Loading...
CC 01-15-2013 CC 1/15/13 Item #15 Brittany Morales _ From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:26 AM To: Brittany Morales Subject: FW: I would like to attach my references I got information on bag ban. Attachments: 106363047-Cal-Waste.pdf; 2006_toronto_litter_report.pdf; San FranciscoLitterStudyFinalRepor12007.pdf; The-City-of-San-Francisco-Streets-Litter-Re- Audit.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Joseph Sze [mailto:josephs6090gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:56 AM To: Mark Santoro Cc: Orrin Mahoney; City of Cupertino Environmental Division Subject: I would like to attach my references I got information on bag ban. Deaer Mark, I am planning to quote these documents on my argument. Just so people would have a reference of where I got the infomation. I will see you tomorrow. The first document is from California Integrated Waste management Board which studied the state's overall waste stream plastic bags takes up 0.3% the Second document is from City of Toronto solid waste management on 2006 before they had bag tax The third document is from San Francisco Environment Department which is part of San francisco department of public works use this link if attachment won't work http://www.sfdpw.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/sfdpw/director/SanFranciscoLitterStudyFinalReport2007.pdf The fourth document is also from San Francisco Environment Department which is part of San Francsico Department of Public works. showing waste increases a year after the 2007 ban Joseph 1 ] ONE CON1PANv ;..trer.,r The City of San Francisco STREETS LITTER RE-AUDIT 2008 PREPARED FOR The City of San Francisco San Francisco Environment Department PREPARED BY D R Brown, Vence & Associates, Inc. Management July 4,2008 Executive Summary The City of San Francisco continues to be known throughout North America for its initiatives to protect the environment. The City has a multitude of waste reduction and waste management programs in place to improve the environment for residents. Such activities as recently moving to "all-plastics" pick ups in the curbside recycling program are examples of how this city achieved a 70% diversion rate by 2007. In 2007, the City conducted a litter audit. Working with HDR/ BVA Engineering, a local San Francisco full service firm, the City audited litter on city streets. HDR / BVA in turn contracted MGM Management, a Canadian environmental consulting firm that has expertise in the area of litter audit work to design the audit to conform with their proven methodology. MGM Management has conducted over a fourteen major litter audits to major North American municipalities since 2002, and has an accumulated data base of over 56,000 litter observations. The San Francisco Department of Environment decided that it was necessary to re-audit the 2007 sites in 2008, and to add additional sites to strengthen the litter observations. HDR / BVA Engineering managed and provided trained auditors for the work, while MGM Management provided the audit design, methodology protocols, site selection including new randomly selected sites, data management and data analysis services. Within this study litter is classified as "large" for those items over 4 square inches in size or as "small" litter for items less than 4 sq. in. Eighty-four sub-categories of large and sixteen sub-categories for small litter were examined. A total of 3,973 items of large litter were observed by auditors, on San Francisco streets during the April 2008 litter audit. One hundred and thirty two sites (increased from 105 in 2007) were audited April 7 - 18, 2008. This audit was conducted at approximately the same time of year in 2008 as in the previous audit (conducted April 9—20, 2007). The 2007 audit observed, an average of 36 items of large litter per site; which decreased 17% to 30 items of large litter per site in 2008 ( 3,973 / 132 sites). The chart below illustrates how the results in the San Francisco litter audit compare with 2007 and with other jurisdictions. City of San Francisco Department of Environment Litter Survey Report-July 2008 2 Large Litter - City of Francisco vs. Other Jurisdictions d Florida Audits 0 a E 7-7 City of Toronto m 0 7-7— Audits in Blue _ a 0 .me = a a a i — a u a £ = a u) !='. iii____ j ev ,:u,E . , � : a te N N{f ef d—esi N m t9 N 113 N 1 I I T I I - I I T T T T 1994 1995 1996 1997 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 The largest category of large litter observed, at 664 litter pieces was non-branded paper napkins and paper towels. This is a similar result from the 2007 audit, where napkins were the second most significant category (570 pieces of large litter in 2007). Printed paper materials were the second most significant litter category at 380 items, followed closely by miscellaneous paper, last year's most significant large litter category. Miscellaneous paper was the third most significant category in the 2008 litter audit with 318 items observed. Again in 2008, all fiber based products and items that were observed contributed 51% of the Focus on total large litter observed, as compared to 54% in the 2007 audit. Fiber based litter included plastic is paper, paperboard, cardboard, towels, napkins, newspapers, books, flyers, printed misplaced materials, and business forms, stationary. An interesting observation was made in terms of what brands of printed materials are on the ground in San Francisco. MUNI tickets and transfers are a contributor to paper litter on city streets. This observation of transit ticket, receipts and transfers as being a significant contribution to paper litter is consistent with observations made by the consultant in our (other) urban audits. This is an area where action can reduce litter significantly. The second most significant material type observed was plastic materials. These included miscellaneous plastic, plastic packaging, wrap, plastic bags-retail and non-retail, hot and cold plastic drink cups, plastic jars, bottles, composites, utensils, zip bags, beverage containers, trays, polystyrene cups, confectionary, sweet and snack food packaging, pouches, plates, retail bags, and carrying rings. The most significant single category of plastic litter was unidentified miscellaneous plastic litter; which is litter that is broken or weathered that auditors cannot identify it with certainly; and is assumed to be plastic. Miscellaneous plastic litter accounted for 185 littered items or 4.7 % (compared to 9% in 2007) of total litter. All large plastic litter in aggregate accounted for 953 items observed (compared to 746 in 2007), or 24 % of total la-ge litter observed (compared to 20% in 2007). City of San Francisco Department of Environment Litter Survey Report-July 2008 3 Below we compare litter occurrence in San Francisco versus by the consultant. This allows a comparison all to other jurisdictions where previous litter audits audits havcompleted e been done using the same methodology. San Francisco 2008 vs. Other Jurisdictions (2002 - 2007) t A„ " ,144,,fii:.!i. „.,i,,,,,f.o: f F s r ':::'''4 J cO. � d � :;;°;° c Q O m O f0 t :i+ N f ,N w .w - 0 r 9 „3 O 'O ,. - x Q a�-1,,,,,,,,ark ? * �x „..,,I.,,,,,,'..:,:' ,, Other Miscellaneous 15,428 33.2% ka � Printed&Fiber Marl 8,693 18.7% .. ' f "$ Confectionary 4,094 8.8% x Cups 3,366 7.2% �y " �, Bags 1,232 2.7% Total bag litter is a Other Packaging 2,862 6.2% ` _ small portion of Beverage Containers 3,420 7.4% x : ' total(5.9%of large Take-Out Extras 1,076 2.3% y„�., ! items,3.7%of d " r, R Ir Tobacco Products 2,594 5.6%, i' small) Wraps 1,109 2.4% r" ,, , , „ Textiles 608 1.3% Bag litter has Other Containers 1,472 3.2% s >° increased after Boxes 448 1.0% ' Plastic bag ban k, Trays 88 0.2% " ' "I , „ ,� ., 46,490 100% . ' �' �'"�x , 1.Aggregated litter data,Litter aud'ds by MGM Management including: City of Toronto, Canada(2002,2003, 2004(2 audits),2005,2006 Regional Municipality of Peel,Canada(2003) Regional Municipality of York,Canada(2003) Regional Municipality of Durham,Canada(2003) City of San Francisco Department of Environment Litter Survey Report-July 2008 4 San Francisco - Compared to 2007 & All Audits 40.0% - 35.0% - 30.0% 25.0% •%of total Large Litter -2002 to 2007 (previous litter audits) 20.0% •%of total Large Litter - (April 2007) 15.0% 0%of total Large Litter - (SF April 2008) 10.0% 5.0% IF11 'iliTili 1 1 . ■ 0.0% ' eo �`��\ �e�GJQy o 4 es"' ��se5 aJG�S ,et \ee ..(■ 04 z<Z∎ Ge\o ,0et �e�tio QaG`F GOCc As's' O CO S �e Go��e 0 5 4r Goy ec e �e Ore`Q�c�ea ON' e`eA �e BOO Or Again in 2008, observations of the small litter classification during the San Francisco audit showed a relatively low occurrence of small litter on city streets, as compared to audits performed by the consultant in other cities. In the 2008 audit, 2,335 small litter items were observed (compared to 2,393 in 2007) at 132 sites audited. This averages 18 items per site (compared to 23 in 2007) which is comparable with 21 items / site for the City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; where considerable clean-up activities and litter abatement efforts have been underway for several years. Averages twice as high as the small litter rate observe in San Francisco in 2007 have been recorded by the consultant in other litter audits. As identified in the 2007 litter audit, gum deposits on San Francisco streets continue to be a significant issue. Gum deposits on sidewalks and roadways cause a sticky and annoying problem for pedestrians. Gum deposits accounted for 39.5% of all the small litter observed during the 2007 audit, and in 2008 a similar observations was noted. In the 2008 litter audit gum deposits were 41% of the small litter observations made (960 gum deposits noted). Glass and paper small litter were also significant contributors to this class of litter. Small litter is difficult to control, in that it is "manufactured" by a combination of degradation (weather) and man-made activities (vehicle traffic, mowing, etc.). The small litter results for the 2008 San Francisco audit sites are illustrated below. Due to the nature of randomly selecting sites and the methodology used for litter auditing of those locations, the consultant is of the opinion that this litter audit is representative of the overall litter occurrence in the City of San Francisco streets, as of April 2008. City of San Francisco Department of Environment Litter Survey Report-July 2008 5 2007 San Francisco -Small Litter-by Category 2008 -% of total Small Lifter 0.45 41,' 0.4 0.35 , , 0.3 0.25 23% 0.2 0.15 13% 0.1 , 7% 6% 0.05 I ' . - - - - - r ` (�'t� `'� e mac yS`6 o��J 4�� (7 o°. 9`,40' oaf G C, �JC 0 tea. �Qa Qua �0� Qaz Qa 40 ct 0 c O Small Litter Summary SF SF SF SF 2008 2008 2007 2007 a $ 0 d ° c o = N t t"' = N N H � F y 1 16 C al i; F l g m $ Q L.Iv Description 16 Chewing Gum 960 41.1% 946 39.5% 8 Small Glass 535 22.9% 710 29.7% 9 Small Paper 153 6.6% 187 7.8% 1 Cigarette Butts 234 10.0% 135 5.6% 15 Other Materials 73 3.1% 97 4.1% 11 Hard Plastic 85 3.6% 92 3.8% 10 Plastic Film Smal 33 1.4% 56 2.3% 2 Other Tobacco Small 9 0.4% 51 2.1% 14 Metal(not Aluminium) 62 2.2% 41 1.7% 13 Rubber 10 0.4% 26 1.1% 12 Alum Pieces Small 135 5.8% 19 0.8% 5 Candy Pack.<4 sq. In. 36 1.5% 16 0.7% 6 Polyfoam Peanuts 2 0.1% 8 0.3% 7 Other Polystyrene Pieces 6 0.3% 5 0.2% 3 Bottle Caps 8 0.3% 4 0.2% 4 Straws 4 0.2% 0 0.0% 2,335 100.0% 2,393 100.0% Average SF Small Litter Items/site 18 23 City of San Francisco Department of Environment Litter Survey Report-July 2008 6 3.2.3 Bags 3.2.3 Bags 2008 2007 Items %of Sub- %of Total % of Total category Large Liter Large Litter Plastic bag ban has done nothing to Plastic bags-no brand 136 57.9% 3.42% 1.11% reduce bag litter Paper bags-not retai 43 18.3% 1.08% 1.88% Plastic retail bags were 0.6%before Plastic retai bags 25.5 10.9% O:il'iit% 0.60% and after plastic bag ban Paper retai bags 14 6.0% 0.35% 0.37% Tipper bags/sandwich 10.5 4.5% 0.26% 0.31% Paperbags-fastfood 6 2.6% 0.15% 0.18% 235 100.0% 5.91% 4.45% Sub-category average(2002-2007-54,000 observations) 2.80% 1.Note:Plastic bags with no clear brand marking included in this sub-category 2.Item counts may not equal whole numbers due to averaging. Bag Litter 2008 Paper retail Zpper bags/ Paper bags- bags,6.0% sandwich,4.5% fast food,2.6% Plastic bags- Plastic retai /- nobrand1, bags,10.9% 57.9% Paper bags- not retai, 18.3% Discussion: Plastic bags including retail sacks, zipper bags represented 4.3 % of total large litter (172 items out of 3,973). Plastic bags represented 73% of bag litter, as observed in the 2008 litter audit. Plastic bags with or without brand marking on them (i.e. grocery bags) represented 69% of the litter in this category, and 4% of total litter. Paper bags collectively accounted for 24 % of this sub-category, with non-retail paper bags (like lunch bags) representing 18% of the sub-category. In 2008, as was also observed in 2007, bag litter in San Francisco was higher (5.9% of total litter) than the consultant's category average for bags in all audits conducted between 2002 —2007 (2.8%)from other combined jurisdictions. City of San Francisco Department of Environment Litter Survey Report-July 2008 35 1ToRoNTo The City of Toronto STREETS LITTER AUDIT 2006 PREPARED FOR Citizen Focused Services B, Solid Waste Management Services Division Final Report PREPARED BY MGM Management www mgm-management.com October 7,2006 Final Report - 07 October 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures 3 List of Tables 3 Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 5 1.0 Introduction 12 1.1 Overview 12 2.0 City of Toronto Litter Survey-Methodology 13 2.1 Site Selection Process 13 2.1.1 Random Site Selection 13 Figure 1 - 298 Random Sites(272 +26 added in 2006) 14 2.2 Detailed Site Files 15 2.3 Conducting a Site Audit 15 Figure 2 -Schematic of Survey Site 16 2.4 Classification of Large Litter 16 2.5 Classification of Small Litter 16 Figure 3—Small Litter Templates 17 Figure 4—Site Set-up—Small Litter 17 TABLE 1 - Categories of Small Litter 18 TABLE 2-Categories of Large Litter 19 TABLE 3-Detailed Descriptions of Large Item Categories 21 2.6 Survey Counts 25 2.7 Documentation & File Management 25 2.8 Photographic Record of the Site 26 Figure 5 -Site Photographs 26 2.9 Branded Litter Observations 27 2.10 Survey Schedule and Progress 27 3.0 Large Litter Survey Results 28 3.1 Discussion of Large Litter Results 28 Table 5 -Summary of All Large Litter Observed (2006) 30 3.2 Detailed Analysis by Major Category 32 4.0 Small Litter Survey Results 48 4.1 Discussion of Small Litter Results 48 5.0 Small Litter -Super Site Survey Results 50 APPENDIX 1 -Super Site Data 2006 53 APPENDIX 2—Site Locations &Wards 55 APPENDIX 3—Site Rankings 70 APPENDIX 4 -Photos-Setting up a Site 78 APPENDIX 5 -Clean Up Routes 80 APPENDIX 6-Branded Large Litter 82 Final Report - 07 October 2006 2 List of Figures Figure 1 - Map - Random Sites 14 Figure 2 -Schematic of Survey Site 16 Figure 3—Small Litter Templates 17 Figure 4—Site Set-up—Small Litter 17 Figure 5 -Site Photographs 26 Figure 6 - 25 Categories Equal 84% of Litter 29 List of Tables Table 1 —Categories of Small Litter 18 Table 2—Categories of Large Litter 19 Table 3- Detailed Descriptions of Large Item Categories 21 Table 4—25 Top Litter Sub-Categories 29 Table 5—Summary of All large Litter Counted 30 Final Report - 07 October 2006 3 Acknowledgements This report was made possible through the efforts of a team of energetic and dedicated people. We wish to acknowledge the following: • Geoff Rathbone, Director - Policy and Planning, Works & Emergency Services, City of Toronto • Allan Mazur, Senior Analyst, Policy & Planning, Works & Emergency Services, City of Toronto • Hillary Ross, Survey Technician • Lawrence Sai-Wah Law, Survey Technician • Mildred Ho, Survey Technician • Catalina Woodward , Survey Technician • Mark Bendiuha, Survey Technician • Jason Wai, Survey Technician Other: • Patricia McKenney, Partner, MGM Management— Data Management Final Report - 07 October 2006 4 Executive Summary Preliminary Report(Sept 5, 2006) The City of Toronto has conducted Litter Audits in 2002, 2004, 2005 and again in 2006. The field observations for the 2006 litter audit were conducted between July 14, 2006 and August 11,2006. The Toronto Litter Audits of 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006 were done using the same methodology to allow comparison of the observations. The same sites examined in 2002 were re-audited in 2004, 2005 and 2006; with additional sites added in 2005 and 2006 to broaden the number of sites audited to a current total of 298 sites across Toronto. The 2006 audit was conducted using a proven methodology similar to the one originally developed and used in Florida, USA. This methodology has been proven to be a simple and repeatable method for counting litter on Toronto streets. For each of the Toronto litter audits (2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006); GIS (Arcview) coordinates were used to locate potential road sections within the City to locate sites. From these segments 700 potential sites for litter counting were located. In total 272 randomly selected sites were audited by the survey teams in 2005, with this total increased to 298 in 2006. All 2005 sites were audited again in 2006 in order to make comparisons possible. Litter is classified as "large" for those items over 4 square inches in size or as "small" litter for items less than 4 sq. in.. Eighty-four sub-categories of large and sixteen sub-categories for small litter were examined. Gum deposits have been examined as a small litter category since the 2004 audit, at the request of City staff. A total of 4,341 pieces of large litter were counted during the 2006 litter audit. This was an average of 15 pieces of large litter per site, compared to the average of 20 pieces per site in 2005, and 21 items/site in 2004. Between 2006 and 2005 a one-year decrease of 25% less litter on Toronto streets was observed. Observed large litter on Toronto streets has deceased 40% since 2002 (from an average of 25 Items/ site in 2002 to 15 Items/ site in 2006). The chart on the next page illustrates the improvements in the amount of large litter on Toronto streets compared to 2002. Final Report - 07 October 2006 5 - y - — . of Toronto , rease`of 40% since Dec 2002 & Decrease of 20%,,2006 vs 2005 a) cn . Q ^+ w:.....7 W to 0 �, co CD E IE x'rr .0 .mac. '40"4..,, I T 2002 2004 2005 2006 In total 6,240 pieces of small litter were counted in the 2006 Toronto Litter audit (298 sites), including gum deposits on streets and sidewalks. This averaged 21 small litter items / site, compared to 40 pieces of small litter per 2005 (11,099 pieces / 272 sites). This significant reduction in small litter observations corresponds with our findings that city streets had less large litter on them in 2006. Toronto streets were noticeably cleaner in 2006. Gum deposits on Toronto streets remain a significant issue. As noted above, a total of 6,240 small litter pieces were counted during the 2006 audit. Of this total there were 1,932 gum deposits on city property observed during the 2006 audit — this represents 31% of all the small litter counted and is by far the largest category counted. In the 2006 litter audit it was apparent to the consultant that the city streets were cleaner than in 2005. This was confirmed visually by the consultant by auditing the work of audit crews, and by visual observations at previously high litter areas: Dundas St. W, Queen Street W, and Bloor St. W as examples. Below we provide photographic snapshots of the lack of street litter at these locations, at mid-day during the 2006 field work. Final Report - 07 October 2006 6 Dundas St. W - 2 PM Jul 21, 2006 .4'.