type Papers*** 

Directories** 

Standard Mail§ 

Other Commercial Printing 

Tissue Paper and Towels 

Paper Plates and Cups 

Plastic Plates and Cups† 

Trash Bags** 

Disposable Diapers 

Other Nonpackaging Paper 

Clothing and Footwear 

Towels, Sheets and Pillowcases** 

Other Miscellaneous Nondurables 

6.4% 

2.2% 

1.5% 

1.4% 

1.3% 

0.3% 

Neg. 

3.2% 

1.6% 

0.1% 

6.4% 

2.0% 

1.7% 

1.6% 

1.8% 

0.4% 

0.3% 

3.1% 

1.4% 

0.2% 

5.9% 

2.3% 

2.3% 

2.0% 

1.7% 

0.5% 

0.1% 

1.4% 

3.1% 

1.5% 

1.7% 

4.8% 

0.5% 

1.4% 

2.7% 

0.3% 

2.1% 

2.1% 

1.7% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

1.5% 

2.2% 

2.0% 

0.3% 

1.9% 

3.5% 

0.6% 

0.9% 

1.9% 

0.3% 

2.2% 

3.8% 

1.9% 

0.6% 

0.5% 

0.5% 

1.9% 

2.5% 

3.2% 

0.4% 

2.3% 

2.0% 

0.5% 

0.9% 

1.5% 

0.3% 

2.2% 

2.9% 

2.0% 

0.7% 

0.5% 

0.6% 

2.0% 

2.6% 

3.8% 

0.5% 

2.5% 

1.3% 

0.5% 

0.9% 

1.0% 

0.4% 

2.1% 

2.0% 

2.1% 

0.7% 

0.5% 

0.6% 

2.2% 

2.5% 

4.2% 

0.5% 

2.4% 

0.6% 

0.6% 

0.7% 

1.1% 

0.4% 

2.0% 

1.8% 

2.1% 

0.7% 

0.5% 

0.6% 

2.3% 

2.8% 

4.5% 

0.6% 

2.5% 

0.6% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

0.9% 

0.3% 

1.1% 

0.7% 

2.2% 

0.7% 

0.6% 

0.6% 

2.4% 

2.7% 

4.9% 

0.6% 

2.5% 

Total Nondurables 18.1% 18.9% 21.7% 24.8% 26.8% 25.4% 24.0% 23.6% 21.5% 

Containers and Packaging 

(Detail in Table 23) 

Total Product Wastes‡ 

Other Wastes 

29.7% 

59.4% 

40.6% 

35.6% 

66.6% 

33.4% 

32.2% 

68.8% 

31.2% 

27.3% 

67.1% 

32.9% 

27.1% 

72.6% 

27.4% 

26.0% 

72.6% 

27.4% 

26.2% 

72.2% 

27.8% 

25.0% 

71.3% 

28.7% 

23.2% 

68.6% 

31.4% 

Total MSW Discarded - % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

* Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery.
 

Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes.
 

** Not estimated separately prior to 1990.
 

*** High-grade paper such as printer paper; generated in both commercial and residential sources. 

§ Not estimated separately prior to 1990. Formerly called Third Class Mail and Standard (A) Mail by the U.S. Postal Service. 

† Not estimated separately prior to 1980. 

‡ Other than food products. 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

83 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Plastic Plates and Cups. This category includes plastic plates, cups, glasses, dishes and 

bowls, hinged containers, and other containers used in food service at home, in restaurants and 

other commercial establishments, and in institutional settings such as schools. These items are 

made primarily of polystyrene resin. An estimated 900,000 tons of these products were generated 

in 2009, or 0.4 percent of total MSW (Table 15). No significant recovery for recycling was 

identified in 2009. 

Trash Bags. This category includes plastic trash bags made of high-density polyethylene 

and low-density polyethylene for both indoor and outdoor use. Generation of plastic trash bags 

amounted to 1.0 million tons in 2009 (0.4 percent of MSW generation). No significant recovery 

for recycling was identified. 

Disposable Diapers. This category includes estimates of both infant diapers and adult 

incontinence products. Generation was estimated using data on sales of the products along with 

information on average weights and composition. An estimated 3.8 million tons of disposable 

diapers were generated in 2009, or 1.6 percent of total MSW generation. (This tonnage includes 

an adjustment for the urine and feces contained within the discarded diapers.) The materials 

portion of the diapers includes wood pulp, plastics (including the super-absorbent materials now 

present in most diapers), and tissue paper. No significant recycling or composting of disposable 

diapers was identified in 2009. 

Clothing and Footwear. Generation of clothing and footwear was estimated to be 9.1 

million tons in 2009 (3.7 percent of total MSW). Textiles, rubber, and leather are major materials 

components of this category, with some plastics present as well. Generation estimates for these 

products are based on sales data from the Department of Commerce along with data on average 

weights for each type of products included. Adjustments are made for net imports of these 

products based on Department of Commerce data. 

84 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

The Council for Textile Recycling has reported on recovery of textiles for exports, 

reprocessing, and reuse. Based on their data, it was estimated that 1.3 million tons of textiles in 

clothing were recovered for recycling in 2009. (Reuse occurs before generation and is not 

included in the generation or recycling estimates.) 

Towels, Sheets, and Pillowcases. An estimated 1.2 million tons of towels, sheets, and 

pillowcases were generated in 2009. Generation was estimated using a methodology similar to 

that for clothing. An estimated 210,000 tons of these textiles were recovered for export or 

recycling in 2009. 

Other Miscellaneous Nondurables. Generation of other miscellaneous nondurables was 

estimated to be 4.0 million tons in 2009 (1.6 percent of MSW). The primary material component 

of miscellaneous nondurables is plastics, although some aluminum, rubber, and textiles also are 

present. Typical products in miscellaneous nondurables include shower curtains and other 

household items, disposable medical supplies, novelty items, and the like. 

Generation of plastic products in miscellaneous nondurables is taken from resin sales data 

published annually by the American Chemistry Council. Generation of other materials in these 

nondurable products is estimated based on information in past reports in this series. 

Containers and Packaging 

Containers and packaging make up a major portion of MSW, amounting to 71.6 million 

tons of generation in 2009 (29.5 percent of total generation). Generation in this category has 

recently trended downward; Table 18 shows a 3.3 percent decrease between 2007 and 2008 

followed by a 5.7 percent decrease between 2008 and 2009 (to 71.6 million tons). Generation of 

all packaging materials decreased (with the exception of wood) over this time period, with a 

greater rate of reduced generation between 2008 and 2009. 

85 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Steel packaging exhibited the greatest percentage decline; a 4.5 percent decrease between 

2007 and 2008 and a 14.5 percent decrease between 2008 and 2009. Aluminum packaging 

generation declined only 2.1 percent over the two year period 2007 to 2009. 

Paper and paperboard packaging generation declined 4.1 percent between 2007 and 2008 

and 8.7 percent between 2008 and 2009 (12.5 percent over the two year period). Plastic 

packaging and glass packaging generation exhibited a slower rate of decline; plastic packaging 

generation decreased 4.5 percent from 2007 and 2008 and 3.7 percent between 2008 and 2009 

(8.1 percent decline over the two year period), and glass packaging generation declined 3.5 

percent between 2007 and 2008 and 3.9 percent between 2008 and 2009 (7.2 percent between 

2007 and 2009). Generation, recovery, and discards of containers and packaging are shown in 

detail in Tables 18 through 23. 

There is substantial recovery of many container and packaging products, especially 

corrugated containers. In 2009, 47.8 percent of containers and packaging generated was 

recovered for recycling. Because of this recovery, containers and packaging comprised 23.2 

percent of total MSW discards in 2009. 

Containers and packaging in MSW are made of several materials: paper and paperboard, 

glass, steel, aluminum, plastics, wood, and small amounts of other materials. Material categories 

are discussed separately below. 

Glass Containers. Glass containers include beer and soft drink bottles (which include 

carbonated drinks and non-carbonated waters, teas, flavored drinks containing not more than 10 

percent fruit juice and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails), wine and liquor bottles, 

and bottles and jars for food, cosmetics, and other products. Prior to 2009, generation of glass 

containers was estimated using Department of Commerce data. In 2009, the Glass Packaging 

Institute provided production data. Adjustments are made for imports and exports of both empty 

glass containers and containers holding products, e.g., imported beer. 

86 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Generation of these glass containers was 9.7 million tons in 2009, or 4.0 percent of MSW 

generation (Tables 18 and 19). This tonnage is lower than was generated in any of the previous 

years. 

An estimated 3.0 million tons of glass containers were recovered for recycling, or 31.1 

percent of generation, in 2009. Glass container discards were 6.7 million tons in 2009, or 4.1 

percent of total MSW discards. 

Steel Containers and Packaging. Steel food and other cans, and other steel packaging 

(e.g., strapping, crowns, and steel barrels and drums), totaled 2.3 million tons in 2009 (0.9 

percent of total MSW generation), with most of that amount being cans for food products (Tables 

18 and 19). Generation estimates are based on data supplied by the Steel Recycling Institute 

(SRI), the Reusable Industrial Packaging Association, and the Can Manufacturers Institute 

(CMI). Estimates include adjustments for net imports. 

The Steel Recycling Institute (SRI) provided recovery data for steel containers and 

packaging. An estimated 1.5 million tons of steel packaging were recovered in 2009, or 66.2 

percent of generation. The estimates include recovery from residential sources; pre-combustion 

and post-combustion magnetic separation of steel cans and other ferrous products at MSW 

combustion facilities; and recycling of drums and barrels not suitable for reconditioning. 

Aluminum Containers and Packaging. Aluminum containers and packaging include 

beer and soft drink cans (including all carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks, tea, tonic, 

waters, and juice beverages), other cans, and foil and closures (including semi rigid foil 

containers, caps, closures, and flexible packaging). Aluminum can generation has been estimated 

based on can shipments data from the Can Manufacturers Institute and the Aluminum 

Association and can weight data from the Aluminum Association, while estimates of the net 

import of unfilled aluminum cans is based on Department of Commerce data. Other aluminum 

packaging is based on Aluminum Association data. 

87 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Prior to 2000, the Can Manufacturers Institute published data on consumption of
 

beverages in aluminum cans. After 2000, the Aluminum Association provided consumption data. 

The consumption data are adjusted for imports and exports of beverages in cans, and therefore 

are more accurate for generation calculations than shipments alone. Total aluminum container 

and packaging generation in 2009 was 1.8 million tons, or 0.8 percent of total MSW generation. 

Aluminum can recovery data are provided by the Aluminum Association; the industry 

association recovery number includes imported used beverage cans (UBC). The imported UBC 

are subtracted from the tonnage of UBC reported by the Aluminum Association to have been 

melted by U.S. end-users and recovered for export. Thus, the aluminum can recovery rate 

reported here is somewhat less than that published by the Aluminum Association. 

Recovery of aluminum beverage cans in 2009 was 690,000 tons, or 50.7 percent of 

generation. Recovery data for the other aluminum packaging categories are not available for 

2009. After recovery for recycling, 1.2 million tons of aluminum packaging were discarded in 

2009. 

88 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 18
 

PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
 

(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
 

(In thousands of tons)
 

Thousands of Tons 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 12) 

9,920 14,660 21,800 29,810 38,850 44,650 45,770 46,400 46,640 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 15) 

17,330 25,060 34,420 52,170 64,010 63,650 61,760 58,690 53,440 

Containers and Packaging 

Glass Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Bottles** 1,400 5,580 6,740 5,640 5,710 6,540 6,760 6,350 6,000 

Wine and Liquor Bottles 1,080 1,900 2,450 2,030 1,910 1,630 1,620 1,610 1,710 

Other Bottles & Jars 3,710 4,440 4,780 4,160 3,420 2,290 2,030 2,090 1,950 

Total Glass Packaging 

Steel Packaging 

6,190 11,920 13,970 11,830 11,040 10,460 10,410 10,050 9,660 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans 640 1,570 520 150 Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. 

Cans 3,760 3,540 2,850 2,540 2,630 2,130 2,430 2,310 1,940 

Other Steel Packaging 260 270 240 200 240 240 240 240 340 

Total Steel Packaging 

Aluminum Packaging 

4,660 5,380 3,610 2,890 2,870 2,370 2,670 2,550 2,280 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans Neg. 100 850 1,550 1,520 1,450 1,420 1,390 1,360 

Other Cans Neg. 60 40 20 50 80 30 70 70 

Foil and Closures 170 410 380 330 380 400 430 420 410 

Total Aluminum Packaging 

Paper & Paperboard Pkg 

170 570 1,270 1,900 1,950 1,930 1,880 1,880 1,840 

Corrugated Boxes 7,330 12,760 17,080 24,010 30,210 30,930 31,230 29,710 27,190 

Gable Top/Aseptic Cartons‡ 790 510 550 500 500 490 460 

Folding Cartons 3,820 4,300 5,820 5,530 5,530 5,340 4,980 

Other Paperboard Packaging 3,840 4,830 230 290 200 160 150 120 90 

Bags and Sacks 3,380 2,440 1,490 1,120 1,140 1,170 910 

Wrapping Papers 200 110 Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. 

Other Paper Packaging 2,940 3,810 850 1,020 1,670 1,400 1,390 1,460 1,310 

Total Paper & Board Pkg 

Plastics Packaging 

14,110 21,400 26,350 32,680 39,940 39,640 39,940 38,290 34,940 

PET Bottles and Jars 260 430 1,720 2,540 2,840 2,680 2,570 

HDPE Natural Bottles 230 530 690 800 820 750 760 

Other Containers 60 910 890 1,430 1,740 1,420 1,910 1,900 1,750 

Bags and Sacks 390 940 1,650 1,640 1,010 940 660 

Wraps 840 1,530 2,550 2,810 3,180 3,020 3,190 

Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps 1,230 2,470 4,200 4,450 4,190 3,960 3,850 

Other Plastics Packaging 60 1,180 790 2,040 2,840 3,210 3,870 3,720 3,600 

Total Plastics Packaging 120 2,090 3,400 6,900 11,190 12,420 13,630 13,010 12,530 

Wood Packaging 2,000 2,070 3,940 8,180 8,610 9,230 9,610 9,820 10,040 

Other Misc. Packaging 120 130 130 150 240 280 320 310 280 

Total Containers & Pkg 27,370 43,560 52,670 64,530 75,840 76,330 78,460 75,910 71,570 

Total Product Wastes† 54,620 83,280 108,890 146,510 178,700 184,630 185,990 181,000 171,650 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 12,200 12,800 13,000 23,860 29,810 31,990 32,610 33,340 34,290 

Yard Trimmings 20,000 23,200 27,500 35,000 30,530 32,070 32,630 32,900 33,200 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 1,300 1,780 2,250 2,900 3,500 3,690 3,750 3,780 3,820 

Total Other Wastes 33,500 37,780 42,750 61,760 63,840 67,750 68,990 70,020 71,310 

Total MSW Generated - Weight 88,120 121,060 151,640 208,270 242,540 252,380 254,980 251,020 242,960 

* Generation before materials recovery or combustion. 

** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails. 

† Other than food products. 

‡ Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 	 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 19
 

PRODUCTS GENERATED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
 

(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
 

(In percent of total generation)
 

Percent of Total Generation 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 12) 

11.3% 12.1% 14.4% 14.3% 16.0% 17.7% 18.0% 18.0% 19.2% 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 15) 

19.7% 20.7% 22.7% 25.0% 26.4% 25.2% 24.2% 24.2% 22.0% 

Containers and Packaging 

Glass Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Bottles** 

Wine and Liquor Bottles 

Other Bottles & Jars 

Total Glass Packaging 

Steel Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans 

Cans 

Other Steel Packaging 

Total Steel Packaging 

Aluminum Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans 

Other Cans 

Foil and Closures 

Total Aluminum Packaging 

Paper & Paperboard Pkg 

Corrugated Boxes 

Gable Top/Aseptic Cartons‡ 

Folding Cartons 

Other Paperboard Packaging 

Bags and Sacks 

Wrapping Papers 

Other Paper Packaging 

Total Paper & Board Pkg 

Plastics Packaging 

PET Bottles and Jars 

HDPE Natural Bottles 

Other Containers 

Bags and Sacks 

Wraps 

Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps 

Other Plastics Packaging 

Total Plastics Packaging 

Wood Packaging 

Other Misc. Packaging 

1.6% 

1.2% 

4.2% 

7.0% 

0.7% 

4.3% 

0.3% 

5.3% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

0.2% 

0.2% 

8.3% 

4.4% 

3.3% 

16.0% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

2.3% 

0.1% 

4.6% 

1.6% 

3.7% 

9.8% 

1.3% 

2.9% 

0.2% 

4.4% 

0.1% 

Neg. 

0.3% 

0.5% 

10.5% 

4.0% 

3.1% 

17.7% 

0.8% 

1.0% 

1.7% 

1.7% 

0.1% 

4.4% 

1.6% 

3.2% 

9.2% 

0.3% 

1.9% 

0.2% 

2.4% 

0.6% 

Neg. 

0.3% 

0.8% 

11.3% 

0.5% 

2.5% 

0.2% 

2.2% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

17.4% 

0.2% 

0.2% 

0.6% 

0.3% 

0.6% 

0.8% 

0.5% 

2.2% 

2.6% 

0.1% 

2.7% 

1.0% 

2.0% 

5.7% 

0.1% 

1.2% 

0.1% 

1.4% 

0.7% 

Neg. 

0.2% 

0.9% 

11.5% 

0.2% 

2.1% 

0.1% 

1.2% 

0.1% 

0.5% 

15.7% 

0.2% 

0.3% 

0.7% 

0.5% 

0.7% 

1.2% 

1.0% 

3.3% 

3.9% 

0.1% 

2.4% 

0.8% 

1.4% 

4.6% 

Neg. 

1.1% 

0.1% 

1.2% 

0.6% 

Neg. 

0.2% 

0.8% 

12.5% 

0.2% 

2.4% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

Neg. 

0.7% 

16.5% 

0.7% 

0.3% 

0.7% 

0.7% 

1.1% 

1.7% 

1.2% 

4.6% 

3.5% 

0.1% 

2.6% 

0.6% 

0.9% 

4.1% 

Neg. 

0.8% 

0.1% 

0.9% 

0.6% 

Neg. 

0.2% 

0.8% 

12.3% 

0.2% 

2.2% 

0.1% 

0.4% 

Neg. 

0.6% 

15.7% 

1.0% 

0.3% 

0.6% 

0.6% 

1.1% 

1.8% 

1.3% 

4.9% 

3.7% 

0.1% 

2.7% 

0.6% 

0.8% 

4.1% 

Neg. 

