Trends in the Generation and Recovery of Municipal Solid Waste
Dr. Roderick Eggert
Brian Batson
Colorado School of Mines
November 18, 2010
I. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) defines municipal solid waste (“MSW”) as
trash or garbage from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources that “does not
include industrial, hazardous, or construction waste”. In this study, (i) aluminum, (ii) ferrous
metals, (iii) other nonferrous metals, (iv) glass, (v) plastics, and (vi) paper and paperboard are
analyzed across time from 1960 to 2008 (EPA “Figures for 2008” 2009).1 Each material exhibits
different trends in terms of generation levels, generation shares by material, and recovery rates
by material.
This paper traces the causes of each material’s level generated, generation share, and
recovery rate to the history and policies enacted by the United States within the past 50 years.
Statistical and quantitative analysis is performed alongside the qualitative explanations. However
due to the limited number of observations in the data set, no time series econometric analyses are
conducted. Section II provides a list of definitions for the purposes of this paper. Section III.a.
provides the background of MSW by analyzing the total generation in thousands of tons, along
with the total recovery rate. Section III.b. decomposes the total generated into the contributions
or shares by each material, and then tracks the shares of each material over the specified time
interval. Section IV looks at recovery rates material by material, and provides trend explanations
through policy analysis and real price movements.2 Finally, section V reviews the prominent
observations and trends, and suggests further topics of concern that are still to be researched.
II. Definitions
All data, unless otherwise noted, pertaining to the generation and recovery of municipal solid
waste, in both level and percentage forms were collected from the EPA’s report, “Municipal
Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Detailed Tables and
Figures for 2008.” For the purposes of this paper, generation levels are the thousands of tons of
material that the EPA reported that “[refer] 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” (EPA “Figures for 2008” 2009).
Generation shares by material are the composition of the total generation viewed material by
material, and material shares are the total generated by an individual material divided by the total
generated in the municipal waste stream.
Recovery levels are the thousands of tons of material that “[include] products and yard
trimmings removed from the waste stream for the purpose of recycling…recovery equals
reported purchases of postconsumer recovered material plus net exports (if any) of the material”
(EPA “Figures for 2008” 2009). Individual recovery rates are defined as the total amount
1
Data available via the EPA’s report is for years: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2008.
2
Real prices were rebased using annual 2010 Consumer Price Index data from the Federal Reserve of Saint Louis.
1
recovered by material divided by the total amount generated by that specific material. Total
recovery rates are the aggregation of the individual thousands of tons of material recovered
divided by the total amount generated.
Lastly, durable goods are defined as products that have a product life of 3 or more years. This
includes “major and small appliances, furniture and furnishings, carpets and rugs, tires, lead-acid
batteries, consumer electronics, and other miscellaneous durables.” “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”. Total cans include beer,
soft drink, and other/food cans (EPA “Figures for 2008” 2009).
III. Background of Municipal Solid Waste
This section provides a general overview of thousands of tons of MSW generated over the
time period from 1960 to 2008. It also supplies the total recovery rate to show and explain
particular trends in recycling of MSW. Furthermore, the total generated is decomposed to
provide individual MSW generation explanations across time.
Figure 1.1: Total Generation of Municipal Solid Waste and Percentage Recovered Over Time
Total Generation and Percent Recovered
40
160,000
30
Thousands of Tons
120,000
20
100,000
10
80,000
60,000
Percentage Recovered
140,000
0
40,000
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
TOTAL_GENERATED
RECOVERED_PERCENTAGE
2
Figure 1.2: Total Generation and Recovery per Capita
Generation and Recovery per Capita
.0006
Thousands of Tons
.0005
.0004
.0003
.0002
.0001
.0000
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Total Recovery per Capita
Total Generation per Capita
Figure 1.3: Total Generation and Recovery per Unit of Real GDP Deflated Using CPI 2010
Generation and Recovery per Unit of Real GDP
14
Thousands of Tons
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Total Recovery per Unit of Real GDP (CPI10)
Total Generation per Unit of Real GDP (CPI10)
a. Generation and Recovery
The left vertical axis in Figure 1.1 illustrates the total MSW generated from the six materials
analyzed in thousands of tons. Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 respectively show the total generation
and recovery in per capita and per unit of real Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) terms. Although
Figures 1.1 and 1.2 reflect a steady increase of total generation from 1960 to approximately
2000, Figure 1.3 exhibits relatively stable generation levels per unit of real GDP. The subsequent
3
periods (i.e. 2003 to 2008) have a decline in the total amount generated in all three figures.