„' , 911_, , 1 , I:- ----"'-4 .410, -, .vii ::" \ti - uu Queen St. W - 11:55 AM Au.. 1, 2006 r . r ‘ , / _ - Bloor St. W - 11:30 AM Jul 26,,a:006 : i It . , r J ? -'+ww�.r sir j A, a 1. -_ ` a` /;.. tis'` In examining the reasons for this significant improvement in litter observed on city streets the consultant met with Works Dept staff (Mr. Lino Pessoa - Manager - Litter Collection Services), to examine what improvements have been made in operations. Since 2002, Toronto has markedly revamped its tactics for cleaning city streets. Mr. Pessoa, Manager explained that the city operates three types of litter cleaning services. Final Report - 07 October 2006 7 The earliest assignments each day are the mobile street and sidewalk vacuum equipment. There are 44 city owned and 12 contracted pieces of equipment that start as early as 4 am until 12 noon. Assigned routes in the downtown area include sidewalks, major and minor city streets, alleyways, and lanes. Within the past two years the use of mechanized street and sidewalk cleaning equipment has increased, and the technology of the equipment is improving. For instance, the City is now using state-of-the art "waterless / dustless" sweepers that can be used year round and have lower air emissions. The city is planning to procure more of these units when replacing existing assets. There are 64 Bag & Broom routes assigned across Toronto. These are manual street cleaning staff using a broom and bag to clean routes that are assigned within a geographical area. These staff generally work from 6 am until 2 pm, with the objective of having the heaviest littered areas clean before 9 am in the downtown core and between noon and 2 pm elsewhere. Mr. Pessoa commented that reassigned resources have been deployed in the downtown area to assure the optimum litter removal in that busy part of the city. Litter Operations staff also operate 27 so called "Flying Squad Routes". These are staff with a mobilized vehicle that are dispatched to particularly littered areas for specific clean-ups, as well as picking up from Bag & Broom routes. See Appendix 5—Cleaning Routes One of the observations that the consultant noticed is that the coordination of litter collection services appears to be making collection more effective. With effective collection comes less littered streets —which build positive behavior on the part of Toronto residents. Citizens are less likely to litter if the streets are clean. Another observation is that the number and location of trash receptacles has increased on city streets since the 2002 audit. This "opportunity to dispose of trash properly" appears to be supporting a reduction of litter on the streets. The observations of litter items per audit site have continually decreased since the first litter audit in 2002. Toronto continues to show lower litter rates than other major municipalities audited in Ontario, and in the USA (State of Florida), where data is available using the same methodology. Performance vs. Other Jurisdictions 1 1 1 lirlrilri 1 ' i _,,,,, 11 II II I 111 I I i il 1171111r"-MEI 1 III 1 111 II I Si 11 AS' T I I T T I I I T T Final Report - 07 October 2006 8 The most significant "material type" observed was plastic materials (misc. plastic, plastic packaging, wrap, bags-retail and non-retail, hot and cold drink cups, jars, bottles, composites, utensils, zip bags, beverage containers, trays, polystyrene cups, confectionary, sweet and snack food packaging, pouches, plates, retail bags, carrying rings) which were 27% of total litter counted litter (1,168 of 4,341 pieces of large litter counted). In the 2005 litter audit plastics were also the largest material type observed where these materials composed 28% of total litter counted litter(1,526 of 5,412 pieces of large litter counted). Fibre products represented the second most observed "material type" of litter (including paper, paperboard, cardboard, towels, napkins, newspapers, books, flyers, printed materials, and business forms, stationary). Fibre products were 22 % of large litter items counted (955 of 4,341 pieces). The finding of fibre being the second most observed material after plastic is consistent with our findings in the 2005 litter audit. In the 2005 litter audit fibre products contributed 25% of large litter items counted (1,357 of 5,412 pieces). Since 2002, small litter has been sampled to test the statistical validity of the small litter count methodology. Concerns were expressed by city staff with respect to the relatively small sample size of these small litter samples. The City asked the consultant to consider an improved methodology for future litter audits. The small litter methodology was enhanced tc conduct a valid small litter baseline sample at 55 sites — called "Super Sites." Litter is counted over the full area of the site for small litter, and in 2006 a total of 71,211 pieces of small litter were counted at the "Super Sites." In 2005, 68 Super—Sites were examined observing 51,659 pieces of small litter. Observations for the 55 sites examined as Super Sites in 2006 yielded 71,211 items of small litter or 1,294 items/site; compared to 51,659 total items or 760 items/site in 2005. Similar to our findings in 2005 - 40 % of all of the small litter observed (28,515 observations from a total of 71,211 small items counted) at the 55 Super Sites were identified as chewing gum deposits. This compares to 37.9% of all small litter in 2005 (19,569 observations from a total of 51,659 small items counted) and 52% as gum deposits in 2004 (25,895 observations from a total of 49,928 small items counted) at.the 47 Super Sites identified as chewing gum deposits. In 2006 gum deposits averaged 518 per 3,600 square foot site compared to 288 per 3,600 square foot site in 2005 and 550 gum deposits per site in 2004. Several sites had over 2,000 gum deposits within the site boundary; and one site (Bloor St. W — Site #301) had 7,332 gum deposits on site. The number of sites with > 1000 gum deposits in 2006 was 9, in 2005 it was 8 of 68 (12%) and 9 of 47 sites in 2004 (19%) supporting the finding that gum deposits continue to a concern on streets. Small litter is difficult to control, in that it is "manufactured" by a combination of degradation (weather) and man-made activities (vehicle traffic, mowing, etc.). The small litter results for the 2006 sites examined are illustrated below by category. Final Report - 07 October 2006 9 2006-All Small Litter Total Small Litter 6,240 pieces 2,000 1,930 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,082 1,000 963 925 800 600 400 225 • 200 172 153 151 gill 11 2111 � � m a v Toronto 2006 Small Litter— Data by Category 2006 - Small Litter Results Items %of Total Counted Small Litter Gum deposits 1,930 30.9% Paper 1,082 17.3% Glass 963 15.4% Cigarette butts 925 14.8% Hard Plastic 225 3.6% Plastic film 172 2.8% Other materials 153 2.5% Aluminum pieces 151 2.4% Other tobacco 147 2.4% Polyfoam peanuts 141 2.3% Other polystyrene 103 1.7% Candy packaging 99 1.6% Other metal 69 1.1% Rubber pieces 45 0.7% Straws 26 0.4% Bottle caps 9 0.1% 6,240 100.0% 49% Less small litter than in 2005 21 Pieces small litter per site 2006 41 Pieces small litter per site 2005 Final Report - 07 October 2006 10 Gum deposits as a sub-category of litter is an issue on Toronto streets. The Super Site methodology, although painstaking, provides a much larger small litter sample compared to the previously used methodology, thus we are confident that the results indicate a significant contribution by chewing gum to the occurrence of small litter on Toronto street. It must also be remembered that gum deposits do no degrade quickly, and tend to accumulate with time. It is difficult to remove these deposits from pavement. After chewing gum deposits, the next largest contributing sub-categories of small litter are Broken glass pieces (12,029 pieces or 16.9% of small litter observed) and tobacco products with 9,711 cigarette butts and 800 observed other tobacco small litter items observed using this methodology. This is still a very significant contribution to small litter on city streets. Cigarette butts and tobacco litter were 14.7% of the small litter observed in the Super Sites, in 2006. Chewing gum, broken glass pieces, paper, and cigarette and tobacco products account for 82% of the small litter observed. Final Report - 07 October 2006 11 1 .0 Introduction 1.1 Overview Litter is a problem virtually everywhere where disposable / recyclable packaging is used. People have personal opinions about what litter is—the reality is much different. People have a perception that select groupings of products make up the majority of litter. People also believe that everyone else, but themselves, are the people that litter. Field research shows that a broad range of people contribute to littering. Various researchers describe a different picture. They show that beverage containers are about 8% - 15% (Daniel Syrek of the Institute for Applied Research), Florida State University at Gainesville, Center for Marine Conservation, and Keep America Beautiful, Keep Florida Beautiful etc. — as well as Beverage Recovery in Canada research in Newfoundland and Ontario). Beverage container litter includes milk cartons and bottles, pop, beer, liquor, wine, coolers, sips, cups etc. The purpose of this report is to outline the methodology and results of a litter audit survey conducted in the City of Toronto in July and August 2006. MGM Management conducted 10 major litter audits including this audit: > Ontario—conducted under supervision of Dan Syrek, 1990 D Ontario—Toronto area 1994, done by McKenney with Syrek assistance ➢ City of Toronto, Streets Litter Audit 2002 ➢ Regional Municipality of Peel, Street Litter Audit 2003 > Regional Municipality of York, Street Litter Audit 2003 > Regional Municipality of Durham, Street Litter Audit 2003 ➢ City of Toronto—Streets Litter Survey 2004 > City of Toronto— Parks Litter Survey 2004 > City of Toronto - Streets Litter Survey 2005 > City of Toronto - Streets Litter Survey 2006 In the USA— over 30 litter count surveys have been done by Syrek, (and reviewed by MGM Management). More recently five excellent surveys have been completed across all of the 29 counties of Florida by the University of Florida. MGM Management has been trained in the methods of both the Syrek and U of Florida to extract eh best of both methodologies and adapt them to our methods. In some instances, local environmental groups have done litter surveys. These methodologies may not be scientific in their development and they tend to not be reproducible. Measurement techniques need to be unbiased, scientifically rigorous, and reproducible to be defensible. Comparison to other jurisdictions is not usually possible, with local methods. This survey's approach can be reproduced and compared. This survey uses a statistically proven and recognized method of identifying litter survey sites and for counting litter. In 1993 the Florida Legislature directed the Florida Centre for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management to conduct a state-wide litter count. The Centre developed a method for surveying litter that was understandable, simple and statistically valid. The City of Toronto Litter Audits in 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006 have been done using a similar methodology. Final Report - 07 October 2006 12 2.0 City of Toronto Litter Survey - Methodology This chapter summarizes the methodology used for the City of Toronto Litter Audits in 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006. City of Toronto Litter Audit audits count "accumulated litter". This is as compared to "fresh litter" counts, where a sight is cleaned, then researchers return after a set time to count the number of pieces of litter that have been deposited. Accumulated litter allows for an examination of the occurrence of litter as it is has developed over time. Fresh litter count surveys are much more labour intensive than accumulated litter counts. 2.1 Site Selection Process 2.1.1 Random Site Selection In selecting sites to survey it is important to have an unbiased method of selection. The survey teams are not allowed discretion in the field in selecting sites. Sites are pre-selected using computer techniques. In this way, neither the "dirtiest" nor the "cleanest" locations are picked. The survey teams count litter at sites that are selected in advance of field crews traveling to the location. To select sites for the City of Toronto Litter Audits, a geographical information system (GIS) database for the City of Toronto was acquired (software used was ArcView GIS 3.2 by Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc.) Using this program, centre-line coordinates for all potential public street locations within the City of Toronto were selected, and exported to a database. The captured GIS data is then imported to a random number generator feature of a spreadsheet program (Microsoft Excel). Site locations are then outputted as centre-line locations for up to 700 potential sites. Sites are then chosen with 70% of the locations within the more populated or downtown-urban areas within the City, while the remaining 30% of sites represented the rest of the City's residential and commercial settings. In 2006, 26 new audit sites were added to the 272 examined in 2005. This brings the total sites examined in 2006 to 298 sites in the City of Toronto. Final Report - 07 October 2006 13 Figure 1 - 298 Random Sites (272 +26 added in 2006) Sites were chosen by computer using GIS software. ► t' _, y_ may. -. * � 'a , ..�� Vii` y , -- 1#-- ' v �. 0 ,, 1 t 71 t t, '',4`� ilc. �, {1 +e... .;! .ti. t of.4. ac is:f �.Y . r � ti k r t a M i`, • f' as ...Art, ♦.1 af; II- 1T"'f 4 J 1.,yww • -1 l R ,(0.01∎ -a S ''',,,•.:.;.. tiJ R i6[+L \ E Oft 1 .:. = er-y� } aye 41.01-i:4 ti:'K �'s-tea" .,i ,,tow:\' 'll 0'4 ' Alkti,• �a '�syV j3 P r{ tc 7;�^i.4 '-'fit' ' + g-•-4 ,4•� .„7...•,,y�am,, f a el, i y."� '. I C' ru 1 Y r 'r,0x 1J,T;W, ,V+y M .t,'x ' 4 L�, a4 `3� �` {r A. Y6 1k y .11, .t,, }'„yNn IA �=¢¢1-• `+', � +t�'. jet►fig" :—''r>li�t "r,°x C�-.: ..� �♦ '..'n a 3y r.s• 1►��s� •.) y , i J , ' ` \-,- „AZ" , i',...".0t,...,, (, t.t..i� 1`s':•g..',kq .,fi -,rl�' ��1 y K-J , ,'fir .3L R��*yy1 y i �^C-.... A.tR�'�f G' " ma ' 4j{s�.. .i '- Ft N i t , } , -,f 'J- n * -b- K ��i � `' . +_c;01.{tivi-k,.-,:-.,,,Z,, s s,_, try�ss ' jr. 0 ,....„,. ...\. _IV .10*, Final Report - 07 October 2006 14 The potential sample sites were then plotted for the entire City of Toronto on a GIS generated map. Detailed street maps are then used to more accurately locate the sites, using, Greater Toronto & Area Map Book, (Perly's Inc. — www.perlys.com ), each site location was determined. Sites were rejected if they were located: • on major highways/freeways • location was on a bridge • location clearly within a construction area • on railway/subway rights-of-way • on hydroelectric power line rights-of-way • on/within water(ponds, rivers, streams/lakes) • access was difficult or impossible • if located on industrial or private lands Using a site aerial photograph or travel description form, each site had directions written for the field team to locate and travel to each site. The directions were written in a manner that would allow any field team to find the site easily. Field teams were asked to travel to the sites using these exact directions so that no bias towards whether the site was dirty or clean would be introduced. For each site the location of the audit site, was marked in each field teams Perly's map book, to allow teams to find the sites. 2.2 Detailed Site Files The site team then created an individual site file for each location chosen to be examined in the field. The file contains the following: • discrete site location ID number • travel directions sheet(or aerial photograph with directions inserted in it) • photographic label card (for taking photos on-site) • Large Litter Site Surveyor Form - (for recording large litter observed) • Small Litter Item Count form (for recording small litter) • Separate aerial photograph of the site (where available) 2.3 Conducting a Site Audit Teams were paired in groups of two. Each team worked independently, reporting their activities to the Manager of the project. The City was divided into work sectors, with three teams of two surveyors assigned site files accordingly. Upon being assigned site files each audit team traveled to their sites. The teams approached the sites from the directions requested and located the site. Upon arriving at a site, the teams safely parked their vehicles. Traffic cones were place behind the vehicle, and team members dressed in fluorescent orange/yellow traffic vests to increase visibility. The teams then reported their arrival to the Project Manager by cellular telephone. Final Report - 07 October 2006 15 Beginning at the front of the parked car, the team used a "wheeled-measuring-device" to measure 50 feet ahead of the vehicle. Using street marking paint, an X was drawn on the pavement ahead of the vehicle, to denote the staring point of the survey site. From this point the team measured an additional 100 feet, marking the roadway with another X to show the mid-point of the survey site. A final measurement of an additional 100 feet, marked with an X on the pavement, denoted the end of the survey site. Each site was 200 feet in length. The width of the site was measured from 1.5 feet inside the curb (in towards the centre of the roadway) to the outer edge of the site, up to a maximum width of 18 feet. The rule was set to include 1.5 feet into the street since the curb is a normal catchment structure, and the municipality is responsible for cleaning up litter caught by this structure. The maximum site width was 18 feet and a site that is 200 feet long by 18 feet wide is designated as a "fixed" site. In many instances a site is less than 18 feet wide. This may occur in commercial areas where storefronts are less than 18 feet from the roadways (plus 1.5 feet into the road). Sites less than 18 feet in width are designated as "variable" sites. Figure 2 - Schematic of Survey Site Variable Width 3 Variable Width 2 I (, 0 0 0 2.4 Classification of Large Litter For purposes of classifying litter, and in accordance with the methods used in previous litter surveys conducted by us, large litter was defined to be that which is over 4 square inches in size. Three templates were provided each survey team of an area of 4 square inches in rectangle, square and round shapes to aid field teams. 2.5 Classification of Small Litter Small litter were those pieces of debris that were less than 4 square inches in size. The nature of the small litter survey was to sample the small litter in three transacts, or slices, of the site. A frame made of 1/2 inch P.V.C. plastic tubing was constructed to act as a frame. Final Report - 07 October 2006 16 This frame is 1 foot wide and 5 feet long. A surveyor would look for and count small litter in three samples, one at the start of the site, one at the mid-point and one at the end of the site. At each transact section; three flips of the frame are done, thus surveying 15 square feet of the site— repeated three times. Figure 3 — Small Litter Templates Frame for Small Litter Count PVC 1 ' x 5' 1" x 4 " (4 sq.in) Templates for Small 4 Square inches Litter 2" x 2 " (4 sq.in) Round Count Figure 4— Site Set-up — Small Litter Flip 3 Inside Flip 2 Inside Flip 1 Inside Flip 3 Mid Flip 2 Mid Flip 1 Mid Flip 3 Road Flip 2 Road Flip 1 Road :ILK ��• • 100 Feet 100 Feet Final Report - 07 October 2006 17 TABLE 1 - Categories of Small Litter The categories in the litter counts under 4 square inches that were examined are: • cigarette butts/debris • other tobacco • bottle caps • straws • candy packaging &wrappers • polyfoam packing materials • other polystyrene debris • glass • paper • plastic film • hard plastic • aluminum/foil debris • rubber • metal (not aluminum) • other materials • gum Final Report - 07 October 2006 18 TABLE 2 - Categories of Large Litter Eighty-four sub-categories of large litter were counted, including: a s F' ,> . N .4. P.E. .„ . 1 1 Beer Cans Beverage metal 2 Beer Bottles(glass) Beverage glass 3 Soft Drink(glass) Beverage glass 4 Soft Drink(cans) Beverage metal 5 Soft Drink(plastic) Beverage plastic 6 Sport Drink(glass) Beverage glass 7 Sport Drink(plastic) Beverage plastic 8 Water(glass) Beverage glass 9 Water(plastic) Beverage plastic 10 Wine/Liquor(glass) Beverage glass 11 Wine/Liquor(plastic/other) Beverage plastic 12 Milk/Juice(Plastic) Beverage plastic 13 Milk/Juice(glass) Beverage glass 14 Milk/Juice(Gable Top) Beverage paper 2 15 Foil Pouches Other Packaging composite 16 Aseptic(Box) Other Packaging composite 17 Broken Glass Container Other Packaging glass 18 Six pack plastic rings Other Packaging plastic 75 Foil containers Other Packaging metal 3 19 Plastic drink cups Cups plastic 20 Paper Cups(cold) Cups paper 21 Paper Cups(Hot) Cups paper 22 Polystyrene cups(foam) Cups plastic 23 Other paper cups Cups paper 24 Cup Lids,Pieces lids Cups plastic 4 25 Plastic retail bags Bags plastic 26 Paper retail bags Bags paper 27 Paper bags-fast food Bags paper 28 Plastic bags-not retail Bags plastic 29 Paper bags-not retail Bags paper 30 Zipper bags/sandwich Bags plastic 5 31 Cardboard boxes/box mat'l Other Packaging paper 32 Paperboard(cereal type) Other Packaging paper 33 Paper Beverage Cases Other Packaging paper 34 Polystyrene clamshells Other Packaging plastic 35 Paper clamshells Other Packaging paper 36 Other Plastic Shells/Boxes Other Packaging plastic 6 37 Plastic Jars/Bottles/Lids OTHER CNTRS. plastic 38 Glass jars/bottles misc. OTHER CNTRS. glass 39 Cans-steel OTHER CNTRS. metal 40 Cans-aluminum OTHER CNTRS. metal 41 Container lids OTHER CNTRS. 42 Aerosol cans(paint,oils,etc.) OTHER CNTRS. metal 7 43 Paper Food Wrap Food Wraps/Cntrs paper 44 Paper/foil composite wrap Food Wraps/Cntrs composite 45 Plastic wrap Food Wraps/Cntrs plastic 54 Condiment package(salt,ketchup,vinega-etc.) Take-Out Extras 55 Utensils Take-Out Extras plastic 56 Name Brand(Fast Food etc.)Towels/Napkins/Serviettes Take-Out Extras paper 57 Paper Fast Food Plates Take-Out Extras paper 58 Poly Fast Food Plates Take-Out Extras plastic Final Report - 07 October 2006 19 59 Other Plastic FF Plates Take-Out Extras plastic 60 Plates-Other Mat's Take-Out Extras 8 46 Polystyrene Trays Trays plastic 47 Paper Trays Trays paper 48 Other Mat'l Trays(what?) Trays 9 49 Gum wrappers Confectionary/Snack 50 Candy bar wraps Confectionary/Snack 51 Candy pouches Confectionary/Snack 52 Sweet packaging(describe) Confectionary/Snack 53 Other confectionery(describe) Confectionary/Snack 63 Snack food packaging Confectionary/Snack 10 61 Clothing or clothing pieces Cloth 62 Other cloth Cloth 11 64 Plastic packaging other Other Miscellaneous plastic 65 Paper packaging other Paper/Fibre Mat'l paper 66 Plastic/composite other Other Miscellaneous 67 Foil materials/foil pieces Other Miscellaneous metal 12 68 No Brand Name Towels/Napkins/Serviettes Paper/Fibre Marl paper 69 Lottery ticket debris Paper/Fibre Marl paper 70 Printed material(newspapers,flyers,books etc.) Paper/Fibre Matsl paper 71 Stationary(school,business etc.) Paper/Fibre Marl paper 72 Receipts(business forms,bus transfers,etc.) Paper/Fibre Mats paper 13 73 Cigarette/cigar debris(>4") Tobacco 74 Tobacco other(packs,matches,cellophane) Tobacco 14 76 Misc.Paper Other Miscellaneous paper 77 Misc.Plastic Other Miscellaneous plastic 78 Misc.Paperboard Other Miscellaneous paper 79 Misc.Cardboard Other Miscellaneous paper 80 Misc.Glass Other Miscellaneous glass 81 Vehicle&Metal Road Debris Other Miscellaneous 82 Construction debris Other Miscellaneous 83 Tire&Rubber debris Other Miscellaneous rubber 84 Home Articles Other Miscellaneous Final Report - 07 October 2006 20 Table 3 - Detailed Descriptions of Large Item Categories 1 Beer Cans All brands of consumer beer can containers 2 Beer Bottles(glass) Refillable and non-refillable beer bottles,all sizes 3 Soft Drink(glass) Soft drinks, carbonated, non-carbonated,flavoured drinks in glass containers 4 Soft Drink(cans) Soft drinks,carbonated, non-carbonated,flavoured drinks in metal can contairers 5 Soft Drink(plastic) Soft drinks,carbonated, non-carbonated,flavoured drinks in plastic containers,all sizes 6 Sport Drink(glass) Sport drinks, carbonated or non-carbonated, flavoured drinks in glass containers,all sizes 7 Sport Drink(plastic) Sport drinks, carbonated or non-carbonated, flavoured drinks in plastic containers,all sizes 8 Water(glass) Packaged water, carbonated or non-carbonated, flavoured drinks in glass containers,all sizes 9 Water(plastic) Packaged water, carbonated or non-carbonated, flavoured drinks in plastic containers,all sizes 10 Wine/Liquor(glass) Wine&liquor in glass,all sizes 11 Wine/Liquor(plastic/other) Wine&liquor in plastic or any other formats,all sizes 12 Milk/Juice(Plastic) Milk or juice containers,packages in plastic 13 Milk/Juice(glass) Milk or juice containers, packages in glass 14 Milk/Juice(Gable Top) Milk or juice containers, packages in gable top paper cartons,all sizes 15 Foil Pouches All packaged goods in foil packaging, pieces of foil materials 16 Aseptic(Box) Drink-in-box,juice,fluids,other 17 Broken Glass Container Glass fragments 18 Six pack plastic rings Retainer plastic for carrying cans 19 Plastic drink cups Cups,all sizes,all resin types 20 Paper