1.0% 

0.1% 

1.0% 

0.6% 

0.01% 

0.2% 

0.7% 

12.2% 

0.2% 

2.2% 

0.1% 

0.4% 

Neg. 

0.5% 

15.7% 

1.1% 

0.3% 

0.7% 

0.4% 

1.2% 

1.6% 

1.5% 

5.3% 

3.8% 

0.1% 

2.7% 

0.6% 

0.8% 

4.1% 

Neg. 

1.0% 

0.1% 

1.0% 

0.6% 

0.01% 

0.2% 

0.7% 

12.2% 

0.2% 

2.2% 

0.1% 

0.4% 

Neg. 

0.5% 

15.7% 

1.1% 

0.3% 

0.7% 

0.4% 

1.2% 

1.6% 

1.5% 

5.3% 

3.8% 

0.1% 

2.5% 

0.7% 

0.8% 

4.0% 

Neg. 

0.8% 

0.1% 

0.9% 

0.6% 

0.03% 

0.2% 

0.8% 

11.2% 

0.2% 

2.0% 

0.0% 

0.4% 

Neg. 

0.5% 

14.4% 

1.1% 

0.3% 

0.7% 

0.3% 

1.3% 

1.6% 

1.5% 

5.2% 

4.1% 

0.1% 

Total Containers & Pkg 31.1% 36.0% 34.7% 31.0% 31.3% 30.2% 30.8% 30.8% 29.5% 

Total Product Wastes† 62.0% 68.8% 71.8% 70.3% 73.7% 73.2% 72.9% 72.9% 70.6% 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 13.8% 10.6% 8.6% 11.5% 12.3% 12.7% 12.8% 12.8% 14.1% 

Yard Trimmings 22.7% 19.2% 18.1% 16.8% 12.6% 12.7% 12.8% 12.8% 13.7% 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 

Total Other Wastes 38.0% 31.2% 28.2% 29.7% 26.3% 26.8% 27.1% 27.1% 29.4% 

Total MSW Generated - % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

* Generation before materials recovery or combustion. 

** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails. 

† Other than food products. 

‡	 Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

90 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 20
 

RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
 

(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
 

(In thousands of tons)
 

Thousands of Tons 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 13) 

350 940 1,360 3,460 6,580 8,040 8,220 8,360 8,160 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 16) 

2,390 3,730 4,670 8,800 17,560 19,770 20,970 19,310 18,890 

Containers and Packaging 

Glass Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Bottles** 

Wine and Liquor Bottles 

Other Bottles & Jars 

Total Glass Packaging 

Steel Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans 

Cans 

Other Steel Packaging 

Total Steel Packaging 

Aluminum Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans 

Other Cans 

Foil and Closures 

Total Aluminum Pkg 

Paper & Paperboard Pkg 

Corrugated Boxes 

Gable Top/Aseptic Cartons‡ 

Folding Cartons 

Other Paperboard Packaging 

Bags and Sacks 

Wrapping Papers 

Other Paper Packaging 

Total Paper & Board Pkg 

Plastics Packaging 

PET Bottles and Jars 

HDPE Natural Bottles 

Other Containers 

Bags and Sacks 

Wraps 

Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps 

Other Plastics Packaging 

Total Plastics Packaging 

Wood Packaging 

Other Misc. Packaging 

90 

10 

Neg. 

100 

10 

20 

Neg. 

30 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

2,520 

220 

2,740 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

140 

10 

Neg. 

150 

20 

60 

Neg. 

80 

10 

Neg. 

Neg. 

10 

2,760 

350 

3,110 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

730 

20 

Neg. 

750 

50 

150 

Neg. 

200 

320 

Neg. 

Neg. 

320 

6,390 

Neg. 

520 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

300 

7,210 

10 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

10 

Neg. 

Neg. 

1,890 

210 

520 

2,620 

40 

590 

60 

690 

990 

Neg. 

20 

1,010 

11,530 

Neg. 

340 

Neg. 

200 

Neg. 

Neg. 

12,070 

140 

20 

20 

60 

20 

260 

130 

Neg. 

1,530 

430 

920 

2,880 

Neg. 

1,530 

160 

1,690 

830 

Neg. 

30 

860 

20,330 

Neg. 

410 

Neg. 

300 

Neg. 

Neg. 

21,040 

380 

210 

170 

180 

90 

1,030 

1,370 

Neg. 

2,000 

250 

340 

2,590 

Neg. 

1,340 

160 

1,500 

650 

Neg. 

40 

690 

22,100 

Neg. 

1,190 

Neg. 

320 

Neg. 

Neg. 

23,610 

590 

230 

140 

230 

90 

1,280 

1,830 

Neg. 

2,340 

240 

300 

2,880 

Neg. 

1,570 

160 

1,730 

690 

Neg. 

40 

730 

22,980 

Neg. 

1,550 

Neg. 

420 

Neg. 

Neg. 

24,950 

700 

230 

190 

380 

90 

1,590 

2,020 

Neg. 

2,260 

240 

310 

2,810 

Neg. 

1,450 

160 

1,610 

670 

10 

40 

720 

22,760 

Neg. 

1,880 

Neg. 

440 

Neg. 

Neg. 

25,080 

730 

220 

280 

370 

130 

1,730 

2,130 

Neg. 

2,340 

310 

350 

3,000 

Neg. 

1,280 

230 

1,510 

690 

NA 

NA 

690 

22,100 

30 

2,490 

Neg. 

450 

Neg. 

Neg. 

25,070 

720 

220 

290 

360 

130 

1,720 

2,230 

Neg. 

Total Containers & Pkg 2,870 3,350 8,490 16,780 28,870 31,500 33,900 34,080 34,220 

Total Product Wastes† 5,610 8,020 14,520 29,040 53,010 59,310 63,090 61,750 61,270 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. 680 690 810 800 850 

Yard Trimmings Neg. Neg. Neg. 4,200 15,770 19,860 20,900 21,300 19,900 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. 

Total Other Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. 4,200 16,450 20,550 21,710 22,100 20,750 

Total MSW Recovered - Weight 5,610 8,020 14,520 33,240 69,460 79,860 84,800 83,850 82,020 

* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap. 

** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails. 

† Other than food products. 

‡ Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. NA = Not Available
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 21
 

RECOVERY* OF PRODUCTS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
 

(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
 

(In percent of generation of each product)
 

Percent of Generation of Each Product 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 13) 

3.5% 6.4% 6.2% 11.6% 16.9% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 17.5% 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 16) 

13.8% 14.9% 13.6% 16.9% 27.4% 31.1% 34.0% 32.9% 35.3% 

Containers and Packaging 

Glass Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Bottles** 

Wine and Liquor Bottles 

Other Bottles & Jars 

Total Glass Packaging 

Steel Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans 

Cans 

Other Steel Packaging 

Total Steel Packaging 

Aluminum Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans 

Other Cans 

Foil and Closures 

Total Aluminum Pkg 

Paper & Paperboard Pkg 

Corrugated Boxes 

Gable Top/Aseptic Cartons‡ 

Folding Cartons 

Other Paperboard Packaging 

Bags and Sacks 

Wrapping Papers 

Other Paper Packaging 

Total Paper & Board Pkg 

Plastics Packaging 

PET Bottles and Jars 

HDPE Natural Bottles 

Other Containers 

Bags and Sacks 

Wraps 

Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps 

Other Plastics Packaging 

Total Plastics Packaging 

Wood Packaging 

Other Misc. Packaging 

6.4% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

1.6% 

1.6% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

34.4% 

7.5% 

19.4% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

2.5% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

1.3% 

1.3% 

1.7% 

Neg. 

1.5% 

10.0% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

1.8% 

21.6% 

9.2% 

14.5% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

10.8% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

5.4% 

9.6% 

5.3% 

Neg. 

5.5% 

37.6% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

25.2% 

37.4% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

35.3% 

27.4% 

3.8% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

33.5% 

10.3% 

12.5% 

22.1% 

26.7% 

23.2% 

30.0% 

23.9% 

63.9% 

Neg. 

6.1% 

53.2% 

48.0% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

Neg. 

36.9% 

32.6% 

3.8% 

1.4% 

2.4% 

1.0% 

3.8% 

1.6% 

Neg. 

26.8% 

22.5% 

26.9% 

26.1% 

Neg. 

58.2% 

66.7% 

58.9% 

54.6% 

Neg. 

7.9% 

44.1% 

67.3% 

Neg. 

7.0% 

Neg. 

20.1% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

52.7% 

22.1% 

30.4% 

9.8% 

4.3% 

3.2% 

9.2% 

15.9% 

Neg. 

30.6% 

15.3% 

14.8% 

24.8% 

Neg. 

62.9% 

66.7% 

63.3% 

44.8% 

Neg. 

10.0% 

35.8% 

71.5% 

Neg. 

21.5% 

Neg. 

28.6% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

59.6% 

23.2% 

28.8% 

9.9% 

5.2% 

2.8% 

10.3% 

19.8% 

Neg. 

34.6% 

14.8% 

14.8% 

27.7% 

Neg. 

64.6% 

66.7% 

64.8% 

48.6% 

Neg. 

9.3% 

38.8% 

73.6% 

Neg. 

28.0% 

Neg. 

36.8% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

62.5% 

24.6% 

28.0% 

9.9% 

9.1% 

2.3% 

11.7% 

21.0% 

Neg. 

35.6% 

14.9% 

14.8% 

28.0% 

Neg. 

62.8% 

66.7% 

63.1% 

48.2% 

14.3% 

9.5% 

38.3% 

76.6% 

Neg. 

35.2% 

Neg. 

37.6% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

65.5% 

27.2% 

29.3% 

14.7% 

9.3% 

3.5% 

13.3% 

21.7% 

Neg. 

39.0% 

18.1% 

17.9% 

31.1% 

Neg. 

66.0% 

67.6% 

66.2% 

50.7% 

NA 

NA 

37.5% 

81.3% 

6.5% 

50.0% 

Neg. 

49.5% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

71.8% 

28.0% 

28.9% 

16.6% 

9.4% 

3.6% 

13.7% 

22.2% 

Neg. 

Total Containers & Pkg 10.5% 7.7% 16.1% 26.0% 38.1% 41.3% 43.2% 44.9% 47.8% 

Total Product Wastes† 10.3% 9.6% 13.3% 19.8% 29.7% 32.1% 33.9% 34.1% 35.7% 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. 2.3% 2.2% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 

Yard Trimmings Neg. Neg. Neg. 12.0% 51.7% 61.9% 64.1% 64.7% 59.9% 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. 

Total Other Wastes Neg. Neg. Neg. 6.8% 25.8% 30.3% 31.5% 31.6% 29.1% 

Total MSW Recovered - % 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 16.0% 28.6% 31.6% 33.3% 33.4% 33.8% 

* Recovery of postconsumer wastes; does not include converting/fabrication scrap. 

** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails. 

† Other than food products. 

‡ Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. NA = Not Available
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

92 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 22
 

PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
 

(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
 

(In thousands of tons)
 

Thousands of Tons 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 14) 

9,570 13,720 20,440 26,350 32,270 36,610 37,550 38,040 38,480 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 17) 

14,940 21,330 29,750 43,370 46,450 43,880 40,790 39,380 34,550 

Containers and Packaging 

Glass Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Bottles** 1,310 5,440 6,010 3,750 4,180 4,540 4,420 4,090 3,660 

Wine and Liquor Bottles 1,070 1,890 2,430 1,820 1,480 1,380 1,380 1,370 1,400 

Other Bottles & Jars 3,710 4,440 4,780 3,640 2,500 1,950 1,730 1,780 1,600 

Total Glass Packaging 

Steel Packaging 

6,090 11,770 13,220 9,210 8,160 7,870 7,530 7,240 6,660 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans 630 1,550 470 110 Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. 

Cans 3,740 3,480 2,700 1,950 1,100 790 860 860 660 

Other Steel Packaging 260 270 240 140 80 80 80 80 110 

Total Steel Packaging 

Aluminum Packaging 

4,630 5,300 3,410 2,200 1,180 870 940 940 770 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans Neg. 90 530 560 690 800 730 720 670 

Other Cans Neg. 60 40 20 50 80 30 60 70 

Foil and Closures 170 410 380 310 350 360 390 380 410 

Total Aluminum Pkg 

Paper & Paperboard Pkg 

170 560 950 890 1,090 1,240 1,150 1,160 1,150 

Corrugated Boxes 4,810 10,000 10,690 12,480 9,880 8,830 8,250 6,950 5,090 

Gable Top/Aseptic Cartons‡ 790 510 550 500 500 490 430 

Folding Cartons 3,300 3,960 5,410 4,340 3,980 3,460 2,490 

Other Paperboard Packaging 3,840 4,830 230 290 200 160 150 120 90 

Bags and Sacks 3,380 2,240 1,190 800 720 730 460 

Wrapping Papers 200 110 Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. 

Other Paper Packaging 2,720 3,460 550 1,020 1,670 1,400 1,390 1,460 1,310 

Total Paper & Board Pkg 

Plastics Packaging 

11,370 18,290 19,140 20,610 18,900 16,030 14,990 13,210 9,870 

PET Bottles and Jars 250 290 1,340 1,950 2,140 1,950 1,850 

HDPE Natural Bottles 230 510 480 570 590 530 540 

Other Containers 

Bags and Sacks 

Wraps 

60 910 890 1,410 1,570 1,280 1,720 1,620 1,460 

Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps 1,230 2,410 4,020 4,220 3,810 3,590 3,490 

Other Plastics Packaging 60 1,180 790 2,020 2,750 3,120 3,780 3,590 3,470 

Total Plastics Packaging 120 2,090 3,390 6,640 10,160 11,140 12,040 11,280 10,810 

Wood Packaging 2,000 2,070 3,940 8,050 7,240 7,400 7,590 7,690 7,810 

Other Misc. Packaging 120 130 130 150 240 280 320 310 280 

Total Containers & Pkg 24,500 40,210 44,180 47,750 46,970 44,830 44,560 41,830 37,350 

Total Product Wastes† 49,010 75,260 94,370 117,470 125,690 125,320 122,900 119,250 110,380 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 12,200 12,800 13,000 23,860 29,130 31,300 31,800 32,540 33,440 

Yard Trimmings 20,000 23,200 27,500 30,800 14,760 12,210 11,730 11,600 13,300 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 1,300 1,780 2,250 2,900 3,500 3,690 3,750 3,780 3,820 

Total Other Wastes 33,500 37,780 42,750 57,560 47,390 47,200 47,280 47,920 50,560 

Total MSW Discarded - Weight 82,510 113,040 137,120 175,030 173,080 172,520 170,180 167,170 160,940 

* Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery. 

Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes. 

** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails. 

† Other than food products. 

‡ Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

93 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 	 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Table 23
 

PRODUCTS DISCARDED* IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM, 1960 TO 2009
 

(WITH DETAIL ON CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING)
 

(In percent of total discards)
 

Percent of Total Discards 

Products 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Durable Goods 

(Detail in Table 14) 

11.6% 12.1% 14.9% 15.1% 18.6% 21.2% 22.1% 22.8% 23.9% 

Nondurable Goods 

(Detail in Table 17) 

18.1% 18.9% 21.7% 24.8% 26.8% 25.4% 24.0% 23.6% 21.5% 

Containers and Packaging 

Glass Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Bottles** 

Wine and Liquor Bottles 

Other Bottles & Jars 

Total Glass Packaging 

Steel Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans 

Cans 

Other Steel Packaging 

Total Steel Packaging 

Aluminum Packaging 

Beer and Soft Drink Cans 

Other Cans 

Foil and Closures 

Total Aluminum Pkg 

Paper & Paperboard Pkg 

Corrugated Boxes 

Gable Top/Aseptic Cartons‡ 

Folding Cartons 

Other Paperboard Packaging 

Bags and Sacks 

Wrapping Papers 

Other Paper Packaging 

Total Paper & Board Pkg 

Plastics Packaging 

PET Bottles and Jars 

HDPE Natural Bottles 

Other Containers 

Bags and Sacks 

Wraps 

Subtotal Bags, Sacks, and Wraps 

Other Plastics Packaging 

Total Plastics Packaging 

Wood Packaging 

Other Misc. Packaging 

1.6% 

1.3% 

4.5% 

7.4% 

0.8% 

4.5% 

0.3% 

5.6% 

Neg. 

Neg. 

0.2% 

0.2% 

5.8% 

4.7% 

3.3% 

13.8% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

2.4% 

0.1% 

4.8% 

1.7% 

3.9% 

10.4% 

1.4% 

3.1% 

0.2% 

4.7% 

0.1% 

Neg. 

0.4% 

0.5% 

8.8% 

4.3% 

3.1% 

16.2% 

0.8% 

1.0% 

1.8% 

1.8% 

0.1% 

4.4% 

1.8% 

3.5% 

9.6% 

0.3% 

2.0% 

0.2% 

2.5% 

0.4% 

Neg. 

0.3% 

0.7% 

7.8% 

0.6% 

2.4% 

0.2% 

2.5% 

0.1% 

0.4% 

14.0% 

0.2% 

0.2% 

0.6% 

0.9% 

0.6% 

2.5% 

2.9% 

0.1% 

2.1% 

1.0% 

2.1% 

5.3% 

0.1% 

1.1% 

0.1% 

1.3% 

0.3% 

Neg. 

0.2% 

0.5% 

7.1% 

0.3% 

2.3% 

0.2% 

1.3% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

11.8% 

0.2% 

0.3% 

0.8% 

1.4% 

1.2% 

3.8% 

4.6% 

0.1% 

2.4% 

0.9% 

1.4% 

4.7% 

Neg. 

0.6% 

0.0% 

0.7% 

0.4% 

Neg. 

0.2% 

0.6% 

5.7% 

0.3% 

3.1% 

0.1% 

0.7% 

Neg. 

1.0% 

10.9% 

0.8% 

0.3% 

0.9% 

2.3% 

1.6% 

5.9% 

4.2% 

0.1% 

2.6% 

0.8% 

1.1% 

4.6% 

Neg. 

0.5% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

0.5% 

Neg. 

0.2% 

0.7% 

5.1% 

0.3% 

2.5% 

0.1% 

0.5% 

Neg. 

0.8% 

9.3% 

1.1% 

0.3% 

0.7% 

2.4% 

1.8% 

6.5% 

4.3% 

0.2% 

2.6% 

0.8% 

1.0% 

4.4% 

Neg. 

0.5% 

0.0% 

0.6% 

0.4% 

Neg. 

0.2% 

0.7% 

4.8% 

0.3% 

2.3% 

0.1% 

0.4% 

Neg. 