Contrastingly, the right vertical axis in Figure 1.1 reflects a declining recovery rate from 1960 to
1970, but a relatively linear increase from 1970 to 2008. This essentially shows that the United
States is able to recover more MSW from less available in the municipal waste stream.
One possible explanation to this decline in total generation, increasing total recovery in both
per capita and per unit of real GDP terms, and an increasing recovery rate is technological
advancement. This implies that the Unites States is advancing in terms of resource saving as well
as becoming more efficient in MSW recovery. Note the increase in the recovery rate since 1970.
During that period there was a rise of interest in the environment which gave way to a series of
Federal Acts and the formation of the United States EPA (EPA “History” 2009).
For example, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (“SWDA”) was enacted in 1965 to “improve
[and regulate] waste disposal technology”. Five years later Congress passed the Resource
Recovery Act (“RRA”) of 1970 to “increase federal involvement with management of solid
waste, [and to] encourage waste reduction and resource recovery”. Following several
amendments to the SWDA, it became the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”)
in 1976. RCRA gave the “EPA the authority to control hazardous waste…[which] includes the
minimization, generation, transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste” (NM
Environmental Department 2009) and “set forth a framework for the management of nonhazardous solid wastes” (EPA “RCRA” 2010). According to federal regulations, “all municipal
solid waste landfills must comply [with the landfill design subpart] of RCRA” (EPA “Landfills”
2009).
Another explanation could be that if the total generated is dominated by a material with an
increasing real price and low substitutability in its respective primary usage, then the recovery
rate should in fact increase. This is due to recovered materials becoming economical in
comparison to virgin material. However to evaluate this hypothesis, the composition of the total
generated in the municipal waste stream must be examined.
b. Composition of Total Generated
Decomposing the total generated into shares generated by material provides the composition
movements in MSW. This reflects what materials are becoming increasingly or decreasingly
used in everyday items such as durable goods (e.g. appliances and furniture), non-durable goods
(e.g. magazines and newspapers), and containers and packaging (e.g. bottles, boxes, and cartons)
(EPA “Figures for 2008” 2009).
4
Figure 1.4: Material Shares of Total Municipal Solid Waste Generated
Shares of Total MSW Generation (1)
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2000
2005
Year
FE_SHARES_AVAILABLE
GLASS_SHARES_AVAILABLE
PAPER_SHARES_AVAILABLE
Shares of Total MSW Generation (2)
24
20
Percentage
16
12
8
4
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Year
AL_SHARES_AVAILABLE
OTHER_NON_FE_SHARES_AVAI
PLASTICS_SHARES_AVAILABL
Graph 1 of Figure 1.4 depicts the shares of the total MSW generated for ferrous metals,
glass, and paper, while graph 2 depicts the shares for aluminum, other nonferrous metals, and
plastics. For exact percentages, see Table 1 in the Appendix. Ferrous metals portray a declining
trend. Conversely and as one would expect, aluminum on the other hand are on the rise with the
movement from steel beverage cans to aluminum beverage cans (CMI 2010).
Paper shares remain as a large percentage of the total generated, but in the last decade has
started to decline. Newspaper is one of the major contributors to this decline, which has steadily
5
decreased from 14,790 thousands of tons to 8,880 thousands of tons generated into the municipal
waste stream (EPA “Figures for 2008” 2009). This could be due to office and residential
environments becoming “paperless” as well as more people receiving their news via the internet
rather than home delivery newspapers. Thus the invention of the internet and e-mail,
accompanied with the increasing societal interest in environmental sustainability and availability
of recycling bins could have significant explanatory value in this observation.
Glass increased from 1960 to 1970, but then had a declining trend from 1970 onward with
reaching a potential steady state from 2000 to 2008. Most glass generation is derived from
containers and packaging. Further decomposition of the data shows that beer and soft drink
bottles have increasingly become more of a significant share of the portion of glass generated
from containers and packaging. This could have similar explanation to that of the ferrous metals
and aluminum situation in that plastic bottles became more economic to manufacture compared
to glass (EPA “Figures for 2008” 2009).
Plastics stand out in that it is the only material analyzed with such a dramatic increase in the
share of the total MSW generated. Plastic generation has become more dependent on durables,
representing roughly one-third of generation in 2008, with the majority of plastic generation
deriving from containers and packaging (EPA “Figures for 2008” 2009). The data from the EPA
only decomposes durable goods into types of plastics, not types of durable goods. However, one
can speculate that plastics are becoming increasingly apparent in small and major appliances.