Cups(cold) Cups,all sizes,all paper types-cold drinks 21 Paper Cups(Hot) Cups,all sizes,all paper types-hot drinks 22 Polystyrene cups(foam) Cups,all sizes,all polystyrene types-hot drinks 23 Other paper cups Cups,other materials 24 Cup Lids, Pieces lids Fragments and pieces of cups 25 Plastic retail bags Whole and pieces of retail plastic bags 26 Paper retail bags Whole and pieces of retail paper bags Final Report - 07 October 2006 21 27 Paper bags—fast food Whole and pieces of fast food outlet paper bags 28 Plastic bags—not retail Whole and pieces of plastic bags, not retail i.e. dry cleaning 29 Paper bags-not retail Paper bags&sacs,example leaf bag debris 30 Zipper bags/sandwich plastic lunch bags and sacs 31 Cardboard boxes/box mat'l All cardboard and box materials 32 Paperboard(cereal type) Cereal,shoe boxes and pieces etc. 33 Paper Beverage Cases Paper material outer packaging for beverage products 34 Polystyrene clamshells Whole and pieces of take-away or other Styrofoam containers 35 Paper clamshells Whole and pieces of take-away or other paper containers 36 Other Plastic Shells/Boxes PET, PVC, HDPE ,other material shells 37 Plastic Jars/Bottles/Lids All jars, bottles etc, plastic, non beverage, example dish detergent bottle 38 Glass jars/bottles misc. All jars,bottles not described above,in glass 39 Cans—steel Food, non-food and other product steel can containers 40 Cans-aluminum Food, non-food and other product aluminum can containers 41 Container lids All lids,closures,and pieces>4 sq. in. 42 Aerosol cans (paint, oils, Aerosol cans,tops,lids-all products etc.) 43 Paper Food Wrap Wrap for food, commercial & non-commercial; example meat wrap, 44 Paper/foil composite wrap Wrap for food or non-food items, commercial & non- commercial; example hamburger paper/ foil composite wrap, 45 Plastic wrap All plastic wrap types,food, non-food 46 Polystyrene Trays Trays for take-out, non-take out, microwavable, display etc 47 Paper Trays Trays for take-out, non-take out, microwavable, display etc 48 Other Mat'l Trays(what?) Trays for take-out, non-take out, microwavable, display etc 49 Gum wrappers Packaging used to seal,sell gum products 50 Candy bar wraps Packaging used to seal, sell candy products 51 Candy pouches Packaging used to seal, sell candy products - pouch format 52 Sweet packaging(describe) Packaging used to seal, sell confections (cakes, pies, sweet snack products Final Report - 07 October 2006 22 53 Other confectionery All other packaging for confectionaries (describe) 54 Condiment package(salt, Pouches,containers,creamers etc ketchup,vinegar etc.) 55 Utensils Forks,knives,chop sticks etc 56 Name Brand(Fast Food Towels&napkins etc with brand identification identifiable etc.) Towels/Napkins/ Serviettes 57 Paper Fast Food Plates Paper Plates,used to serve fast food 58 Poly Fast Food Plates Polystyrene Plates, used to serve fast food 59 Other Plastic FF Plates Other Material Plates, used to serve fast food 60 Plates-Other Materials Plates for other than fast food applications, i.e. picnic plates used by families 61 Clothing or clothing pieces All cloth, clothing pieces, and clothing discarded on the site 62 Other cloth Tarps, industrial fabrics etc 63 Snack food packaging All snack food(i.e.. Salty snacks,chips) 64 Plastic packaging other Plastic packaging otherwise not described 65 Paper packaging other Paper packaging otherwise not described 66 Plastic/composite other All paper and composite debris not previously described 67 Foil materials/foil pieces Foils and pieces,alJminum food foils, industrial foils 68 No Brand Name Towels/ Napkins and towels-no brand identification Napkins/Serviettes 69 Lottery ticket debris Tickets,and gaming items 70 Printed material All printed material,commercially printed (newspapers,flyers, books etc.) 71 Stationary(school,bus.etc.) Includes school papers, written items, other printed materials such as business forms 72 Receipts(business forms, Receipts, business items, invoices, packing slips, bus bus transfers etc. ) transfers,commercial tickets(concerts,cinema) Final Report - 07 October 2006 23 73 Cigarette/cigar debris(>4") Tobacco items 74 Tobacco other(packs, Packages, wrappers, tobacco foil products, lighters, matches,cellophane) matchboxes 75 Foil containers Foil containers(ice cream wraps) 76 Misc. Paper All other non-described paper material, whole or shredded, unidentifiable as another category 77 Misc. Plastic All other non-described plastic material, whole or shredded, unidentifiable as another category 78 Misc. Paperboard All other non-described paperboard material, whole or shredded,unidentifiable as another category 79 Misc. Cardboard All other non-described cardboard material, whole or shredded, unidentifiable as another category 80 Misc.Glass All other non-described glass material, whole or broken, unidentifiable as another category 81 Vehicle&Metal Road Debris associated with transportation, private or Debris commercial 82 Construction debris Debris associated with construction, private or commercial 83 Tire&Rubber debris Rubber materials, tire pieces, shock absorbers, sheet rubber or pieces 84 Home Articles All non-described household items, (i.e.. Lamps, electrical, lawn chairs,etc) Final Report - 07 October 2006 24 2.6 Survey Counts At each site, after setting the site up, one auditor commences the large litter survey count, and record the names of branded items examined on the site. The other auditor commences the small litter survey, using the method described above. Before starting the large litter survey, the field technician first checked his/her tape recorder to ensure it is working properly. The auditor then dictates the description sections of the Surveyor Site Form into the recorder. This information describes the site number, date, digital photos taken, camera used, start time, type of site (residential, industrial, commercial, downtown core), type of roadway, whether road is divided, grass height, evidence of a clean-up, stop sign/ traffic light visible, fast food near-by, convenience store nearby, described the litter catch points (grass mow line, hedge, fence, other), and provided a visual litter rating on a subjective basis. All photographs are part of the archival record for this survey — and are part of the electronic database supplied to the Region. The visual litter rating is an "opinion" expressed by the surveyor as to whether the site is dirty (highest rating = 4) or clean (lowest rating = 1). Once this information is recorded the auditor proceeds to walk the site slowly, taping his/ her observations into the tape-recorder as they observe the site. Proceeding back and forth across the site until the surveyor has walked the site up to the mid-point. The surveyor noted that they had reached the mid-point, then continuing on observing litter up to the end the site boundary, making verbal notations of the litter observed and describing them into the 84 sub-categories of litter. This completed "Pass One". The surveyor then repeated the observations (Pass Two) over the site, using the same procedure, but in the opposite direction. Results of the two passes are used in data analysis. 2.7 Documentation & File Management At each site the teams were required to make a tape-recorded record of their observations. At the end of doing the verbal entries into the recorder, a team member then transcribed the verbal observations onto Surveyor Site Forms. In this way the verbal record was recorded as a written data set for the site. These forms were later transcribed into a database for analysis. Each site's observation forms were transcribed at the site before leaving the location. If a recording problem occurred, the site was redone. Each form was returned in a file folder for archival purposes. Final Report - 07 October 2006 25 2.8 Photographic Record of the Site At each site location, the litter audit team took digital photographs. One shot was taken at the start of the site, looking towards the end of the site —away from the vehicle. The second shot was taken in the mid-point of the site — looking across the width of the site. And the final photograph was taken at the end of the site — looking back towards the start of the site (towards the vehicle). The purpose of the photographs is to set the scene of the site— not to detail litter on the ground. In each case the number of photographs at each site was recorded on the Surveyor Site Form. The site-specific digital photographs were downloaded to the database of the survey, as an archival record of the site during the audit period. Figure 5 - Site Photographs '...> p, 1 1.4,0e-1a_ D.l.wont:. ® t37 we*AM "t4 • -1 I. Final Report - 07 October 2006 26 2.9 Branded Litter Observations Using the Surveyor Site Form (with 84 sub-categories of large litter) as a guide, data was also gathered for observing Branded Litter. Branded litter is large litter (i.e. over 4 square inches) that has a recognizable brand name affixed. Where doubt occurred in the identification of a brand of litter, no entry was made. Team auditors verbally identified litter by brand name, which was later transcribed onto the Surveyor Site forms, for data entry and analysis. 2.10 Survey Schedule and Progress The field survey team was assembled for training on July 14, 2006. At this time an orientation and safety training session was conducted. A field trial at one site occurred on July 14th, 2006, then field teams began their site audits immediately. The fieldwork in 2006 was completed between July 14—August 11th, 2006. Mark McKenney, of MGM Management and Mr. Allan Mazur, Works & Emergency Services — Waste Management Division, audited the field work of the surveyor teams to assure quality control. It was determined the two-person surveyor team could perform between 7— 10 sites per day allowing for breaks, lunch and travel time. Final Report - 07 October 2006 27 3.0 Large Litter Survey Results Field observations were dictated into tape recorders, then later transcribed onto Surveyor Site Forms/Branded Item form and Small Item Count Sheets. Forms were then inputted into a Microsoft Access database for analysis. 3.1 Discussion of Large Litter Results Litter counted for the City of Toronto Litter Survey 2005, were grouped into 14 broad subcategories. • Other(incl. misc. paper) Paper(printed mat's, news) • Other Packaging (salty snacks etc) Confectionary(candy) • Cups (hot, cold drinks) Beverage containers • Tobacco products Other Containers (not beverage) • Bags (paper, plastic) Take out extras (condiments etc) • Food wraps Cloth/Clothing • Plates Trays In total 4,341 pieces of large litter were counted. This equates to an average of 15 items per site based upon the 298 sites audited. This average per site is 40% lower than the litter rate observed in 2002, and 25% lower than the 2005 observations. The largest category of litter observed, at 39% (1,683 items counted of 4,341 total items counted) was the broad miscellaneous category called Other Miscellaneous, which includes the following litter: Foil containers Foil containers - no other category Misc. paper/ paperboard/ Paper pieces, cardboard & paperboard cardboard pieces - no other category Misc. plastic Plastics- no other category Misc. glass Glass- no other category Vehicle & Metal Debris Vehicle &tire pieces, metal debris Construction debris/ Home Such as wood, brick, cladding, appliance articles/rubber debris etc. The most significant "material type" observed was plastic materials (misc. plastic, plastic packaging, wrap, bags-retail and non-retail, hot and cold drink cups, jars, bottles, composites, utensils, zip bags, beverage containers, trays, polystyrene cups, confectionary, sweet and snack food packaging, pouches, plates, retail bags, carrying rings) which were 27% of total litter counted litter (1,168 of 4,341 pieces of large litter counted). In the 2005 litter audit plastics were also the largest material type observed where these materials composed 28% of total litter counted litter(1,526 of 5,412 pieces of large litter counted). Fibre products represented the second most observed "material type" of litter (including paper, paperboard, cardboard, towels, napkins, newspapers, books, flyers, printed materials, and business forms, stationary). Fibre products were 22 % of large litter items counted (955 of 4,341 pieces). The finding of fibre being the second most observed material Final Report - 07 October 2006 28 after plastic is consistent with our findings in the 2005 litter audit. In the 2005 litter audit fibre products contributed 25% of large litter items counted (1,357 of 5,412 pieces). There are a relatively small number of sub-categories of litter that make up the majority of the items counted. In the case of the City of Toronto Litter Survey 2006, 25 sub-categories accounting for 86 % of the total pieces (3,719 of 4,341 total)of litter the counted. This is a similar finding as observed in all previous Toronto litter audits. Top 25 Categories Yield 86% of Litter 2006 Toronto litter Audit 900 800 a. 700 I 600 500 400 300 100 ' IIlIiiuii . IlII1I1Il1lIlIllIlI r r r r It r r r r r r r r 1441":1AC>0),,,,ttV1,44/4.40,"yet44440, cf "14r Atb,1,-00 de q tp. 00. 400V „ae Table 4 - 25 Top Litter Sub-Categories Equal 84% of Litter Items Items Counted Counted Misc.Paper 806 89 Plastic wrap Misc.Plastic 474 65 Plastic bags-not retail No Brand Name Towels!Napkins 461 64 Gum wrappers Printed material(newspapers,flyers etc.) 210 64 Paper/foil composite wrap Receipts(forms,bus transfers,etc.) 193 63 Home Articles Construction debris 177 63 Tobacco other(packs,matches,cellophane) Candy bar wraps 140 50 Paperboard(cereal type) Soft Drink(cans) 128 46 Misc.Paperboard Paper Cups(Hot) 115 46 Sweet packaging(describe) Water(plastic) 113 42 Other cloth Cigarette!cigar debris(>4") 97 42 Soft Drink(plastic) Cup Lids,Pieces lids 90 41 Polystyrene cups(foam) 40 Paper bags-fast food 3719 Total Items-Top 25 Category Final Report - 07 October 2006 29 Table 5 - Summary of All Large Litter Observed (2006) Large Litter Category Item Count Misc. Paper 806 Misc. Plastic 474 No Brand Name Towels/Napkins/Serviettes 461 Printed material (newspapers,flyers, books etc.) 210 Receipts(business forms, bus transfers, etc.) 193 Construction debris 177 Candy bar wraps 140 Soft Drink(cans) 128 Paper Cups(Hot) 115 Water(plastic) 113 Cigarette/cigar debris(>4") 97 Cup Lids, Pieces lids 90 Plastic wrap 89 Plastic bags-not retail 65 Gum wrappers 64 Paper/foil composite wrap 64 Home Articles 63 Tobacco other(packs, matches, cellophane) 63 Paperboard (cereal type) 50 Misc. Paperboard 46 Sweet packaging (describe) 46 Other cloth 42 Soft Drink(plastic) 42 Polystyrene cups (foam) 41 Paper bags-fast food 40 Foil materials/foil pieces 35 Paper Cups(cold) 34 Vehicle&Metal Road Debris 34 Cardboard boxes/box mat'l 33 Plastic packaging other 33 Clothing or clothing pieces 29 Plastic drink cups 29 Misc. Glass 26 Misc. Cardboard 25 Name Brand (Fast Food etc.)Towels/Napkins/Serviet 22 Candy pouches 19 Utensils 19 Paper bags-not retail 16 Lottery ticket debris 15 Tire&Rubber debris 15 Sport Drink(plastic) 14 Other confectionery(describe) 13 Plastic/composite other 13 Snack food packaging 13 Zipper bags/sandwich 13 Milk/Juice(Gable Top) 12 Paper packaging other 12 Aseptic(Box) 11 Condiment package(salt, ketchup,vinegar etc.) 11 Paper Food Wrap 11 Final Report - 07 October 2006 30 Large Litter Category Item Count Other Plastic Shells/Boxes 8 Container lids 7 Soft Drink(glass) 7 Cans-steel 7 Beer Bottles(glass) 6 Foil Pouches 6 Plastic retail bags 6 Beer Cans 5 Cans-aluminium 5 Paper clamshells 5 Plastic Jars/Bottles/Lids 5 Sport Drink(glass) 5 Milk/Juice(glass) 4 Milk/Juice(Plastic) 4 Paper retail bags 4 Water(glass) 4 Other paper cups 3 Polystyrene Trays 3 Six pack plastic rings 3 Stationary(school, business etc.) 3 Broken Glass Container 2 Paper Beverage Cases 2 Wine/Liquor(glass) 2 Aerosol cans(paint, oils, etc.) 1 Foil containers 1 Glass jars/bottles misc. 1 Other Mat'l Trays(what?) 1 Paper Fast Food Plates 1 Paper Trays 1 Plates-Other Mat's 1 Polystyrene clamshells 1 Wine/Liquor(plastic/other) 1 Total Items Counted 2006 4341 Average Items I Site 15 Final Report - 07 October 2006 31 3.2 Detailed Analysis by Major Category 3.2.1 Beverage Containers (soft drink, beer, wine/liquor, sports, water) Beverage Container Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Category Litter Soft Drink(cans) 128 34.3% 2.9% Water(plastic) 118.5 31.8% 2.7% Soft Drink(plastic) 39.5 10.6% 0.9% Sport Drink(plastic) 14 3.8% 0.3% Milk/Juice(Gable Top) 12 3.2% 0.3% Aseptic(Box) 10 2.7% 0.2% Soft Drink(glass) 6.5 1.7% 0.1% Beer Bottles(glass) 6 1.6% 0.1% Foil Pouches 5.5 1.5% 0.1% Sport Drink(glass) 4.5 1.2% 0.1% Broken Glass Container 4.5 1.2% 0.1% Beer Cans 4.5 1.2% 0.1% Water(glass) 4 1.1% 0.1% Milk/Juice(glass) 4 1.1% 0.1% Milk/Juice(Plastic) 4 1.1% 0.1% Six pack plastic rings 3 0.8% 0.1% Wine/Liquor(glass) 2.5 0.7% 0.1% Wine/Liquor(plastic/other) 1 0.3% 0.02% Foil containers 1 0.3% 0.02% 373 100.0% 8.6% 2005 observations 385 7.1% Beverage Container Litter % of Sub-Category 35.0% 3+.3% 31,8% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.8% 10.0% 3.8% 5.0% 327.2.7% 0.0% . ® a °. � � 1 1 � 1 1 1 . � ( Final Report - 07 October 2006 32 Discussion: The total beverage category yielded a count of 373 items, or 8.6 % of the total litter counted as compared to 7.1 % of total litter observed in the 2005, and 5.2% of total litter in 2002. The main changes in beverage litter were increases in water bottle litter ( from 26% of the beverage category and 1.85% of total litter in 2005 to 34% of container litter and 2.7% of total litter in 2006) Soft drink containers in aggregate accounted for 3.0 % of total litter in 2006 (cans 2.0 % and soft drink plastic 0.9% and soft drink glass 0.1%). This compares with this group of products contributing 3.15 % of total litter counted in the City of Toronto Litter Survey 2005. This group of products has remained at or around 3% since the first litter audit, with 2.6 % in 2004 and 2.8% in the Toronto Litter Survey 2002. Beer containers of glass and can origin were a small contributor at 2.8 % ( 3.5% in 2005) of the beverage litter sub-category and 0.2% (0.25 % in 2005) of total litter. Liquor and wine, and coolers represented < 0. 1 % of total litter. Final Report - 07 October 2006 33 3.2.2 Cups Cups Sub-Category Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Category Litter Paper Cups(Hot) 111 35% 2.6% Cup Lids, Pieces lids 91 29% 2.1% Polystyrene cups(foam) 43.5 14% 1.0% Paper Cups(cold) 37.5 12% 0.9% Plastic drink cups 31 10% 0.7% Other paper cups 3 1% 0.1% 317 100% 7.3% 2005 Observations 401 7.4% Cup Litter-% of Category Other paper cups Plastic drink cups 1% 10% Paper Cups (Hot) 34% Paper Cups(cold) 12% 41111111111.1111 � Polystyrene cups- - (foam) Cup Lids, Pieces 14% lids 29% Discussion: Cup litter includes hot and cold drink cups. This is indicative of wastes from a variety of over- the-counter food providers, whereby litter is then deposited on public lands. The category includes, polystyrene cups as well as lids and pieces of lids from hot and cold drink containers. The sub-category yielded 7.3 % of the total litter counted in the 2006 Litter audit, compared to 7.4% in 2005 and 5.8% in 2002. Hot cups (coffee cups)were the most significant type of littered cup at 34 % (compared to 27% in 2004 and. 25% in 2002). As a sub-category cups remain a significant source of litter. Final Report - 07 October 2006 34 3.2.3 Bags Bags Sub-Category Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Category Litter Plastic bags-not retail 69 47.4% 1.59% Paper bags-fast food 39.5 27.1% 0.91% Paper bags-not retail 15.5 10.7% 0.36% Zipper bags/sandwich 12.5 8.6% 0.29% Plastic retail bags 5.5 3.8% 0.13% Paper retail bags 3.5 2.4% 0.08% 145.5 100.0% 3.35% 2005 Observations 238 2.55% Bags-% of Sub-Category Plastic retail bags 4% Paper retail bags Zipper bags/ 2% sandwich Plastic bags-not 9% retail 47% --4411111111111 Paper bags-not ....