0.8% 

8.8% 

1.3% 

0.3% 

1.0% 

2.2% 

2.2% 

7.1% 

4.5% 

0.2% 

2.4% 

0.8% 

1.1% 

4.3% 

Neg. 

0.5% 

0.0% 

0.6% 

0.4% 

Neg. 

0.2% 

0.7% 

4.2% 

0.3% 

2.1% 

0.1% 

0.4% 

Neg. 

0.9% 

7.9% 

1.2% 

0.3% 

1.0% 

2.1% 

2.1% 

6.7% 

4.6% 

0.2% 

2.3% 

0.9% 

1.0% 

4.1% 

Neg. 

0.4% 

0.1% 

0.5% 

0.4% 

Neg. 

0.3% 

0.7% 

3.2% 

0.3% 

1.5% 

0.1% 

0.3% 

Neg. 

0.8% 

6.1% 

1.1% 

0.3% 

0.9% 

2.2% 

2.2% 

6.7% 

4.9% 

0.2% 

Total Containers & Pkg 29.7% 35.6% 32.2% 27.3% 27.1% 26.0% 26.2% 25.0% 23.2% 

Total Product Wastes† 59.4% 66.6% 68.8% 67.1% 72.6% 72.6% 72.2% 71.3% 68.6% 

Other Wastes 

Food Scraps 14.8% 11.3% 9.5% 13.6% 16.8% 18.1% 18.7% 19.5% 20.8% 

Yard Trimmings 24.2% 20.5% 20.1% 17.6% 8.5% 7.1% 6.9% 6.9% 8.3% 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 2.0% 2.1% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 

Total Other Wastes 40.6% 33.4% 31.2% 32.9% 27.4% 27.4% 27.8% 28.7% 31.4% 

Total MSW Discarded - % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

* Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery. 

Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes. 

** Includes carbonated drinks and non-carbonated water, teas, flavored drinks, and ready-to-drink alcoholic coolers and cocktails. 

† Other than food products. 

‡	 Includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic cartons.
 

Neg. = Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

94 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Paper and Paperboard Containers and Packaging. Corrugated boxes are the largest 

single product category of MSW at 27.2 million tons generated, or 11.2 percent of total 

generation, in 2009. Corrugated boxes also represent the largest single category of product 

recovery; at 22.1 million tons of recovery in 2009, 81.3 percent of boxes generated were 

recovered. After recovery, 5.1 million tons of corrugated boxes were discarded, or 3.2 percent of 

MSW discards in 2009. 

Other paper and paperboard packaging in MSW includes gable top and aseptic cartons 

(includes milk, juice, and other products packaged in gable top cartons and liquid food aseptic 

cartons), folding cartons (e.g., cereal boxes, frozen food boxes, some department store boxes), 

bags and sacks, wrapping papers, and other paper and paperboard packaging (primarily set-up 

boxes such as shoe, cosmetic, and candy boxes). Overall, paper and paperboard containers and 

packaging totaled 34.9 million tons of MSW generation in 2009, or 14.4 percent of total 

generation. 

While recovery of corrugated boxes is by far the largest component of paper packaging 

recovery, smaller amounts of other paper packaging products are recovered (estimated at about 

3.0 million tons in 2009). The overall recovery rate for paper and paperboard packaging in 2009 

was 71.8 percent. Other paper packaging such as cartons and sacks is mostly recovered as mixed 

papers. 

Plastic Containers and Packaging. Many different plastic resins are used to make a 

variety of packaging products. Some of these include polyethylene terephthalate (PET) soft drink 

and water bottles, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) milk and water jugs, film products 

(including bags and sacks) made of low-density polyethylene (LDPE), and other containers and 

other packaging (including clamshells, trays, caps, lids, egg cartons, loose fill, produce baskets, 

coatings, closures, etc.) made of polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, polypropylene, and other resins. 

Estimates of generation of plastic containers and packaging are based on data on resin sales by 

end use published annually by the American Chemistry Council’s annual plastics resin survey. 

95 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Plastic containers and packaging have exhibited rapid growth in MSW, with generation 

increasing from 120,000 tons in 1960 (0.1 percent of generation) to 12.5 million tons in 2009 

(5.2 percent of MSW generation). (Note: plastic packaging as a category in this report does not 

include single-service plates and cups and trash bags, which are classified as nondurable goods.) 

Estimates of recovery of plastic products are based on data published annually by the 

American Chemistry Council supplemented with additional industry data. PET bottles and jars 

were estimated to have been recovered at a 28.0 percent rate in 2009 (720,000 tons). Recovery of 

HDPE natural bottles (e.g., milk and water bottles) was estimated to have been 220,000 tons, or 

28.9 percent of generation. Overall, recovery of plastic containers and packaging was estimated 

to be 1.7 million tons, or 13.7 percent in 2009. Discards of plastic packaging thus were 10.8 

million tons in 2009, or 6.7 percent of total MSW generation. 

Wood Packaging. Wood packaging includes wood crates and pallets (mostly pallets). 

Data on production of wood packaging are from the National Wood Pallet and Container 

Association, and more recently, the USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station and 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute. In 2009, 10.0 million tons of wood pallets and other wood 

packaging were estimated to have been generated, or 4.1 percent of total MSW generation. 

Wood pallet recovery for recycling (usually by chipping for uses such as mulch or 

bedding material, but excluding wood combusted as fuel) was estimated at 2.2 million tons in 

2009. 

Accounting for pallet reuse and recovery for recycling, wood packaging discards were 7.8 

million tons in 2009, or 4.9 percent of total MSW discards. 

Other Packaging. Estimates are included for some other miscellaneous packaging such 

as bags made of textiles, small amounts of leather, and the like. These latter quantities are not 

well documented; it was estimated that 280,000 tons were generated in 2009. 

96 
 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Summary of Products in Municipal Solid Waste 

The materials composition of municipal solid waste generation by product category is 

illustrated in Figure 14. This figure shows graphically that generation of durable goods has 

increased very gradually over the years. Nondurable goods and containers and packaging have 

accounted for the large increases in MSW generation. 

Figure 14. Generation of products in MSW, 1960 to 2009 

million tons 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Other Wastes 

Yard Trimmings Food Scraps 

Containers & Packaging 

Nondurable Goods 

Durable Goods 

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

97 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

The materials composition of nondurable goods in 2009 is shown in Figure 15. Paper and 

paperboard made up 62.7 percent of nondurables in MSW generation, with plastics contributing 

12.4 percent, and textiles 16.8 percent. Other materials contributed lesser percentages. After 

recovery for recycling, paper and paperboard were 46.5 percent of nondurable discards, with 

plastics being 19.2 percent, and textiles 21.8 percent. 

The materials composition of containers and packaging in MSW in 2009 is shown in 

Figure 16. By weight, paper and paperboard products made up 48.8 percent of containers and 

packaging generation; plastics accounted for 17.5 percent. Glass was 13.5 percent, wood was 

14.4 percent, and metals were 5.8 percent. 

The percentage of materials discards from containers and packaging is affected by 

recovery for recycling. After recovery for recycling, paper and paperboard dropped to 26.4 

percent of discards. Glass containers accounted for 17.8 percent of discards of containers and 

packaging, plastics were 28.9 percent, wood was 21.7 percent, and metals were 5.2 percent. 

98 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Figure 15. Nondurable goods generated and discarded*
 

in municipal solid waste, 2009
 

(In percent of total generation and discards)
 

Other 

6.1% 

Paper & paperboard 

62.7% 

Plastics 

12.4% 

Rubber & leather 

2.0% 

Textiles 

16.8% 

Generation 

Other 

Rubber & leather 

3.1% 

9.4% 

Textiles 

21.8% 

Plastics 

Paper & paperboard 

46.5% 

19.2% 

Discards 

*Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery. 

99 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Figure 16. Containers and packaging generated and discarded*
 

in municipal solid waste, 2009
 

(In percent of total generation and discards)
 

Wood, other 

Paper & paperboard 

48.8% 

Glass 

Metals 

5.8% 

Plastics 

17.5% 

14.4% 

13.5% 

Generation 

Paper & paperboard 

26.4% 

Glass 

17.8% 

Metals 

Plastics 

28.9% 

Wood, other 

21.7% 

5.2% 

Discards 

*Discards in this figure include combustion with energy recovery. 

100 
Chapter 2 	 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

SUMMARY 

The data presented in this chapter can be summarized by the following observations: 

MSW Generation 

•	 Total generation of municipal solid waste in 2009 was 243 million tons, which 

was similar to 2000 when 242.5 million tons were generated. This compares to 

1990, when total generation of MSW was 208.3 million tons. 

•	 Paper and paperboard products made up the largest percentage of all the materials 

in MSW, at 28.2 percent of total generation. Generation of paper and paperboard 

products declined from 87.7 million tons in 2000 to 68.4 million tons in 2009. 

Generation of newspapers has been declining since 2000, and this trend is 

expected to continue, partly due to decreased page size, but also due to increased 

use of electronic communication of news. Generation of office-type (high grade) 

papers also has been in decline, due at least partially to increased use of electronic 

transmission of reports, etc. Paper and paperboard products have ranged between 

34 and 28 percent of generation since 2005. 

•	 Yard trimmings comprised the third largest material category, estimated at 33.2 

million tons, or 13.7 percent of total generation, in 2009. This compares to 35.0 

million tons (16.8 percent of total generation) in 1990. The decline in yard 

trimmings generation since 1990 is largely due to state legislation discouraging 

yard trimmings disposal in landfills, including source reduction measures such as 

backyard composting and leaving grass trimmings on the yard. 

101 
 

Chapter 2 	 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

•	 Plastic products generation in 2009 was 29.8 million tons, or 12.3 percent of 

generation. This was a decrease of 920,000 tons from 2007 to 2009. This decrease 

in plastics generation came mostly from the containers and packaging category. 

Although plastics generation has grown from 8.2 percent of generation in 1990 to 

12.3 percent in 2009, plastic generation as a percent of total generation has 

remained fairly steady over the past few years. 

MSW Recovery 

•	 Recovery of materials in MSW increased from 5.6 million tons in 1960 (6.4 

percent of total generation) to 69.5 million tons in 2000 (28.6 percent of 

generation) to 82.0 million tons in 2009 (33.8 percent of generation). 

•	 Although recovery of products and other wastes (food scraps and yard trimmings) 

in MSW decreased 1.8 million tons from 2008 to 2009, generation also decreased 

(8 million tons from 2008 to 2009). The result is an increase in the recovery rate 

from 33.4 percent in 2008 to 33.8 percent in 2009. 

•	 Recovery of paper and paperboard products, the largest component of recovery, 

increased from 55.5 percent in 2008 to 62.1 percent in 2009. 

•	 The increase in recovery of paper and paperboard products over the longer term 

has been due to increases in recovery, over time, from all categories: newspapers, 

books, magazines, office papers, directories, Standard mail (advertisements, 

circulars, etc.), and other commercial printing. Between 2008 and 2009, all paper 

products showed increased recovery rates. 

•	 The newspaper recovery rate increased from 88.0 percent to 88.1 percent between 

2008 and 2009. Newspaper generation decreased from 8.8 million tons in 2008 to 

7.8 million tons in 2009. As generation of newspapers declines, this raises a 

102 
Chapter 2 	 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

question as to whether much increase in tonnage of newspapers recovered can be 

achieved. 

•	 Containers and packaging recovery increased from 34.1 million tons in 2008 to 

34.2 million tons in 2009; percentage recovery increased from 44.9 percent to 

47.8 percent. Nondurable goods recovery decreased from 19.3 million tons in 

2008 to 18.9 million tons in 2009. However, due to decreased generation, the 

percentage recovery of nondurable goods increased from 32.9 percent to 35.3 

percent. 

•	 Measured by tonnage, the most recovered products and materials in 2009 were 

corrugated boxes (22.1 million tons), yard trimmings (19.9 million tons), 

newspapers (6.8 million tons), high grade office papers (4.0 million tons), 

standard mail (3.0 million tons), glass containers (3.0 million tons), lead-acid 

batteries (2.7 million tons), major appliances (2.5 million tons), folding cartons 

(2.5 million tons), other commercial printing (2.3 million tons), wood packaging 

(2.2 million tons), tires (1.7 million tons), and steel cans (1.3 million tons). 

Collectively, these products accounted for 90 percent of total MSW recovery in 

2009. 

•	 Measured by percentage of generation, products with the highest recovery rates in 

2009 were lead-acid batteries (95.7 percent), newspapers (88.1 percent), 

corrugated boxes (81.3 percent), office-type papers (74.2 percent), major 

appliances (66.8 percent), steel packaging (66.2 percent), yard trimmings (59.9 

percent), other commercial printing (66.2 percent), aluminum cans (50.7 percent), 

standard mail (63.4 percent), magazines (53.8 percent), folding cartons (50.0 

percent), tires (35.3 percent), and glass packaging (31.1 percent). 

103 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 	 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Long Term Trends 

•	 Generation of MSW has increased (except in recession years), from 88.1 million 

tons in 1960 to 243 million tons in 2009. Due to the depressed economy, 

generation decreased in 2008 and again in 2009. 

•	 Generation of paper and paperboard, the largest material component of MSW, 

fluctuates from year to year, but has decreased from 87.7 million tons in 2000 to 

68.4 million tons in 2009. Generation of yard trimmings has increased since 2000. 

Generation of other material categories also fluctuates from year to year, but 

overall MSW generation increased from 1960 to 2007, with the trend reversing 

after 2007. 

•	 In percentage of total MSW generation, recovery for recycling (including 

composting) did not exceed 15 percent until 1990. Growth in the recovery rate to 

current levels (33.8 percent) reflects a rapid increase in the infrastructure for 

recovery and expansion of domestic and foreign markets over the last decade. 

•	 Recovery (as a percentage of generation) of most materials in MSW has increased 

dramatically over the last 39 years. Some examples: 

1970	 1980 1990 2000 2009 

Paper and paperboard 15% 21% 28% 43% 62% 

Glass 1% 5% 20% 23% 26% 

Metals 4% 8% 24% 35% 35% 

Plastics Neg. <1% 2% 6% 7% 

Yard trimmings Neg. Neg. 12% 52% 60% 

Selected Consumer 

Electronics 10%	 19%

Lead-acid batteries 76% 70% 97% 93% 96% 

Neg. = less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent. 

104 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

CHAPTER 2
 

REFERENCES
 

GENERAL
 

Franklin, M.A. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 

(Update 1988). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/530-SW-88-033. NTIS PB88­

232780/WEP. March 1988. 

Franklin, M.A. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. REPT-15-3490-00. NTIS PB87-178323/WEP. July 

1986. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1997 Update. EPA/530-R-98-007. May 1998. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1996 Update. EPA/530-R-97-015. June 1997. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1995 Update. EPA/530-R-96-001. November 1995. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1994 Update. EPA/530-R-94-042. November 1994. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1992 Update. EPA/530-R-92-019. July 1992. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1990 Update. EPA/530-SW-90-042. June 1991. 

105 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2005 Facts 

and Figures. EPA530-R-06-011. October 2006. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/pubs/mswchar05.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and 

Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003. EPA530-F-05-003. April 2005. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2001 Facts 

and Figures. EPA/530-R-03-011. October 2003. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/pubs/msw2001.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2000 Facts 

and Figures. EPA/530-R-02-001. June 2002. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/pubs/report-00.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 1999 Facts 

and Figures. EPA/530-R-01-014. July 2001. 

ALUMINUM CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING 

The Aluminum Association. Aluminum Statistical Review. Various years. 


The Aluminum Association. www.aluminum.org. 


Can Manufacturers Institute. Can Shipments Report. Various years. 


Personal Communication with a representative of the Can Manufacturers Institute. February
 

2006. 


Resource Recycling Container Recycling Update. Various issues. 


106 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Closures for 

Containers.” MQ34H. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Merchandise Trade (7602.00.0030 – 

Aluminum Used Beverage Container Scrap SEC 9100). 

CARPETS AND RUGS 

Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE). Annual Report. Various years. 


www.carpetrecovery.org. 


Modern Plastics. “Resin Statistics.” January issue. Various years. 


Personal communication with a representative of the Carpet and Rug Institute. July 2002.
 

Personal communication with a representative of the Polyurethane Foam Association (PFA). The
 

Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI). July 2007-2010. 


Rauch Associates, Inc. The Rauch Guide to the U.S. Adhesives and Sealants Industry. ISBN O932157-05-X. 


The Carpet and Rug Institute. Carpet & Rug Industry Review. Various years. 


The Carpet and Rug Institute. Sustainability Report 2000. 2001. 


U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Carpets and 

Rugs.” MA22Q. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Carpets and 

Rugs.” MA314Q. Various years. 

107 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

CONSUMER ELECTRONICS 

Alster, Norm. “Are Old PC’s Poisoning Us?” Business Week. June 2000. 


“Annual and Monthly Buying Guide.” Consumer Reports. Various Issues 1984 – 1995. 


Best Buy website. www.bestbuy.com
 

Canon Communications LLC. U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review: 1999 to 2008. 


Appliance Magazine. Market Research Report. July 2009. 


www.ApplianceMagazine.com/MarketResearch 

Consumer Electronics Association. Fast Facts Data. Various years. 

Dana Chase Publications, Inc. Appliance Statistical Review. Various years. 

Dann, Carolyn. End-of-Life Electronics Equipment Pilot Collection Program Summary Report -

Alachua County, Florida. October 1999. Center for Environmental Communications. 

Franklin County Solid Waste Management District. Consumer Electronics Collection Report 

DEP Technical Assistance Grant. October 1998. Franklin County, MA. Average age of products 

recovered. 

Jun Fujimoto, Tetsuya Tamura, et al. NEC Corporation. A New Era Computer Product Focused 

on Environmentally Relevant Factors. 1995 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and 

the Environment. May 1995. Composition of notebook-type computers. 

108 
 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Lehman, Richard L., Reggie Caudill, Julian Kliokis. Processes and Products for Utilization of 

Reclaimed CRT Glass. Presentation at Demanufacturing of Electronic Equipment for Reuse and 

Recycling [DEER2] Information Exchange. October 26 - 27, 1999. Center for Ceramics 

Research. Rutgers University. 

Materials for The Future Foundation. The Monitor of Electronics Recycling Issues. CRT 

Smelting. January 2002. www.materials4future.org. 

Materials for The Future Foundation. The Monitor of Electronics Recycling Issues. CRT Glass to 

CRT Glass Recycling. September 2001. www.materials4future.org. 

Matthews, H. Scott, Francis C. McMichael, et al. Disposition and End-of-Life Options for 

Personal Computers. Green Design Initiative Technical Report #97-10. Carnegie Mellon 

University. 

Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Management of waste electronic appliances. 

August 1995. 

Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Recycling Used Electronics. Report on 

Minnesota’s Demonstration Project. July 2001. 

National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. Contracting for Proper Recovery 

and Recycling of Electronic Products. March 2, 2000. www.nrc-recycle.org/programs 

National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. Proper Management of End-ofLife Electronic Products (other than CRTs). January 27, 2000. www.nrc-recycle.org/programs 

National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. State and Local Policy Initiative 

and Voluntary Programs. December 2, 1999. www.nrc-recycle.org/programs 

109 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

National Recycling Coalition. Electronics Recycling Initiative. Trends in Electronics Recycling 

in the United States. November 3, 1999. www.nrc-recycle.org/programs 

National Safety Council. Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report. May 

1999. 

Northeast Recycling Council. Setting Up & Operating Electronics Recycling/Reuse Programs: A 

Manual for Municipalities & Counties. March 2002. www.nerc.org. 

Pasco County and Center for Environmental Communications. The Recycling and 

Demanufacturing of Computers and Electronic Equipment in Pasco County, Florida. April 2000. 

Pitts, Greg. Computer and Electronics Disposition Eco-Industrial Park. Presentation at 

Demanufacturing of Electronic Equipment for Reuse and Recycling [DEER2

] Information 

Exchange. October 26 - 27, 1999. 

Southern Waste Information eXchange, Inc. SWIX. Used TV & Computer Recycling & 

Management in Florida: A Resource Guide. September 1999. 

U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Economics and Statistics Administration. 

Economic Census. Industry Series. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. EC97M-3343A. 

Various years. 

U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Current Industrial Report: Communication 

Equipment. Various years. 

U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Current Industrial Report: Computers and 

Office and Accounting Machines. Various years. 

U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. Current Industrial Report: Consumer 

Electronics. Various years. 

110 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Tariff and trade 

online database. http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Electronics Waste Management in the United States 

Approach 1. (Revised baseline report.) July 2008. EPA530-R-08-009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Electronics Waste Management in the United States 

Approach 1. April 2007. EPA530-R-07-004a. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Electronics Waste Management in the United States 

Approach 2. April 2007. EPA530-R-07-004a. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Energy and Greenhouse Gas Factors for Personal 

Computers. Franklin Associates, Ltd. August 7, 2002. Contract No. 68-W-99-001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. 

Electronics Waste Management in the United States Through 2009. Final Report. 2010. 

DISPOSABLE DIAPERS 

Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG. ,ndustry GDWD. September 2007 and 


previous years. 


Kimberly-Clark. Annual Report. Various years. 


Ninner, N.R., A.M. Sterling, and A.R. Liss. Female Incontinence. 1980. 


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

National Center for Health Statistics. Various years. 

111 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

National Vital Statistics Reports. “Births: Preliminary Data for 2008, Volume 58, Number 16.” 

April 6, 2010. 

FOOD SCRAPS 

Allegheny County, PA. Establishing a Pre-Consumer Food Waste Collection and Composting 

Pilot Program in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. RW Beck. January 30, 2003. 

California Integrated Waste Management Board. Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for 

Selected Industry Groups. Cascadia Consulting Group. June 2006. 

California Integrated Waste Management Board. Waste Disposal Rates for Business Types. 

www.ciwmb.ca.gov/. 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Faststats - Nursing Home Care. 

www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/nursingh.htm 

City of San Clemente, CA. Pilot Food Waste Project. “CR&R Waste & Recycling Services.” 

http://san-clemente.org/sc/Services/Environmental/SolidWaste/PilotFoodWasteProjectJuly10.pdf 

City of Wayzata, MN. Curbside Collection of Source-Separated Organics in the City of Wayzata 

Final Report - Phase 1. January 2005. 

City of Wayzata, MN. Curbside Collection Of Source-Separated Organics in the City of Wayzata 

Final Report - Phase 2. June 2005. http://wayzata.govoffice.com 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Garbage Gazette. Jan/Feb, 2002. 

112 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Identifying, Quantifying, and Mapping 

Food Residuals from Connecticut Businesses and Institutions. Draper/Lennon, Inc. September, 

2001. 

Farrell, Molly. “Evaluating Residential Organics Collection Pilot.” BioCycle. March 2001. 

Food Manufacturers Institute. “Reducing Waste Disposal Costs: How to Evaluate the Benefits of 

Composting in the Supermarket Industry.” Composting Workbook. 1994. 

Food Service Director. College Census Report. “Performance report for top colleges.” 2008 and 

2009. http://www.fsdmag.com/census-reports.html 

Food Service Director. Hospital Census Report. “Performance report for top 50 hospitals.” 2009. 

http://www.fsdmag.com/census-reports.html 

Food Service Director. Long-term Care Census Report. “Performance report for top 75 long-term 

care chains.” 2008. http://www.fsdmag.com/census-reports.html 

Food Service Director. VA Martinsburg Wins Sustainability Award. June 15, 2010. 

http://www.leanpath.com/docs/martinsburg.pdf 

Goldstein, Nora. “National Trends in Food Residuals Composting Part I.” BioCycle. July 1997. 

Goldstein, Nora. Unpublished analyses of the food waste composting industry. August 2006, 

August 2007, and August 2008. 

Goldstein, Nora and Dave Block. “Nationwide Inventory of Food Residuals Composting Part II.” 

BioCycle. August 1997. 

Goldstein, Nora, Jim Glenn, and Kevin Gray. “Nationwide Overview of Food Residuals 

Composting.” BioCycle. August 1998. 

113 
 

 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Grocery Committee on Solid Waste. Composting Task Force Report. October 24, 1991. 


Hinshaw, Jane, and Ivan Braun. “Targeting Commercial Businesses for Recycling.” Resource
 

Recycling. November 1991. 


Kim, T., Shanklin, C.W., Su, A.Y., Hackes, B.L. and Ferris, D. 1997. “Comparison of waste
 

composition in a continuing-care retirement community.” J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 97, 396-400. 


King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Solid Waste Division. 2003 King 


County Residential Food Scrap Collection Final Report. May 2004. 


Kroger. 2010 Sustainability Report. June 2010. 


http://www.thekrogerco.com/documents/KrogerSustainReport2010.pdf
 

Kunzler, Conni, and Molly Farrell. “Food Service Composting Projects Update.” BioCycle. May
 

1996. 


Kunzler, Conni, and Rebecca Roe. “Food Service Composting Projects on the Rise.” BioCycle.
 

April 1995. 


Luboff, Christine, and Karen May. “Measuring Generation of Food Residuals.” July 1995. 


Marion, James, New York State Department of Corrections. Presentation at the BioCycle
 

conference. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1994. 


Michaels, Karen. “Mapping the Density of Food Residuals Generation.” BioCycle. June 2003. 


Newell, Ty, Elizabeth Markstahler, and Matthew Snyder. “Commercial Food Waste from
 

Restaurants and Grocery Stores.” Resource Recycling. February 1993. 


114 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

North Carolina, Orange County. Solid Waste Management Department. FY2010 food waste 

collection data received July, 2010. 

Personal communication with Andrew Shakman President and Co-Founder. LeanPath, Inc. 

August 2010. 

Personal communication with Brian Mathews Senior Program Manager StopWaste.org. Alameda 

County, CA. January 2008. 

Personal communication with Bruce Bowers Environmental Manager. Harley-Davidson Motor 

Company Operations, LLC. August 2010. 

Personal communication with Jeff Senne Director of Performance, Sustainability and CSR. 

Sodexo, Inc. August 2010. 

Personal communication with Jennifer Erickson. Metro Regional Government Resource 

Conservation & Recycling. Portland, Oregon. August 2010. 

Personal communication with Mike Geller PSA Sustainability Coordinator. Providence Health & 

Services. Portland, OR. August 2010 

Personal communication with Nicole Chardoul Resource Recycling Systems. August 2010. 

www.recycle.com 

Personal communication with Rachel Warner Marketing Director. National Association of 

College and Universities Food Services. August 2010. 

Personal communication with Rick Robson Environmental Chemist - Sustainability. Hallmark 

Cards, Inc. August 2010. 

115 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

San Francisco Department of the Environment. Waste Characterization Study. Environmental 

Science Associates (ESA). August 2005. 

Savage, George M. “The History and Utility of Waste Characterization Studies.” MSW 

Management. May/June 1994. 

Shanklin, Carol W. “Targeting the Food Service Sector.” BioCycle. April 2001. 

Tucker, Marvin. “Examining Collection of all Residential Organics.” Resource Recycling. 

November 2001. 

Tufts University. Wind and Waste Diversifying Boston’s Renewable Energies. Prepared by 

graduate students from the Tufts University Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and 

Planning. 2009. 

http://ase.tufts.edu/UEP/Degrees/field_project_reports/2009/Team_2_Final_Report.pdf 

U.S. Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. “Characteristics of the Group Quarters Population 

by Group quarters Type. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates.” S2601B. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STSelectServlet?_ts=298394730199 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Estimating and Addressing America’s Food Losses.” 

Economic Research Service. www.econ.ag.gov/. July 1997. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1996.” 

Economic Research Service. Judith Jones Putnam. April 1996. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. “Combined Annual and Revised Monthly 

Retail Trade.” Current Business Reports. BR/95-RV. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports. Various 

years. 

116 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. “Monthly Retail Trade.” Current Business 

Reports. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 

Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. “Trends and Forecasts: Retail Sales.” U.S. Industrial Outlook 

1994. 

U.S. Department of Education. National Center For Educational Statistics. “Table 167. 

Minimum amount of instructional time per year and policy on textbook selection, by state: 2000, 

2006, and 2008.” http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/xls/tabn167.xls 

U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics 

database. May 2009 http://data.bls.gov:8080/oes/search.jsp?data_tool=OES 

U.S. EPA. “Quantification of Food Residual Composted – 2004 and 2005.” Summary report. 

Nora Goldstein, JG Press. October 2006. 

University of North Carolina Health Care System 2009 Annual Report. Financials and Statistics. 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina. http://www.unchealthcare.org/site/aboutus/annualreport2009.pdf 

Walsh, Patrick, Wayne Pferdehirt, and Phil O’Leary. “Collection of Recyclables from 

Multifamily Housing and Businesses.” Waste Age. April 1993. 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).Composting Feasibility Study for the 

Randolph-Macon College Dining Facility. Fall 2008. 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/recycle/pdf/CompostingStudyRMC2009.pdf 

Walmart. Integrated Organic Diversion Program. Bobby Fanning, Sr. Manager, Solid Waste and 

Recycling. Presentation from Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) 2010 Workshop. March 

2010. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/rcc/resources/meetings/rcc-2010/fanning.pdf 

117 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

WRAP. United Kingdom. Food Waste Report The Food We Waste. April 2008. 

http://wrap.s3.amazonaws.com/the-food-we-waste.pdf 

FURNITURE AND FURNISHINGS 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. “Status Report: Peer Reviewed CPSC Staff Research 

Reports on Upholstered Furniture Flammability.” December 2006. 

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/foia07/brief/ufurn1.pdf 

Smith, F.L. A Solid Waste Estimation Procedure: Material Flows Approach. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. EPA/530-SW-147. May 1974. 

Spendlove, M.J. “A Profile of the Nonferrous Secondary Metals Industry.” U.S. Bureau of 

Mines. Proceedings of the Second Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium. 1970. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Average 

Weight and Width of Broadwoven Fabrics (Gray).” MC-22T. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Average 

Weight and Width of Broadwoven Fabrics (Gray).” MQ313T various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Office 

Furniture.” MA-25H. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Economic Census of Manufactures and 

Annual Survey of Manufactures. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Tariff and trade 

online database. http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp 

118 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

GLASS CONTAINERS 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. “State of Recycling in Arkansas 2007-2008.” 

January 2009. http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/solwaste/branch_recycling/default.htm 

Bingham, T.H., et al. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost of Regulatory and Fiscal 

Policy Instruments on Product Packaging. Research Triangle Institute for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management. March 1974. 

Brewers Almanac. Various years. 

Cal Recycle. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. “Biannual Report of Beverage 

Container Sales, Returns, Redemption, and Recycling Rates.” May 10, 2010. 

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Rates/BiannualRpt/default.htm 

California Department of Conservation. Biannual Report of Beverage Container Sales, Returns, 

Redemption, and Recycling Rates. May 9, 2008 

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dor/Notices/Documents/Biannual.pdf 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Division of Hazardous Materials and 

Waste Management. “2009 Annual Report to the Colorado General Assembly On the Status of 

the Solid Waste and Material Management Program In Colorado.” February 1, 2010. 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/recycle/data.htm 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Materials Management & 

Compliance Assurance. “Estimates of Connecticut Municipal Solid Waste Generated (MSW), 

Disposed, and Recycled FY2008.” 

http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/reduce_reuse_recycle/data/average_state_msw_statistics_fy2008.p 

df 

119 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. The Recycling Public 

Advisory Council. “The Eighth Annual Report of the Recycling Public Advisory Council.” 

November 2009. 

http://www.awm.delaware.gov/Recycling/Documents/The%20Eighth%20Annual%20Report%20 

RPAC%20Nov2009.pdf 

Egan, Katherine. “Glass Recycling Rate Drops Seven Percent in 1997.” Waste Age’s Recycling 

Times. June 1, 1998. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “Solid Waste Management in Florida 2008 

Annual Report.” Appendix B: Recycling and Waste Reduction. Table 3-B. 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/08_data.htm 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Post-consumer Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Baseline. Prepared 

for the Resource Conservation Committee. May 16, 1979. 

Franklin, W.E., et al. Base Line Forecasts of Resource Recovery, 1972 to 1990. Midwest 

Research Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste 

Management Programs. March 1975. 

Glass Packaging Institute. Annual Report. Various years. 

Glass Packaging Institute. “Glass Bottles Reaching 50% Recycled Content.” Joe Cattaneo 

presentation at Virginia Recycling Association Annual Conference, Virginia Beach, VA. May 18, 

2010. http://www.vrarecycles.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=jP3bJ0xHPuo%3D&tabid=58 

Glass Packaging Institute. “Glass Container Recycling Market Trends.” Bryan Vickers 

presentation at Iowa Recycling & Solid Waste Management Conference Waterloo, IA October 6, 

2009. 

120 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Glass Packaging Institute. U.S. Glass Container Shipment and Production Report. 2009 and 

2010. 

Hawaii Department of Health. “Report to the Twenty-Fifth Legislature State of Hawaii 2009.” 

November 2008. 

http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/waste/sw/hi5/support/2009ReportToLeg.pdf 

Maine State Planning Office. “Solid Waste Generation & Disposal Capacity Report for Calendar 

Year 2008.” March 2010. http://www.state.me.us/spo/recycle/docs/gencapdraft040110final.pdf 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. “2008 Solid Waste Data Update on the 

Beyond 2000 Solid Waste Master Plan.” April 2010. Table 4 and Figure 2. 

http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/priorities/08swdata.pdf 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “Recycling in Minnesota, The SCORE Report. Recycling 

and solid waste data.” 2008. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/environmentaldata/score/recycling-and-solid-waste-data.html 

Nevada. Division of Environmental Protection. 2009 Recycling Rate in Nevada 

http://nevadarecycles.gov/doc/nvrate09.pdf 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Joe Davis, Recycling & Planning. 

New Mexico Environment Department. Solid Waste Bureau. Connie Pasteris. Personal 

communication. July 2010. 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “Beverage Container Deposit and 

Redemption Statistics October 1, 2005 - September 30, 2006.” 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/0506rcarpt.pdf 

121 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

North Carolina. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Solid Waste Management 

Annual Report. July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008 

http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us/swhome/AR07_08/AR07_08.pdf 

North Carolina, Orange County. Solid Waste Management Department. 2007-2008 Statistics. 

http://www.co.orange.nc.us/recycling/index.asp 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management. 

“State Solid Waste Management Plan 2009.” March 3, 2010. Table 2-3. 

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7dqcFOrOZg0%3d&tabid=2613 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “2008 Oregon Material Recovery and Waste 

Generation Rates Report. Land Quality Division.” September 2009. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/2008MRWGRatesReport.pdf 

Owens Corning. “OI NA Cullet Report on Market Conditions”. Paul J Smith Sourcing Manager 

– Cullet presentation to Federation of New York Solid Waste Associations. May 6, 2009. 

http://www.nyfederation.org/pdf2009/73smithpaul.pdf 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Lawrence Holley, Division Chief, Waste 

Minimization and Planning. Telephone call July 7, 2010. 

Personal communication with Kevin Dietly of Northbridge Environmental Management 

Consultants. May 2006. 

Personal communication with representative of Glass Packaging Institute. July 2010. 

Personal communication with a representative of Strategic Materials. 2000 and 2005. 

Personal communication with a representative of Waste Management. July 2007. 

Resource Recycling, Container Recycling Update. Various issues. 

122 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. “South Carolina Solid Waste 

Management Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2009.” Section 6 page 38. 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/recycle/pubs/swm09_small.pdf 

Texas Department of Transportation. “Recycling Summary.” Roadway Recycled Materials and 

Products Placed in FY09. 

http://www.txdot.gov/business/contractors_consultants/recycling/performance.htm 

The ULS Report. "A Study of Packaging Efficiency as it Relates to Waste Prevention". February 

2007. http://www.americanchemistry.com/plastics/doc.asp?CID=1593&DID=6072 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Glass 

Containers.” M32G. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. National Trade Data Bank. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Exports, Schedule B Commodity by Country - Domestic 

Merchandise. FT 447. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports for Consumption. FT 247. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports of Merchandise for Consumption. FT 110 and FT 

125. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Tariff and trade 

online database. http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp 

123 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. “The Virginia Annual Recycling Rate Report. 

Calendar Year 2008 Summary.” November 2009. 

http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/recycle/documents/AnnualReportRRR2008Final.pdf 

Washington State Department of Ecology. “Generation, Recycling and Per Capita data (1986­

2008).” http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/solidwastedata/recyclin.asp 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. “Annual Reports from Responsible Units.” Table 1 

Recyclable Materials Collected by Wisconsin Responsible Units (1999-2008). 

http://www.wnrmag.com/org/aw/wm/recycle/recycleldfrept/table1ru.pdf 

LEAD-ACID BATTERIES 

American Automobile Manufacturers Association. AAMA Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures. 

Various years. 

Battery Council International. Industry Statistics. Various years. 

Battery Council International. Lead-acid Battery Shipments 1937 – 2007. 

http://www.batterycouncil.org/LeadAcidBatteries/tabid/54/Default.aspx 

Battery Council International. National Recycling Rate Study. Various years. 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Products Containing Lead and Cadmium in 

Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. EPA/530-SW-89-015A. NTIS PB89-151039/WEP. January 1989. 

Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. Motorcycle Statistical Annual. Various years. 

124 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

National Automobile Dealers Association. NADA Data: Vehicles in Operation and Scrappage, 

http://www.nada.org/Publications/NADADATA/ as of Dec.6, 2007. 

National Automobile Dealers Association. NADA. Data 2006. Economic Impact of America's 

New-Car and New-Truck Dealers. http://www.nada.org/ 

National Automobile Dealers Association. NADA. Data 2010. Dealership and Industry Review. 

www.nada.org/nadadata 

National Petroleum News. Market Facts. Various years. 


Personal communication with a representative of R. L. Polk & Company. 


Rubber Manufacturers Association. Scrap Tire Markets. July 2004. www.rma.org. 


Teck Cominco Market Research. The Lead Market. www.teckcominco.com. 


U. S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports By Commodity. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook “Metals.” Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Tariff and trade 

online database. http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp 

U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey. USGS Minerals Yearbook: Lead. 

January 2008. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lead/myb1-2006-lead.pdf 

125 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

U.S. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Transportation 

Statistics 2005. 

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/csv/table_04_54.csv 

U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Highway Statistics. “State 

Motor Vehicle Registrations.” Various years. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/hsspubs.cfm 

Ward Communications, Inc. Ward’s Motor Vehicle Facts & Figures. 2001. 

MAJOR APPLIANCES 

American Iron and Steel Institute Annual Statistical Report. Various years. 


Appliance Magazine. Corcoran Communications. September 1983. 


Appliance Manufacturer. Annual Industry Marketing Guide, March issue of various years. 


Appliance Manufacturer. “Market Profile.” Various years. 


Appliance Manufacturer. “Shipments Forecasts.” Various years. 


Appliance Recycling Information Center. INFOBulletin #1, #2, and #7. July 2001. 


Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Trends and Forecasts. 1971 to 1988. 


Best Buy website. www.bestbuy.com. 


Canon Communications. 58th Annual Appliance Industry Forecast. February 2010. 


Canon Communications. U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review: 1999 to 2008. July 2009. 


126 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Dana Chase Publications, Inc. Appliance Statistical Review. Various years. 


Electrical Merchandising. January 1951. 


Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association. Statistical Highlights. Various years. 


Maytag Corporation. www.amana.com. 


National Industrial Pollution Control Council. The Disposal of Major Appliances. June 1971. 


Personal communication with a representative of Amana, Inc. November 1991. 


Personal communication with a representative of Steel Recycling Institute. Various years. 


Rheem Manufacturing Company. www.rheem.com. 


Sears, Roebuck and Co. Spring and Fall Retail Catalogs and website www.sears.com. Various
 

years. 


Steel Recycling Institute. www.recycle-steel.org. 


Target Brands, Inc. www.target.com. 


University of Illinois Extension. Disaster Resources. “Energy Guide Labels”
 

web.extension.uiuc.edu/disaster/replace/energy.html
 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Major 

Household Appliances.” MA36F. Various years. 

127 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 

Various years. 

U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity Summaries. "Iron and Steel Scrap.” Various years. 

Wal-Mart website. www.walmart.com 

PAPER AND PAPERBOARD 

American Forest & Paper Association. Monthly Statistical Report. Various issues. 

American Forest & Paper Association. Paper, Paperboard, Pulp Capacity and Fiber 

Consumption. Various years. 

American Forest & Paper Association, Paper Recycling Group. Annual Statistical Summary 

Waste Paper Utilization. Various years. 

American Forest & Paper Association. Statistics of Paper, Paperboard & Wood Pulp. Various 

years. 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Evaluation of Proposed New Recycled Paper Standards and 

Definitions. Special Task Force on Standards and Definitions, Recycled Paper Committee, 

Recycling Advisory Council. January 27, 1992. 

Mies, Will, Editor. Pulp & Paper Global Fact & Price Book, 2005. Paperloop, Inc. 2005. 

Personal communication with Amy Healy, Director Public Policy, of the Yellow Pages 

Association. February, April, June 2010. 

128 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Personal communication with Cathy Foley, Paper Division Vice President and Stan Lancey, 

Chief Economist, of the American Paper & Forest Association. July and August 2010. 

Personal communication with Ed Klein, Executive Director, of the Carton Council. July 2010. 

Personal communication with Jeff Fielkow, Vice President of Recycling, of the Carton Council. 

July 2010. 

U.S. Postal Service. Annual Report of the Postmaster General. Various years. 

Yellow Pages Publishers Association. Yellow Pages Publishers Environmental Network: 

Progress Report for the Year 1996. March 1997. 

PLASTICS 

Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers. EPS Recycling Report. Various years. 

www.epspackaging.org. 

Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers. “Recycled Content in Expandable Polystyrene Foam 

Protective Packaging.” Technical Bulletin. Fall 2001. 

American Chemistry Council. “Production and Sales & Captive Use of Thermosetting & 

Thermoplastic Resins.” Various years. 

American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. 2008 National Postconsumer Recycled Plastic 

Bag and Film Report. http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/index.asp 

American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. 2006 National Post-Consumer Recycled Plastic 

Bag and Film Report. 

http://www.plasticbagrecycling.org/08.0/2006Report.pdf 

129 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. 2008 National Postconsumer Report on NonBottle Rigid Plastic Recycling. http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/index.asp 

American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. 2008 United States National Postconsumer 

Plastics Bottle Recycling Report. http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/index.asp 

American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. Plastic Packaging Resins. March 2007. 

American Plastics Council, Inc. “Production and Sales & Captive Use of Thermosetting & 

Thermoplastic Resins.” Various years. 

Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers and the American Chemistry Council. United 

States National Postconsumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report. 2006 

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/sec_content.asp?CID=1593&did=7094 

Modern Plastics. Resin Statistics. January and February issues. Various years. 

National Association of PET Container Resources (NAPCOR). “Report on Post Consumer PET 

Container Recycling Activity.” Various years. www.napcor.com 

Patty Moore, Moore Recycling Associates, Inc. Presentation to the Association of Oregon 

Recyclers June 22, 2007. 

http://www.aorr.org/Docs/2007_Conference_Presentations/Markets%20Panel%20Plastics.pdf 

Personal communication with Patty Moore, Moore Recycling Associates, Inc. August 2009 and 

September 2010. 

Personal communication with various industry representatives. August 2006, August 2007, 

August 2008, and September 2009. 

Plastics Recycling Update. January 2004. 

130 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

R.W. Beck and Associates. “Postconsumer Plastics Recycling Rate Study.” American Plastics 

Council. Various years. 

Schedler, Mike.. “A PET Bottle Recycling Status Report.” Resource Recycling. February 2006. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). International 

Trade Statistics. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Online database. 

http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Value of Product Shipments. Various years. 

RUBBER 

American Automobile Manufacturers Association. AAMA Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures. 

Various years. 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Markets for Scrap Tires. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA/530-SW-90-07A. October 1991. 

International Tire and Rubber Association, Inc. formerly American Retreader’s Association, Inc. 

Louisville, Kentucky. 

International Tire and Rubber Association, Inc. The Tire Retreading/Repair Journal. April 1997. 

McRee, Robert E. “Recap – Recapture: Incineration of Rubber for Energy Recovery” Presented 

at the Joint NTDRA/RMA International Symposium. Washington, DC. October 22, 1982. 

131 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Modern Tire Dealer. “Retail Tire Distribution.” January 2008. 


Modern Tire Dealer. “Tip-top shape America’s largest retreaders continue to expand. Just look at
 

Snider Tire.” Bob Ulrich and Mike Manges. 2009. http://www.moderntiredealer.com/Stats/
 

National Petroleum News Market Facts. Mid-June issue. Various years. 


Personal communication with a representative of RL Polk Company. 2000. 


Personal communication with the Scrap Tire Management Council. September 1996. 


Retreader’s Journal. April 1987. 


Rubber Manufacturers Association. Newsroom. Year 2009 Press Releases. “2009 Tire
 

Shipments Revised to Drop Sixteen Percent.” November 2, 2009. 


http://www.rma.org/newsroom/ 

Rubber Manufacturers Association. Newsroom. Year 2010 Press Releases. “2010 Tire 

Shipments to Increase Three Percent.” (Article contains 2009 data.) March 12, 2010. 

http://www.rma.org/newsroom/ 

Rubber Manufacturers Association. Passenger Replacement Shipments To Set Record In 2005. 

December 7, 2005. 

Rubber Manufacturers Association. Scrap Tire Markets in the United States Various years. 

Rubber Manufacturers Association. www.rma.org/scraptires/characteristics.html. 

www.rma.org/scraptires/facts_figures.html. 

132 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Scrap Tire Management Council. 1994 Scrap Tire Use/Disposal Study. Results published in 

Scrap Tire News. March 1995. 

Scrap Tire Management Council. Scrap Tire Use/Disposal Study 1996 Update. April 1997. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures. Industry series 

30A-30. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Rubber 

Mechanical Goods.” MA30C. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Rubber: 

Production, Shipments, and Stocks.” MA30A. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 

Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. U.S. Imports for Consumption. FT 247. 

Table 1. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook. “Plastics and Rubber.” Also earlier 

editions. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Online database. 

http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp 

U.S. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Transportation 

Statistics. Motor Vehicles Scrapped. Table 4-54. Various years. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Markets for Scrap Tires. EPA/530-SW-90-074A. 

October 1991. 

133 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Wards. Motor Vehicle Facts & Figures. Various years. 

SMALL APPLIANCES 

58th Annual Appliance Industry Forecasts. “Appliance Market Research Report.” February 2010. 

Best Buy website. www.bestbuy.com. 

Dana Chase Publications, Inc. Appliance Statistical Review. Various years. 

Environmental Product Declaration (EPD): Floor Vacuum Cleaner ETA 1450 Proximo. March 

2005. www.environdec.com/reg/epde26e.pdf 

Sears, Roebuck and Co. Spring and Fall Retail Catalogs and website www.sears.com. Various 

years. 

Swedish Environmental Management Council. “Composition Vacuum Cleaners: Environmental 

Product Declaration (EPD): Floor Vacuum Cleaner ETA 1450 Proximo.” 

www.environdec.com/reg/epde26e.pdf 

U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review: 1999-2008. “Appliance Market Research Report.” 

July 2009. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Electric 

Housewares and Fans MA36E and MA335E.” Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission. Tariff and Trade Data. 

“U.S. Imports, Annual Data.” 2009 and earlier years.” 

134 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Commission. Tariff and Trade Data. “U.S. 

Domestic Exports, Annual Data.” 2009 and earlier years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Online database. 

http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp 

Wal-Mart website. www.walmart.com 

STEEL CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING 

American Iron and Steel Institute. Annual Statistical Report. Various years. 


Can Manufacturers Institute. Can Shipments Report. Various years. 


Personal communication with a representative of the Association of Container Reconditioning. 


June 1994, July 2006, and July 2008. 


Personal communication with a representative of the Reusable Industrial Packaging Association. 


September 2004 and July 2008. 


Personal communications with representatives of the Steel Recycling Institute. Various years. 


Resource Recycling. Container Recycling Report. Various issues. 


Smith, F.L. A Solid Waste Estimation Procedure: Material Flows Approach. U.S. Environmental
 

Protection Agency. EPA/530-SW-147. May 1974. 


U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Closures for 

Containers.” MQ34H. Various years. 

135 
 

Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Steel Barrels 

and Drums.” MA34K, MA332K. Various years. 

TEXTILES AND FOOTWEAR 

American Apparel and Footwear Association. Shoe Stats. 2008 and earlier years. 

http://www.apparelandfootwear.org/Statistics.asp 

American Apparel and Footwear Association. Trends: An Annual Compilation of Statistical 

Information on the U.S. Apparel & Footwear Industries. 2005 Edition. June 2006. 

www.apparelandfootwear.org. 

Council for Textile Recycling. Textile Recycling Fact Sheet. Various years. 

Global Clothing Industries, LLC website. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “Your cast-offs their 

profits. Items donated to Goodwill and Salvation Army often end up as part of a $1 billion-a-year 

used-clothing business.” December, 24, 2006. http://www.gciatl.com/media.html 

J.C. Penney’s Catalog. 1990 and 2000. 


National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers. Fact Sheet. Various years. 


Nike Reuse-A-Shoe website. August 2010. http://www.nikereuseashoe.com/faqs. 


Riggle, David. “Tapping Textile Recycling.” BioCycle. February 1992. 


U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Apparel.” 

MA23A, MA23E, MA23G, MQ315A, MQ315D, MA315Q. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Bed and 

Bath Furnishings.” MQ314X. Various years. 

136 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Sheets, 

Towels and Pillowcases.” MQ23X. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. MA31A, 

MQ31A, MA23E, MA23G, and MA23A. Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. “Textiles: 

Sheets, Towels, and Pillowcases. MA313Q. 2009. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 

Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Data Bank. 

Various years. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission. Tariff and Trade Data. 

“U.S. Domestic Exports, Annual Data, 2009 and earlier years.” 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. International Trade Commission. Tariff and Trade Data. 

“U.S. Imports, Annual Data, 2009.” 

Spiegel Catalog. Fall/winter 1997. 

WOOD PACKAGING 

Araman, Phillip, and Robert Bush. “An Update on the Pallet Industry.” Brooks Forest Products 

Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute. 

Araman, Phillip, and Robert Bush. “Use of New Wood Pallets, Containers is Stagnant to 

Declining.” Pallet Enterprise. September 1997. 

137 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Buchlmann U, Araman PA, Bush RJ. “Pallet Re-Use and Recycling Saves High Value Material 

from Landfills.” Engagement Matters, Virginia Cooperative Extension Journal, Virgina Tech and 

Virginia State University. Volume 2, Issue 1: January/February 2010. 

Bush RJ, Araman PA. “Material Use and Production Changes in the U.S. Wood Pallet and 

Container Industry: 1992 to 2006.” Pallet Enterprise. June 2009. 

Bush RJ, Araman PA. “Pallet Recovery, Repair and Remanufacturing in a Changing Industry: 

1992 to 2006.” Pallet Enterprise. August 2009. 

http://www.palletenterprise.com/articledatabase/view.asp?articleID=2906 

Bush, Robert, Phillip Araman, and E. Brad Hager. “Recovery, Reuse and Recycling by the 

United States Wood Packaging Industry: 1993 to 2006.” Environmental Planning, Management, 

and Sustainability Studies. February 26, 2007. www.srs4702.forprod.vt.edu/pubsubj/pdf/07t5.pdf 

Clarke, John W., Marshall S. White, and Philip A. Araman. "Comparative Performance of New, 

Repaired, and Remanufactured 48- by 40-inch GMA-style Wood Pallets". Forest Products 

Journal. December 2005. 

Eshbach, Ovid, Ed. Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals. Second Edition. John Wiley & 

Sons, Inc. 

Hardwood Market Report. February 28, 1998. 

Personal communication with representative of the National Wooden Pallet and Container 

Association. September 1996. 

Personal communication with representative of the U.S. Forestry Service Laboratory, Princeton, 

WV. December 1991. 

138 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Personal communication with representative of U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Forest Products Laboratory. December 1991. 

Personal communication with representative of Virginia Polytechnic Institute. December 1991 

and October 2002. 

RPM Technologies, Inc. - Plastic Pallets. “Annual Report 2006.” 

http://www.rpmplasticpallets.com/investor-relations.htm. 

The Freedonia Group/IBIS Market Research Report. “Pallets – US Industry Study with Forecasts 

for 2012 & 2017.” June 2008. 

The Freedonia Group. Market Research Abstracts. “Freedonia Focus on Pallets.” June 1, 2008. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. Wood Used in U.S. 

Manufacturing Industries, 1977. December 1983. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southern Research Center and Brooks Forest 

Products Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute. www.srs4702.forprod.vt.edu/pallets/new.asp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial Outlook. “Wood Products.” Various years. 

YARD TRIMMINGS 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. “State of Recycling in Arkansas 2007-2008.” 

January 2009. 

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/solwaste/branch_recycling/pdfs/report_state_of_recycling_2007_200 

8.pdf 

California Integrated Waste Management Board. “Detailed Characterization of Commercial SelfHaul and Drop-box Waste” Cascadia Consulting Group. June 2006. 

139 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

California Integrated Waste Management Board. “Second Assessment of California's Compostand Mulch-Producing Infrastructure.” May 2004. 

California Integrated Waste Management Board. “Statewide Waste Characterization Study.” 

Cascadia Consulting Group. December 2004. 

California Integrated Waste Management Board. “Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for 

Selected Industry Groups.” Cascadia Consulting Group. June 2006. 

City & County of Honolulu's Department of Environmental Services. “Recycling and Landfill 

Diversion.” Oahu Recycling 2009. http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/archive/facts2.html 

City of Mesa, Arizona. “Solid Waste Management Department Annual Report FY 2008/2009.” 

http://www.mesaaz.gov/waste/pdf/sw_annual_report_08_09.pdf 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Division of Hazardous Materials and 

Waste Management. “2009 Annual Report to the Colorado General Assembly on the Status of 

the Solid Waste and Material Management Program in Colorado.” February 1, 2010. 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/sw/100201legrpt.pdf 

Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. “Solid Waste Managed in 

Virginia During Calendar Year 2008.” June 2009. 

http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/waste/pdf/swreport2008.pdf 

Composting Council. Fact Sheet. “Yard Waste Legislation: Disposal Bans and Similar Bills as of 

July, 1993.” July 1993. 

Composting Council Research and Education Foundation. “1995 Compost Capacity Survey.” 

James Butler and Associates. October 1996. 

140 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Materials Management & 

Compliance Assurance. “Estimates of Connecticut MSW Generated, Disposed, and Recycled FY 

2008.” 

http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/reduce_reuse_recycle/data/average_state_msw_statistics_fy2008.p 

df 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. “State Solid Waste Management Plan.” 

Appendix D: “Current Waste Diversion Practices, Preliminary Draft.” RW Beck. 2006. 

County of Hawai'i. “Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan The Path to Zero 

Waste. Section 2. Waste Stream Assessment.” December 2009. http://www.hawaiicounty.com/env_mng/swm/iswmp/Final/Section2WasteStreamAssessment.pdf 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. “The Eighth Annual 

Report of the Recycling Public Advisory Council.” November 2009. 

http://www.awm.delaware.gov/Recycling/Documents/The%20Eighth%20Annual%20Report%20 

RPAC%20Nov2009.pdf 

Delaware Solid Waste Authority. “Analysis of the Impact of a Yard Waste Ban on Landfill 

Quantities and Household Costs.” DSM Environmental Services, Inc. September 15, 2004. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “Solid Waste Annual Report Data.” 2008 and 

earlier years. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/08_data.htm 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. WasteCalc solid waste model. Franklin 

Associates, Ltd. subcontractor to TIA. Background model worksheet. Analysis of state and 

county sampling data. 2000. 

Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG. Survey of Selected State Officials and state websites. 

Various years. 

141 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Survey of Selected State Officials and state websites. Various years. 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the 

Year 2000. Appendix J and Appendix K. Keep America Beautiful, Inc. September 1994. 

Georgia Department of Community Affairs. “Georgia Statewide Waste Characterization Study.” 

RW Beck. June 2005. 


Glenn, Jim. “The State of Garbage in America Part I.” BioCycle. April 1998. 


Goldstein, Nora. “The State of Garbage in America.” BioCycle. December 2002. 


Goldstein, Nora. “The State of Garbage in America Part II.” BioCycle. November 2000. 


Goldstein, Nora and Jim Glenn. “The State of Garbage in America Part I.” BioCycle. April 1997. 


Goldstein, Nora and Jim Glenn. “The State of Garbage in America Part II.” BioCycle. May 1997. 


Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. “Nonhazardous Solid Waste Management and 


Landfill Capacity in Illinois: 2008.” December 2009. http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/landfillcapacity/2008/report.pdf 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Michelle Weddle, Senior Environmental 

Manager. 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Waste Management Assistance Division. “Iowa Solid 

Waste Characterization Study.” RW Beck. October 1998. 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment. “State of Kansas Waste Characterization Study.” 

Engineering Solutions & Design, Inc. March 2003. 

142 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. “Statewide Solid Waste Management Report - 2008 

Update.” http://waste.ky.gov/RLA/Documents/2008SolidWasteSummaryReport.pdf 

King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Solid Waste Division. “2003 Annual 

Report Blueprint for the Future.” September 2003 

King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Solid Waste Division. “Waste 

Monitoring Program. 2002/2003 Comprehensive Waste Stream Characterization and Transfer 

Station Customer Surveys - Final Report.” Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. April 2004. 

Maine State Planning Office. “Solid Waste Generation & Disposal Capacity Report for Calendar 

Year 2008.” March 2010. http://www.state.me.us/spo/recycle/docs/gencapdraft040110final.pdf 

Maryland Department of the Environment. “County Recyclables by Commodity in Tons for 

Calendar Year 2008”. http://www.mde.maryland.gov/assets/document/recycling_chart.pdf 

Massachusetts DEP Residential Organic Waste Management Study. October 1999. Research 

International/Cambridge. 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Matt Flechter, 

Recycling/Composting Coordinator. 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Lisa Mojsiej, EIT. 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, Office of 

Environmental Assistance. “Statewide MSW Composition Study.” RW Beck. March 2000. 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. “Compost Business in Montana.” November 

2009. www.deq.mt.gov/Recycle/pdf/MontanaComposters.pdf 

143 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Nevada. Division of Environmental Protection. “2009 Recycling Rate in Nevada.” 2009. 

http://nevadarecycles.gov/doc/nvrate09.pdf 

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. “Solid Waste Report to the Legislature 

2007.” October 2008. 

http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/publications/wmd/documents/r-wmd-08-3.pdf 

New Jersey Department of Environment. “Draft Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan 2005.” 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Joseph Davis, Bureau of Recycling and 

Planning. 

New Mexico Environment Department Solid Waste Bureau. 2004 and 2005 Landfill Summary 

Report. Received May 2006. 

New Mexico Environment Department Solid Waste Bureau. Connie Pasteris, Outreach Section. 

“Solid Waste Facility Annual Report.” 2009 and earlier years. 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swb/AnnualReportsandForms.htm 

“New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Part 360 Permitted Composting 

Facilities.” June 10, 2009. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/compweb.pdf 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Scott Mouw. “North 

Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Report FY 2008-2009. Local Government Yard 

Waste Management FY08 and FY09.” 

http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us/swhome/AR08_09/AR08_09.pdf 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recycling & Litter Prevention. “What's In 

Our Garbage?: Ohio's Waste Characterization Study Executive Summary.” Engineering 

Solutions & Design, Inc. 2005. 

144 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management. 

“State Solid Waste Management Plan 2009.” March 3, 2010. 

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7dqcFOrOZg0%3d&tabid=2613 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “2002 Oregon Solid Waste Characterization and 

Composition.” Sky Valley Associates. 2002. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “Oregon Material Recovery and Waste 

Generation Rates Report.” Various years. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/recovery/materialrecovery.htm 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Lawrence Holley, Division Chief, Waste 

Minimization and Planning. July 7, 2010. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. “Statewide Waste Composition Study.” 

RW Beck. April 2003. 

Raymond Communications. “State Recycling Laws Update.” Various years. 

Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation, Rhode Island Department of Environmental 

Management. “Rhode Island Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan May 24, 2005 

Draft.” 

San Francisco Department of the Environment. “Waste Characterization Study”. Environmental 

Science Associates (ESA). August 2005. 

Savage, George M. “The History and Utility of Waste Characterization Studies.” MSW 

Management. May/June 1994. 

Simmons, Phil, et al. “The State of Garbage in America.” BioCycle. April 2006. 

145 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. “South Carolina Solid Waste 

Management Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2009.” March 15, 2010. 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/recycle/pubs/swm09_small.pdf 

St. Charles County Division of Environmental Services. “Recycling Facts.” 

www.scchealth.org/docs/es/docs/recycle/recycling_facts.html 

Steuteville, Robert. “The State of Garbage in America, Part I.” BioCycle. April 1995. 

Steuteville, Robert. “The State of Garbage in America, Part II.” BioCycle. May 1995. 

Steuteville, Robert. “The State of Garbage in America, Part II.” BioCycle. May 1996. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Region 7 MSW Generation, Recycling (including 

Composting), and Disposal.” Eastern Research Group, Inc. September 2005. 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality. “2010 Utah Compost Facility Inventory (Calendar 

2009 Data).” 

http://www.hazardouswaste.utah.gov/Solid_Waste_Section/Adobe/SolidWaste/Compost_List.pd 

f 

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. “Solid Waste Management Annual Solid 

Waste Diversion & Disposal Reports.” 

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/solid/pubs/DiversionDisposalReportTable2.pdf 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. “The Virginia Annual Recycling Rate Report. 

Calendar Year 2008 Summary.” November 2009. 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/recycle/documents/AnnualReportRRR2008Final.pdf 

146 
Chapter 2 Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste by Weight
 

Wake County, N.C. Solid Waste Management. “Wake County Waste Characterization Study.” 

RW Beck. April 1999. 

Washington Department of Ecology. “Generation, Recycling and Per Capita data (1986-2008).” 

2009. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/solidwastedata/recyclin.asp 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Sudhir Patel, Division of Water & 

Waste Management. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000 annual recycling data. Staff document. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. “Annual Reports from Responsible Units.” Table 1 

Recyclable Materials Collected by Wisconsin Responsible Units (1999-2008). 

http://www.wnrmag.com/org/aw/wm/recycle/recycleldfrept/index.html 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. “Wisconsin Statewide Waste Characterization 

Study.” Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. May 2003. 

147 
 

 

Chapter 3 	 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

CHAPTER 3 

MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 

INTRODUCTION 

EPA’s tiered integrated waste management strategy includes the following components: 

•	 Source reduction (or waste prevention), including reuse of products and on-site 

(or backyard) composting of yard trimmings. 

•	 Recycling, including off-site (or community) composting. 

•	 Combustion with energy recovery. 

•	 Disposal through landfilling. 

The four components are put into context in Figure 17. 

This chapter addresses the major activities within an integrated waste management 

system: source reduction, recycling (including composting), combustion with energy recovery, 

and disposal. Source reduction activities have the effect of reducing MSW generation, while 

other management alternatives deal with MSW once it is generated. 

148 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Figure 17. Diagram of solid waste management
 

Generation 

of waste for 

management 

Changes in Changes in Changes in Recovery for 

package purchasing industrial recycling (including 

design habits practices composting) 

Landfill/Other 

disposal 

Backyard Increased Other Combustion 

composting, reuse changes in with energy 

grasscycling use patterns recovery 

SOURCE REDUCTION 

WASTE REDUCTION
 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG
 

Estimates of the historical recovery of materials for recycling, including composting, are 

presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 discusses the current MSW management infrastructure. 

Current solid waste collection, processing, combustion with energy recovery, and disposal 

programs and facilities are highlighted with tables and figures. It also presents estimates for 

quantities of waste landfilled, which are obtained by subtracting the amounts recovered for 

recycling and composting and the amounts combusted with energy recovery from total MSW 

generation. 

SOURCE REDUCTION 

Since 1960, the amount of waste each person creates has increased from 2.68 to 4.34 

pounds per day. An effective way to stop this trend is by preventing waste from being generated 

in the first place. 

149 
Chapter 3 	 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Source reduction is gaining more attention as an important solid waste management 

option. Source reduction, often called “waste prevention,” is defined by EPA as “any change in 

the design, manufacturing, purchase, or use of materials or products (including packaging) to 

reduce their amount or toxicity before they become municipal solid waste. Prevention also refers 

to the reuse of products or materials.” Thus, source reduction activities affect the waste stream 

before the point of generation. In this report, MSW is considered to have been generated if it is 

placed at curbside or in a receptacle such as a dumpster for pickup, or if it is taken by the 

generator to another site for recycling (including composting) or disposal. 

Source reduction encompasses a very broad range of activities by private citizens, 

communities, commercial establishments, institutional agencies, and manufacturers and 

distributors. Examples of source reduction actions (Table 24) include: 

•	 Redesigning products or packages so as to reduce the quantity of materials or the 

toxicity of the materials used, by substituting lighter materials for heavier ones 

and lengthening the life of products to postpone disposal. 

•	 Using packaging that reduces the amount of damage or spoilage to the product. 

•	 Reducing amounts of products or packages used through modification of current 

practices by processors and consumers. 

•	 Reusing products or packages already manufactured. 

•	 Managing non-product organic wastes (food scraps, yard trimmings) through 

backyard composting or other on-site alternatives to disposal. 

150 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Table 24
 

SELECTED EXAMPLES OF SOURCE REDUCTION PRACTICES
 

Source Reduction Practice 

MSW Product Categories 

Durable 

Goods 

Nondurable 

Goods 

Containers & 

Packaging Organics 

Redesign 

Materials reduction • Downgauge metals in 

appliances 

• Paperless purchase 

orders 

• Concentrates 

• Container lightweighting 

• Xeriscaping 

Materials substitution 

• Use of composites 

in appliances and 

electronic circuitry 

• Cereal in bags 

• Coffee brick 

• Multi-use products 

Lengthen life 

• High mileage tires 

• Electronic components 

reduce moving parts 

• Regular servicing 

• Look at warranties 

• Extend warranties 

• Design for secondary 

uses 

Consumer Practices 

• Purchase long lived 

products 

• Repair 

• Duplexing 

• Sharing 

• Reduce unwanted 

mail 

• Purchasing: 

products in bulk, 

concentrates 

• Reusable bags 

Reuse 

By design 

• Modular design • Envelopes • Reusable pallets 

• Returnable secondary 

packaging 

Secondary 

• Borrow or rent for 

temporary use 

• Give to charity 

• Buy or sell at 

garage sales 

• Clothing 

• Waste paper 

scratch pads 

• Loosefill 

• Grocery sacks 

• Dairy containers 

• Glass and plastic jars 

Reduce/Eliminate Toxins 

• Eliminate PCBs • Soy ink, waterbased 

• Waterbased solvents 

• Reduce mercury 

• Replace lead foil on 

wine bottles 

Reduce Organics 

Food scraps • Backyard composting 

• Vermi-composting 

Yard trimmings • Backyard composting 

• Grasscycling 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

Source Reduction Through Redesign 

Since source reduction of products and packages can save money by reducing materials 

and energy costs, manufacturers and packaging designers have been pursuing these activities for 

many years. Combined with other source reduction measures, redesign can have a significant 

effect on material use and eventual discards. Design for source reduction can take several 

approaches. An example of materials reduction is the lightweighting of aluminum beverage cans. 

In 2009, an aluminum beverage can weighs 0.0291 pounds; down from 0.0341 pounds per can in 

1996 (close to a 15 percent reduction in weight). 

151 
 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Materials substitution can make a product or package lighter. For example, there has been 

a continuous trend of substitution of lighter materials such as plastics and aluminum for materials 

such as glass and steel. The substitution also may involve a flexible package instead of a rigid 

package. A product or package can be redesigned to reduce weight or volume. Toxic materials in 

products or packaging can be replaced with non-toxic substitutes. Considerable efforts have been 

made in this area in the past few years. 

Lengthening product life delays the time when the product enters the municipal waste 

stream. The responsibility for lengthening product life lies partly with manufacturers and partly 

with consumers. Manufacturers can design products to last longer and be easier to repair. Since 

some of these design modifications may make products more expensive, at least initially, 

manufacturers must be willing to invest in new product development, and consumers must 

demand the products and be willing to pay for them to make the goal work. Consumers and 

manufacturers also must be willing to care for and repair products. 

Modifying Practices to Reduce Materials Use 

Businesses and individuals often can modify their current practices to reduce the amounts 

of waste generated. In a business office, electronic mail can replace printed memoranda and data. 

Reports can be copied on both sides of the paper (duplexed). Modifying practices can be 

combined with other source reduction measures to reduce generation and limit material use. 

Individuals and businesses can request removal from mailing lists to reduce the amount 

of mail received and discarded. When practical, products can be purchased in large sizes or in 

bulk to minimize the amount of packaging per unit of product. Concentrated products also can 

reduce packaging requirements. The use of reusable shopping bags reduces the quantity of plastic 

and paper bags produced. 

152 
 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Reuse of Products and Packages 

Similar to lengthening product life, reuse of products and packaging delays the time when 

the items must finally be discarded as waste. When a product is reused, presumably purchase and 

use of a new product is delayed, although this may not always be true. 

Many of the products characterized for this report are reused in sizable quantities (e.g., 

furniture, wood pallets, and clothing). The recovery of products and materials for recycling 

(including composting) as characterized in Chapter 2 does not include reuse of products, but 

reuse is discussed in this section. 

Durable Goods. There is a long tradition of reuse of durable goods such as large and 

small appliances, furniture, and carpets. Often this is done informally as individuals pass on used 

goods to family members and friends. Other durable goods are donated to charitable 

organizations for resale or use by needy families. Some communities and other organizations 

have facilitated exchange programs for citizens, and there are for-profit retail stores that deal in 

used furniture, appliances, and carpets. Individuals resell other goods at garage sales, flea 

markets, and the like. Borrowing and sharing items like tools can also reduce the number of 

products ultimately discarded. There is generally a lack of data on the volume of durable goods 

reused in the United States, and what the ultimate effect on MSW generation might be. 

Nondurable Goods. While nondurable goods by their very nature are designed for shortterm use and disposal, there is considerable reuse of some items classified as nondurable. In 

particular, footwear, clothing, and other textile goods often are reused. Much of the reuse is 

accomplished through the same types of channels as those described above for durable goods. 

That is, private individuals, charitable organizations, and retail outlets (consignment shops) all 

facilitate reuse of discarded clothing and footwear. In addition, considerable amounts of textiles 

are reused as wiping cloths before being discarded. 

Another often-cited waste prevention measure is the use of washable plates, cups, 

napkins, towels, diapers, and other such products, instead of the disposable variety. (This will 

153 
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

reduce solid waste but will have other environmental effects, such as increased water and energy 

use.) Other reusable items are available, for example: reusable air filters, reusable coffee filters, 

and reconditioned printer cartridges. 

Containers and Packaging. Containers and packaging can be reused in two ways: they 

can be used again for their original purpose, or they can be used in other ways. 

Glass bottles are a prime example of reuse of a container for its original purpose. 

Refillable glass beer bottles can be collected, washed, and refilled for use again. Some years ago 

large numbers of refillable glass soft drink bottles were used, but single-use glass bottles, plastic 

bottles, and aluminum cans have largely replaced these. Considerable numbers of beer bottles are 

collected for refilling, often by restaurants and taverns, where the bottles can easily be collected 

and returned by the distributor. The Glass Packaging Institute estimates that refillable glass 

bottles achieve a rate of eight trips (refillings) per bottle. 

Another example in this category is the use of refurbished wood pallets for shipping 

palletized goods. It is estimated that over 9 million tons of wood pallets were refurbished and 

returned to service in 2009. It is also common practice to recondition steel drums and barrels for 

reuse. 

Many other containers and packages can be recycled, but are not often reused, although 

this practice can achieve a notable source reduction in packaging. As an example, some grocery 

stores will allow customers to reuse grocery sacks, perhaps allowing a refund for each sack 

brought back for reuse. Also, many parcel shippers will take back plastic packaging “peanuts” for 

reuse. 

Many ingenious reuses for containers and packaging are possible in the home. People 

reuse boxes, bags, jars, jugs, and cans for many purposes around the house. There are no reliable 

estimates as to how these specific activities affect the waste stream. 

154 
 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Management of Organic Materials 

Food scraps and yard trimmings combined made up about 28 percent of MSW generation 

in 2009, so source reduction measures aimed at these products can have an important effect on 

waste generation. Composting is the usual methodology for recovering these organic materials. 

As defined in this report, composting of organic materials after they are taken to a central 

composting facility is a recycling activity. Estimates for these off-site composting activities are 

included in this chapter. 

There are several types of source reduction that take place at the point of generation (e.g., 

the yard of a home or business). The backyard composting of yard trimmings and certain food 

discards is a growing source reduction practice. There also is a trend toward leaving grass 

clippings on lawns, often through the use of mulching mowers. Other actions contributing to 

reduced organics disposal are: establishment of variable fees for collection of wastes (also known 

as unit-based pricing or Pay-As-You-Throw), which encourage residents to reduce the amount of 

wastes set out; improved technology (mulching mowers); xeriscaping (landscaping with plants 

that use minimal water and generate minimal waste); and certain legislation such as bans on 

disposal of yard trimmings in landfills. 

Part of the impetus for source reduction and recycling of yard trimmings is the large 

number of state regulations discouraging landfilling or other disposal of yard trimmings. The 

Composting Council and other sources reported that in 1992, 12 states (amounting to over 28 

percent of the nation’s population) had in effect legislation affecting management of yard 

trimmings. By 2009, 23 states (amounting to about 50 percent of the nation’s population) had 

legislation discouraging the disposal of yard trimmings. In addition, some local and regional 

jurisdictions regulate disposal of yard trimmings. 

155 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Measuring Source Reduction 

Although source reduction has been an increasingly important aspect of municipal solid 

waste programs since the late 1980s, the goal of actually measuring how much source reduction 

has taken place—how much waste prevention there has been—has proved elusive. Early attempts 

by localities and states often consisted of measuring a single waste stream in a single community. 

