ANALYSIS OF RECYCLING POTENTIAL

1989 South-central waste generation, Best Management Practices Analysis

% Municipal

MATERIAL

Waste

Tons(3)

Stream(2)

-1989

PAPER

Newsprint(*)

6.5%

508.60

Corrugated(*)

9.3%

726.50

High-grade(*)

1.1%

87.50

Mixed paper(**)

7.8%

607.80

Nonrecyclable paper

3.9%

307.00

METALS

Tin cans (*)

1.1%

86.70

Aluminum cans(*)

0.7%

53.10

White goods(*)

0.6%

49.20

Other metals(*)

14.8%

1,153.10

GLASS

Refillable Glass(*)

0.8%

60.20

Container glass(*)

3.6%

283.60

Nonrecyclable glass

0.6%

44.50

ORGANIC

Lawn and Gardening waste(*)

15.5%

1,210.10

Food waste (***)

6.9%

540.60

Wood waste(***)

6.7%

519.50

PLASTICS

PET bottles(**)

0.2%

13.30

HDPE bottles(**)

0.2%

15.60

Plastic packaging(**)

3.7%

285.90

Other

1.7%

135.10

RUBBER

Rubber products

0.7%

57.80

Tires (***)

0.7%

55.50

OTHER

12.9%

1,010.90

TOTAL

100.0%

7,812.00

(1)(*) Materials with stable state wide marks on avoided cost justifying disposal.

(**) Materials with potential market in Northwest, Southwest, and Puget Sound regions.

(***) Other materials with recycling potential source :Best Management Practices Analysis.

(2)Source:South-central waste generation, Best Management Practices Analysis.

(3)Derived from (% waste stream) (municipal + recreational + Commercial self-haul +

residential self-haul receipts at Horsethief Landfill + 1989 amounts recycled)