- retail 11% Paper bags-fast food 27% Discussion: Bags that were not retail in nature, such as dry cleaning bags, or other non-identifiable plastic bags represented 1.6% of total litter(0.82 % in 2005) , and 47 % of this sub-category. Paper bags from fast food outlets accounted for 27 % of this sub-category, followed by paper bags other than from retail (11%) then zipper bags (9 % of this sub-category). Bag litter was a bit higher in the 2006 audit (3.4% of total litter) compared to bags contributing 2.55 % of total litter in the 2005 audit. Final Report - 07 October 2006 35 3.2.4 Boxes Boxes Sub-Category Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Category Litter Paperboard (cereal type) 50 50.5% 1.15% Cardboard boxes/box mat'l 33.5 33.8% 0.77% Other Plastic Shells/Boxes 7.5 7.6% 0.17% Paper clamshells 5 5.1% 0.12% Paper Beverage Cases 2 2.0% 0.05% Polystyrene clamshells 1 1.0% 0.02% 99 100.0% 2.28% 2005 Observations 43 0.79% Boxes %of Sub-category Polystyrene Paper Beverage clamshells Cases 1% Paper clamshells 2% 5% Other Plastic Paperboard(cereal Shells/Boxes type) 8% 50% Cardboard boxes! box marl 34% Discussion: Paperboard boxes and cardboard boxes represented 84 % of this category. The amount of litter from eh boxes subcategory was considerably greater than the 2005 audit — 2.3% of total litter in 2006 vs. 0.8% in 2005. Fast food clamshell boxes of all material types were a very small (less than 1/3 of a per cent of total litter). The boxes sub-category represented 0.79 % of total large litter counted in the 2005 audit, 0.6 % in 2004 and 1.3% of total litter in the 2002 litter audit. Final Report - 07 October 2006 36 3.2.4 Other Containers (non-beverage) Other Containers Sub-Category Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Category Litter Container lids 7 28.0% 0.16% Cans-steel 6.5 26.0% 0.15% Plastic Jars/Bottles/Lids 5 20.0% 0.12% Cans-aluminium 4.5 18.0% 0.10% Glass jars/bottles misc. 1 4.0% 0.02% Aerosol cans(paint, oils, etc.) 1 4.0% 0.02% 25 100.0% 0.58% 2005 Observations 77 1.41% Other Containers -% of Sub-category Aerosol cans(paint, Glass jars/bottles oils,etc.) mist. 4% Container lids 4% 26% Cans aluminium 18% Plastic Jars/ Cans steel Bottles/Lids 26% 20% Discussion: Containers other than beverage containers accounted for quite low proportion of total litter in the 2006 audit. Only 25 large litter items ( < 1% of total litter)were observed in this category in 2006 compared to 77 items or 1.41 % of the total large litter counted in this grouping in 2005; and 1% in 2004. Container lids were 28% of the category, followed by steel cans, plastics jars/ bottles and aluminum cans. This is not a significant sub-category of total litter on Toronto streets. Final Report - 07 October 2006 37 3.2.6 Wraps Wraps Sub-Category Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Category Litter Plastic wrap 93 55% 2.14% Paper/foil composite wrap 64 38% 1.47% Paper Food Wrap 11 7% 0.25% 168 100% 3.87% 2005 Observations 73 1.35% Wrap materials-%of Sub-category Paper Food Wrap 7% Paper/foil composite wrap 38% Plastic wrap 55% Discussion: Within this category are items which are used to wrap food for consumption off premises, mainly from fast food outlets. Plastic wraps continue to account for the majority of the wrap observed, at 55 % of the sub-category (55% in 2005). In the 2006 litter audit significantly more wrap litter was observed, 168 items in 2006 vs. 73 in 2005. These are still relatively small contributions to the overall litter situation in Toronto, however a rise in this sub- category warrants monitoring, to make sure it is not a trend. This sub-category was 3.9% of total litter in 2006 ( which is worthy of watching) compared to 1.36 % of total litter in 2005,and 3.0% in the 2004 survey, and 1.2% in the Toronto Litter Survey 2002. Final Report - 07 October 2006 38 3.2.7 Take Out Extras Take Out Extras Sub-Category Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Category Litter Name Brand(Fast Food etc.)Towels 22 40.4% 0.51% /Napkins/Serviettes Utensils 19.5 35.8% 0.45% Condiment package(salt,ketchup, 11 20.2% 0.25% vineaar etc.) Paper Fast Food Plates 1 1.8% 0.02% Plates-Other Mat's 1 1.8% 0.02% 54.5 100.0% 1.26% 2005 Observations 54 1.00% Take-Out Extras -% of Sub-Category Paper Fast Food Plates-Other Mat's Plates 2% 2% Name Brand(Fast Condiment package Food etc.)Towels/ (salt,ketchup, Napkins/Serviettes vinegar etc.) 40% 20% Utensils 36% Discussion: The sub-category of Take-out Food Extras includes condiment packages (ketchup, vinegar, salt, pepper etc.) and utensils used by patrons of fast food establishments. Name brand napkins represented 40% of the sub-category with utensils making up 36% of the sub- category. Condiment packaging accounted for 20 % of the large litter attributed to this sub- category. This category yielded a identical count of 54 pieces of litter, or 1.0 % of total large litter in 2005, compared to 2.27% of the total litter observed in the 2004 survey and 2.7% of total large litter in the 2002 audit. Final Report - 07 October 2006 39 3.2.8 Trays Trays Sub-Category Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Category Litter Polystyrene Trays 4 67% 0.09% Paper Trays 1 17% 0.02% Other Mat'I Trays 1 17% 0.02% 6 100% 0.14% 2005 Observations 21 0.38% Trays -% of Subcategory Other Matt Trays 1796. Paper Trays 17% Polystyrene Trays 66% Discussion: Trays represented a very small category of large litter at less than 1% ( 0.14%) . In 2005 more tray litter was observed, but again that amount was less than 1% in that audit (0.38 %). Trays are used by take-out food locations to allow ease of transport for their customers of their food products ( i.e. coffee shops). Final Report - 07 October 2006 40 3.2.9 Confectionary Confectionary Sub-Category Summary (2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total alimmomp.. ...i6.___..diiiii..._ Category Litter Candy bar wraps 143.5 48.0% 3.31% Gum wrappers 64 21.4% 1.47% Sweet packaging 45.5 15.2% 1.05% Candy pouches 19 6.4% 0.44% Other confectionery 14 4.7% 0.32% Snack food packaging 13 4.3% 0.30% 299 100.0% 6.89% 2005 Observations 479 8.85% Confectionary-% of Sub-category Snack food Other confectionery at packaging 5% J 4% Candy bar wraps Candy pouches 49% 6% Sweet packaging 15% _Gum wrappers 21% Discussion: Confectionary products include candy bar wraps, candy pouches, and other snack food packaging and pouches. Confectionary packaging waste are a significant component of the litter observed in this audit, at nearly 7% of total large litter observed. The amount of confectionary litter decreased significantly in 2006, to 299 pieces compared to 479 large litter items in this segment in 2005 (479) and 520 items observed in the 2004 audit. Confectionary product litter continue to represent a significant amount of large litter at 6.89 % of the total large litter observed, compared to a contribution of 8.85% in 2005, 9.92 % in 2004 and 8.5% of total large litter in the 2002 audit. Gum and candy wrappers remain a major source of this sub-category in all litter performed since 2002. Final Report - 07 October 2006 41 3.2.10 Textiles Textiles Sub-Category Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Litter Category Other cloth materials 41.5 59% 0.96% Clothing or clothing pieces 29 41% 0.67% 70.5 100% 1.62% 2005 Observations 33 0.61% Textiles -% of Sub-category Clothing or clothing pieces 41% Other cloth materials 59% Discussion In total 70 items of textile nature were observed in the 2006 audit—this is a significant increase from 2005 when only 33 items of textile materials (0.61% of total litter)were counted. The 2006 observations represent 1.62% of total litter . This category was of equal impact in the 2004 audit(1.14% ). Final Report - 07 October 2006 42 3.2.11 Other Packaging Other Packaging Sub-Category Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Litter Category Foil materials/foil pieces 34.5 37.1% 0.79% Plastic packaging other 33.5 36.0% 0.77% Paper packaging other 12.5 13.4% 0.29% Plastic/composite other 12.5 13.4% 0.29% 93 100.0% 2.14% 2005 Observations 193 3.57% Other Packaging•% of Sub-Category Plastic/composite other Foil materials/foil 13% pieces 38% Paper packaging other 13% Plastic packaging other 36% Discussion This sub-category includes packaging that did not fit into other packaging sub-categories, but which were still identifiable. There was a significant decrease in items from this subcategory observed in the 2006 audit, with only 93 items counted. This is 2.14% of total litter compared to a total of 193 items in this category, representing 3.57 % of large litter in 2005. This category has been more significant in other audits, notably 5.4 % of total litter counted in 2004. Final Report - 07 October 2006 43 3.2.12 Printed & Fibre Materials Printed &Fibre Mat'l Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Category Litter No Brand Name Napkins 487.5 51.1% 11.2% Printed material (news, flyers, books etc.) 220 23.0% 5.1% Receipts(bus.forms, bus transfers, etc.) 205 21.5% 4.7% Name Brand (Fast Food etc.)Napkins 22 2.3% 0.5% Lottery ticket debris 17.5 1.8% 0.4% Stationary(school, business etc.) 2.5 0.3% 0.1% 954.5 100.0% 22.0% 2005 Observations 1357 25.1% Printed & Fibre Mat'Is.-% of Sub-category Lottery ticket debris Stationary(school, Name Brand(Fast 2% business etc.) Receipts Food etc.)Napkins <1% (bus.forms, bus 2% transfers, etc.) 21% No Brand Name Napkins 51% Printed material (news, flyers, books etc.) 23% Discussion This sub-category at 954 items, was considerable lower than the amount of fibre litter found in 2005 which totalled 1,357 items. This subcategory represents a very significant portion of total litter (22% in 2006 and 25.1% in 2005). This compares to 25 % of total large litter in 2004 and 21% in 2002. Towels and napkins represented 51% of the sub-category materials counted (48% in 2005), much of which may be associated with take-out foods; however most of these materials could not be positively identified by brand. Books and flyers as well as receipts and tickets were also significant(many of these were TTC transit transfers) at 23% (24.4% in 2005). Final Report - 07 October 2006 44 3.2.13 Tobacco Tobacco Sub-Category Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Category Litter Cigarette/cigar debris(>4") 101 61% 2.3% Tobacco other(packs,wraps etc) 64 39% 1.5% 165 100% 3.8% 2005 observations 388 7.2% Tobacco -% of Sub-category Tobacco other (packs,wraps etc) 3996 Cigarette/cigar debris(>4") 61% Discussion In the 2006 litter audit, teams reported much lower occurrences of tobacco litter than in previous audits. In 2006 we observed 165 pieces of tobacco related litter(3.8% of total litter) compared to 388 pieces in 2005 (7.2 % of total litter). The majority of the litter was cellophane pack wrappings, foil and paper packaging that tobacco products are sold in. These findings are consistent with the contribution tobacco products were observed to be making in the 2004 litter audit where they were 9 % of total large litter. One observation that several teams made was that many private buildings and shops were seen cleaning up in front of their premises. This maybe partially related to more smoking being done outside, and owners making efforts to the street and sidewalks at heir premises. Final Report - 07 October 2006 45 3.2.14 Other Miscellaneous (Includes misc. paper, misc. plastic, misc. cardboard, misc. paperboard, vehicle & road debris, construction debris, home articles) Other Miscellaneous Sub-Category Summary(2006) Items %of Sub- %of Total Category Litter Misc. Paper 827 49.2% 19.1% Misc. Plastic 473 28.1% 10.9% Construction debris 174.5 10.4% 4.0% Home Articles 62 3.7% 1.4% Misc. Paperboard 45.5 2.7% 1.0% Vehicle&Metal Road Debris 34 2.0% 0.8% Misc. Glass 25.5 1.5% 0.6% Misc. Cardboard 25 1.5% 0.6% Tire&Rubber debris 16 1.0% 0.4% 1682.5 100.0% 38.8% 2005 Observations 1695 31.3% Other Misc-% of Sub-category Misc. Glass Vehicle&Metal 2% Misc Cardboard Road Debris 1% Tire &Rubber Misc. Paperboard 2% debris Home Articles 3% 1% 496 Construction debris . Misc. Paper 499b 10% Misc. Plastic 28% Discussion: This sub-category yields the largest segment of litter observed in the City of Toronto Litter Audits (2002, 2004, 2005, 2006); since it is a general category that encompasses much of the unspecific litter observed. In total 1,683 pieces of large litter fell into this general category( compared to 1,695 items in 2005) Final Report - 07 October 2006 46 Miscellaneous materials are those that cannot be identified other than by the material type or likely origin of the litter. Paper materials again accounted for the majority of this sub- category, and accounted for 827 large litter items in this sub-category (49%) or a significant 19% of total large litter counted (795 in 2005). Miscellaneous plastic materials accounted for 473 of the sub-category and 11 % of all the large litter counted in the 2006 survey (463 items in 2005). Taken together, paper, paperboard and cardboard materials comprised 67 % of this sub-category, and 30 % of all the large litter counted (54.3 % in 2005). This finding is consistent with previous litter audits where these unidentified materials accounted for between 16 % and 21% of total large litter respectively. This category is difficult to quantify in terms of the kinds of products that the litter derived from. These categories consisted of bits of stationary, newspapers, flyers, and often included shredded paper from lawn mowing. This material derives from a plethora of sources, that once weathered or when grass is mowed it is shredded into indistinguishable pieces. Final Report - 07 October 2006 47 4.0 Small Litter Survey Results 4.1 Discussion of Small Litter Results The categories examined in the litter counts of items less than 4 square inches in size are: • cigarette butts/debris • other tobacco • bottle caps • straws • candy packaging • polyfoam packing materials • other polystryrene debris • glass • paper • plastic film • hard plastic • aluminum/foil debris • rubber • metal (not aluminum) • other materials • chewing gum The small litter methodology allows researchers to count small litter that fell within the three same size sample areas on a given site (transacts) — three 15 square foot segments of a site. Accordingly, the small litter counts may or may not have recorded some of the small litter existing on a site. However, the benefit of this method is its rigor. Every site was handled in the same way. Thus, a fair and objective examination of small litter is presented. Small litter is difficult to control, in that it is "manufactured" by a combination of degradation (weather)and man-made activities (vehicle traffic, mowing, etc.). Observations of small litter during the 2006 audit showed a considerable decrease in the occurrence of small litter on city streets. In 2005, over 11,000 small litter pieces were counted on 272 sites for an average of 41 pieces per site. In the 2006 litter audit small litter items accounted for 21 items per site — a 49% reduction in small litter observed per site, compared to the previous year. The chart on the next page and the accompanying table describe the 2006 small litter observations. Final Report - 07 October 2006 48 2006-All Small Litter Total Small Litter 6,240 pieces 2,000 0 1,930 1,800 1,600 1,400 ' 1,200 ' 1,000 ' • 925 800 ' , , , 600 400 ' ' , ' 225 200 • 111111ill• / M1 ■11 � 1 trilif1111111111 a • I a. 2006 Small Litter — by Category Items %of Total Counted Small Litter Gum deposits 1,930 30.9% Paper 1,082 17.3% Glass 963 15.4% Cigarette butts 925 14.8% Hard Plastic 225 3.6% Plastic film 172 2.8% Other materials 153 2.5% Aluminum pieces 151 2.4% Other tobacco 147 2.4% Polyfoam peanuts 141 2.3% Other polystyrene 103 1.7% Candy packaging 99 1.6% Other metal 69 1.1% Rubber pieces 45 0.7% Straws 26 0.4% Bottle caps 9 0.1% 6,240 100.0% 49% Less small litter than in 2005 21 Pieces small litter per site 2006 41 Pieces small litter per site 2005 Final Report - 07 October 2006 49 5.0 Small Litter - Super Site Survey Results As discussed in Section 4, small litter is difficult to audit for several reasons. Small litter is sampled in 45 sq. ft. from a total site area usually consisting of 3,600 sq. feet, thus the sampling area is 1.25% of the total site area. Another problem with counting small litter is that in grassy areas, such as lawns, park fields and undeveloped lands small litter falls below the grass layer and is hard to observe. In order to better understand the composition of small litter at designated sites a new methodology to examine this litter was devised. These sites are called "Super Sites". Super Sites were examined for small litter by observing all the small litter observed over the entire 3,600 square feet of the site. The average time required to do a Super Site is about 2 hours per site. In total 55 sites were examined by audit crews in the 2006 audit work, compared to 68 in 2005, and 47 Super Sites in 2004. Part of the instructions to the consultant from the City of Toronto was to determine the contribution of chewing gum on city streets. A 16th sub-category of small litter — gum has been added to the small litter observations since 2004. Gum deposits are distinguished as a blackened or darken raised spot on pavement. Gum may be also observed as a globular deposit if not stuck onto a hard surface. Care was taken in instructing audit surveyors how to identify gum on pavement - and care was taken not to count stains or other deposits that were encountered. Observations for the 55 sites examined as Super Sites in 2006 yielded 71,211 items of small litter or 1,294 items/site; compared to 51,659 total items or 760 items/site in 2005. Similar to our findings in 2005 - 40 % of all of the small litter observed (28,515 observations from a total of 71,211 small items counted) at the 55 Super Sites were identified as chewing gum deposits. This compares to 37.9% of all small litter in 2005 (19,569 observations from a total of 51,659 small items counted)and 52% as gum deposits in 2004 (25,895 observations from a total of 49,928 small items counted) at the 47 Super Sites identified as chewing gum deposits. In 2006 gum deposits averaged 518 per 3,600 square foot site compared to 288 per 3,600 square foot site in 2005 and 550 gum deposits per site in 2004. Several sites had over 2,000 gum deposits within the site boundary; and one site ( Bloor St. W — Site #301) had 7,332 gum deposits on site. The number of sites with > 1000 gum deposits in 2006 was 9, in 2005 it was 8 of 68 (12%) and 9 of 47 sites in 2004 (19%) supporting the finding that gum deposits continue to a concern on streets. Gum deposits as a sub-category of litter is an issue on Toronto streets. The Super Site methodology, although painstaking, provides a much larger small litter sample compared to the previously used methodology, thus we are confident that the results indicate a significant contribution by chewing gum to the occurrence of small litter on Toronto street. It must also be remembered that gum deposits do no degrade quickly, and tend to accumulate with time. It is difficult to remove these deposits from pavement. After chewing gum deposits, the next largest contributing sub-categories of small litter are broken glass pieces (12,029 pieces or 16.9% of small litter observed) and tobacco products with 9,711 cigarette butts and 800 observed other tobacco small litter items observed using this methodology. This is still a very significant contribution to small litter on city streets. Cigarette butts and tobacco litter were 14.7% of the small litter observed in the Super Sites, in 2006. Chewing gum, broken glass pieces, paper, and cigarette and tobacco products account for 82% of the small litter observed. Final Report - 07 October 2006 50 Super Site Small Litter Observations(2006) Chewing gum 28,515 40.0% Glass 12,029 16.9% Cigarette butts 9,711 13.6% Top 4 Items Paper 8,485 11.9% 82.5% Polyfoam peanuts 2,156 3.0% Plastic film 1,964 2.8% Hard plastics 1,874 2.6% Aluminum 1,369 1.9% Candy wrappers 929 1.3% Metal(not Alum) 842 1.2% Other tobacco 800 1.1% Polyfoam pieces 795 1.1% Other Materials 716 1.0% Bottle caps 473 0.7% Rubber 297 0.4% Straws 256 0.4% 71,211 100% Super Site - Small Litter Observations Top Four Sub-categories=82%of small litter 45.0% 0.0% 40.0% I.35.0% 30.0% CD 25.0% ' 20.0% I 73 ;o i— 15.0% 11.9% 0 0 10.0% ' ' , ' 5.0% ' °o 7.0% - 0.0% q1 y � 1 _ y 1 , ( g : g �1 Yj st [ V yN e S LA U d - .52 'E .a w V b cn H L1 C O E is Q' co e Z3 C Q co U O w L u� U a m a O • U Final Report - 07 October 2006 51 APPENDIX 1 - Super Site Data 2006 To 'w tn m ` v m o m o. E A E E y co a a E ;.,2_ a 0 o :' N E T o o H a a ; F °: Perley's r o `��° A o 0 10 'y° ' m r a in Site Name Map Coord. v CD o m H o a a o a a i a m 2 5 v y 1 301 Bloor St.W.(2) 4-D3 341 0 5 0 10 0 0 161 50 60 3 0 0 10 0 7332 7,972 2 305 Spadina Ave.(2) 4-E5 315 4 2 2 8 0 1 602 366 13 16 17 0 5 16 3227 4,594 3 261 Augusta Ave. 4-D5 364 15 10 3 17 18 24 753 182 21 23 17 10 17 3 2277 3,754 4 053 Wolseley St. 4-C6 168 0 16 8 15 1679 22 651 72 110 12 7 0 16 11 216 3,003 5 323 John St. 2-E1 132 8 13 6 12 0 1 107 84 3 5 0 3 7 47 2370 2,798 6 036 Dupont St. 14-E2 432 8 8 2 31 25 38 960 165 23 111 23 9 30 6 684 2,555 7 211 John St(2) 2-E1 257 11 9 0 2 0 0 322 91 1 6 10 7 2 33 1793 2,544 8 111 Finch Ave W. 20-B4 424 10 13 7 8 30 43 196 919 124 104 30 3 88 95 8 2,102 9 212 Colboume St. 3-Al 244 10 7 2 5 0 0 134 321 4 12 0 1 0 14 1327 2,081 10 112 Jane St. 20-Al 880 108 27 3 32 0 30 375 295 130 48 13 3 10 6 3 1,963 11 307 Dundas St.W 4-06 165 8 2 1 2 0 1 92 78 13 10 6 0 5 8 1566 1,957 12 256 King St.W 2-F1 235 11 3 5 2 0 3 61 116 2 0 6 7 2 26 1315 1,794 13 412 Dublin St. 14-E4 73 17 5 18 54 28 21 973 152 83 46 84 5 5 2 48 1,614 14 032 Caledonia Rd. 16-E6 218 78 37 16 103 71 58 357 131 1ZZ 128 140 8 33 i8 77 1,595 15 409 Castorfield Ave. 16-E3 170 12 45 20 60 80 132 395 243 75 125 65 25 27 15 79 1,568 16 306 Kensington Ave. 4-D6 133 3 5 1 1 0 0 106 143 13 4 2 4 3 6 1072 1,496 17 324 Cooper St. 3-A2 230 0 19 10 13 0 2 581 463 3 18 3 2 2 31 105 1,482 18 051 Alberta Ave. 4-B1 175 4 2 5 12 0 1 195 174 13 6 0 3 1 18 834 1,443 19 110 Sheppard Ave.W 20-B6 547 19 33 13 37 19 15 93 237 163 49 64 28 40 42 42 1,441 20 050 Brenson Ave. 4-B1 145 0 6 3 0 0 0 184 88 9 12 16 4 8 28 927 1,430 21 012 Rathbum Rd 36-B6 150 17 12 7 35 6 12 682 140 40 100 38 19 95 14 45 1,412 22 021 Browns Line 32-04 439 87 10 5 22 11 27 205 178 55 84 150 2 72 10 16 1,373 23 025 St.Clair Ave.W 26-E6 223 12 14 8 48 25 66 304 99 203 73 36 11 27 17 117 1,283 24 213 George St. 3-Al 94 16 5 13 17 1 2 302 279 18 11 3 4 13 19 440 1,237 25 302 Sussex Ave. 4-D4 117 7 35 7 53 7 11 519 170 36 33 57 7 55 3 105 1,222 26 008 Martin Grove Rd. 36-E1 20 13 0 0 43 0 40 654 130 48 30 2 13 23 28 20 1,064 27 119 Butterick Rd. 32-F2 175 103 6 3 13 53 42 164 168 38 65 109 21 27 8 7 1,002 28 309 Dundas St.W 4-D6 65 0 1 0 0 0 0 67 56 5 16 2 3 8 23 752 998 29 114 Chesswood Dr. 20-F4 87 15 0 1 22 0 11 107 279 60 168 35 7 88 23 8 911 30 336 The Esplanade 3-B1 138 2 1 4 21 0 0 231 148 16 2 4 4 2 22 204 799 Final Report - 07 October 2006 A E a N H 7 d a = 0 a A d� m E m o a a a W E a m Z ° LL c,_ O °' ° m /- V ° c Oo T , d- 4) Perley's m d a a E a • II h Site Name Map Coord. (j O m u 0 Ws a° a° c9 a. a co a iz 2 O 0 in 31 516 Wellington St.West 2-D1 126 4 7 2 12 0 3 323 173 1 2 5 11 4 18 97 788 32 104 Brookhaven Dr. 16-B1 47 3 13 17 31 6 5 204 144 37 41 83 3 8 1 100 743 33 155 Eglington Ave.E 27-E4 391 12 1 2 10 0 2 1 166 44 21 9 2 9 2 14 686 34 052 Portland St. 2-D2 94 17 6 3 11 0 0 165 197 0 3 7 13 6 28 133 683 35 153 Kennedy Rd. 27-E4 273 2 3 2 6 0 4 50 125 15 25 14 4 4 9 86 622 36 105 Thurodale Ave. 16-Al 35 3 10 20 43 2 7 38 110 23 30 30 6 5 2 223 587 37 028 Runnymede Rd. 14-B2 80 7 5 0 6 55 50 35 90 39 115 43 0 3 1 55 584 38 116 Tretheway Dr. 16-A2 64 13 17 12 46 7 10 122 80 60 33 38 6 8 3 59 578 39 202 Esander St. 7-E5 136 2 2 1 1 1 5 60 122 11 7 14 1 4 0 197 564 40 086 Don Mills Rd. 19-B3 276 16 1 2 8 0 8 11 119 32 26 17 1 2 9 27 555 41 069 Wilson Ave. 18-C4 105 25 5 6 7 0 2 38 250 40 31 28 1 2 4 8 552 42 158 Warden Ave 27-B1 200 18 2 0 2 0 2 16 122 9 77 15 3 13 8 63 550 43 315 Niagara St. 2-C2 88 6 6 0 2 0 0 208 79 2 10 1 5 8 16 115 546 44 023 CanmotorAve. 