In time, additional research enabled proxy, or estimated values, to be developed for specific 

waste streams, to use on a state-wide or national level. EPA’s Source Reduction Program 

Potential Manual and planning packet, published in 1997 (EPA530-E-97-001) provides an 

example of this approach. Unlike recycling, where there are actual materials to weigh all through 

the process, measuring source reduction means trying to measure something that no longer exists. 

The November 1999 National Source Reduction Characterization Report for Municipal 

Solid Waste in the United States (EPA 530-R-99-034) provides additional information including 

an explanation of a methodology that has been used to generate source reduction estimates. 

RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING (INCLUDING COMPOSTING) 

Recyclables Collection 

Before recyclable materials can be processed and recycled into new products, they must 

be collected. Most residential recycling involves curbside recyclables collection, drop-off 

programs, buy-back operations, and/or container deposit systems. Collection of recyclables from 

commercial establishments is usually separate from residential recyclables collection programs. 

Curbside Recyclables Collection. In 2009, more than 9,000 curbside recyclables 

collection programs were reported in the United States. As shown in Table 25 and Figure 18, the 

extent of residential curbside recycling programs varies by geographic region, with the most 

extensive curbside collection occurring in the Northeast. 

156 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 	 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Curbside collection programs commonly require residents to do at least some sorting of 

the recyclable materials put at the curb. In recent years, however, there has been a trend toward 

single-stream curbside collections programs, in which no sorting is required of the residents. The 

American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) estimated that 50 percent of curbside 

recyclables collection programs were single-stream in 2007.4

 These programs require that the 

materials be taken to a materials recovery facility (MRF) for processing. 

In 2009, over 70 percent of the U.S. population had access to curbside recyclables 

collection programs (based on data from states representing 48 percent of the U.S. population 

and shown in Table 25). In comparison, a 2009 American Beverage Association study estimated 

that 74 percent of the U.S. population had access to curbside recycling programs.5

 The Northeast 

region had the largest population served – 47 million persons. In the Northeast, 85 percent of the 

population had access to curbside recyclables collection, while in the West 68 percent of the 

population had access to curbside recycling. The largest numbers of programs were located in the 

Northeast and Midwest regions of the country. 

Table 25 

NUMBER AND POPULATION SERVED BY 

CURBSIDE RECYCLABLES COLLECTION PROGRAMS, 2009 

Number of Population* Population Served 

Region Programs (in thousands) (in thousands) Percent** 

NORTHEAST 3,619 55,284 47,120 85% 

SOUTH 1,157 26,936 17,870 66% 

MIDWEST 3,286 37,768 20,720 55% 

WEST 1,004 27,307 18,650 68% 

Total 9,066 147,296 104,360 71% 

Total U.S. Population 307,007 

* Population in states reporting population served data. 

** Percent of population served by curbside programs was calculated using 

population of states reporting data. 

Sources: 

U.S. Census Bureau, BioCycle preliminary State of Garbage data received August 2010, BioCycle The State of Garbage in America. 

April 2006, and data from the following websites Connecticut Department of Enviornmental Protection, Delaware Solid Waste Management 

Authority, Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Maine State Planning Office, North Dakota Department of Health Division of Waste 

Mangaement, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

4	 AF&PA. “2007 AF&PA Community Survey Executive Summary.” June 2008. This report also estimated that 62 

percent of the U.S. population is served by curbside recyclables collection. 

5	 American Beverage Association. “2008 ABA Community Survey. Final Report. September 2009. 

157 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Figure 18. Population served by curbside recycling, 2009 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

percent of population 

Northeast South Midwest West 

U.S. Census Bureau, BioCycle preliminary State of Garbage data received August 2010, BioCycle The State of Garbage in America. April 2006, and data from the follow ing 

w ebsites Connecticut Department of Enviornmental Protection, Delaw are Solid Waste Management Authority, Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Maine State Planning Office, 

North Dakota Department of Health Division of Waste Mangaement, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

Drop-off Centers. Drop-off centers typically collect residential materials, although some 

accept materials from businesses. They are found in locations such as grocery stores, sheltered 

workshops, charitable organizations, city-sponsored sites, and apartment complexes. Types of 

materials collected vary greatly; however, drop-off centers can usually accept a greater variety of 

materials than a curbside collection program. 

It is difficult to quantify drop-off centers in the United States. It is estimated that there 

were 12,694 programs in 1997, according to a BioCycle survey. In 2007, the “2007 AF&PA 

Community Survey Executive Summary” estimated over 20,000 communities have drop-off 

centers. The 2009 American Beverage Association study estimated 83 percent of the U.S. 

population has access to drop-off collection programs. Both of these studies stated that many 

communities have access to both curbside and drop-off recyclables collection. In some areas, 

158 
 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

particularly those with sparse population, drop-off centers may be the only option for collection 

of recyclable materials. In other areas, they supplement other collection programs. 

Buy-Back Centers. A buy-back center is typically a commercial operation that pays 

individuals for recovered materials. This could include scrap metal dealers, aluminum can 

centers, waste haulers, or paper dealers. Materials are collected by individuals, small businesses, 

and charitable organizations. 

Deposit Systems. Eleven states have container deposit systems: California, Connecticut, 

Delaware6

, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont 

(Figure 19). In these programs, the consumer pays a deposit on beverage containers at the point 

of purchase, which is redeemed on return of the empty containers. In California, beverage 

distributors also pay a per container fee. In addition to these fees, handling fees are also assessed 

in most of the states listed. 

Deposit systems generally target beverage containers, which account for about 5 percent 

of total MSW generation (dairy products are typically excluded). The 2007 version of this report 

series estimated that about 35 percent of all recovery of beverage containers comes from ten of 

the eleven deposit states mentioned above, and an additional 20 percent of recovered beverage 

containers comes from California. (Note: These recovery estimates reflect not only containers 

redeemed by consumers for deposit, but also containers recovered through existing curbside and 

drop-off recycling programs. Containers recovered through these programs eventually are 

credited to the distributor and counted towards the redemption rate.) 

Delaware deposit legislation was repealed by Senate Bill 234. Deposit collection will cease on December 1, 

2010. http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/usa/delaware.htm 

159 

6 
 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Figure 19. States With Bottle Deposit Rules
 

Source: Container Recycling Institute, 2006. 

Commercial Recyclables Collection. The largest quantity of recovered materials comes 

from the commercial sector. Old corrugated containers (OCC) and office papers are widely 

collected from commercial establishments. Grocery stores and other retail outlets that require 

corrugated packaging are part of an infrastructure that brings in the most recovered material. 

OCC is often baled at the retail outlet and picked up by a paper dealer. 

Office paper (e.g., white, mixed color, computer paper, etc.) is part of another 

commercial recyclables collection infrastructure. Depending on the quantities generated, 

businesses (e.g., banks, institutions, schools, printing operations, etc.) can sort materials and have 

them picked up by a paper dealer, or self deliver the materials to the recycler. It should be noted 

that commercial operations also make recycling available for materials other than paper. 

Multi-family residence recycling could be classified as either residential or commercial 

recyclables collection. Multi-family refuse is usually handled as a commercial account by waste 

haulers. These commercial waste haulers may handle recycling at multi-family dwellings 

(typically five or more units) as well. 

160 
 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Recyclables Processing 

Processing recyclable materials is performed at materials recovery facilities (MRFs), 

mixed waste processing facilities, and mixed waste composting facilities. Some materials are 

sorted at the curb and require less attention. Other materials are sorted into categories at the curb, 

such as a paper category and a container category, with additional sorting at a facility (MRF). 

There is a more recent trend towards MRFs that can sort recyclable materials that are picked up 

unsorted (single-stream recycling). Mixed waste can also be processed to pull out recyclable and 

compostable materials. 

Materials Recovery Facilities. Materials recovery facilities vary widely across the 

United States, depending on the incoming materials and the technology and labor used to sort the 

materials. In 2009, 578 MRFs were operating in the United States, with an estimated total daily 

throughput of over 86,000 tons per day (Table 26). The most extensive recyclables processing 

throughput occurs in the Northeast and Midwest (Figure 20). 

Table 26 

MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITIES, 2009 

Estimated 

Throughput 

Region Number (tpd) 

NORTHEAST 147 23,769 

SOUTH 161 19,699 

MIDWEST 144 21,320 

WEST 126 21,565 

U.S. Total 578 86,353 

Source: Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. 

161 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Figure 20. Estimated MRF throughput, 2009
 

(Tons per day per million persons)
 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

tons/daythroughput/million persons 

Northeast South Midwest West 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. 

Many MRFs are considered low technology, meaning the materials are predominantly 

sorted manually. MRFs classified as high technology sort recyclables using eddy currents, 

magnetic pulleys, optical sensors, and air classifiers. As MRFs change and grow, many low 

technology MRFs add high tech features. However, high technology MRFs usually include some 

manual sorting, reducing the distinction between high and low technology MRFs. 

162 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Mixed Waste Processing. Mixed waste processing facilities are less common than 

conventional MRFs, but there are several facilities in operation in the United States, as illustrated 

in Figure 21. Mixed waste processing facilities receive mixed solid waste (including recyclable 

and non-recyclable materials), which is then loaded on conveyors. Using both mechanical and 

manual (high and low technology) sorting, recyclable materials are removed for further 

processing. In 2009, there were reported 25 mixed waste processing facilities in the U.S., 

handling about 23,000 tons of waste per day. The Western region has the largest concentration of 

these processing facilities (representing over 80 percent of the daily throughput). 

Figure 21. Mixed waste processing estimated throughput 2009 

(tons per day per million persons) 

tons/day capacity per million persons 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Northeast South Midwest West
 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. 

163 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Mixed Waste Composting. Mixed waste composting starts with unsorted MSW. Large 

items are removed, as well as ferrous and other metals, depending on the type of operation. 

Mixed waste composting takes advantage of the high percentage of organic components of 

MSW, such as paper, food scraps and yard trimmings, wood, and other materials. In 2009, there 

were 12 mixed waste composting facilities, four less than was reported in 2007. 

Nationally, mixed waste composting facilities handled about 1,100 tons per day in 2009, 

down from 1,500 tons per day in 2007. In 2009, the highest processing capacity per million 

persons was found in the West and Midwest, as shown in Figure 22. 

Figure 22. MSW composting capacity, 2009 

(Capacity in tons per day per million persons) 

tons/day capacity per million persons 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Northeast South Midwest West
 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; BioCycle, November 2009. 

164 
 

 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Yard Trimmings Composting. Yard trimmings composting is much more prevalent 

than mixed waste composting. On-site management of yard trimmings (back yard composting) is 

discussed earlier in this chapter, and is classified as source reduction, not recycling. In 2009, 

about 2,900 yard trimmings composting programs were documented from a search of state 

environmental websites. In 2009, about 50 percent of these programs were in the Midwest 

region, as shown in Figure 23. Based on 19.9 million tons of yard trimmings recovered for 

composting in the United States (Table 2, Chapter 2), yard trimmings composting facilities 

handled approximately 54,500 tons per day in 2009. 

Figure 23. Yard trimmings composting programs, 2009 

(In number of programs) 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

number of programs 

Northeast South Midwest West 

Source: Internet search: includes data cited by 41 state environmental websites. 

165 
 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

COMBUSTION WITH ENERGY RECOVERY 

Most of the municipal solid waste combustion currently practiced in this country 

incorporates recovery of an energy product (generally steam or electricity). The resulting energy 

reduces the amount needed from other sources, and the sale of the energy helps to offset the cost 

of operating the facility. In past years, it was common to burn municipal solid waste in 

incinerators solely as a volume reduction practice; energy recovery became more prevalent in the 

1980s. 

Total U.S. MSW combustion with energy recovery, referred to as waste-to-energy (WTE) 

combustion, had a 2009 design capacity of 94,721 tons per day. There were 87 WTE facilities in 

2009 (Table 27), down from 102 in 2000. In tons of capacity per million persons, the Northeast 

region had the most MSW combustion capacity in 2009 (Figure 24). 

In addition to facilities combusting mixed MSW (processed or unprocessed), there is a 

small but growing amount of combustion of source-separated MSW. In particular, rubber tires 

have been used as fuel in cement kilns, utility boilers, pulp and paper mills, industrial boilers, 

and dedicated scrap tire-to-energy facilities. In addition, there is combustion of wood wastes and 

some paper and plastic wastes, usually in boilers that already burn some other type of solid fuel. 

For this report, it was estimated that about 3.1 million tons of MSW were combusted in this 

manner in 2009, with tires contributing a majority of the total. 

166 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 	 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Table 27 

MUNICIPAL WASTE-TO-ENERGY PROJECTS, 2009 

Design 

Number Capacity 

Region Operational (tpd) 

NORTHEAST 40 46,537 

SOUTH 23 31,131 

MIDWEST 16 10,912 

WEST 8 6,141 

U.S. Total* 87 94,721 

*	 Projects on hold or inactive were not included.
 

WTE includes mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived
 

fuel combustion facilities.
 

Source: "The IWSA Directory of Waste-To-Energy Plants."
 

Integrated Waste Services Association, 2007. Latest report available.
 

Figure 24. Municipal waste-to-energy capacity, 2009 

(Capacity in tons per million persons) 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

800 

900 

tons/day capacity per million persons 

Northeast South Midwest West 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Integrated Waste Services Association 2007. Latest report available. 

167 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

RESIDUES FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
 

Whenever municipal wastes are processed, residues will remain. For the purposes of this 

report, it is assumed that most of these residues are landfilled. Materials processing facilities 

(MRFs) and compost facilities generate some residues when processing various recovered 

materials. These residues include materials that are unacceptable to end users (e.g., broken glass, 

wet newspapers), other contaminants (e.g., products made of plastic resins that are not wanted by 

the end user), or dirt. While residue generation varies widely, 5 to 10 percent is probably typical 

for a MRF. Residues from a MRF or compost facility are generally landfilled. Since the recovery 

estimates in this report are based on recovered materials purchased by end users rather than 

materials entering a processing facility, the residues are counted with other disposed materials. 

When municipal solid waste is combusted, a residue (usually called ash) is left behind. 

Years ago this ash was commonly disposed of along with municipal solid waste, but combustor 

ash is not counted as MSW in this report because it generally is managed separately7

. (There are 

a number of efforts underway to reuse ash.) As a general “rule of thumb,” MSW combustor ash 

amounts to about 25 percent (by weight) of unprocessed MSW input. This percentage will vary 

from facility to facility depending upon the types of waste input and the efficiency and 

configuration of the facility. 

LANDFILLS 

In 2009, there were 1,908 municipal solid waste landfills reported in the United States. 

Table 28 and Figure 25 show the number of landfills in each region. The South and West had the 

largest number of landfills. Thirty-eight percent of the landfills are located in the West, 35 

percent in the South, and 21 percent in the Midwest. Less than 7 percent are located in the 

Northeast. 

Note that many combustion facilities do magnetic separation of residues to recover ferrous metals, e.g., steel 

cans and steel in other miscellaneous durable goods. This recovered steel is included in the total recovery of 

ferrous metals in MSW reported in Chapter 2. 

168 

7 
 

 

 

      

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Table 28
 

LANDFILL FACILITIES, 2009
 

Number of 

Landfills 

Region 

NORTHEAST 128 

SOUTH 668 

MIDWEST 394 

WEST 718 

U.S. Total 1,908 

Source: BioCycle October 2010. 

Figure 25. Number of landfills in the U.S., 2009 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

number of landfills 

Northeast South Midwest West 

Source: BioCycle October 2010.

169 
 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MSW MANAGEMENT 

This summary provides some perspective on historical and current municipal solid waste 

management practices in the United States. The results are summarized in Table 29 and Figure 

26. 

Historically, municipal solid waste generation has grown steadily (from 88 million tons in 

1960 to 243 million tons at present). In the 1960s and early 1970s a large percentage of MSW 

was burned, with little recovery for recycling. Landfill disposal typically consisted of open 

dumping, often accompanied with open burning of the waste for volume reduction. 

Through the mid-1980s, incineration declined considerably and landfills became difficult 

to site, and waste generation continued to increase. Materials recovery rates increased very 

slowly in this time period, and the burden on the nation’s landfills grew dramatically. As Figure 

26 shows, discards of MSW to landfill or other disposal apparently peaked in 1990 and then 

began to decline as materials recovery and combustion with energy recovery increased. 

170 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Table 29
 

GENERATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING, COMBUSTION,
 

AND DISCARDS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 1960 TO 2009
 

(In thousands of tons and percent of total generation)
 

Thousands of Tons 

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Generation 88,120 121,060 151,640 208,270 242,540 252,380 254,980 251,020 242,960 

Recovery for recycling 5,610 8,020 14,520 29,040 53,010 59,310 63,090 61,750 61,270 

Recovery for composting* Neg. Neg. Neg. 4,200 16,450 20,550 21,710 22,100 20,750 

Total Materials Recovery 5,610 8,020 14,520 33,240 69,460 79,860 84,800 83,850 82,020 

Discards after recovery 82,510 113,040 137,120 175,030 173,080 172,520 170,180 167,170 160,940 

Combustion with 

energy recovery** 0 400 2,700 29,700 33,730 31,620 31,970 31,550 29,010 

Discards to landfill, 

other disposal† 82,510 112,640 134,420 145,330 139,350 140,900 138,210 135,620 131,930 

Pounds per Person per Day 

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Generation 2.68 3.25 3.66 4.57 4.72 4.67 4.63 4.52 4.34 

Recovery for recycling 0.17 0.22 0.35 0.64 1.03 1.10 1.15 1.11 1.09 

Recovery for composting* Neg. Neg. Neg. 0.09 0.32 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.37 

Total Materials Recovery 0.17 0.22 0.35 0.73 1.35 1.48 1.54 1.51 1.46 

Discards after recovery 2.51 3.03 3.31 3.84 3.37 3.19 3.09 3.01 2.88 

Combustion with 

energy recovery** 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.65 0.66 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.52 

Discards to landfill, 

other disposal† 2.51 3.02 3.24 3.19 2.71 2.61 2.51 2.44 2.36 

Population (thousands) 179,979 203,984 227,255 249,907 281,422 296,410 301,621 304,060 307,007 

Percent of Total Generation 

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 

Generation 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Recovery for recycling 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 14.0% 21.9% 23.5% 24.8% 24.6% 25.2% 

Recovery for composting* Neg. Neg. Neg. 2.0% 6.7% 8.1% 8.5% 8.8% 8.6% 

Total Materials Recovery 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 16.0% 28.6% 31.6% 33.3% 33.4% 33.8% 

Discards after recovery 93.6% 93.4% 90.4% 84.0% 71.4% 68.4% 66.7% 66.6% 66.2% 

Combustion with 

energy recovery** 0.0% 0.3% 1.8% 14.2% 13.9% 12.5% 12.5% 12.6% 11.9% 

Discards to landfill, 

other disposal† 93.6% 93.1% 88.6% 69.8% 57.5% 55.9% 54.2% 54.0% 54.3% 

* Composting of yard trimmings, food scraps and other MSW organic material. Does not include backyard composting. 