Lastly, the share of nonferrous metals grew consistently from 0.38% in 1960 to 1.25% in
1980. In 1990, the shares of other nonferrous metals dropped to 0.92%, but then grew back to
1.25% in 2008. The majority of the thousands of tons of nonferrous metals generated is lead
from lead-acid batteries, which represent approximately 60% in 2000 to 74% in 2005 of the total
other nonferrous metal generation from the 2000 to 2008 period (EPA “MSW” 2009). “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” (EPA “2007 Facts”
2008).
IV. Understanding Recovery Rates for Specific Materials
This section decomposes the total thousands of tons of material recovered into their
respective material recovery rates. In addition, significant points in time for each material are
identified to provide period by period individual recovery rate analysis and explanation. Note the
variation (see Figure 2.1) across recovery rates with regards to their magnitudes, percentage
recovered, and year(s) that initiated significant changes in the recovery rates. To explain these
variations own real prices, prices of inputs, societal changes, and others (e.g. bottle bills for
aluminum) are invoked. Having this variation across materials noted, one cannot perform
analysis on groups of materials in the municipal waste stream, as each recovery rate is subject to
its own explanations.
6
Figure 2.1: Recovery Rates Material by Material
Percentage Recovered of Respective Material Generated
Recovery Rates Material by Material (1)
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2000
2005
Year
RR_FE_METALS
RR_GLASS
RR_PLASTICS
Percentage Recovered of Respective Material Generated
Recovery Rates Material by Material (2)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Year
RR_ALUMINUM
RR_OTHER_NON_FE_METALS
RR_PAPER
a. Aluminum
From the period studied, 1960 to 2008, one can arbitrarily divide both the aluminum
generated and aluminum recovered into three time periods (see Figure 2.2). The period from
1960 to 1970, which will be referred to as time period I, exhibits a generous increase (135%) in
thousands of tons generated. Contrastingly, a disproportionate increase in the thousands of tons
recovered is observed; increasing from a relatively negligible amount to 10 thousand tons during
this time period. Also during period I, the quantity of used beverage containers (“UBC”)
7
generated as a percentage of the total aluminum generated rose from a negligible amount to 160
thousand tons, representing approximately 20% of the total amount of aluminum generated into
the municipal waste stream in 1970 (see Figure 1 in the Appendix). This increase in the amount
of UBC generated is due to the introduction of aluminum in beverage containers in 1965 (CMI
2010).
Figure 2.2: Aluminum Generation, Recovery, and Recovery Rate
Aluminum MSW Generation and Recovery
3,500
Thousands of Tons
3,000
2,500
2,000
I
II
III
1,500
1,000
500
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Aluminum Available
Aluminum Recovered
Aluminum Recovery Rate
RR_ALUMINUM
40
Percentage Recovered
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Period II looks at the years from 1970 to 1990, and contains a 251% increase in aluminum
generation. In addition, thousands of tons of aluminum cans generated rose from 160 in 1970 to
890 in 1980 to 1,570 in 1990; representing 20%, 51%, and 56% of the total aluminum generated
in the municipal waste stream, respectively. UBC percentage recovered of aluminum generated
by cans (beer, soft drink, and other/food) rose from 6% in 1970 to 36% in 1980 to 63% in 1990.
8
UBC percentage of recovered of total aluminum generated also increased, from 1% in 1970 to
19% in 1980 to 35% in 1990. This dramatic increase in the aluminum UBC recovered is linked
to the domination of aluminum in the beverage can market beginning in 1985 (CMI 2010). As
more aluminum cans are produced for consumption, more aluminum beverage containers enter
the municipal waste stream, which allow for more recovery since aluminum beverage containers
are essentially homogenous in material and “can be used directly as a raw material input with no
alloy or chemical modifications required” (Fuller 1978).
One other important fact to note is the 1.1% increase in the real price of electricity over
period II as displayed in Figure 2 in the Appendix (EIA 2009). Aluminum being such an energy
intensive good to produce, suggests that the recovery rate could be highly sensitive to electricity
prices (IAI “Production” 2010). Therefore as electricity prices increase, as in the case for period
II, it becomes more costly to produce new aluminum beverage containers. More aluminum
beverage containers would be recovered because “recycling aluminum products needs only 5%
of the energy needed for primary aluminum production” (IAI “Recycling” 2010). Also, the
continuously increasing aluminum recovery rate in period II can be explained through lagged
effects from the increase of electricity prices from 1970 to approximately 1983.