22-B1 95 30 5 2 2 5 12 85 57 18 37 17 10 23 0 24 422 45 096 Bayview Ave 7-C2 120 8 2 2 12 2 26 7 134 32 16 26 2 3 5 2 399 46 033 Uxbridge Ave. 14-E1 27 3 5 1 2 5 10 81 67 7 15 3 10 3 2 120 361 47 049 Palmerston Ave. 4-05 57 3 3 2 12 4 7 6 63 11 7 19 1 2 0 106 303 48 026 Maria St. 14-B1 17 2 8 1 7 5 13 23 78 19 19 21 2 1 2 42 260 49 077 Doris Ave 11-A4 123 9 9 5 3 0 1 0 53 3 8 10 1 2 5 4 236 50 018 Rosewood Ave 24-B6 50 11 1 1 3 11 15 18 31 15 15 8 1 5 0 12 197 51 092 York Mills Rd. 9-D3 53 5 2 0 0 0 2 1 48 9 8 9 1 2 2 0 142 52 161 Ellesmere Rd. 29-E4 24 0 3 1 2 0 6 2 77 18 4 4 0 0 1 0 142 53 337 Midland Ave. 31-E5 27 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 43 10 0 0 0 0 3 3 87 54 169 Midland Ave. 31-E5 33 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 28 2 1 2 0 3 1 1 74 55 029 Spring Rd. 14-05 14 1 6 1 2 0 1 2 12 3 3 7 0 1 2 8 63 55 Sites Sampled Sites in YELLOW-37 sampled in 2005 9711 800 473 256 929 2156 795 12029 8485 1964 1874 1369 297 842 716 28515 71,211 Check Sum 71,211 13.6% 1.1% 0.7% 0.4% 1.3% 3.0% 1.1% 16.9% 11.9% 2.8% 2.6% 1.9% 0.4% 1.2% 1.0% 40.0% 100.0% Average Small Item/Site 177 15 9 5 17 39 14 219 154 36 34 25 5 15 13 518 1295 Final Report - 07 October 2006 54 APPENDIX 2 - Site Locations & Wards Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 1 1 40 Fl Markbrook Lane Steele/Kipling,south of Steeles to Markbrook; site on Markbrook 2 1 40 C4 Glenhollow Ave. Finch/Hwy 27,wets on Finch,south on Halusia, east on Briarwood,south on Glenhollow Ave. 3 1 38 Fl Amoro Dr. Rexdale/Kipling,north on Kipling,west on Westhumber,south on Amoro 3.5 blocks to site; site on Amoro 4 2 38 D4 Iron St. Dixon Rd./Martin Grove,north on Martingrove, west on Belfield,just north on Iron 5 2 28 D6 Lockheed Blvd Lawrence/Scarlett, north on Scarlett Rd.,to Lockhead Blvd.;site two blocks west on Lockheed Blvd. 6 2 26 D1 Westona St. Lawrence/Royal York Rd,east on Lawrence two blocks;site just south on Westona 7 2 26 E2 Kingdom St. Weston/Lawrence,south on Scarlett Rd,east on Kingdom St.;Site on Kingdom St.between Brownlea Ave and Waterton Rd.on south side. 8 4 36 El Martin Grove Rd.(was Dixon/Martin Grove,south on Martin Grove;site Tollington) on west side of Martin Grove Rd.just past Waterbury Dr. 11 4 26 B5 Aylesbury Rd. Rathburn/Islington,go north on Islington two blocks,west on Aylesbury,two blocks just before Thornbury;site on Aylesbury on south side 12 3 36 B6 Rathburn Rd. Renforth Rd.-Eglinton Ave.west from intersection go south on Renforth Rd..to Rathburn. Go west Rathburn Rd and stop before The West Mall 13 4 24 B1 Finchley Rd. Bloor/Islington, north on Islington past Dundas St., east on Hilldowntree 2 blocks,south on Finchley;site on west side of Finchley Rd. 14 4 24 Al Burnhamthorpe Park Burnhamthorpe/Kipling,go east on Blvd. Burnhamthorpe 1 block,north on Wembley,then west on Burnamthorpe. 16 5 24 A3 Fieldway Rd. Bloor/Kipling,east on Bloor under railroad tracks, south on Green Lands,west on Fieldway;site on Fieldway Rd.just past the CPR Spur on north side 17 5 24 D5 Elderidge Ave. Prince Edward Dr./Bloor,south on Prince Edward Dr.west on Elderidge Ave.;site on Elderidge Ave.just after turning corner where street turns north. 18 5 24 B6 Rosewood Ave. Royal York Rd/The Queensway,go west on the Queensway 6 blocks, north on Loma Rd,west on Rosewood Ave. 20 6 32 D2 Valermo Dr. Homer Ave/Browns line,go north on Browns Line 2 blocks,east on Valermo Rd, 1.5 blocks 21 6 32 D4 Browns Line Browns Line/Lakeshore,north on Browns Line; site is on east side of Browns Line just over the bridge and before Dover Dr. Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 23 5 22 B1 Canmotor Ave The Queensway/Islington,east on the Queensway,go south on Canmoltor Ave,just past Cavern 24 11 28 D5 Oak St. 401/Weston Rd,south on Weston 5 blocks,east on Oak St.;site on south side of Oak St. just before Yelland St. 25 13 26 E6 St.Clair Ave.W Jane St/St.Clair Ave.W-go West on St.Clair Ave W,to Scarlett Rd.-site is site is on St.Clair Ave.W at corner of Scarlett Rd&St.Clair Ave. W 26 13 14 B1 Maria St. Runnymede/Dundas,go east on Dundas,north on Johns,east on Maria St.. 27 13 24 F2 Methuen Ave. Bloor/Jane,go north on Jane to Methuen Ave. go west on Methuen Ave. 28 13 14 B2 Runnymede Rd. Dundas/Runnymede,go south on Runnymede till just before Annette 29 13 14 C5 Spring Rd. The Queensway/Parkside Dr.,go west on Queensway then north on Spring Rd,;site is right at the intersection and entrance of spring road on the street side near the pond. 30 17 16 F5 Nairn Ave. Rogers Rd/Dufferin St.,go west on Rogers Rd 5 blocks,north on Nairn Ave just past Teignmouth 31 17 14 D1 Osler St. Old Weston Rd/St.Clair Ave W,go east on St. Clair 2 blocks then just south on Osler St. 32 17 16 E6 Caledonia Rd. Caledonia/St.Clair Ave W,go north on Caledonia about 50 ft. 33 17 14 El Uxbridge Ave. Old Weston Rd/Davenport Rd,go east on Davenport 5 blocks,south on Uxbridge Ave. 34 17 14 Fl Ashburnham Rd. Davenport Rd/Dufferin St.,go west on Davenport 3 blocks,then north on Greenlaw Ave.,then east on Ashburnham Rd.;site is on the south side of Ashburnham Rd.just past Via Italia. 35 17 14 Fl McFarland Ave. Davenport rd/Dufferin St.,west on Davenport 1 block,then north on McFarland to the intersection of Ashburnham/McFarland intersection. 36 14 14 E2 Dupont St. Dupont/Landsdown,west on Dupont till just before Campbell Ave 37 14 14 E2 Campbell Ave. Dupont/Lansdowne,west on Dupont,south on Campbell,just before Antler 38 14 14 D4 Indian Trail Bloor/Parkside Dr.,go east on Bloor,south on Indian Gr,east on Indian Trail 39 14 14 D5 Sunnyside Ave. Parkside Dr./Bloor St.W,south on Parkside Dr. to Grenadier,east on Grenadier,south on Sunnyside Ave.just south of Grenadier 40 14 14 E6 Queen St.W. Queen/Lansdowne Ave;west on Queen until Callender St.;site on north side of Queen St. between Callander St.and Triller Ave. 41 18 14 E4 Whytock Ave. Bloor/Lansdowne,south on Landsdowne 1600 ft. then go west on Whytock Ave.and site is on north side of Whylock just after the curve 42 18 14 F4 Muir Ave. Dundas St.W/Dufferin St.,go south on Dufferin, west on Lindsay, north on Sheridan ,east on Muir 43 18 4 A5 Macklem Ave. Dufferin/Dundas,go north on Dufferin,turn right onto Parr St.;when you turn north Parr St. becomes Macklem Ave.;site on west side of Mackelm Ave. Final Report - 07 October 2006 56 Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 44 19 4 B3 Pendrith St. Ossington/Bloor,north on Ossington 2 blocks, right on Pendrith;site on Pendrith St.just after Roblocke Ave. 45 19 4 B6 Crawford St. Queen St..W/Bathurst St heading west on Queen St.,turn north onto Crawford St.;site on Crawford St.just north of Logie PI.. 46 19 2 B1 Stafford St. Queen/Bathurst.From Queen/Bathurst,head west on Queen,go south on Niagara,head west on Richmond St.,turn south onto Stafford;site on Stafford St.just before Adelaide St.W 47 19 4 C5 Mansfield Ave. Bathurst/Dundas St.W on Dundas from intersection to Claremont St.Site on Mansfield past Clinton St. 48 19 4 C4 Euclid Av. College St./Bathurst,west on college St.to Euclid Ave.Site on Euclid Av, midway between Ulster St.and College St. 49 19 4 C5 Palmerston Ave. College St./Bathurst,west on College St.to intersection of college and Palmerston.Site on Palmerston 50 17 4 B1 Benson Ave. St.Clair Av/Dufferin Av.East on St.Clair Ave, south on Alberta to intersection with Benson Ave.Site is on Benson. 51 17 4 B1 Alberta Ave. Dufferin&Davenport;Eon Davenport to Alberta Ave.,site on Alberta Ave. 52 20 2 D2 Portland St. Bathurst St/Front St.,east on front St..from intersection to Portland St.Site is on Portland St. and Front St.,but before Wellington St.W. 53 20 4 C6 Wolseley St. Queens St.W/Bathurst St.,east on Queen to Ryerson Av,north on Ryerson to intersection of Ryerson and Wolseley St. Site is at intersection of Ryerson and Wolseley St.,on Wolseley. 54 20 4 C6 Dennison Ave. Dundas ST./Bathurst St.,go east on Dundas to Dennison Avenue.Site is on west side of Denison Ave.between Wolsely St.and Queen St. 55 20 2 D1 Augusta Ave. Bathurst/Queen,from intersection go east on Queen to Augusta Av,go north on Augusta to intersection of Augusta and Woseley;site on Augusta,just off Woseley 56 20 4 D6 Napanee Ct. Dundas/Bathurst,east on Dundas till you hit Vanauley St.go south on Vanauley and then go east on Napanee. Site on Napanee. 57 20 4 D6 Kensington Ave. Spadina/Dundas,west on Dundas then north on Kensington,about 200 feet in. Site on east side of Kensington Ave. 58 20 4 E5 Glasgow St. College/Spadina,go south on Spadina,east on Cecil,north on Glasgow 59 20 4 E5 Elm St. University/College,south on University 2 blocks, west on Elm,just after Murray St. 60 20 2 El Oxley St. Queen/Spadina,south on Spadina 3 blocks,then east on Oxley;site 50 feet east of Spadina 61 27 4 F5 Grenville St. Yonge/College,go west on College,north on Bay,west ibti/Grenville St.;site on north side of Grenville St.beginning at intersection. 62 21 6 B3 Old Park Rd. Bathurst/Eglinton-go west on Eglinton Ave.to Old Park Rd.,north on Old Park Rd.;site is 50 feet north of Ridge Hill Dr.on east side. 63 21 6 D4 Vesta Dr. Eglinton/Bathurst,east on Bathurst 2 blocks, south on Vesta Dr. 1/2 block 64 21 6 D4 Ava Rd. Bathurst/Ealinaton.south on Bathurst 3 blocks. f lriai FCepori - or uc ooer NVo D Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 65 21 6 D4 Vesta Dr. Bathurst/Eglington,east on Eglinton,south on Vesta Dr. ;site on Vesta Dr.just south of Ava Rd.on west side of street 66 21 6 C6 Bathurst St. St.Clair/Bathurst,north on Bathurst past Claxton/Lonsdale site on Bathurst immediately after Lonsdale,east side 67 7 30 C5 Wind hill Cres. Finch/Weston,go west on Finch to Weston,go south on Weston,west on Lanyard,south(left) on Unser Gt.,then first left onto Windhill Cres; site on north side of Windhill Crescent 68 7 30 D5 Franson Cres. Finch/Weston,go west on Finch to Weston, south on Weston to Coronado,west on Coronado,and north on St.Lucie,west on Franson;site on west side of Franson Cres. 69 9 18 C4 Wilson Ave. Jane/Wilson,east on Wilson past Ridge Rd.;site on Wilson 70 8 20 E5 Tuscan Gate Keele St./Sheppard Ave.West-turn East onto Sheppard Ave.W go past bridge turn left(north) onto Tuscan,site on Tuscan 71 10 8 B2 Josephine Rd. Sheppard Ave./Bathurst Ave.,south on Bathurst Ave.,right on Down's Drive,Left on Clanton Park Rd, left onto Josephine Rd.;site on Josephine Rd.on west side 72 10 10 C6 Heaton St. Sheppard/Bathurst,south on Bathurst,take right on Codsell and L onto Heaton's;site on Heatons 73 23 10 F2-3 Newtonbrook Blvd. Yonge/Finch, north on Yonge to Drewry,west on Drewry to Hilda,south on Hilda to Newtonbrook;site on south side of Newtonbrook Blvd. 74 23 10 E4 Churchill Ave. Yonge/Finch,north of Yonge on Churchill,past Senlac;site on Churchill 75 23 10 E4 Tamworth Rd. Yonge/Finch,from last location go east on Churchill,north on Tamworth,site on east side of Tamworth starting at intersection of Churchill Ave/Tamworth Rd. 76 23 10 E5 Tamworth Rd. Yonge/Finch,south on Yonge,east(right)on Park Home Ave. ,go north(right)on Tamworth; site on east side of Tamworth beginning at intersection of Park Home Ave./Tamworth Rd 77 23 11 A4 Doris Ave.(was Yonge St./Finch Ave.-south on Young St.,east Grandview) on Church Ave.north on Doris Ave.;site is on east side of Doris Ave just past Grandview Way 78 23 11 C4 Byng Ave. Yonge/Finch,west on Finch past Bayview, make left on Estelle going south,turn right(west) on third street--Byng;site on Byng past Wilfred 79 24 11 A2 Dumont St. Yonge/Steeles,south of Steeles on Yonge,east on Newton,north on Dumont;site on east side of Dumont St. 80 24 11 B1 Michigan Dr. Yonge/Steeles,east of Yonge on Steeles,turn south(right)on Whitman,east on Michigan;site on Michigan Dr. 81 24 11 D5 Wycliffe Ave. Finch/Bayview,south on Bayview,east on Wycliffe;site on Wycliffe Ave.east of Whitelock Cres. 82 33 21 A4 Cobblestone St. Finch/Leslie,south of Finch on Leslie,east on Van Home Ave,north on Seneca Dr.;site on Cobblestone west of Seneca 83 33 21 A5 Leslie St. Finch/Leslie,on Leslie,south of Finch,south of Coming Rd;site on Leslie near Lesgay 84 33 19 B1 George Henry Blvd. Sheppard&Don Mills-South on Don Mills, West on George Henry Blvd.,on George Henry after Farmview Cres. 85 34 19 F3 Roywood Dr. 401 &Victoria Park,south of 401 on Victoria Park,west on York Mills,north on Ness,right (east)on Lynedock Cres.,turn onto Roywood just past school;site on Roywood on corner of Roywood and Niantic Cres. Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 86 34 19 B3 Don Mills Rd. York Mills/Don Mills Rd.-go north on Don Mills Rd.,past Moatfield Dr.before Graydon Hall Dr.; site on Don Mills 87 34 19 E5 Aldenham Cres. York Mills/Don Mills,east on York Mills south on Valleywoods Rd.east on Brookbanks Dr., connect to Underhill Dr.,south on Underhill Dr. then west onto Cassandra Blvd,left(south)onto Aldenham;site on Aldenham 88 25 17 Al Tottenham Rd. Leslie/Lawrence,south on Leslie,left on Lawrence,first left off Lawrence go on Totterham;site at Totterham 89 25 9 F3 Riderwood Dr. Leslie/Sheppard,south on Leslie past 401,turn east on Bannatyne,left on Riderwood past Orchid;site on Riderwood 90 25 9 F2 Ealing Dr. Leslie/401,south(left)on Leslie to Bannatyne, past Stubbs,to Ealing;site on Ealing 91 25 9 D2 Wimpole Dr. Bayview/401,south on Bayview,past 401,2nd toad east on Wimpole;site on Wimpole 92 25 9 D3 York Mills Rd. Bayview/401,south on Bayview,east on York Mills;site on YorkMills after Communite Centre by Wilket Creek 93 25 9 B3 Danville Dr. Bayview/York Mills,go west on York Mills,N on Upper Highland,east on Danville;site on Danville 94 25 9 C6 Bayview Ave Bayview/Lawrence,south on Bayview right before Lawrence on west side 95 25 7 B2 Stratford Cres. Bayview/Lawrence,south of Lawrence on Bayview to Blythwood,right on Blythdale to Stratford Cres.-site on Stratford Cres 96 25 7 C2 Bayview Ave. Bayview Ave./Lawrence Ave. :south on Bayview past Lawrence Ave.;site on Bayview just past Bythwood,before Sunnydene Cres. 97 25 8 F5 Deloraine Ave. Yonge/Wilson,south on Yonge,past Wilson, west on Deloraine;site on Deloraine 98 16 6 F3 Henning Ave. Yonge/Elington,west on Eglington from Yonge, turn right(north)on the second street,Henning Ave.site on Henning 99 15 6 Cl Glenmount Ave. Bathurst/Eglinton,north on Bathurst,west on Glengrove;south on Glenmount;site at intersection of Glengrove and Glenmount just south of Glengrove(west side) 100 15 6 Cl Dalemount Ave. Bathurst/Lawrence,south on Bathurst,west Dell Park,north on Dalemount;site on Dalemount, east side 101 15 6 A4 Lanark Ave. Dufferin/Eglington,east of Dufferin on Eglington, or west of Bathurst,then south on Oakwood, then right/west on Lanark;site on Lanark 102 15 16 E3 Ronald Ave. Dufferin/Elington,west on Eglington turn south (left)onto Ronald Rd.;site on Ronald Rd.after Bowie and before Schell Ave.Site is between house#'s 55 and 71. 103 12 16 C2 Amesbury Dr. Keele/Lawrence,south on Keele Avewest on Flamborough,S on Amesbury,go to Gotham Court,U-Turn,so site is on Amesbury looking North. 104 12 16 B1 Brookhaven Dr. Jane/Lawrence,east on Lawrence past Jane turn south on Brookhaven:Start site at driveway of house#51 going west and ending at house #68. 105 12 16 Al Thurodale Ave. Jane/Lawrence,east on Lawrence,south on Brookhaven,west on Thurodale:site is 200 ft after Duckworth on Thurodale.Site is near the school. 106 12 16 A4 Lampton Ave.(was Jane/Eglington,east on Eglington then south on Astoria) Guestville Ave.to Astoria,west on Astoria Ave. which turns into Lambton Ave.;site is on Lambton west of Chryessa Ave. Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 107 9 18 E4 Cornelius Pkwy. Keele/Wilson,south on Keele,east on Wilson to Cornelius;site is on Cornelius and Graham Rd. at the corner 108 9 18 E3 Murray Rd. Keele/Wilson, east on Wilson,take first left (north)on Murray,past Katherine;site on Murray Rd. North of Spalding 109 9 18 F3 Beffort Rd. Dufferin/Wilson, north on Dufferin past Wilson, Dufferin becomes Beffort Rd;site is 200 ft. north of where Dufferin turns into Beffort 110 9 20 B6 Sheppard Ave.W Keele St./Sheppard,west of Keele,site is 300 ft. before Arleta Ave. 111 8 20 B4 Finch Ave.W Jane/Finch,E on Finch-Approx 200 ft.E of Driftwood St. 112 8 20 Al Jane St. Jane/Steele,W on Steeles to Jane,S on Jane past Hallmar,site on Jane 113 8 20 Fl Magnetic Dr. Dufferin&Steeles,on Steele west of Dufferin, turn south onto Alness St;take first left(east) onto Magnetic Dr.; site on Magnetic Dr. 114 8 20 F4 Chesswood Dr. Finch&Dufferin,on Finch W of Dufferin,S on second street,Chesswood before Champagne, site on Chesswood 115 16 8 E6 Lawrence Ave.W Lawrence Ave, East of Avenue Rd.-200 ft.east of Avenue Rd.-Site West of bus shelter on North Side in front of Medical Clinic 116 12 16 A2 Tretheway Dr Jane/Lawrence,south on Jane past Lawrence, east on Tretheway past Millennium;site on Tretheway 117 16 6 El Avenue Rd. Yonge/Lawrence-S on Yonge,west on Lawrence,S on Avenue Rd.,site is past Caribou Rd. ,on Avenue Rd. 118 13 14 B5 Woodland Hts. Queensway/Parkside-Located W of Grenadier Pond-High Park;site on Woodland Hts.Up hill after Y intersection 119 6 32 F2 Butterick Rd. The Queensway/Kipling.South on Kipling to Evans Ave,west on Evans Ave to Butterick. Site on Butterick,midway between beginning and end of street 120 32 15 E6 Queen St.East Queen/Woodbine. East on Queen 100 ft after Wineva 121 32 15 E5 Glen Stewart Ave. Kingston Rd.Nictoria Pk. West on Kingston Rd. and south 200 ft,turn west on Glen Stewart Ave.;site on Glen Stewart Ave.just before Glen Stewart Ave.turns north. 122 30 15 A5 Walpole Ave. Danforth/Greenwood,south on Greenwood and east on Walpole 100 ft;site on Walpole 123 32 15 C2 Barker Ave. Victoria Park/St.Clair Ave. E,west on St.Clair Ave.E to O'Connor Drive,south/west on O'Connor Dr.to Woodbine Ave,south on Woodbine to Barker Ave.(8th street on left);Site begins 100 feet before Coleridge Ave. 124 31 15 F2 Halsey Ave. St. Clair/Victoria Park,south on Victoria Park, southwest on Dawes Rd.,east(right)onto Halsey Ave.,Site on north side of Halsey Ave.- beginning 100 ft.from intersection 125 32 15 C4 Aldridge Ave. Danforth/Coxwell,east on Danforth,south on Aldridge 100 ft.;site on Aldridge Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 126 32 15 B6 Ashdale Ave. Queen/Coxwell,Ashdale,west on Queen St.E past Ashdale Ave(one way south only)to Kent Rd.,north on Kent Rd then east onto Dundas St. E then south onto Ashdale Ave.site on east side of Ashdale Ave.(opposite side of street to direction of travel) 100 ft.from Queen St.E 127 32 15 B6 Orchard Park Blvd. Queen St./Coxwell Ave.east on Queen,past Orchard Park.Blvd.(one way south only)to Penny La north on Penny La; to Orchard Pk. Blvd.south on Orchard Pk.Blvd;site on west side of Orchard Park Blvd 200 ft. in from intersection of Queen St&Orchard Park Blvd. 128 32 15 E4/5 Wayland Ave. Gerard St./Main St., travel east on Gerrard St.to Wayland Ave.;go south on Wayland Ave.500 ft.;site on west side of Wayland Ave.just past Swanwick Ave. 129 32 15 E4 Gerrard St.E Gerrard St.E/Main,travel east on Gerrard St. E; site on Gerrard St.E 200 ft.after Malvern Ave. 131 44 49 B4 Ellesmere Rd. Ellesmere/Morningside,east on Ellesmere and stop just after you pass Mirrow Ct.(Mirrow Ct.is west of Conlins Rd.);site is on the right/south side of Ellesmere between Mirrow and Conlins Rd.. 132 44 15 F5 Kingston Rd Queen St./Woodbine Ave.-north on Woodbine Ave.turn east onto Kingston Rd.;site on south side of Kingston Rd.50'past Silver Birch Ave/ 133 44 49 D1 Hedge End Rd. Meadowvale/Sheppard,go west on Sheppard to Hedge End Rd,make turn left(right)onto Hedge End Rd.;site is on south side of Hedge End Rd. just after the street curves. 134 44 47 Fl Portsmouth Dr. Meadowvale/Lawrence,go east on Lawrence to Portsmouth,go south on Portsmouth,;site is at corner just as Portsmouth turns east 135 44 47 E5 Broadbridge Dr. Lawrence/Port Union,go east on Lawrence past Port Union to East Ave up to Baronial Crt,make a right/east on Baronial;site on Broadbridge past Hartsville Ave. 136 44 47 D6 Moorefield Dr. Lawrence/Port Union,go east on Lawrence, north on Brimforest Gate,west on Moorefield 200 ft.on the north side;site on Moorefield Dr. 137 44 47 B2 Manse Rd Lawrence/Manse,go south on Manse;site is on west side of street in the 235 manse Rd. Complex 138 43 37 F3 Galloway Rd. Lawrence Ave./Markham Rd.-east on Lawrence Ave.to Galloway Rd.,south on Galloway;site is 200'south of Chantrey Crt. 139 43 37 E3 Leverhume Cres. Lawrence/Galloway,travel south on Galloway to westlake Rd.past San Cres.To Leverhume Cres.site on Leverhume 140 42 51 Fl Scarborough-Pickering Markham Rd./401 -North on Markham Rd.,east Town line on Steels Ave.to Scarborough-Pickering Town line;site is 500ft South on west side of street; 141 42 51 B4 Littles Rd. (Old)Finch Ave./Morningside Ave.,east on Old Finch Ave.;right(south)on Littles Rd.until you pass Goodall Dr.;site is on west side of Littles Rd.just after bus shelter. 142 31 17 F6 St Clair Ave.E St Clair Ave.ENictoria Park,west on St Clair Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 143 31 17 D6 Northdale Blvd. Victoria Park/St.Clair E,west on St.Clair E, north on O'Connor,west on Curity,south on Cranfield,west on Northdale;site on Northdale between Hollanger and Cranfield 144 29 15 B3 Monarch Park Ave. Coxwell/Danforth,north on Coxwell from Danforth,turn left/west on Glebeholme then north onto Monarch Park Ave.;site on Monarch Park Ave.halfway between Gleveholme Blvd. and Milverton Blvd. 145 29 15 B2 Plains Rd. Danforth/Coxwell,north on Coxwell Av to Plains, go west on Plains Rd.250 m;site is Plains Rd 146 30 3 Fl Caroline Ave. Queen/Pape,travel east on Queen St.E to Caroline Ave turn south on Caroline Ave site is halfway between Queen and Eastern Ave 147 30 5 E4 Frizzell Ave. Danforth/Pape,travel south on Pape turn west onto Frizzell;site on north side of Frizzell Ave. beginning 100 ft.from intersection of Pape Ave./Frizzell Ave. 148 29 5 E3 Selkirk St. Pape/Danforth,E on Danforth,north/left on Pape,right/west on Selkirk;site on Selkirk 149 29 5 E2 Pape Ave Danforth/Pape Ave.;turn North on Pape Ave.; site is on Pape Ave.just past Mortimer Ave. across from Centennial College 150 30 3 El Booth Ave. Queen/Broadview,,turn south on Broadview,E on eastern,turn south on Booth Follow Booth 500 ft;site on Booth 151 29 5 El Fernwood Gardens Pape Ave./Danforth Ave.,north on Pape Ave., west on Woodville Ave.,north on Broadview Ave.,west on Fernwood Grdns;site on Fernwood 50'west pf Broadview Ave. 152 35 25 D1 Zenith Dr. Birchmount/St.Clair,south on Birchmount,east on Zenith 50 ft.;site on Zenith 153 35 27 E4 Kennedy Rd. Kennedy/Eglington,south on Kennedy;site on west side of Kennedy Rd.200ft past Merrian Rd. 154 35 27 F4 Verdun Ave. Eglinton/Midland,south on Midland,turn east on Verdun;site on Verdun,50 ft after Commonwealth 155 35 27 E4 Eglinton Ave.E Eglinton Ave./Kennedy Rd.-east on Eglinton Ave.,400';site on south side of Eglinton adjacent to Go Station. 156 37 27 B1 Sherwood Ave. Victoria Park/Lawrence,east on Lawrence to Pharmacy,south on Pharmacy turn east on Sherwood;site on Sherwood,50 ft.after Courton 157 37 27 B1 Laxford Ave. Pharmacy/Lawrence,south on Pharmacy turn east on Sherwood,turn north on Waxford,follow Waxford to Laxford,site on Laxford.Started at house#32. 158 37 27 B1 Warden Ave. Warden/Lawrence,south on Warden;site on Warden 100 ft.south of Danube Dr. 159 37 29 B5 Princemere Cr Kennedy/Lawrence,north on Warden turn west on Princemere,site at northwest corner of Princemere Cr.;site on Princemere 160 37 27 D1 Flora Dr. Kennedy/Lawrence,south on Kennedy turn west on to Flora,follow flora to the northwest corner of street site is 200 At.from northwest corner;site on Flora Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 161 40 29 E4 Ellesmere Rd. Lawrence Ave./Midland Ave.