** Includes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse-derived fuel form, and combustion with energy recovery of source separated 

materials in MSW (e.g., wood pallets and tire-derived fuel). 2009 includes 25,930 MSW, 520 wood, and 2,560 tires (1,000 tons) 

† Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy recovery. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

171 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Figure 26. Municipal solid waste management, 1960 to 2009 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

million tons 

Landfill, other disposal 

Recovery for recycling 

Recovery of the composting 

component of recycling 

Combustion 

with energy recovery 

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

Source: Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG 

Recovery has increased steadily. Combustion with energy recovery, as a percentage of 

generation, has been declining (11.9 percent of generation in 2009). MSW discards to landfills 

rose to about 141 million tons in 2005, and then declined to 132 million tons in 2009. As a 

percentage of total MSW generation, discards to landfills or other disposal has consistently 

decreased–from 89 percent of generation in 1980 to about 54 percent in 2009. 

172 
 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

CHAPTER 3
 

REFERENCES
 

GENERAL 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Solid Waste Management at the Crossroads. December 1997. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Various years. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Task Force, Office of Solid 

Waste. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. February 1989. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1997 Update. EPA/530-R-98-007. May 1998. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1996 Update. EPA/530-R-97-015. June 1997. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1995 Update. EPA/530-R-945-001. March 1996. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1994 Update. EPA/530-R-94-042. November 1994. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1992 Update. EPA/530-R-92-019. July 1992. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 1990 Update. EPA/530-SW-90-042. June 1991. 

173 
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2005 Facts 

and Figures. EPA530-R-06-011. October 2006. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/pubs/mswchar05.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2001 Facts 

and Figures. EPA/530-R-03-011. October 2003. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/pubs/msw2001.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2000 Facts 

and Figures. EPA/530-R-02-001. June 2002. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/pubs/report-00.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1999 Facts 

and Figures. EPA/530-R-01-014. July 2001. 

SOURCE REDUCTION 

Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. Green Products by Design: 

Choices for a Cleaner Environment. OTA-E-541. October 1992. 

Council on Packaging in the Environment. “COPE Backgrounder: Source Reduction.” March 

1995. 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Materials Technology: Packaging Design and the Environment. 

Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. April 1991. 

Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the 

Year 2000. Keep America Beautiful, Inc. 1994. 

Rattray, Tom. “Source Reduction—An Endangered Species?” Resource Recycling. November 

1990. 

174 
 

 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Raymond Communications Inc. State Recycling Laws Update Year-End Edition 1998. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Consumer’s Handbook for Reducing Solid Waste. 

EPA/530-K-92-003. August 1992. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Wise: Second Year Progress Report. EPA/530-R96-016. September 1996. 

RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Waste Remediation Programs. 

http://www.adem.state.al.us/programs/land/default.cnt 

American Beverage Association. 2008 ABA Community Survey Final Report Rev. 02 September 

2009. http://flrecycling.org/Resources/Downloads/American-Beverage-AssociationCommunity-Recycling-Survey 

American Forest &Paper Association 2007 Community Survey Executive Summary. 

http://www.paperrecycles.org/news/exec_summ.html 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. Arkansas Recycling Marketing Directory. 

www.adeq.state.ar.us/solwaste/branch_market_dev/mkt_dev.asp#Search 

Arsova, Ljupka, et al. “The State of Garbage in America.” BioCycle. December 2008 

Block, Dave, and Nora Goldstein. “Solid Waste Composting Trends in the U.S.” BioCycle. 

November 2000. 

Businesses & Environmentalists Allied for Recycling (BEAR). Understanding Beverage 

Container Recycling. October 2001. 

175 
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Solid Waste 

Information System (SWIS). Facility Site Listing. 

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/SearchList/List?FAC=Disposal&OPSTAT 

US=Active®STATUS=Permitted 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Final Report on Inventory and 

Database of Colorado Diversion Activity. 

www.cdphe.state.co.us/oeis/p2_program/grantreports/sow3finalreport.pdf 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Hazardous Materials and Waste 

Management Division. HSRF Year-to-Date Cubic Yards Reported 2008. 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/swreport/hsrf2008.pdf 

Colorado Municipal League. Municipal Residential Curbside Recycling Services. 

http://www.coloradocurbside.com/surveytables/curbsidecityservice.html 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Active Leaf Composting Facilities. 

www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2718&q=325374&depNav_GID=1645 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Summer 2008 CT DEP Municipal Solid 

Waste Management Full cost Accounting Survey. Curbside Pickup of Residential Bottles, Cans, 

& Paper (BCP) for Recycling. 

http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/reduce_reuse_recycle/muni_state_agency/muni_full_cost_acct_su 

rvey_report_2_section_2.pdf 

Container Recycling Institute. 2006. www.container-recycling.org/ 

Container Recycling Institute. 2010. Bottle Bill Resource Guide. Bottle Bills in the USA. 

http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/usa/delaware.htm 

County of Maui Hawaii. http://www.co.maui.hi.us/ 

176 
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Yard Waste in 

Delaware. http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/yardwaste/Pages/Default.aspx 

Delaware Solid Waste Management Authority. Reports. 2010 Statewide Solid Waste 

Management Plan. Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan for Delaware: Moving Toward Zero 

Waste. 

http://dswa.com/pdfs/Statewide%20Solid%20Waste%20Mgmt%20PlanAdopted42210.pdf
 

District of Columbia Department of Public Works. http://dpw.dc.gov/DC/DPW/
 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Yard Trash Processing Facilities Database. 


www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/solid_waste/pages/yardtrash.htm 

Georgia Department of Community Affairs. 2009 Solid Waste Management Annual Report. 

2009 Solid Waste and Recyclable Collection. Solid Waste & Recycling Collection 2009 Update. 

http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/research/programs/downloads/SWAR2009Collection.pd 

f 

Glenn, Jim. “MSW Composting in the United States.” BioCycle. November 1997. 


Glenn, Jim. “The State of Garbage in America.” BioCycle. April 1998. 


Goldstein, Nora. “The State of Garbage in America.” BioCycle. October 2010. 


Goldstein, Nora. “The State of Garbage in America.” BioCycle. December 2001. 


Goldstein, Nora, and Celeste Madtes. “The State of Garbage in America.” BioCycle. November
 

2000. 


177 
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Governmental Advisory Associates. 1997 Update to the Materials Recycling and Processing 

Industry in the United States. 1997. 

Governmental Advisory Associates. Custom report. 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. 


Governmental Advisory Associates. Personal communication with Eileen Berenyi. 1998, 2002.
 

Governmental Advisory Associates. The Materials Recycling and Processing Industry in the
 

United States: 1995-96 Yearbook, Atlas, and Directory. 1995. 


Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Waste. http://www.deq.idaho.gov/waste/
 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Annual Landfill Capacity Report. 


www.epa.state.il.us/land/landfill-capacity/2007/index.html 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Recycle Indiana. Composting. 

www.in.gov/recycle/5725.htm 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Organics and Composting. 

www.iowadnr.gov/waste/recycling/organics/index.html 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Waste Management. 

http://public1.kdhe.state.ks.us/Landfills/Landfills.nsf?Opendatabase 

Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Waste Management. Recycling 

and Local Assistance Branch. http://waste.ky.gov/RLA/Pages/default.aspx 

Kreith, Frank. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1994. 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Remediation & Waste Management. 

File Room / Reports Generated from Databases. www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/data/ 

178 
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Maine State Planning Office. Report: Residential Recycling Year: 2008. 

http://www.maine.gov/spo/recycle/docs/data/2008data/ResidentRecycling.pdf 

Maryland Department of the Environment. Land Publications & Reports. Recycling. 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/LandPrograms/Recycling/publications/ 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Landfills, Transfer Stations & Compost 

Sites. www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/solid/swfacil.htm 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. 

www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/DEQ-WHMDList_Registered_Compost_Sites_230193_7.pdf 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Compost. 

www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/compost.html#pbrsites 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. Recycling Directories. 

www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/Recycling_RecyclingDirectories?OpenDocument 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 

http://www.deq.mt.gov/Recycle/Montana_Recyclables_new.mcpx 

Municipality of Anchorage Alaska. 

http://www.muni.org/departments/sws/recycle/Pages/default.aspx 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Integrated Waste Management. List of 

Permitted Facilities. www.deq.state.ne.us/IntList.nsf/Web+List?OpenView&Start=1&Count=125 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Nevada Solid Waste Landfills. 

http://ndep.nv.gov/BWM/landfill.htm#solid_nevada 

179 
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Composting Facilities in New 

Hampshire. http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/waste/swrtas/composters.htm 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. NJDEP Approved Operating Commercial 

Sanitary Landfills. www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw/lrm/aocslf.htm 

New Jersey. Department of Environmental Protection. Recycling Markets Directory. 

www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw/recycling/recymkts_directory.htm 

New Mexico Recycling Coalition. http://www.recyclenewmexico.com/index.htm 

New York State. Department of Environmental Conservation. List of Compost Facilities in New 

York State. www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/55447.html 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Waste 

Management. www.wastenotnc.org/DATARPTS2003_3ColA.HTM 

North Dakota Department of Health - Division of Waste Management. 2010 Curbside Pick-Up 

Programs. http://www.ndhealth.gov/WM/Publications/CommunityRecyclingInNorthDakota.pdf 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management. 

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/Default.aspx?alias=www.epa.ohio.gov/dsiwm 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 

www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/disposal/permittedfacilities.htm 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Fact Sheet. Recycling Awareness Week: Facts 

and Figures. http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/FactsFiguresRAW.pdf 

180 
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Recycling Works. 


http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/recycle/recywrks/recywrks3.htm
 

Pennsylvania Recycling Markets Center. www.parmc.org/
 

Personal communication with California Integrated Waste Management staff. August 2006. 


Personal communication with a representative of the Illinois Recycling Association. August
 

2006. 


Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Permitted Facilities. 


www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/waste/pdf/swfacs.pdf 

Simmons, Phil, et al. “The State of Garbage in America.” BioCycle. April 2006. 


South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Solid Waste Annual Reports. 


http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/recycle/
 

Spencer, Robert, Rhodes Yepsen and Nora Goldstein. BioCycle Nationwide Survey. "Mixed 

MSW Composting in Transition." November 2007. 

State of Hawaii Department of Health Solid Waste Section. Landfill Database – Neighbor 

Islands. 

http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/environmental/waste/sw/pdf/neighborlandfills.pdf 

State of Hawaii Department of Health Solid Waste Section. Landfill Database Oahu. 

http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/environmental/waste/sw/pdf/oahulandfills.pdf 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Municipal Solid Waste in Texas: A Year in 

Review FY 2008 Data Summary and Analysis. October 2009. 

www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/comm_exec/pubs/as/187_09.pdf 

181 
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

The Composting Council. “MSW Composting Facilities.” Fall 1995. 

U.S. Census Bureau. Population Division. Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population 

for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico. April, 2000 to July 1, 2009. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 

Various years. 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste. 

http://www.hazardouswaste.utah.gov/Solid_Waste_Section/SolidWasteSection.htm#DisposalFac 

ilities 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. www.deq.virginia.gov/waste/pdf/allava.pdf 

Washington State Department of Ecology. www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0807061.pdf 

West Virginia Department of Commerce. http://wvcommerce.org/energy/default.aspx 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Facility Lists. 

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/wm/faclists/WisLic_SWCompost_byCnty_withWaste.pdf 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Solid & Hazardous Waste Division. 

http://deq.state.wy.us/shwd/Recycling/ 

Yepsen, Rhodes. “2009 MSW Composting Update. BioCycle Nationwide Survey. Mixed Waste 

Composting Review.” BioCycle. November 2009. 

Yepsen, Rhodes and Nora Goldstein. Biocycle Nationwide Survey. "Source Separated 

Residential Composting in the U.S." December 2007. 

182 
 

Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

COMBUSTION WITH ENERGY RECOVERY 

“1991-1992 Energy-From-Waste Report.” Solid Waste & Power. HCI Publications. October 

1991, December 1990. 

Arsova, Ljupka, et al. “The State of Garbage in America.” BioCycle. December 2008. 

Goldstein, Nora. “The State of Garbage in America.” BioCycle. October 2010. Prepublication 

data. 

Integrated Waste Services Association. “High Court Rules Ash Not Exempt from Subtitle C 

Regulation.” Update. Summer 1994. 

Integrated Waste Services Association. The IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants. Various 

years. 

Kiser, Jonathan V.L. “A Comprehensive Report on the Status of Municipal Waste Combustion.” 

Waste Age. November 1990. 

Kiser, Jonathan V.L. “Municipal Waste Combustion in North America: 1992 Update.” Waste 

Age. November 1992. 

Kiser, Jonathan V.L. “The 1992 Municipal Waste Combustion Guide.” National Solid Wastes 

Management Association. February 1992. 

Kiser, Jonathan V.L. “The IWSA Municipal Waste Combustion Directory: 1993.” Integrated 

Waste Services Association. February 1994. 

Kiser, Jonathan V.L., and John Menapace. “The 1996 IWSA Municipal Waste Combustion 

Directory of United States Facilities.” Integrated Waste Services Association. March 1996. 

183 
Chapter 3 Management of Municipal Solid Waste
 

Kiser, Jonathan V.L., and John Menapace. “The 1995 IWSA Municipal Waste Combustion 


Directory of United States Facilities.” Integrated Waste Services Association. March 1995. 


Levy, Steven J. Municipal Waste Combustion Inventory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 


Office of Solid Waste, Municipal & Industrial Solid Waste Division. November 22, 1991. 


Michaels, Ted. “The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants.” Integrated Waste
 

Services Association. October 27, 2007 


National Solid Wastes Management Association. “The 1992 Municipal Waste Combustion 


Guide.” Waste Age. November 1992. 


Rigo, Greg and Maria Zannes. “The 1997-1998 IWSA Waste-to-Energy Director of United 


States Facilities.” Integrated Waste Services Association. November 1997.
 

Simmons, Phil, et al. “The State of Garbage in America.” BioCycle. April 2006. 


“The 1991 Municipal Waste Combustion Guide.” Waste Age. November 1991. 


184 
 

 

 

 

Appendix A Materials Flow Methodology
 

APPENDIX A 

MATERIALS FLOW METHODOLOGY 

The materials flow methodology is illustrated in Figures A-1 and A-2. The crucial first 

step is making estimates of the generation of the materials and products in MSW (Figure A-1). 

DOMESTIC PRODUCTION 

Data on domestic production of materials and products were compiled using published 

data series. U.S. Department of Commerce sources were used where available, but in several 

instances more detailed information on production of goods by end use is available from industry 

associations. The goal is to obtain a consistent historical data series for each product and/or 

material. 

CONVERTING SCRAP 

The domestic production numbers were then adjusted for converting or fabrication scrap 

generated in the production processes. Examples of these kinds of scrap would be clippings from 

plants that make boxes from paperboard, glass scrap (cullet) generated in a glass bottle plant, or 

plastic scrap from a fabricator of plastic consumer products. This scrap typically has a high value 

because it is clean and readily identifiable, and it is almost always recovered and recycled within 

the industry that generated it. Thus, recovered converting/fabrication scrap is not counted as part 

of the postconsumer recovery of waste. 

ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPORTS/EXPORTS 

In some instances imports and exports of products are a significant part of MSW, and 

adjustments were made to account for this. 

185 
 

Appendix A Materials Flow Methodology
 

DIVERSION 

Various adjustments were made to account for diversions from MSW. Some consumer 

products are permanently diverted from the municipal waste stream because of the way they are 

used. For example, some paperboard is used in building materials, which are not counted as 

MSW. Another example of diversion is toilet tissue, which is disposed in sewer systems rather 

than becoming MSW. 

In other instances, products are temporarily diverted from the municipal waste stream. 

For example, textiles reused as rags are assumed to enter the waste stream the same year the 

textiles are initially discarded. 

ADJUSTMENTS FOR PRODUCT LIFETIME 

Some products (e.g., newspapers and packaging) normally have a very short lifetime; 

these products are assumed to be discarded in the same year they are produced. In other instances 

(e.g., furniture and appliances), products have relatively long lifetimes. Data on average product 

lifetimes are used to adjust the data series to account for this. 

RECOVERY 

Data on recovery of materials and products for recycling are compiled using industry data 

adjusted, when appropriate, with U.S. Department of Commerce import/export data. Recovery 

estimates of yard trimmings or food scraps for composting are developed from data provided by 

state officials and processors of these materials. 

186 
 

Appendix A Materials Flow Methodology
 

DISCARDS 

Mathematically, discards equal that portion of generation remaining after recovery for 

recycling and composting. Discards can be disposed through combustion with or without energy 

recovery or landfilling. The amount of MSW consumed at combustion facilities with energy 

recovery is estimated, and the difference between total discards and the amount sent to 

combustion for energy recovery is assumed to be landfilled or combusted without energy 

recovery. (This assumption is not quite accurate, as some MSW is littered or disposed on-site, 

e.g., by backyard burning. These amounts are believed to be a small fraction of total discards.) 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION, RECOVERY, AND DISCARDS 

The result of these estimates and calculations is a material-by-material and product-byproduct estimate of MSW generation, recovery, and discards. 

187 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A Materials Flow Methodology
 

Domestic Production 

of 

Materials/Products 

Imports 

of 

Materials/Products Exports 

of 

Materials/Products 

Conversion/ 

fabricating 

Scrap 

Diversion 

of 

Materials/Products 

Municipal 

Solid Waste 

Generation 

Temporary 

Diversion 

Permanent
 

Diversion
 

Figure A-1. Material flows methodology for estimating
 

generation of products and materials in municipal solid waste.
 

188 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A Materials Flow Methodology
 

MSW 

Generation 

Recovery 

for 

Composting 

Recovery 

for 

Recycling 

Discards 

to Landfill 

and 

Other 

Disposal 

Discards 

after 

Recycling 

and 

Composting 

Recovery for 

Combustion 

with 

Energy 

Recovery 

Recovery for 

Combustion 

without 

Energy Recovery 

Figure A-2. Material flows methodology for estimating 

discards of products and materials in municipal solid waste. 

189 

United States Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (5306P)Washington, DC 20460Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300