In addition to the increase in real electricity prices, are the introduction of bottle bills in 10
states (Bottle Bill “US” 2010). This act of legislation requires a refundable fee to serve as an
incentive for people to recycle (Bottle Bill “What is” 2010).
Period III reflects the years from 1990 to 2008. During this period, aluminum generation
increased by 21%, while the thousands of tons of aluminum cans generated declined from 1,570
in 1990 to 1,460 in 2008. The decline in aluminum cans generated can be traced to 1991 when
aluminum can ends began to use less material and “save natural resources” (CMI 2010). UBC
percentages of total aluminum generated and of just aluminum generated by cans also dropped
during period III. Figure 2.3 displays the thousands of tons of aluminum generated, aluminum
generated from total cans, aluminum recovered, and the aluminum recovered from total cans.
Almost all of the aluminum recovered is comprised of aluminum total cans.
9
Figure 2.3: Aluminum Cans and Aluminum Generated/Recovered in Thousands of Tons
Cans (Soda, Beer, and Other/Food)
3,500
Thousands of Tons
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
AL
AL
AL
AL
Generated
Recovered
Generated Total Cans
Recovered Total Cans
However, as explained earlier with the resource saving of 1991, the total amount of
aluminum generated continues to increase. The major categorical contributor to this divergence
is durable goods. Durable goods represented 1,310 thousands of tons of the 3,410 thousands of
tons of aluminum generated, or 38%, in 2008 (EPA “Figures for 2008” 2009). The increase of
aluminum durable goods generation has a direct impact on the recovery rate, as aluminum in
appliances are more difficult to separate out in comparison to aluminum cans, which are more
homogeneous (Fuller 1978).
In contrast to what the bottle bills have contributed to recovery in period II, they have a
decreasing effect if the monetary incentives are not revised to account for inflation. For example,
real prices of have declined (see Figure 3 in the Appendix) compared to period II (USGS
“Aluminum” 2009), but it seems to be that bottle bill values are not updated often (Bottle Bill
“All States” 2009).
b. Ferrous Metals
Similar to the devised periods for aluminum, ferrous metals can be portrayed in three time
periods. Period I is classified as the years from 1960 to 1970. During this period, ferrous metal
generation in the municipal waste stream steadily increased (see Figure 2.4) while ferrous metal
recovery did not really have any significant changes and remained at a relatively negligible
amount. Recall that this is the time period for which aluminum entered into the beverage can
market, so steel cans preceded the beverage can market. Steel cans represented roughly 43% of
the total ferrous metal generation in 1960, and 41% in 1970 (see Figure 4 in the Appendix). The
majority of the remaining steel generation comes from durable goods.
10
Figure 2.4: Ferrous Metal Generation, Recovery, and Recovery Rate
FE Metal Generation and Recovery
16,000
14,000
Thousands of Tons
12,000
10,000
I
II
III
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
FE Metals Available
FE Metals Recovered
Recovery Rate of Ferrous Metals
RR_FE_METALS
36
32
28
Percentage
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
While the total ferrous metals recovered tripled during this time period; it still only
represented a small portion of the amount generated; 0.5% in 1960 and 1.2% in 1970. The
amount recovered from total cans reflected 60% in 1960 and 53% in 1970. Also note that this
time period does not yet include bottle bills. Therefore, there was no monetary incentive to
recover steel cans in terms of legislation. Further explanation of no real change in the recovery
rate can be sought through the decline of real steel prices (see Figure 5 of the Appendix). With
real prices of steel on the decline, it could be that producing primary steel was less or equally as
costly as recovering it from the municipal waste stream.
The thousands of tons of ferrous metals generated in period II, the years from 1970 to 1990,
happen to be a period of stagnation while the thousands of tons recovered began to increase in
11
1980. Beverage containers do not have much explanatory value in this increase in recovery,
because steel cans actually were being phased out by aluminum cans and therefore the amount of
steel cans as a percentage of the total amount began to diverge. The increase in recovery,
however, potentially can be traced to the increase in real steel prices from approximately 1974 to
1978, which caused primary steel production to be more costly than recovered steel from the
municipal waste stream. Provided that the divergence of recovered steel cans from the total
recovered and increase of durable steel goods recovered, it is noted that there is a product
lifetime or durability lag between the increase in real prices and the increase in steel recovered.