-north on Midland Ave.,west on Ellesmere Rd.;site on Ellesmere Rd.on north boulevard of transit loop 162 40 29 B3 Crocus Dr. Ellesmere/Warden,west on Ellesmere turn north on Crocus to west corner of street, 100 ft.east, from northwest corner;site on Crocus 163 40 29 D1 Murmouth Rd. Sheppard/Birchmount,south on Birchmount,turn east on Cass turn south on Murmouth Rd,200 ft south on Murmouth;site on Murmouth 164 40 31 B6 Kellen St. Warden/Sheppard,travel north on Warden,turn east on Wardencourt turn south on Nortonwille, turn east on Kellen 200 ft.;site on Kellen 165 40 31 B5 Huntingwood Di. Sheppard/Warden,on north on Warden turn east on Huntingwood 100 ft.after Dunmurray Blvd.;site on Huntingwood 166 39 31 D5 Kilchurn Castle Dr. Kennedy/Sheppard,north on Kennedy,turn west on Huntingwood Dr.,turn south 100 ft on Kilchurn Castle Dr.;site on Kilchurn Castle Dr. Between Huntingwood Dr.and Inverary Cres. 167 39 31 D1 Sanwood Blvd. McNicoll/Birchmount,travel north on Birchmount turn east onto Sanwood 200 ft;site on Sanwood Blvd. 168 39 31 D1 Chapel Park Sq. Birchmount/Steeles;travel east on Steele's turn south on Grove Av.,turn west on Canongate, turn northwest on Chapel Park Sq. 100 ft.;site on Chapel Park Sq. 169 41 31 E5 Midland Ave Sheppard/Midland,north on Midland,50 ft north of Havendale;site on Midland 170 41 31 F5 Crockamhill Dr. Huntingwood/Midland,east on Huntingwood, north on Crookamhill Dr., 100ft.;site on Crockamhill Dr. 171 40 31 Fl Scoville Sq. Brimley/Steeles,south on Brimley,west on Royal and northeast on Scoville, 160 ft.;site on Scoville 172 41 41 C2 Maybrook Dr. McNicoll/McCowan,east on McNicoll,north on Maybrook 500 ft.site on Maybrook 173 32 15 F5 Victoria Park Ave. Victoria Park Ave./Kingston Rd;go south on victoria park,Site begins 100 ft south of Victoria Park Ave./Kingston Rd.intersection on west side. 175 36 25 E5 Sloley Rd. Kingston/Dorset,south on Dorset,east on Sloley 50 ft.;site on Sloley 176 36 37 A5 Randall Cres. Eglinton/McCowan,go west on McCowan,west on Phyllis,west on Randall 100 ft.;site on Randall 177 36 37 A5 Randall Cres. Eglington/McCowan,south on McCowan right/east on Phyllis,south 500ft.;Randall 178 36 37 A6 Kingston Rd Kingston/McCowan,500 ft.west of McCowanl site on Kingston Rd. 179 36 37 D4 Eglinton Ave.E Eglinton E/Markham,200 ft.east of Markham; site on Eglinton 180 38 39 A5 Suraty Ave. Lawrence/McCowan,north on McCowan,west on Meldazy,south on Kentcliff and west on Suraty 100ft;site on Suraty 181 38 39 B4 Lynnbrook Dr. Ellesmere/McCowan,east on Ellesmere,south on Parkington,east on Lynnbrook 100 ft;site on Lynnbrook 182 38 39 B3 Progress Ave. Ellesmere/McCowan,north on McCowan,east on Progress,200ft;site on Progress Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 183 42 39 D1 Sheppard Ave.E Sheppard/Markham,east on Sheppard 600 ft.; site on south side of Sheppard just east of Progress Ave. 184 42 41 E6 Unita Gr.(Grove) Sheppard/Markham Rd,east on Sheppard,north on Washburn,northwest on Mammoth Hall Trail , northeast on Unita Gr.50 ft.;site on Unita Gr. 201 30 5 D4 Broadview Ave. Danforth/Broadview;site on Broadview,go south on Broadview,just past Montcrest Blvd. 202 26 7 E5 Esandar St. Eglington&Bayview,E on Eglington,S on Laird Dr.,E on Esandar,site on Esandar just after railroad tracks 203 22 7 C4 Cleveland St. Bayview/Eglington,west on Eglington to Cleveland,south on Cleveland 1 km to site;site on Cleveland just below Belsize 204 22 6 F4 Berwick Ave. Yonge/Eglington,south on Yonge,left/west on Berwick;site is on north side half way between Yonge and Duplex 205 22 6 F5 Chaplin Cres St.Clair/Yonge, north on Yonge to Chaplin,go west on Chaplin;site on Chaplin Cres. Immediately after intersection of Chaplin Cres./Duplex Ave.on the north side 206 22 4 El Avenue Rd. Bloor/Avenue, north on Avenue to Edmund,from Edmund,north beyond Clarendon;site on Avenue Rd 207 27 4 F2 Roxborough St.W Yonge/Bloor, north on Yonge St.then left/east on Roxborough;site on Roxborough on north side 208 27 5 A3 Mt.Pleasant Rd. Yonge/Bloor,east on Bloor,left/north on Mt. Pleasant;site on Mt. Pleasant between Rosedale Valley and Elm 209 28 5 B4 Prospect St. Yonge/Wellesley,east on Wellesley,south on Parliament,west/right on Amelia, past Rose;site on Prospect St. 210 27 5 A6 Mutual St. Yonge/Carlton,east on Carlton, at third rd turn right/south onto Mutual;site on Mutual south of Dundas; 211 20 2 El John St. Corner of King St./John Street,Site on John St.immediately north of intersection King/John 212 28 3 Al Colbourne St. King/Yonge,south on Yonge,turn left(east)on King,right(south)on Church St.,West on Wellington,at Scott Street,turn N then Colburne is at first Stop Sign,site on Colbourne 213 28 3 Al George St. Yonge/Front,south on Yonge, East on Front, south(right)on Jarvis. Site on George St. 214 28 3 B1 Richmond St. E. Queen/Sherbourne,east Queen past Sherbourne,past Parliament,turn right on Power St.,west on Richmond St. E;site on Richmond St. E between Parliament St.and Power St. 215 28 5 B6 Pashler Ave. Dundas/Sherbourne,east on Dundas past Sherbourne,past parliament,south on parliament,east to Shuter,north on Regent St., east on St. Bartholomew St..,north to Pashler, site on Pashler 216 28 3 Cl Bright St. Yonge/Queen,east on Queen,past Yonge,past parliament,right(south)on Bright St.(do not pass King St.E.);site on Bright St. between Queen St.and King St.on east side. Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 217 28 5 C6 Dundas St. E Dundas/Sherboume St.;east on Dundas past parliament, past Sackville, between Sumach(on the left side)Sherbourne and Wyattmark on right. Site on Dundas 218 30 5 D6 Carroll St. Broadview/Queen;travel west on Queen;turn onto Carroll St.;site is on west side of Carroll St. before Matilda Ave. 219 30 5 D6 Kintyre Ave. Broadview/Queen,travel north on Broadview to Kintyre,turn west on Kintyre;site 300 ft.from intersection 220 28 2 D5 Lake Shore Ave. 2 km south of Hanlan's point ferry dock on Lake Shore(50 feet from Gibraltar(Centre for the Arts) 221 32 15 D3 Cedarvale Ave. South on Woodbine to Danforth,E on Danforth, north on Cedarvale Ave.;site on east side of Cedarvale past Strathmore Blvd. 222 26 17 B4 Don Mills Rd. Don Mills Road/Eglinton Ave.East near the Ontario Science Centre Parking Lot 224 26 7 F5 Overlea Blvd. Eglington/Bayview,E on Eglington,S on Millwood rd., E on Overlea-site on Overlea between Leaside Park Dr.&Thorncliff Park Dr. 250 19 2 B1 Stafford St. Bathurst/King,west on King,west to Stafford, south on Stafford just before Canniff St.;site on Stafford 251 20 4 F6 University Ave University/Queen,N on University-site is on east side of University Ave.just before Armoury St. 252 28 2 F6 Avenue(of the Island) on Toronto Island-on Avenue of the Island about 600 meters north of Lake Shore Ave. 254 19 4 C4 Clinton St. Bloor W/Dufferin,east on\bloor from intersection,past Christie to Clinton,south on Clinton to Clinton Pl.;site is on east side of Clinton St. 256 28 2 Fl King St.W. University/King ,site is on King-S side 50 feet E from University Ave. 257 28 5 C4 Parkview Ave. Parliament/Wellesley,east on Wellesley past Parliament until you hit Parkview,north on Parkview until you reach the end of the street 258 28 3 B1 Sackville St. Sherbourne/Queen,east on Queen,south on Sackville past Ray,site on Sackville 259 27 4 F6 Dundas St.W. Yonge St./Dundas St.W;west on Dundas;site is on South side of Dundas,in front of Eatons Centre, 260 20 4 E6 Spadina Ave. Queen/Spadina,go north on Spadina to Dundas; site is just above the Dundas/Spadina intersection,northward;site on Spadina 261 20 4 D5 Augusta Ave. Bathurst/Spadina,north on Spadina from intersection to Oxford,west to Augusta;site is south of Oxford, left side 270 28 3 B5 Lake Shore Ave. Toronto Island-Go to Wards island,south on Withrow,then west on Lake Shore site is 500 meters west of Algonquin on Lake Shore Ave. 271 36 25 E3 Wynnview Crt. Birchmount/Kingston,east on Kingston to Glen Everest, E on Glen Everest to Wynnnview;site south on Wynnview at end of street Final Report - 07 October 2006 65 Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 300 19 4 C3 Bloor St. W Bloor St,between Euclid and Manning 301 20 4 D3 Bloor St.W. Bloor/Bathurst, Go E on Bloor,site 1/2 block E of Albany 302 20 4 D4 Sussex Ave. Bathurst/Bloor; E on Bloor past Bathurst,S on Spadina-site is on Sussex 200 ft.from Spadina 303 20 4 D4 Borden St. Harbord/Bathurst, N on Bathurst to Harbord, E on Harbord to Borden,S on Borden,site 200 ft. South 304 20 4 D5 Lippincott St. College/Bloor,N on Bathurst,east on Ulster St, S on Lippincott-site is on Lippincott 200 Ft. before College 305 20 4 E5 Spadina Ave. College/Spadina-on Spadina South past College-site on Spadina 306 20 4 D6 Kensington Ave. Spadina/Dundas-go N on Spadina,W on Baldwin,S on Kensington-site half way between Fitzroy/Dundas on Kensington 307 20 4 D6 Dundas St.W. Dundas/Spadina- W on Dundas, 100 ft. past Kensington 308 20 4 D6 Hickory St. Dundas/Bathurst-S on Bathurst-E on Dundas, N on Hickory-site on Hickory 309 20 4 D6 Dundas St.W. Dundas/Bathurst-S on Bathurst, E on Dundas, past Carlyle,site is on Dundas 310 20 4 D6 Eden PL Queen/Bathurst-S on Bathurst past Dundas, E on Carr St. ,S on Eden-site on Eden at corner 311 19 4 C5 Euclid Ave. Dundas/Bathurst-Son Bathurst W on Dundas, N on Euclid ,site is an alley on W side of Euclid 312 19 4 C5 Mansfield Ave. College/Bathurst: S on Bathurst-W on College -S on Manning ,W on Mansfield;-site on Mansfield before Clinton St. 313 19 4 B5 Crawford St. Bathurst/Dundas:S on Bathurst,W on Dundas-N on Crawford-site past Cinder St. 315 19 2 C2 Niagara St. Bathurst/King ,S on Bathurst to Tecumseth Place,turn south onto Tecumseth St.-S to Niagara ,site on Niagara St.starting at corner of Tecumseth St.and Niagara 316 20 2 D1 Wellington St.W Spadina/Wellington-turn W on Wellington- site is 100 ft. E of Portand St. 317 20 2 D1 Adelaide St.W Intersection Bathurst/north on Bathurst St.to Adelaide,Turn E on Adelaide;siite on Adelaide just past Brant St. 318 20 2 D1 Augusta Ave. Queen/Spadina-west on Queen past Spadina until Augusta-E side-site on Augusta 320 20 4 E6 Sullivan St. Spadina/Dundas-go S on Spadina ,to Grange Ave., E on Grange to Huron,S on Huron to Sullivan-E on Sullivan 0 Site between Grange St&Beverly St. 321 20 4 E6 Queen St.W. Queen/university,W on Queen about 100 ft.W of University 323 20 2 E2 John St. Wellington/John: Front&John,go N on John, site on John before Wellington,beside CBC Centre 324 28 3 A2 Cooper St. Yonge/Queens Quay E.,go E on Queens Quay to Cooper, north on Cooper Final Report - 07 October 2006 66 Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 326 27 4 F4 St.Nicholas St. Yonge/Bloor-W on Bloor,S on St.Nicholas- 100 ft.after St.Mary 328 27 5 A4 Gloucester St. Yonge&Bloor St.,South on Yonge, East on Gloucester-site is on north side of Gloucester St.50 feet west of(before)Church St. 329 27 4 F5 Grosvenor St. Yonge/Bloor-from Yonge turn W on Grosvenor,;site is on north side of Grosvenor St. beginning 100 ft.after Bay St. 330 28 5 B4 Ontario St. Bloor/Parliament:turn W on Aberdeen ,S on Ontario St. -site is 100 ft.on Ontario St. 332 27 5 B5 Gerrard St. E. Gerrard/Sherbourne;site is west on Gerrard 200 ft.on north side. 333 28 5 B6 Dundas St. E. Dundas/Parliament,west of Parliament on Dundas. 10 ft.east of Berkley/Dundas on S side 334 28 3 B1 Richmond St. E. Richmond St../Sherbourne St.;site is west on Richmond St. between Sherbourne&George St. on north side. 335 28 3 B2 Frederick St. Jarvis/King,S on Jarvis, E on King ,South on Frederick St. 336 28 3 B1 The Esplanade Parliament/Front;go westy on Front St,turn left onto Berkely and then west on Espalande- near Parliament 337 41 31 E5 Midland Ave(was site Kennedy Rd./Sheppard Ave;go east on 169A) Sheppard Ave.turn left(north)onto Midland Ave.;site on east side of on Midland Ave in front of Agincourt Highschool. Note: In 2002 Survey was site 169A now 337- 338 7 30 B3 Benrubin Dr. Note: In 2002 Survey was site 66A now 338- Kipling/Finch,go east on Finch,north on Milady, east on Firenza;site on Benrubin 401 1 31 B4 Sanagan Rd Islington Ave/ Finch Ave W;south on Islington Ave,turn right(W)on Albion Rd; proceed approx 1000 meters W turn left(S)on Sanagan. Site is on right hand side just past Lightwood Dr. 402 1 40 F 2 Garfella Dr Steeles W/Kipling Ave.;travel South on Kipling;turn right(West)on Mount Olive Drive, turn Left onto Garfella Dr.-site is on right side of street, in green space adjacent Albion Creek area 403 3 36 B4 Gentian Dr Eglinton Ave W/Renforth Dr.; From Eglinton , Turn South onto Renforth Dr;turn East onto Gentian Dr. Site is on right side of street-just past Ashfield Dr. 405 5 24 C6 Cochrane Dr The Queensway/Royal York Rd.;West on The Queensway,turn right(N)on Avon Park Rd.; left onto Cochrane Dr. ;Site is in left side of street-in park area. 406 6 22 C-D 4 Symons St The Queensway/ Royal York Rd.; South on Royal York Rd.;Turn left(E)onto Symons St. from Royal York Rd.;site is on right side of street-past George St. 407 13 24 E-F 2-3 Langmuir Cres St. Clair Ave W /Jane Street;south on Jane St;at Annette turn LEFT onto Baby Point Rd. proceed west;turn LEFT(S)onto Humbercrest Blvd.;then RIGHT onto Lamuir Cres. ;site is on right side of street in green parkette space. Final Report - 07 October 2006 67 Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 408 14 12 B 1 -2 Jameson Ave King St.W/ Dufferin St W.;travel W on King St W;turn LEFT (S)onto Jameson Ave;site is on in front of Queen Victoria Public School. 409 15 16 E3 Castlefield Ave Keele St/ Eglinton Ave W;travel east on Eglinton Ave W;turn LEFT(N)on Caledonia Rd; then left again on to Castlefield Ave proceed to small parkette across from Woodborough Ave.Site in green space. 410 16 8 E 5-6 Grey Rd Bathurst St./ Lawrence Ave W;proceed east on Lawrence Ave W;Grey Road is off of Lawrence going North.Turn onto Grey St.Site is in green space-on right side of Grey Rd; N of Fairlawn Ave and S of Germain Ave. 411 17 6 A 4-6 Northcliffe Blv St. Clair Ave W/Dufferin Ave.;east on St. Clair Ave W ,turn LEFT onto Northcliffe Blvd.- site on right side of street-75 meters N of St. Clair W. 412 18 14 E 4 Dublin St Bloor St.W/ Dufferin St. ;proceed West on Bloor St.W;turn left(S)onto St. Helens Ave. ; Dublin St.is 100 Meters south.Site anywhere on Dublin St(it is very short) 413 20 4 D 5 Lippincott St Bloor St.W/ Bathurst St;South on Bathurst; Turn Left onto College-turn Left(N)on Borden-LEFT onto Vangough St-turn left onto Lippincott-site on right side immediately S of Vangough St. 414 25 9 E-F 1 -2 Hopperton Dr Sheppard Ave East/Leslie St;South on Leslie St,turn right(W)on Bannatyne Dr. ;the immediately again turn RIGHT(N)on Woodsworth Rd;proceed to turn LEFT onto Hopperton Dr.-site on right side of street-50 meters from W 415 25 9 F 2 Shouldice Crt Sheppard Ave East/Leslie St;South on Leslie St,turn right(W)on Bannatyne Dr. ;the immediately again turn RIGHT(N)on Woodsworth Rd; proceed to turn LEFT onto Davean Dr.then turn RIGHT(N)onto Shouldice Crt.-side 20 me 416 27 4 F 5 Grosvenor St Queen St.W/ Yonge St. ;travel west on Queen St.W ,turn right(N)onto University Ave; proceed around Queens Park Circle 417 28 5 B 6 Sydenham St Queen St. E/ Parliament St.;east on Queen St.E turn left onto Sydenham St.(about 100 M east of Parliament).Site 10-20 meters from Queen St.-Sydenham is a very short street. 418 29 15 A-B 2 Memorial Park Ave Danforth Ave./Donlands Ave. ;North on Donlands turn RIGHT(east)onto Memorial Park Ave.-proceed past Greenwood-site is in parkland area between Greenwood and Kiniborne Ave. 419 30 3 F 1 Winnifred Ave Leslie St/Queen St. East;South on Leslie St; turn RIGHT(W)onto Eastern Ave;then RIGHT (N) onto Winnifred Ave. Site 50 meters N of Eastern Ave. On right side of street. 420 31 15 B C 2 Dunkirk Rd Danforth Ave/Woodbine Ave; N on Woodbine Ave;Turn LEFT(W)onto Dunkirk Ave.;site is on right side of street 20 meters past Final Report - 07 October 2006 68 Site# Ward Map Page Map Site_name Directions Coord 421 32 15 B 4 Rhodes Ave Queen St.E/Leslie Ave;travel Eon Queen St.E,turn LEFT(N)onto Coxwell Ave.;turn LEFT(W)onto Fairford Avethen first LEFT onto Rhodes Ave.-Site is 150 meters S of Fairford on right sire of street N of Dundas St. 422 34 19 B 3 Upjohn Rd.(was York Leslie St./York Mills Rd;travel East on York Mills Rd) Mills,turn RIGHT(S)onto Upjohn Rd,near entrance to Seneca College.Site on right side of road 70 meters 423 36 25 B 4 Kenny Ave Danforth Ave./Warden Ave.;travel south on Warden,Kenny Ave is a small street 200 Meters south of Danforth Ave.Site is immediately at intersection of Kenny &Warden proceeding west on right side of street. 424 37 27 B 2 Minford Ave Birchmount Ave/ Lawrence Ave E.;west on Lawrence Ave E;turn LEFT onto Warden travel south to Minford Ave;turn LEFT(E)onto Minford,site commences at intersection Minford/Warden on right side of street. 425 38 39 A 5 Kencliff Gres Brimley Rd./ Lawrence Ave E.;travel east on Lawrence Ave.E;turn LEFT(N)onto McCowan Rd.proceed North to Meldazy Drive;turn LEFT onto Meldazy Dr.then immediately turn RIGHT onto Kencliffe Crescent.Site immediately from 426 39 31 B 3 Glen Springs Di Victoria Park Ave./Finch Ave.E;travel east on Finch Ave E.;turn LEFT(N)onto Warden Ave, proceed to Glen Springs DR.(about 1 KM);turn LEFT(W)onto Glen Springs-site begins immediate after first curve towards South-on right side of Glen Springs Drive. 270 Sites 174 36 25 E3 Wynnview Crt. Birchmount/Kingston,east on Kingston to Glen REJECTED Everest,E on Glen Everest to Wynnview;site south on Wynnview 200 ft 223 26 7 F6 Millwood Rd - Eglington/Bayview-E on Eglinton Rd.,S on REJECTED Laird which becomes Millwood;site on Millwood Rd just before Leaside Bridge Final Report - 07 October 2006 69 New Sites Added in 2006 Audit Ma Site# Ward Map Page Co-ord 500 3 36 E 3 Lloyd Manor Rd Eglinton/Kippling,W on Eglinton,S on Lloyd Manor Road,site before Winsland 501 36 25 A 4 Winston Ave Gerrard/Victoria Park,South on Victoria Park,East on Winston Ave. 502 36 25 A 5 Fallingbrook Rd Victoria Park/Kingston Rd,West on Kingston,South on Fallingbrook 503 10 8 C 3 Charleswood Dr Wilson Ave./Allen Rd.West on Wilson,North on Bathurst,East on Charleswood Dr.,site on South side past Almond Rd. 504 35 27 A 6 St Clair E Ave St.Clair Ave/Warden Ave.,West on St.Clair,East of Herron Ave. 505 40 31 B 4 Bridletowne Cir Finch Ave/Warden,West on Finch,South on Bridletowne Circle,site on south side,past Collingbrook 506 9 18 D 3 Victory Dr Wilson Ave/Keele St.,West on Wilson to Algate Rd,North on Algate to Victory,West onto Victory,site at intersection on North side of Victory 507 13 24 F 3 Humberview Rd Bloor St W/Jane St,N on Jane to Humberview Rd,site on North Side 508 41 31 F 5 Mollard Rd Brimley Ave/Finch Ave,S on Brimley,W on Huntingwood Dr,N on Mollard,site 50'from intersection. 509 17 16 D 5 Algarve Cres St.Clair Ave W/Old Weston Rd,N on Old Weston Rd,Won Algarve Cres,site 120 feet from intersection on North side. 510 32 15 F 6 Scarborough Rd Kingston RdNictoria Park Av,Won Kingston Rd,South on Scarborough Rd,past Pine Rd,site on West Side 511 21 6 B 5 Heathdale Rd St.Clair Ave.W/Bathurst St,N on Bathurst,W on Heathdale Rd,past Raglan Rd 200 feet on North side 512 16 6 F 2 Duplex Ave Yonge St/Lawrence Ave,S on Yonge,Won Glengrove Ave W,S on 513 44 47 B 1 Ling Rd Morningside Ave/Lawrence Ave E,Son Morningside,Eon Ling Rd,site 514 22 4 E 2 Avenue Rd Avenue Rd/St.Clair Ave W,S on Avenue Rd to Oaklands Ave,site 515 7 30 E 6 Sheppard W Ave Finch Ave W/Jane St,S on Jane,West on Sheppard Ave W,to Arrow Rd,site starts at intersection on North side of Sheppard 516 40 31 A 5 Corinthian Blvd Finch Ave E/Pharmacy Ave,Son Pharmacy,Won Corinthian Blvd,past 517 6 22 C 4 Murrie St. Lake Shore Blvd W/Kipling Ave,Eon Lake Shore Blvd,N on Dwight Ave,right on Murrie St,site 50 feet from corner 518 31 15 B 2 Machokie Rd Woodbine Ave/O'Connor Dr,Won 0 Connor Dr,Son Machokie Rd,site 50 feet from intersection 519 3 36 C 5 Eringate Dr Rathburn Rd/Renford Dr,N on Renford Dr,Eon Eringare Dr,past 520 3 34 C 2 The West Mall Bloor St W/The West Mall;N on the West Mall,past Eva Rd,site 50 feet 521 20 4 E 3 Bernard Ave Dupont St/Davenport Rd,W on Dupont St,S on St George Street,E on Bernard Ave,site on S side,100 feet from intersection. 522 21 4 C 2 Davenport Rd St Clair Ave W/Bathurst St,S on Bathurst,E on Danvenport Rd,site is past Albany Rd 50 feet,on S side. 523 13 24 F 1 Watson Rd Jane St./Annette,North to Page Ave.,W to Watson,Site is 50'South of 524 15 16 D 5 Rogers Rd Eglinton Ave W/Keele St,Son Keele St,Eon Rogers Rd,50'past Scott 525 35 25 D 1 Davidson Ave. Danforth Rd/Kennedy Rd;south on Kennedy Rd,E on Raleigh Ave, Right on Davidson Ave,site 75 feet from corner Final Report - 07 October 2006 70 APPENDIX 3 — Site Rankings APPENDIX 3 - Large Litter - Ranked by Items/ site Site Id Ward Site name Items/Site 515 7 Sheppard W 262 Above Average 305 20 Spadina Ave. 75 Above Average 402 1 Garfella Dr 74 Above Average 32 17 Caledonia Rd. 69 Above Average 4 2 Iron St. 67 Above Average 412 18 Dublin St 62 Above Average 509 17 Algarve 57 Above Average 171 40 Scoville Sq. 53 Above Average 408 14 Jameson Ave 51.5 Above Average 409 15 Castlefield Ave 50 Above Average 260 20 Spadina Ave. 49.5 Above Average 34 17 Ashbumham Rd. 48 Above Average 254 19 Clinton St. 47 Above Average 224 26 Overlea Blvd. 45 Above Average 110 9 Sheppard Ave.W 43 Above Average 313 19 Crawford St. 42 Above Average 12 3 Rathbum Rd. 41 Above Average 96 25 Bayview Ave. 41 Above Average 116 12 Tretheway Dr 40 Above Average 143 31 Northdale Blvd. 38 Above Average 131 44 Ellesmere Rd. 38 Above Average 122 30 Walpole Ave. 38 Above Average 43 18 Macklem Ave. 38 Above Average 324 28 Cooper St. 36 Above Average 251 20 University Ave 36 Above Average 132 44 Kingston Rd 36 Above Average 104 12 Brookhaven Dr. 36 Above Average 35 17 McFarland Ave. 36 Above Average 401 1 Sanagan Rd 36 Above Average 309 20 Dundas St.W. 34 Above Average 308 20 Hickory St. 34 Above Average 217 28 Dundas St.E 33 Above Average 86 34 Don Mills Rd. 33 Above Average 26 13 Maria St. 33 Above Average 125 32 Aldridge Ave. 31 Above Average 141 42 Littles Rd. 30 Above Average 42 18 Muir Ave. 30 Above Average 312 19 Mansfield Ave. 30 Above Average 213 28 George St. 29 Above Average 223 26 Millwood Rd 29 Above Average 6 2 Westona St. 28 Above Average Final Report - 07 October 2006 71 Site Id Ward Site name Items/Site 150 30 Booth Ave. 28 Above Average 158 37 Warden Ave. 27 Above Average 417 28 Sydenham St 27 Above Average 507 13 Humberview 27 Above Average 179 36 Eglinton Ave.E 26 Above Average 18 5 Rosewood Ave. 26 Above Average 215 28 Pashler Ave. 25 Above Average 505 40 Bridletowne 25 Above Average 513 44 Ling 25 Above Average 306 20 Kensington Ave. 25 Above Average 31 17 Osier St. 25 Above Average 51 17 Alberta Ave. 25 Above Average 48 19 Euclid Av. 24 Above Average 69 9 Wilson Ave. 24 Above Average 204 22 Berwick Ave. 24 Above Average 119 6 Butterick Rd. 24 Above Average 129 32 Gerrard St. E 23 Above Average 1 1 Markbrook Lane 22 Above Average 307 20 Dundas St.W. 22 Above Average 21 6 Browns Line 21 Above Average 106 12 Lampton Ave.