Period III, the years from 1990 to 2008, displays an increase in steel generation, as well as a
continued increase in the amount recovered from period II. The real price of steel declined from
1990 to 2003. This could explain why the ferrous metal generation increases. Then why does the
United States see an increasing real price from 2003 to 2008 along with the continued amount
generated in the municipal waste stream? This could be due to a shortage of material. As more
steel is demanded, the price is bid up because of short term capacity constraints. Since the market
could not fulfill demand orders, and no substitutes were readily available, the demand remains
the same. Therefore, more is recovered from the municipal waste stream as it becomes
economical to do so.
c. Other Nonferrous Metals
Other nonferrous metals include lead, zinc, and copper (EPA “2007 Facts” 2008). The
periods are broken down into period I, the years from 1960 to 1980; period II, the years from
1980 to 1990; and period III, the years from 1990 to 2008 (see Figure 2.5). For periods I and II,
the EPA does not provide durable goods data broken down into lead and other (i.e. zinc and
copper) nonferrous metals. However, with the increasing real price of lead from 1960 to 1979 as
displayed in Figure 6 of the Appendix (USGS “Lead” 2009) and its relative ease of recovery
from the lead-acid battery (University of Denver 2004); it potentially was less costly for battery
manufacturers to seek lead, which comprises approximately 60% of the total weight of the
battery (Linden 2002), from the municipal waste stream.
12
Figure 2.5: Nonferrous Metal Generation, Recovery, and Recovery Rate
Other Non-FE Metal Generation and Recovery
2,000
Thousands of Tons
1,600
II
I
1,200
III
800
400
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Other Non-FE Metals Available
Other Non-FE Metals Recovered
Recovery Rate of Other Non-FE Metals
RR_OTHER_NON_FE_METALS
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
During period II, the real lead price declined and then reached a steady state in the latter part
of the 1980s (see Figure 6 in the Appendix). The variation in the real lead price during period II
led to not much of a change in the thousands of tons generated, but continued to reflect an
increase in the amount recovered.
In period III, an increase in generation is observed along with the thousands of tons
recovered. Most states passed lead-acid battery laws in the late 1980s and early 1990s (BCI
2010). Also in 1996, the Battery Act was put into action in order to “provide for the efficient and
cost-effective collection and recycling or proper disposal of…used small lead-acid batteries”
(EPA “Battery Act” 2002). The implementations of the deposit laws and the Battery Act actually
did not seem to have a significant impact on the thousands of tons recovered or the recovery rate.
13
d. Glass
The years from 1960 to 1980, denoted as period I in Figure 2.6, portray an increase in the
thousands of tons generated into the municipal waste stream while thousands of tons recovered
do not see much of an increase until the sub-period from 1970 to 1980. Most of which is
generated and recovered is classified as containers and packaging (e.g. bottles and jars, see
Figure 7 in the Appendix). The generation of glass materials continues to rise until period II,
when plastics took over the market share. The increase in recovery from the sub-period has a
direct positive correlation to when the 10 states discussed earlier passed bottle bills as a
monetary incentive to recycle.
Figure 2.6: Glass Metal Generation, Recovery, and Recovery Rate
Glass MSW Generation and Recovery
16,000
14,000
Thousands of Tons
12,000
10,000
I
III
II
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Glass Available
Glass Recovered
Glass Recovery Rate
RR_GLASS
24
20
Percentage
16
12
8
4
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
14
In period II, the years from 1980 to 1990, glass generation began to decline with the rise in
plastics. However, glass recovery continued to increase. This increase can still be contributed to
the induction of bottle bills.
Lastly in period III, the years from 1990 to 2008, both glass generation and glass recovery
remain relatively flat. Nevertheless, when decomposing the thousands of tons recovered into
types (i.e. glass jars and bottles); it is observed that the portion recovered from glass jars has a
dramatic decrease beginning in 2000.
e. Plastics
Plastics are only separated into two periods, period I being from 1960 to 1980, and period II
being from 1980 to 2008 (see Figure 2.7). Period I reflects a steady increase in the thousands of
tons generated with a negligible amount of recovery. As noted in the glass subsection, III.d.,
plastics and glass generation are inversely related. So during this period, glass was still the
dominant force in bottle production.