(was Astoria) 21 Above Average 37 14 Campbell Ave. 21 Above Average 500 3 Lloyd Manor 20 Above Average 114 8 Chesswood Dr. 20 Above Average 57 20 Kensington Ave. 20 Above Average 8 4 Martin Grove Rd.(was Tollington) 20 Above Average 421 32 Rhodes Ave 19 Above Average 46 19 Stafford St. 19 Above Average 111 8 Finch Ave.W 19 Above Average 221 32 Cedarvale Ave. 19 Above Average 316 20 Wellington St.W 19 Above Average 47 19 Mansfield Ave. 18 Above Average 112 8 Jane St. 18 Above Average 20 6 Valermo Dr. 18 Above Average 54 20 Dennison Ave. 17 Above Average 25 13 St.Clair Ave.W 17 Above Average 329 27 Grosvenor St. 17 Above Average 142 31 St Clair Ave.E 17 Above Average 50 17 Benson Ave. 17 Above Average 40 14 Queen St.W. 17 Above Average 202 26 Esandar St. 16 Above Average 520 3 The West Mall 16 Above Average 514 22 Avenue 16 Above Average 146 30 Caroline Ave. 16 Above Average 337 41 Midland Ave(was site 169A) 16 Above Average 115 16 Lawrence Ave.W 16 Above Average Final Report - 07 October 2006 72 Site Id Ward Site name Items/Site 503 10 Charleswood 16 Above Average 210 27 Mutual St. 15 Average 16 5 Fieldway Rd. 15 Average 49 19 Palmerston Ave. 15 Average 413 20 Lippincott St 15 Average 183 42 Sheppard Ave.E 15 Average 99 15 Glenmount Ave. 15 Average 23 5 Canmotor Ave 15 Average 178 36 Kingston Rd 15 Average 151 29 Femwood Gardens 14 Below Average 419 30 Winnifred Ave 14 Below Average 52 20 Portland St. 14 Below Average 68 7 Franson Cres. 14 Below Average 2 1 Glenhollow Ave. 14 Below Average 270 28 Lake Shore Ave. 14 Below Average 318 20 Augusta Ave. 14 Below Average 44 19 Pendrith St. 14 Below Average 410 16 Grey Rd 14 Below Average 28 13 Runnymede Rd. 13 Below Average 100 15 Dalemount Ave. 13 Below Average 219 30 Kintyre Ave. 13 Below Average 3 1 Amoro Dr. 13 Below Average 209 28 Prospect St. 13 Below Average 330 28 Ontario St. 13 Below Average 61 27 Grenville St. 13 Below Average 323 20 John St. 13 Below Average 105 12 Thurodale Ave. 13 Below Average 77 23 Doris Ave.(was Grandview) 13 Below Average 92 25 York Mills Rd. 13 Below Average 67 7 Windhill Cres. 13 Below Average 522 21 Davenport 13 Below Average 154 35 Verdun Ave. 13 Below Average 7 2 Kingdom St. 12 Below Average 24 11 Oak St. 12 Below Average 524 15 Rogers 12 Below Average 128 32 Wayland Ave. 12 Below Average 94 25 Bayview Ave 12 Below Average 301 20 Bloor St.W. 12 Below Average 222 26 Don Mills Rd. 12 Below Average 153 35 Kennedy Rd. 12 Below Average 127 32 Orchard Park Blvd. 12 Below Average 205 22 Chaplin Cres 12 Below Average 521 20 Bernard 12 Below Average 220 28 Lake Shore Ave. 12 Below Average 207 27 Roxborough St.W 11 Below Average Final Report - 07 October 2006 73 Site Id Ward Site name Items/Site 53 20 Wolseley St. 11 Below Average 79 24 Dumont St. 11 Below Average 70 8 Tuscan Gate 11 Below Average 103 12 Amesbury Dr. 11 Below Average 406 6 Symons St 11 Below Average 133 44 Hedge End Rd. 11 Below Average 38 14 Indian Trail 11 Below Average 30 17 Naim Ave. 11 Below Average 27 13 Methuen Ave. 11 Below Average 304 20 Lippincott St. 11 Below Average 39 14 Sunnyside Ave. 10 Below Average 126 32 Ashdale Ave. 10 Below Average 206 22 Avenue Rd. 10 Below Average 258 28 Sackville St. 10 Below Average 93 25 Danville Dr. 10 Below Average 118 13 Woodland Hts. 10 Below Average 123 32 Barker Ave. 10 Below Average 113 8 Magnetic Dr. 10 Below Average 159 37 Princemere Cr 10 Below Average 261 20 Augusta Ave. 10 Below Average 165 40 Huntingwood Dr. 10 Below Average 517 6 Murrie 10 Below Average 218 30 Carroll St. 9 Below Average 168 39 Chapel Park Sq. 9 Below Average 336 28 The Esplanade 9 Below Average 184 42 Unita Gr.(Grove) 9 Below Average 108 9 Murray Rd. 9 Below Average 317 20 Adelaide St.W 9 Below Average 172 41 Maybrook Dr. 9 Below Average 303 20 Borden St. 9 Below Average 300 19 Bloor St. W 9 Below Average 170 41 Crockamhill Dr. 9 Below Average 55 20 Augusta Ave. 9 Below Average 58 20 Glasgow St. 8 Below Average 508 41 Mollard 8 Below Average 519 3 Eringate 8 Below Average 523 13 Watson 8 Below Average 164 40 Kellen St. 8 Below Average 85 34 Roywood Dr. 8 Below Average 17 5 Elderidge Ave. 8 Below Average 167 39 Sanwood Blvd. 8 Below Average 148 29 Selkirk St. 8 Below Average 311 19 Euclid Ave. 8 Below Average 124 31 Halsey Ave. 8 Below Average 315 19 Niagara St. 8 Below Average Final Report - 07 October 2006 74 Site Id Ward Site name Items/Site 74 23 Churchill Ave. 7 Below Average 166 39 Kilchum Castle Dr. 7 Below Average 328 27 Gloucester St. 7 Below Average 333 28 Dundas St. E. 7 Below Average 512 16 Duplex 7 Below Average 310 20 Eden PL 7 Below Average 302 20 Sussex Ave. 7 Below Average 326 27 St.Nicholas St. 7 Below Average 102 15 Ronald Ave. 7 Below Average 338 7 Benrubin Dr. 7 Below Average 156 37 Sherwood Ave. 7 Below Average 101 15 Lanark Ave. 7 Below Average 5 2 Lockheed Blvd 7 Below Average 80 24 Michigan Dr. 7 Below Average 82 33 Cobblestone St. 7 Below Average 425 38 Kencliff Gres 7 Below Average 117 16 Avenue Rd. 7 Below Average 320 20 Sullivan St. 7 Below Average 33 17 Uxbridge Ave. 7 Below Average 418 29 Memorial Park Ave 6 Below Average 511 21 Heathdale 6 Below Average 335 28 Frederick St. 6 Below Average 136 44 Moorefield Dr. 6 Below Average 416 27 Grosvenor St 6 Below Average 155 35 Eglinton Ave.E 6 Below Average 203 22 Cleveland St. 6 Below Average 426 39 Glen Springs Dr 6 Below Average 212 28 Colboume St. 6 Below Average 36 14 Dupont St. 6 Below Average 89 25 Riderwood Dr. 6 Below Average 73 23 Newtonbrook Blvd. 6 Below Average 163 40 Murmouth Rd. 6 Below Average 29 13 Spring Rd. 6 Below Average 411 17 Northcliffe Blv 6 Below Average 11 4 Aylesbury Rd. 6 Below Average 83 33 Leslie St. 6 Below Average 256 28 King St.W. 6 Below Average 107 9 Comelius Pkwy. 6 Below Average 414 25 Hopperton Dr 5 Below Average 72 10 Heaton St. 5 Below Average Final Report - 07 October 2006 75 Site Id Ward Site name Items/Site 252 28 Avenue(of the Island) 5 Below Average 145 29 Plains Rd. 5 Below Average 149 29 Pape Ave 5 Below Average 140 42 Scarborough-Pickering Town line 5 Below Average 59 20 Elm St. 5 Below Average 208 27 Mt. Pleasant Rd. 5 Below Average 160 37 Flora Dr. 5 Below Average 147 30 Frizzell Ave. 5 Below Average 66 21 Bathurst St. 5 Below Average 257 28 Parkview Ave. 5 Below Average 84 33 George Henry Blvd. 5 Below Average 422 34 Upjohn Rd.(was York Mills Rd) 5 Below Average 81 24 Wycliffe Ave. 5 Below Average 169 41 Midland Ave 5 Below Average 332 27 Gerrard St.E. 5 Below Average 13 4 Finchley Rd. 5 Below Average 139 43 Leverhume Cres. 5 Below Average 14 4 Bumhamthorpe Park Blvd. 5 Below Average 407 13 Langmuir Cres 5 Below Average 45 19 Crawford St. 5 Below Average 98 16 Henning Ave. 5 Below Average 162 40 Crocus Dr. 4 Below Average 157 37 Laxford Ave. 4 Below Average 88 25 Tottenham Rd. 4 Below Average 181 38 Lynnbrook Dr. 4 Below Average 506 9 Victory 4 Below Average 144 29 Monarch Park Ave. 4 Below Average 161 40 Ellesmere Rd. 4 Below Average 76 23 Tamworth Rd. 4 Below Average 138 43 Galloway Rd. 4 Below Average 201 30 Broadview Ave. 4 Below Average 424 37 Minford Ave 4 Below Average 41 18 Whytock Ave. 4 Below Average 250 19 Stafford St. 3 Below Average 135 44 Broadbridge Dr. 3 Below Average 214 28 Richmond St. E. 3 Below Average 211 20 John St. 3 Below Average 501 36 Winston 3 Below Average 176 36 Randall Cres. 3 Below Average 152 35 Zenith Dr. 3 Below Average 525 35 Davidson Ave. 3 Below Average 334 28 Richmond St.E. 3 Below Average 120 32 Queen St. East 3 Below Average 60 20 Oxley St. 3 Below Average Final Report - 07 October 2006 76 Site Id Ward Site name Items/Site 405 5 Cochrane Dr 3 Below Average 403 3 Gentian Dr 3 Below Average 510 32 Scarborough 3 Below Average 321 20 Queen St.W. 3 Below Average 64 21 Ave Rd. 2 Below Average 121 32 Glen Stewart Ave. 2 Below Average 415 25 Shouldice Crt 2 Below Average 97 25 Deloraine Ave. 2 Below Average 91 25 Wimpole Dr. 2 Below Average 90 25 Ealing Dr. 2 Below Average 87 34 Aldenham Cres. 2 Below Average 502 36 Fallingbrook 2 Below Average 78 23 Byng Ave. 2 Below Average 504 35 St Clair E 2 Below Average 177 36 Randall Cres. 2 Below Average 173 32 Victoria Park Ave. 2 Below Average 65 21 Vesta Dr. 2 Below Average 75 23 Tamworth Rd. 2 Below Average 518 31 Machokie 2 Below Average 216 28 Bright St. 2 Below Average 174 36 Wynnview Crt. 1 Below Average 175 36 Sloley Rd. 1 Below Average 180 38 Suraty Ave. 1 Below Average 63 21 Vesta Dr. 1 Below Average 62 21 Old Park Rd. 1 Below Average 182 38 Progress Ave. 1 Below Average 95 25 Stratford Cres. 1 Below Average 56 20 Napanee Ct. 1 Below Average 423 36 Kenny Ave 1 Below Average 137 44 Manse Rd 1 Below Average 516 40 Corinthian 1 Below Average 420 31 Dunkirk Rd 1 Below Average 71 10 Josephine Rd. 0 Below Average 109 9 Beffort Rd. 0 Below Average 134 44 Portsmouth Dr. 0 Below Average 259 27 Dundas St.W. 0 Below Average 271 36 Wynnview Crt. 0 Below Average Above Average sites 88 30% Average sites 8 3% Below Average sites 202 68% Final Report - 07 October 2006 77 APPENDIX 4 - Photos - Setting up a Site Large Litter Count , r : r ; • Team Arrives at the site, Measures 50ft. ahead of car, ` `------ sets up site • Marks starting point— mid-point and end of site M n b , fit. • Takes photos of site • Then walks site—describing the large litter— and dictating into a tape recorder _ p o . 1 Final Report - 07 October 2006 78 Photos-Small Litte r— Set up and Counting • While team member is completing : ,„ ,,-,41- --- ,k,,, ' .%!:4-, large litter count — small litter frame is used to examine small litter , { '41111:4",,-, -, "z-z,,,,s-,: ' 0: :, .0,,,,1 ,._._,1,.,,,, • Small litter is examined at close range In order to see, count and describe °. ' A ,-Ne..*1- . ,.,„7:..,„4:1.-:,,,,,j ak, mss. �e � � F iq ''° "� r srrr a ri _^� • Three "flips" counted at each site {E. = 4 1 k ,44, t rev 79 Final Report - 07 October 2006 APPENDIX 5 — Clean up Routes 2006 Bag&Broom Routes I i _L i '\ C+y= ' �.�Mir 1tit ,Ilan .. t�N. 4aII�P11/11 S llnbr i - _ rllerac wn�• aw- �J� of=4121 e I h,�'11:5,01r,'IFif'',.AL.. 1111 TORONTO •�•+• x Clean City IIUU!!1lll YIi ���Y Beautiful City Final Report - 07 October 2006 2006 Fly Squad Routes . . ill ..."•... . 1 . .-... ,. !Ma Mi ! . , , ........, 1 I , %...... iirmilk _ _..,. , 1 „,„ ,,, , , , ,---- - i ‘,..._.,._.40., fir , pram' lifilfill■ , , \ ' :', ',.... '11111111111111111 --. 'k• ,, , :, iv' IIIIIIMINE111 .,..,.., : -'_--- „- . _ - . , 11.4 iiia ' .' gillipisipir , r i CaPpiull■ 4, I . . , . 1,1111 _ -4,4•4-----"--; ,.. i. ' • ' 111111111111111 Err- apingyit.- ' 111111111111111 . i •— ...." i . . ' 1 Ii . . , i . . ‘.istigli k.,'-ivial'14"0:!:!!,` .,Milli . Pr _ ------ airoliq..trAL.,=-781 ...,:,..041.,,,..._ ._,--- --.----AP . -- - ICE rh ,r --- t s" I P'f'r e 4, 4...0.., . EDIET61.225 3 If I 11M-7111M Clean City UTOROM11 Kilometers - ReautifulCity 81 Final Report - 07 October 2006 _.. __ 2006 Litter Vac Routes ___. 1 ' i t- • i t --- ' 11111111111111 I r f BM , ... Malt.,_..11- . "-- 1\ . 7 i, ,ir , , i ; - _ . .„. __ % ._ ------4 1 , - , 1 '' tit: I 4 1 i ,i 1111 X11 ' ` �1 1, � :- — .�.9 111 :,./Elsji,...___, 4:„..... A.m. , zz:IL:-.,,T41,7;--..,....:-.-•-7:"1:). � - � 3 ...+,■mot ...„,c5.. N tCO6t2182s j j1PArkizt__ S_�:� 1 Clean City lid TARO Kypn� Beautiful City Final Report - 07 October 2006 82 TORONTO yttlits&Ewe/Soils Sold Waste Mowed Sykes APPENDIX 6 - Branded Litter Survey (2006) PREPARED FOR Works and Emergency Services, Solid Waste Management Services Division PREPARED BY MGM Management www.mqm-management.com October 7,2006 Final Report - 07 October 2006 Appendix 6 - Branded Litter Survey 1.0 Methodology— Branded Litter Using the Surveyor Site Form (with 84 categories of large litter) as a guide, data observing the names of manufacturers and brand owners of littered materials were recorded. Branded litter is described as any large litter (i.e. over 4 square inches) that has a recognizable brand name affixed. Where doubt occurred in the brand of the item — no entry was made. Team surveyors verbally identified litter by brand name, which was later transcribed onto Site Survey Forms, for data entry and analysis. 2.0 Branded Litter Results 2.1 Beverage Branded Litter Beer cans represent an insignificant contribution to large litter in the City of Toronto. Only a few beer containers (10 in total) of any brand were observed during the audit. We deem this sample to be too small to be statistically valid for commenting on the distribution of beer container litter on Toronto streets. The brands of beer containers observed were: • Amsterdam • Labatts • Coors • Becks • Stella Artois • Molson Final Report - 07 October 2006 84 2.2 Soft Drink Cans - Branded Litter Soft drink can brands were identified where possible. The table and the chart below illustrate the brands observed in the 2006 large litter audit. It should be noted that in the 2005 audit 117 identified brands of canned soft drinks were observed. The distribution by major brands, notably Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Nestle Nestea, Sprite, Canada Dry and Crush brands representing over 70% of observed carbonated soft drink can litter. Soft Drinks-Cans (2006) Brand Observed of Branded Sub- Items Category Coca-Cola 25 27.2% Pepsi 12 13.0% Nestea 11 12.0% Soft Drink Litter-Cans-by Brands Sprite 8 8.7% Canada Dry 5 5.4% Monster!Energy 2% Presidents Choice Crush 5 5.4% Masters Choice 2% 2% 5 Alive 3 3.3% 2 Frutopia 3 3.3% C2P%s Coca-Cola t 7UP 2 2.2% \\, 27% C Plus 2 2.2% 7UP __ Masters Choice 2 2.2% 2% '_ Monster Energy 2 2.2% ' Frutopia Presidents Choice 2 2.2% 3% Pepsi A&W 1 1.1% 13% Best 1 1.1% 5 Alive Black Label 1 1.1% 3% Crush Nestea Blackthorn 1 1.1% 5% Sprite 12% Brisk 1 1.1% Canada Dry 9% Dr.Pepper 1 1.1% Fresca 1 1.1% RC Cola 1 1.1% Red Bull 1 1.1% Schwepps 1 1.1% 92 100.0% Discussion: Six brands account for 70% of the soft drink can brands littered on Toronto streets. 2.2a Soft Drink Plastic - Branded Litter The 2006 audit found 25 brands of plastic soft drink containers that were identifiable during the course of the survey, compared to identifying 11 branded soft drink containers in the 2005 audit. Four brands represent 72% of branded soft drink litter in plastic bottles, these were: • Coca-Cola • Pepsi-Cola • Nestea • Sprite The chart and table on the next page illustrate this data. Final Report - 07 October 2006 85 Soft Drinks-Plastic Bottles (2006) Brand Observed w Soft Drink-Plastic-by Brand Branded Sub- Items Category Gatorade KOYA Presidents Choice Coca-Cola Coca-Cola 6 24.0% 4% a% 4% 24% Nestea 6 24.0% Faidee Pepsi 4 16.0% a% Sprite 2 8.0% 72.0% Crush 4% 7Up 1 4.0% Chubby Chubby 1 4.0% 4% Crush 1 4.0% Faidee 1 4.0% 7Up Gatorade 1 4.0% 4% KOYA 1 4.0% Presidents Choice 1 4.0% Sprite Nestea 8% Pepsi 24% 25 100.0% 16% 2.2b Bottled Water - Branded Litter Water-Plastic Bottles (2006) Brand Observed r or Branded Sub- Items Category Water Bottles(2006)-by Brand o Canadian S nn Huronia Nestle 25 41.0/o ana P 9 2% Nature Springs Saint Cinnamon NAYA 8 13.1% 2% 2% 2% Aquafina 5 8 2% Fembrook Ice River Tim Hortons Desani 4 6.6% 3% Iligan 2% 2% President's Choice 4 6.6% 75.4% Toronto Montclair 3 4.9% Evian 2 Evian 2 3.3% 3% Fernbrook 2 3.3% Montclair Canadian Spring 1 1.6% 5% Nestle Culligan 1 1.6% 40% Huronia 1 1.6% Ice River 1 1.6% President's Choice Nature Springs 1 1.6% 7% Saint Cinnamon 1 1.6% Desani NAPA Tim Hortons 1 1.6% 7% Aquafina 12% Toronto 1 1.6% 7% 61 100.0% Discussion: Bottled water has continued to be a growth packaged beverage for people on the go. Sales of bottled water have been reported growing at over 10% per year in various trade magazines. Plastic water bottles were the most discarded form of beverage container observed in the 2006 litter audit. In 2006 there were 118 total water bottles identified, of which 61 were positively identified by brand. In 2005, 81 branded water bottles were identified. Five brands make up 75% of the observed water bottles observed as litter on Toronto streets in the 2006 litter audit; these were: • Nestle water • NAYA • Aquafina • Desana • Presidents Choice Final Report - 07 October 2006 86 2.4 Sport Drinks - Branded Litter Discussion: Sport drinks were not a significant component of total large litter on Toronto streets. Only 14 sports drink containers were observed in the 2006 audit, of which 7 branded containers in the sport drink category were observed. This is a similar finding as observed in 2005. Sport Drinks-Plastic Bottles (2006) Brand Observed Sport Drinks(Plastic)2006 %of Branded Ting Sub- 14% Items Category 411111k Gatorade 4 57% Powerade 2 29% Ting 1 14% 7 100% Powerade Gatorade 29% 57% 2.5 Wine & Liquor - Branded Litter As in previous litter audits, wine & liquor litter were not a significant component of total large litter on Toronto streets. Only 3 branded containers in the wine & liquor category were observed in 2006, 5 units in 2005. 2.6 Milk & Juice - Branded Litter Milk&Juice Containers-All Types(2006) Brand Observed %of Milk&Juice Packaging-by Brands(2006) Branded Sub- Items Category Yoplait Fairlee 20% vita 10% 20% Fairlee 2 P0 10% Destiny 1 10% l Frooti 1 10% Minute Maid 1 10% Neilson 1 10% Tropicana ° 10% Destiny Neilson 1 10% Tropicana 1 10% 10% Vita 1 10% Yoplait 1 10% 10 100% Neilson_., Frooti 10% Minute Maid 10% Neilson 10% 10% Final Report - 07 October 2006 87 Discussion: Various brands of milk and juice products in glass and plastic containers were observed during the 2006 litter audit. There were 20 total items observed, of which a brand identification was made on 10 containers, as illustrated above. 2.7 Aseptic Drink Boxes - Branded Litter Aseptic Containers (2006) Brand Observed Aseptic•by Brands TO of Minute Maid Branded 12.5% Sub- Items Category Five Alive 4 50.0% Delmonte Aliens 2 25.0% 12.5% Delmonte 1 12.5% Minute Maid 1 12.5% Five Alive 50% 8 100% Aliens 25% Discussion: Only 10 aseptic containers were observed for this sub-category of large litter, of which 8 were recognizable brands. 3.0 Cups, Lids and Cup Debris Branded Litter This category encompasses all cold and hot drink cup litter, including lids. In general sites near a coffee shop, fast-food outlet or other over-the-counter drink outlet were highest in their occurrence of cup debris. The category is summarized below. In the 2006 audit, cups, lids and pieces are 7.3% of total large litter on Toronto streets; compared to 7.4 % in 2005. Hot drink cups and cup lids were almost exclusively take-out coffee cups, and these accounted for majority of the cup litter. Presentation of the brand observations for this subcategory appear below. Final Report - 07 October 2006 88 Plastic Cups(2006) Plastic Cups-by Brands(2006) Brand Observed r°ot Branded Sub- Second Cup Items Category Gina Molson 6% 6% 6% Tim Hortons 10 55.6% Dixie 7up 2 11.1% 6% 7 Eleven 1 5.6% Alexander Keiths 1 5.6% Dixie 1 5.6% Alexander Keiths Gina 1 5.6% 6% Tim Hortons Molson 1 5.6% 55% Second Cup 1 5.6% 7 Eleven 5% 7up 10% 18 100.0% Paper Cold Drink Cups(2006) Brand Observed To Branded Sub- Items Category Paper Cold Drink Cups(2006) McDonalds 7 26% KFC 5 19% Coca-Cola_ Pepsi Slurpee Tim Hortons 5 19% 4% 4% 4% Subway McDonalds Coffee Time 2 7% Burger King Wendy's 2 7% 4% 7 Eleven 1 4% 7 Eleven Burger King 1 4% a% Coca-Cola 1 4% Pepsi 1 4% Wendys Slurpee 1 4% 7% Subway 1 4% KFC Coffee Time 18% 27 100% 7% Tim Hortons 19% The 2006 Toronto Litter audit also examined the brands of hot drink paper cups, normally associated with coffee shops. These brand results appear below. Final Report - 07 October 2006 89 Paper Hot Drink Cups(2006) Brand Observed or Paper Cups(Hot)(2006) Branded Sub- Items Category Starbuck's Wendy's Mister Coffee Java Stop 3% 1% Tim Hortons 44 61% McDonalds 3% Coffee Time 14 19% 3% Country Style 5 7% McDonalds 3 3% Country Style Java Stop 2 3% 7% Starbuck's 2 3% Wendy's 2 3% Mister Coffee 1 1% Coffee Time Tim Hortons 72 100.0% 19% 61% Another significant component of cup litter are the lids and pieces of cups and lids that are greater than 4 sq. inches in size. Brand observations for this subcategory are presented below. Cup Lids&Pieces(2006) Brand Observed Cup Lids&Pieces(2006) %ot Branded Sub- Country Time Items Cate o 2% Second Cup gory Burger King 2% Wendy's McDonalds2% 2% Tim Hortons 33 58% a% Coffee Time 15 25% Country Style 3 5% Country Style 5% McDonalds 3 4% Burger King 1 2% Country Time 1 2% Second Cup 1 2% Wendy's 1 2% Tim Hortons Coffee Time 58% 25% 57 100% Final Report - 07 October 2006 90 4.0 Bag Branded Litter 4.1 Plastic & Paper Retail and Paper Bags from Fast Food In the 2005 Toronto Litter Audit, field teams observed 14 items in the plastic retail bag category. In 2006 only six plastic retail bags were observed. Only two identifiable brands were noted: 1 bag from Dominion grocery stores, and on plastic bag from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Only 4 paper bags from non-fast food sources were observed in the 2006 audit—these were identified as: Fortino's, No Frills and one Presidents Choice paper bag. Paper Bags- Fast Food(2006) Brand Observed To or Paper Bags-Fast Food(2006) Branded Sub- Items Category Second Cup Tim Hortons 15 51% 7% McDonalds 6 21% Country Style Coffee Time 4 14% 7% Country Style 2 7% Coffee Time Second Cup 2 7% Tim Hortons 51% 29 100% McDonalds 21% 5.0 Boxes, Cardboard Boxes, Other Containers, Food Wrap This sub-category of litter, yielded few identifiable brands. The entire sub-category was less than 1% of total large litter observed. Some brands that were observed were: Smarties, Pringles, Nielsen (chocolates), and Gibbons were identified. Final Report - 07 October 2006 91 6.0 Fast Food Litter Brands Identified 6.1 Food Wraps - Brands Food wraps are associated with take-out food and sandwiches and products sold over the counter. Plastic food wraps were observed, however there were no brand markings on these littered items. Paper Food Wrap (2006) Brand Observed Paper Food Wraps ro of Branded Tim Hortons Sub- Burger King 125‘ Items Category 12% McDonalds 5 53% Coffee Time 2 24% Burger King 1 12% Tim Hortons 1 12% Coffee Time McDonalds 9 100% 24% 52% The litter audit teams observed other food wrap materials, such as plastic wraps, and plastic/composite foil wraps; however positive brand identifications could not be made. 6.2 Take-Out Extra Branded Litter Take-out extras constitute a modest contribution of litter, 55 items of which some of them like condiment packages could be identified. Take-out extras including napkins and utensils and condiment packaging contribute 1.26% of total litter% of total litter. However, with the exception of condiment packaging with a brand name upon it, many of the items could not be positively identified (i.e. forks, spoons, napkins—even if they site was in proximity to a fast food outlet. Without positive identification these items were not included as "branded items") In the 2006 litter audit only 11 condiment packages were oserved; of which 8 were identifiable by brand were observed, compared to 54 in 2005. This may be due to sampling variability, in that each year different field auditors are used and these individuals must interpret what large litter qualifies to be counted, and what litter pieces are too small. It was noted in 2006 that several auditors felt that condiment packaged (ketchup, vinegar etc.) were too small to be considered large litter and were thus not counted and the brands noted. With only 8 branded observations available in 2006, we cannot validly comment on the distribution of branded condiment packaging observed in this audit. Similarly, insufficient data was obtained to positively identify any statistical distribution of branded litter in the fast food name brand towels/napkins subcategory (22 pieces of litter counted of which 5 had identifiable brands). The same low counts of fast food plates prevent a brand distribution comment being made for fast food plate subcategory. Final Report - 07 October 2006 92 7.0 Confectionary Branded Litter Confectionary products comprised 6.89 % of large litter in the 2005 audit (compared to 8.85 % of large litter in the 2005 audit). The 2006 data shows a declining trend for large confectionary litter down from 9.9% of the total large litter observed in 2004, and 8.5% observed in 2002. However, confectionary packaging remains a significant contributor to litter on Toronto streets. 