Figure 2.7: Plastics Metal Generation, Recovery, and Recovery Rate
Plastic MSW Generation and Recovery
32,000
28,000
I
Thousands of Tons
24,000
II
20,000
16,000
12,000
8,000
4,000
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Plastics Available
Plastics Recovered
15
Recovery Rate of Plastics
RR_PLASTICS
8
7
Percentage
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
It was not until period II that plastics overcame glass generation. However, plastic recovery
increased over this period slightly in comparison to the amount generated. This could be
explained through bottle bills, curbside pickup, an increase in recycling bins in offices and other
institutional facilities, an increased concern for the environment, and resource saving. Most
plastics are actually discarded, but the portion that is recovered comes from containers and
packaging (see Figure 8 in the Appendix). “The cost of recycling a bottle versus making a new
one simply varies, depending where the bottle is”. However, companies like Coca-Cola are
working to “make more lightweight bottles that contain more recycled resin…[because they are]
made with 30% less resin and rely on the water or liquid inside to maintain their shape. Using
less resin per bottle could translate to a savings on raw materials of about $1.5 billion a year for
the bottling industry”. Some is recovered from durable goods, which account for a large portion
of the plastics generated, but the assumption here is that of separation cost (Intagliata 2008).
f. Paper and Paperboard
Paper and paperboard was not split up into periods, as both generation and recovery have
increased reasonably linearly over the time period, with the exception of a decline in paper
generated in 2000 (see Figure 2.8). Most of which is derived from non-durable goods such as
books and magazines. The recovery rate seems to be increasing exponentially, which could be
explained through the increase in recycling bins in offices and other institutional facilities, the
invention of the internet and e-mail, and the increased concern for the environment.
16
Figure 2.8: Paper Metal Generation, Recovery, and Recovery Rate
Paper MSW Generated and Recovered
90,000
80,000
Thousands of Tons
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Paper Available
Paper Recovered
Recovery Rate of Paper
RR_PAPER
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
V. Concluding Observations
Even with the United States declining in the thousands of tons generated in the municipal
waste stream, recovery rates have continued to increase with the assistance of technological
innovation, Federal Acts, monetary incentives (i.e. bottle bills), convenience recycling (e.g.
curbside recycling and recycle bins in institutional facilities), and the overall increased concern
about the environment and future generations. In addition since 1960, there has been a change in
the composition of thousands of tons generated in the municipal waste stream. The U.S. has
observed a shift away from glass products to plastic products, as well as a declining share of
paper in the past decade. Furthermore, ferrous metal shares are decreasing, while aluminum
17
shares have increased, but not significantly. Other nonferrous metals have not shown much of a
change over the past 50 years in terms of generation share.
There are two major findings with regards to recovery rate by material. (1) While the
majority of the materials studied have witnessed an increase or point of stagnation in recovery,
aluminum is the exception due to declining real prices, resource saving initiatives, and the
increase of aluminum usage in durable goods. Further exploration in the cost of recycling
aluminum and its end use material substitutability in durable products would provide additional
supporting evidence as to why the decline in aluminum MSW recovery. (2) Other nonferrous
metals recoveries have increased mainly due to the ease of lead recovery in lead-acid batteries.
Its respective recovery rate had significant impact from 1960 to 1980, which possibly is
explained by the increasing real price of lead during this period. However, lead battery recycling
policies and price incentives do have explanatory value in this finding, so examination in these
areas is still to be completed.
18
VI. Appendix
Table 1: Shares of Each Material Analyzed
Figure 1: Used Beverage Container Generation of Total Aluminum and Recovery Rate
UBC Generation of Total Aluminum and Recovery Rate
80
60
40
3,000
20
2,000
Percentage
Thousands of Tons
4,000
0
1,000
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
AL Generated Total
AL Generated Total Cans
Total AL Cans Recovered % of Total AL Cans Generated
19
Figure 2: Nominal and Real Electricity Prices – Annual CPI 2010
Nominal and Real Electricity Prices (US)
14
12
10
USD
8
6
4
2
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Nominal Price of Electricity
Real Price of Electricity
Figure 3: Nominal and Real Aluminum Prices – Annual CPI 2010
Nominal and Real Prices of Aluminum
5,000
4,000
USD
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Real Price (Annual CPI 2010)
Nominal Price
20
Figure 4: Steel Generation and Recovery with Total Can Weights
Steel Generation and Recovery with Total Cans
16,000
14,000
Thousands of Tons
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
FE Generated
FE Recovered
Total Steel Cans Generated
Total Steel Cans Recovered
Figure 5: Real Steel Prices – Annual CPI 2010
Real Price of Steel - Annual CPI 2010
260
240
US Dollars
220
200
180
160
140
120
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
21
Figure 6: Real Lead Prices – Annual CPI 2010
Real Price of Lead - Annual CPI 2010
3,600
3,200
US Dollars
2,800
2,400
2,000
1,600
1,200
800
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Figure 7: Glass Recovery with Packaging Recovery
Glass Recovery w/ Packaging Recovery
3,000
Thousands of Tons
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Glass Recovered
Glass Recovered from Bottles
Glass Recovered from Jars
22
Figure 8: Plastics Recovery with Packaging
Plastic Recovery w/ Packaging Recovery
32,000
28,000
Thousands of Tons
24,000
20,000
16,000
12,000
8,000
4,000
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2000
2005
Year
Plastics Generated
Plastics Generated from Packaging
Plastics Recovered
Plastics Recovered from Packaging
Figure 9: Paper Recovery with Packaging
Paper Recovery w/ Packaging
90,000
80,000
Thousands of Tons
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Year
Paper Generated
Paper Generated from Packaging
Paper Recovered
Paper Recovered from Packaging
23
References:
A l l U S B o t t l e B i l l s . B o t t l e Bi l l R e s o u r c e G u i d e , 2 9 J u n e 2 0 0 9 . W e b . O c t 2 0 1 0 .
< h t t p : / / w w w . b o t t l e bi l l . or g / l e g i s l a t i on / u s a / a l l s t a t e s . h t m > .
B o t t l e Bi l l s i n t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s . B o t t l e B i l l R e s o u r c e G u i d e , 2 0 1 0 . O c t 2 0 1 0 .
< h t t p : / / w w w . b o t t l e bi l l . or g / l e g i s l a t i on / u s a . h t m > .
" C a n s : A V i s u a l H i s t or y. " C a n H i s t o r y T i m e l i n e . C a n M a n u f a c t u r e r s I n s t i t u t e , n . d O c t
2 0 1 0 . < h t t p : / / w w w . c a n c e n t r a l . c om / br o c h u r e / > .
F u l l e r , D on a l d A . " R e c yc l i n g C on s u m e r S ol i d W a s t e : A C om m e n t a r y on S e l e c t e d
Ch an n el Alt er n ati ves. " J ou rn al of Bu si ne s s Re se arc h . 6 .1 ( 19 78 ): 26.
I n t a g l i a t a , C h r i s t o p h e r . " D o e s i t c o s t m or e t o r e c yc l e a p l a s t i c b o t t l e t h a n t o m a k e a
n e w on e ? . " S c i e n c e l i n e 5 M a y 2 0 0 8 : n . p a g . O c t 2 0 1 0 .
< h t t p : / / w w w . s c i e n c e l i n e . or g / 2 0 0 8 / 0 5 / a s k - i n t a g l i a t a - p l a s t i c / > .
L e a d . T h e L e a d A c i d B a t t e r y . Un i v e r s i t y o f D e n v e r , 2 9 M a y 2 0 0 4 . W e b. O c t 2 0 1 0 .
< h t t p : / / m ys i t e . d u . e d u / ~ j c a l v e r t / p h ys / l e a d . h t m > .
L i n d e n , D a vi d , a n d T h om a s B. R e d d y. H a n d b o o k o f B a t t e r i e s . 3 r d . N e w Y or k :
McGra w- Hil l, 2002. 23.5.
Pr odu ction . About Aluminum. In ternation al Alumin um In stitute, 2010. Oct 2010.
< h tt p: / / www. wor l d - a l um in i um . or g / About + Al um i ni um / Pr oduct i on > .
R e c yc l i n g . S u s t a i n a b i l i t y . I n t e r n a t i on a l A l u m i n u m I n s t i t u t e , 2 0 1 0 . O c t 2 0 1 0 .
< h t t p : / / w w w . w o r l d - a l u m i n i u m . or g / S u s t a i n a b i l i t y/ R e c yc l i n g > .
" S t a t e R e c yc l i n g L a w s . " S u m m a r y o f U . S . S t a t e L e a d - A c i d B a t t e r y L a ws . Ba t t e r y
C o u n c i l I n t e r n a t i on a l , 2 0 1 0 . O c t 2 0 1 0 .
< h t t p : / / w w w . b a t t e r yc o u n c i l . or g / L e a d A c i d B a t t e r i e s / Ba t t e r yR e c yc l i n g / S t a t e R e c yc l i n g L
a w s / t a b i d / 1 2 0 / D e fa u l t . a s p x > .
" Th e Batt er y A ct. " E nvi ro nme nt al Prot ectio n A gency 5.2 (2 00 2): 1. O ct 2 01 0.
< h t t p : / / w w w . e p a . g o v / C om p l i a n c e / r e s o u r c e s / n e w s l e t t e r s / c i v i l / e n f a l e r t / ba t t e r y. p d f> .
U n i t e d S t a t e s . D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y: E n e r g y I n f or m a t i on A d m i n i s t r a t i on . T a b l e 8 . 1 0 :
Ave r age Re tail Pr ice s of E lect rici ty, 1 96 0 - 200 8. 2 00 9. Mar ch 2 01 0.
U n i t e d S t a t e s . E n v i r on m e n t a l P r ot e c t i on A g e n c y: O f f i c e o f R e s o u r c e C on s e r va t i on
a n d R e c o v e r y. M u n i c i p a l S o l i d W a s t e G e n e r a t i o n , R e c y c l i n g , a n d D i s p o s a l i n t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s : D e t a i l e d T a b l e s a n d F i g u r e s f o r 2 0 0 8 . 2 0 0 9 . W e b. O c t 2 0 1 0 .
< h t t p : / / w w w . e p a . g o v / e p a w a s t e / n on h a z / m u n i c i p a l / p u b s / m s w 2 0 0 8 d a t a . p d f> .
U n i t e d S t a t e s . E n v i r on m e n t a l P r ot e c t i on A g e n c y: O f f i c e o f S ol i d W a s t e . M u n i c i p a l
S oli d Was te in the Un ited St ate s: 20 07 Fact s a nd Fig ur es . , 20 08. O ct 20 10.
< h t t p : / / w w w . e p a . g o v / w a s t e s / n on h a z / m u n i c i p a l / p u b s / m s w 0 7 - r p t . p d f> .
U n i t e d S t a t e s . E P A H i s t o r y | U S E P A . E n vi r on m e n t a l P r ot e c t i on A g e n c y, 1 0 D e c 2 0 0 9 .
O c t 2 0 1 0 . < h t t p : / / w w w . e p a . g o v / h i s t or y/ > .
U n i t e d S t a t e s . H a z a r d o u s W a s t e S t a t u t e s a n d R e g u l a t i o n s . N e w M e x i c o E n vi r on m e n t
D epar tm en t, 2 5 Feb 20 09. O ct 20 10.
< h t t p : / / w w w . n m e n v. s t a t e . n m . u s / h w b / s t a r e g . h t m l > .
24
Un i t ed Stat es. Hi st o ric al St ati sti cs fo r Al um in u m in the Un ited Sta te s . 2 009 . O ct
2 01 0. <h ttp ://min er als. u sg s.g ov/ d s/ 200 5/ 140 />.
U n i t ed S t a t es . H i s t o r i c a l S t a t i s t i c s f o r L ea d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . 2 0 0 9 . O ct
2 0 1 0 . < h t t p :/ / mi n er a ls . u s g s . g o v / d s / 2 0 0 5 / 1 4 0 / > .
U n i t e d S t a t e s . L a n d f i l l s | M u n i c i p a l S o l i d W a s t e | W a s t e s | U S E P A . E n vi r on m e n t a l
P r o t e c t i on A g e n c y, 2 4 F e b 2 0 1 0 . O c t 2 0 1 0 .
< h t t p : / / w w w . e p a . g o v / o s w / n on h a z / m u n i c i p a l / l a n d f i l l . h t m > .
Un i t ed Stat es. Mu nici pal So lid Wa ste i n t he Un ited St ate s|M unic ipa l S olid
W a s t e | W a s t e s | U S E P A . E n v i r on m e n t a l P r ot e c t i on A g e n c y, 2 3 N o v 2 0 0 9 . O c t 2 0 1 0 .
< h t t p : / / w w w . e p a . g o v / w a s t e s / n on h a z / m u n i c i p a l / m s w 9 9 . h t m > .
U n i t e d S t a t e s . S u m m a r y o f R C R A | L a ws & R e g u l a t i o n s | U S E P A . E n vi r on m e n t a l
P r o t e c t i on A g e n c y, 2 7 S e p t 2 0 1 0 . O c t 2 0 1 0 .
<h ttp :// www. ep a.g ov/ la wsr eg s/ la ws /r cr a.h tml>.
W h a t i s a B o t t l e Bi l l ? . B o t t l e B i l l R e s o u r c e G u i d e , 2 0 1 0 . O c t 2 0 1 0 .
< h t t p : / / w w w . b o t t l e bi l l . or g / a b o u t / w h a t i s . h t m > .
25