7.1 Brands of Gum Wrap Litter Gum litter remains a significant issue in Toronto. Gum packaging litters the streets, and there are high occurrences of gum deposits on sidewalks and streets throughout the city. Gum packaging contributed 1.47% of all large litter in 2006, down significantly from 2.25 % of all large litter in the 2005 audit, 2.6% in the 2004 survey, and 2.0% in 2002. The top five brands make up over 87% of branded gum litter observed. Gum Packaging-by brand (2006) Brand Observed Gum Litter-by brands(2006) r of Branded Sub- Items Category Bubble Bubble Bubblicious Wrigley's 2% 2% 2% Dentyne Dentyne 12 29% Double Bubble 29% 6% Trident 9 21% Excel 8 19% Extra Juicy Fruit 5 11% 7% Extra 3 7% Double Bubble 3 6% Bubble Bubble 1 2% Juicy Fruit 11% Trident Bubblicious 1 2% Excel 21% Wrigley's 1 2% 19% 42 100% Final Report - 07 October 2006 93 7.2 Brands of Candy Wrap Litter In the 2006 litter audit 143 candy wraps were observed, of which 59 were identifiable by brand compared to 141 identified brands in 2005. As described above, this may be due to sampling variability, in that each year different field auditors are used and these individuals must interpret what large litter qualifies to be counted, and what litter pieces are too small. It is noted in 2006 that several auditors felt that some candy wrap packaging was too small to be considered large litter and were thus not counted and the brands noted. The 2006 litter audit observations give a similar brand distribution picture to previous audits, as presented below. Candy bar wrappers - by brand (2006) Brand Observed %or Branded Sub- Items Category Snickers 5 8% Big Turk 1 2% Kit-Kat 5 8% Campino 1 2% Nestle 4 7% Dare 1 2% O Henry 4 7% FIZZ 1 2% Aero 3 5% Fruit Loops 1 2% Mars Bar 3 5% Kellogs 1 2% Quaker 3 5% Kindder 1 2% Reese 3 5% Nature Valley 1 2% Cadbury 3 4% Nibs 1 2% Hersheys 3 4% Oreo 1 2% Smarties 2 3% Rolo 1 2% Turtles 2 3% Sorbee 1 2% Glosets 2 3% Starburst 1 2% Halls 2 3% Werthers 1 2% Mentos 2 3% Jolly Rancher 1 1% Mr Big 2 3% 59 75% Final Report - 07 October 2006 94 Candy Wraps - by brand (2006) 9% 8% 7% 6% II 5% 111111 4% 11111111 3% 1111111111 2% 11111111111111 1% 0% II I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I II I r 1111uIuI11111I111IIuI11 ' IIIIIII 7.3 Brands of Candy Pouch Litter Candy Pouches-by brand(2006) Brand Observed Candy Pouches-by brand(2006) %of Branded Sub- Items Category Vicks 8% Kinder Twiulers Kinder 2 17% e% 17% M&M s 2 17% Tic-Tac Skittles 2 17% 8% Bacon Marvis 1 8% M&M s Drumstick 1 8% Honey Maid 17% Honey Maid 1 8% 8% Tic-Tac 1 8% Drumstick Twizzlers 1 8% 8% Skittles Vicks 1 8% Bacon Marvin 17% 8% 12 100% Final Report - 07 October 2006 95 7.4 Brands of Sweet Snack Litter Other Sweet Confectionary Litter-by Brands Items %of Sub- Cateciory Mr Freezie 6 9.5% Dunkaroos 1 1.6% Doritos 4 6.3% Fishermans Lozer 1 1.6% Nestle 4 6.3% Fortune Cookie 1 1.6% Kisko 3 4.8% Frito Lay 1 1.6% Popsicle 3 4.8% Fudges 1 1.6% Quaker 3 4.8% General Mills 1 1.6% Guragao 2 3.2% Grissol 1 1.6% Hagen-Dazs 2 3.2% Halls 1 1.6% Kellogs 2 3.2% Kool-Aid 1 1.6% Lays 2 3.2% Lifebrand 1 1.6% McDonalds 2 3.2% Miss Vickis 1 1.6% Oreo 2 3.2% Pringles 1 1.6% Sun Maid 2 3.2% Ritz 1 1.6% Zone 2 3.2% Sara Lee 1 1.6% Baskin Robbins 1 1.6% Smart Food 1 1.6% Beyers 1 1.6% Snow Cone 1 1.6% Body Plus 1 1.6% Starburst 1 1.6% Cheese Stick 1 1.6% Werthers 1 1.6% Cheese Strings 1 1.6% Complements 1 1.6% 63 100.0% See chart- next page Final Report - 07 October 2006 96 Other Sweet Packaging -by brand (2006) Brand Observed is or Branded Sub- Items Category Freezie 10 24% Kisko 5 12% Mr. Freeze 4 10% Nestle 4 10% Nature Valley 3 7% Betty Crocker 2 5% Popsicle 2 5% Baby Mum Mum 1 2% Bryers 1 2% Chapman's 1 2% Drumstick 1 2% Good Humour 1 2% Junior Mints 1 2% Kinder Surprise 1 2% Kool-aid 1 2% Mike&Ikes 1 2% Munchie 1 2% Oreos 1 2% 41 100% Other Sweet Packaging - by brand (2006) 25% 20% I 15% 10% o I 0% d H y N o N N E w q! y v m d Y (� J N C U O _ Y LL m a E g !z > Q o n ai S LL N 0 2 m 2 = ° V) Y x 2 N d >. O z m 0 m Y Final Report - 07 October 2006 97 8.0 Branded Printed Materials In the sub-category of branded printed material 17 lottery tickets were observed. This is a relatively small sample. The dominant brands were Lotto 649, Cash for Life and Bingo. Printed materials of various types of newspapers and advertisements were a significant contributor to large litter, contributing 5.1% of total large litter observed. Many of the pieces of large litter counted could not be positively identified as to the brand name of the producer of the printed material, due to weathering of the litter or shredding due to lawn mowing activities. The diverse nature of this sub-category and a listing of brands are presented below. 8.1 Newspapers, Advertisements Printed Materials - by brand (2006) Brand Observed ro or Branded Sub- Items Category Dominion 2 7% Dream Homes 2 7% Metro(Free) 2 7% Mirror 2 7% Sears 2 7% Toronto Star 2 7% 24 Hours 1 3% Bank Nova Scotia 1 3% Best Buy 1 3% Blacks 1 3% Careers 1 3% Carlton Cards 1 3% CNIB 1 3% Eye Witness 1 3% Globe and Mail 1 3% Home Depot 1 3% Old Navy 1 3% People's 1 3% Pizza Pizza 1 3% Prudential 1 3% Sony 1 3% Sportcheck 1 3% The Source 1 3% Toronto Sun 1 3% 30 100% Final Report - 07 October 2006 98 Printed materials - by brand (2006) ai 1111 50° 11111 I 4% 111111 3/0111111111111111 1 2% 111111111111111111111111 : IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ' IIIIII I Iu � i iu � I � IIII ' III I I 8.2 Business Forms (TTC, receipts etc) Business forms, tickets, transfers and receipt litter continue to be of significance as a subcategory of large litter on Toronto streets. All printed materials, which includes: newspapers, flyers, branded and non-branded napkins, stationary, lottery tickets, and receipts make up 22% of total large litter in the 2006 audit. Business forms as a subcategory represent 4.7% of total large litter. TTC receipts and transfers continue to be the largest observed branded business form litter. In 2006, 77 TTC transfers were observed 1.8% of total litter. This observation has been made repeatedly since 2002; TTC transfers continue to be a litter source that remains on Toronto streets. TTC branded business form large litter represented 77% of this subcategory's identifiable large litter. See data details on the next page. Final Report - 07 October 2006 99 Business Receipts, Forms , Transfers Brand Observed %ot Branded Sub- Items Category TTC 72 77% Parking Ticket 16 17% BMO 2 2% Bank of Nova Scotia 1 1% Days Inn 1 1% RBC 1 1% Walmart 1 1% 94 100% Business Forms - by brand (2006) Bank of Nova Scotia Days Inn RBC 1% 1% 1% Walmart 1% BMD 2% Parking Ticket 17% TTC 77% Final Report - 07 October 2006 100 9.0 Tobacco Litter Du Maurier, Belmont, Peter Jackson and Players are the dominant brands of tobacco litter observed in the litter audit of 2006; comprising 84% if observed brands on streets. It should be noted that "bootleg" cigarette litter such as DK and Native are being observed on city streets. Tobacco Litter-by brand (2006) Brand Observed /o of Branded Sub- Items Category DuMaurier 55 57% Belmont 12 13% Peter Jackson 7 7% Players 7 7% DK's 3 3% Export A 2 2% Panda 2 2% Benson&Hedges 1 1% Capri 1 1% Craven A 1 1% Dunhill 1 1% Mang Mei 1 1% Marlboro 1 1% Matinee 1 1% Native 1 1% Vantage 1 1% 96 100% Tobacco Litter-by Brands(2006) Benson&Hedges Dunhill Marlboro Matinee 1% 1% Mang Mei 1% ° raven A 1% Native° Panda °0 1% Vantage Export A 2% Cap 1% 2% °° DK's 3% Players 7% DuMaurier Peter Jackson 57% 7% Belmont 13% Final Report - 07 October 2006 101 VI California Integrated Waste Management Board August 2009 Contractor's Report To The Board 4 California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study Produced Under Contract by: Cascadia Consulting Group CASCADIA CONSULTING GROUP California Environmental Protection Agency S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor Linda S.Adams Secretary,California Environmental Protection Agency INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD Margo Reid Brown Sheila Kuehl John Laird Board Chair Board Member Board Member Carole Migden Rosalie Mule Position Vacant Board Member Board Member Mark Leary Executive Director For additional copies of this publication,contact: Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse(MS-6) 1001 I Street P.O. Box 4025 Sacramento, CA 95812-4025 www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/ 1-800-CA-WASTE(California only)or(916)341-6306 Publication#IWMB-2009-023 ® Copies of this document originally provided by CIWMB were printed on recycled paper containing 100 percent postconsumer fiber. Copyright©2009 by the California Integrated Waste Management Board.All rights reserved.This publication,or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without permission. Prepared as part of contract#IWM-06045(total contract amount:$635,146.86,includes other services). The California Integrated Waste Management Board(CIWMB)does not discriminate on the basis of disability in access to its programs. CIWMB publications are available in accessible formats upon request by calling the Public Affairs Office at(916)341-6300.Persons with hearing impairments can reach the CIWMB through the California Relay Service, 1-800-735-2929. Disclaimer: This report to the Board was produced under contract by the Cascadia Consulting Group.The statements and conclusions contained in this report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, its employees, or the State of California and should not be cited or quoted as official Board policy or direction. The State makes no warranty,expressed or implied, and assumes no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text.Any mention of commercial products or processes shall not be construed as an endorsement of such products or processes. Table of Contents Table of Contents i Table of Tables iii Table of Figures v Acknowledgments viii Executive Summary 1 Introduction and Objectives 1 Study Methodology 1 Results 2 Introduction and Overview 8 Relation to the Previous Studies 8 Objectives and General Methodology of the 2008 Study 10 Identifying Regions 10 Defining Waste Sectors 12 Scheduling Sites 13 Selecting Material Types 14 Determining the Composition of the Waste Stream 15 Quantifying the Waste Stream 16 Incorporating Additional Research and Analysis Tasks 17 Statewide Characterization Results 18 Interpreting the Results 18 Statewide Tonnages by Sector 20 Overall Disposed Waste Stream 21 Commercial Waste 25 Residential Waste 29 Single-Family Residential Waste 33 Multifamily Residential Waste 37 Self-hauled Waste 41 Commercial Self-hauled Waste 45 Residential Self-hauled Waste 49 Organics 53 Additional Research and Analysis Tasks 54 Divertibility Analysis 54 Laboratory Analysis of Asbestos in Roofing Load,' 65 Plastic Bags 66 C&D Survey 66 •••=11111=11111=11.111.1111111,11111111111101 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study i Appendix A: Detailed Methodology 67 Overview 69 Definition of Regions,Waste Sectors and Subsectors 69 Selection of and Scheduling and Logistics at Solid Waste Facilities and Multifamily Sites 73 Numbers of Samples 77 Obtaining and Sorting Waste Samples 79 Divertibility Analysis 82 Asbestos Testing in Roofing Loads 84 Vehicle Surveys 89 Description of Calculations and Statistical Procedures Used 91 Disposal Rates Applied to Population Estimates 101 Appendix B: List and Definitions of Material Types 103 Introduction 105 Expanded and Standard List of Material Types 106 Definitions of Material Types (Expanded List) 111 Appendix C: Forms Used in the Study 121 List of Forms Used 123 Vehicle Selection Form 124 Sample Placard 125 Sample Sorting&Characterization Form(front) 126 Sample Sorting&Characterization Form(back) 127 Vehicle Survey Form(front) 128 Vehicle Survey Form(back) 129 Snapshot of Multifamily Site Recruitment Database(Page 1) 130 Snapshot of Multifamily Site Recruitment Database(Page 2) 131 Multifamily Site Visit Form(page 1) 132 Multifamily Site Visit Form(Page 2) 133 Roofing Sample Form 134 Special Study Form 135 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form (Page 1) 136 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form(Page 2) 137 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form(Page 3) 138 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form(Page 4) 139 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form (Page 5) 140 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form(Page 6) 141 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form (Page 7) 142 Snapshot of Waste Composition Data Entry Database 143 NIMOMM11111111=111.111111111=1111111=111111111111/11111111111111111111111.1111111rimmi Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study ii Snapshot of Vehicle Survey Data Entry Spreadsheet 144 Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables 145 Overall Disposed Waste Stream 147 Commercial Waste 149 Residential Waste 151 Single-Family Residential Waste 153 Multifamily Residential Waste 155 Self-hauled Waste 157 Commercial Self-hauled Waste 159 Residential Self-hauled Waste 161 Table of Tables Table ES-1: Estimated Contribution of Each Sector to California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream 3 Table ES-2:Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in California's Overall Disposed Waste System 5 Table ES-3: Composition of California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream by Material Type 6 Table 1:Numbers of Waste Samples Characterized,by Sector and Subsector,2004 vs.2008 9 Table 2:Numbers of Waste Samples Characterized,by Sector and Subsector 15 Table 3:Numbers of Samples Assessed for Contamination,by Sector and Subsector 16 Table 4: Vehicle Survey Responses,by Region and Season 17 Table 5: Estimated Contribution of Each Sector to California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream 20 Table 6: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream 23 Table 7: Composition of California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream 24 Table 8: Overall Commercial Samples Obtained,by Region and Season 25 Table 9: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Commercial Disposed Waste 27 Table 10: Composition of Commercial Disposed Waste 28 Table 11:Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Overall Residential Disposed Waste 31 Table 12: Composition of Overall Residential Disposed Waste 32 Table 13: Single-Family Residential Samples Obtained,by Region and Season 33 Table 14:Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in S Ingle-Family Residential Disposed Waste 35 Table 15: Composition of Single-Family Residential Disposed Waste 36 Table 16: Multifamily Residential Samples Obtained,by Region and Season 37 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study iii Table 17:Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Multifamily Residential Disposed Waste 38 Table 18: Composition of Multifamily Residential Disposed Waste 40 Table 19: Self-hauled Samples Obtained by Region and Season 41 Table 20: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste 42 Table 21: Composition of Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste 44 Table 22: Contribution of Specific Activities to Commercial Self-hauled Waste 45 Table 23: Commercial Self-hauled Samples Obtained,by Region and Season 45 Table 24: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Commercial Self-hauled Disposed Waste 47 Table 25: Composition of Commercial Self-hauled Disposed Waste 48 Table 26: Residential Self-hauled Samples Obtained,by Region and Season 49 Table 27: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Residential Self-hauled Disposed Waste 51 Table 28: Composition of Residential Self-hauled Disposed Waste 52 Table 29: Selected Organics and Wood Waste Types,Amounts Disposed By Sector 53 Table 30:Numbers of Samples Assessed for Contamination,by Sector and Subsector 55 Table 31: Material Types Included in the Divertibility Assessments 55 Table 32: Detailed Assessment of Contamination Source in Overall Disposed Waste 58 Table 33: Detailed Assessment of Contamination Source in Commercial Disposed Waste 60 Table 34: Detailed Assessment of Contamination Source in Residential Disposed Waste 62 Table 35: Detailed Assessment of Contamination Source in Self-hauled Disposed Waste 64 Table 36:Number of Roofing Loads Sampled,by Sector 65 Table 37:Number of Roofing Samples Tested,by Material Type and Sector 65 Table 38: Results of Plastic Bag Sorting 66 Table 39: Counties in the Five Sampling Regions 71 Table 40: Participating Sampling Facilities 75 Table 41: Planned vs. Actual Numbers of Waste Samples 77 Table 42: Waste Samples Characterized During the Study 78 Table 43:Numbers of Samples Assessed for Contamination,by Sector and Subsector 79 Table 44: Materials Included in the Divertibility Assessments 84 Table 45: Additional 15 Survey-Only Facilities 90 Table 46: Total Waste Disposal (Tons)in Each County and Region,2007 97 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study iv Table 47: Comparison Between the 2008 Standard List and 2004 Standard List 106 Table 48: Comparison between the 2008 Standard List and 2008 Expanded List 108 Table 49: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream Using Expanded Material Types 147 Table 50: Composition of California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream Using Expanded Material Types 148 Table 51:Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Commercial Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 149 Table 52: Composition of Commercial Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 150 Table 53:Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Overall Residential Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 151 Table 54: Composition of Overall Residential Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 152 Table 55:Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Single-Family Residential Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 153 Table 56: Composition of Single-Family Residential Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 154 Table 57: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Multifamily Residential Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 155 Table 58: Composition of Multifamily Residential Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 156 Table 59:Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 157 Table 60: Composition of Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 158 Table 61: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Commercial Self-hauled Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 159 Table 62: Composition of Commercial Self-hauled Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 160 Table 63: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Residential Self-hauled Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 161 Table 64: Composition of Residential Self-hauled Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types 162 Table of Figures Figure ES- 1: Material Classes in California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream 4 Figure ES-2: Material Classes in the Commercial Disposed Waste Stream 4 Figure ES-3: Material Classes in the Residential Disposed Waste Stream 4 Figure ES-4: Material Classes in the Self-hauled Disposed Waste Stream 4 11111111■•■■=111111,11.1■1 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study v Figure 1: Regions Considered in the Study 11 Figure 2: Overview of Waste Disposal Sectors and Subsectors 12 Figure 3: Hand-Sorting Waste Sample 15 Figure 4: Surveying a Self-hauled Vehicle 16 Figure 5: Overview of California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream 22 Figure 6: Overview of Commercial Disposed Waste 26 Figure 7: Overview of Overall Residential Disposed Waste 30 Figure 8: Overview of Single-Family Residential Disposed Waste 34 Figure 9: Overview of Multifamily Residential Disposed Waste 38 Figure 10: Overview of Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste 42 Figure 11: Overview of Commercial Self-hauled Disposed Waste 46 Figure 12: Overview of Residential Self-hauled Disposed Waste 50 Figure 13: Contamination Source for the Paper Material Class in Overall Disposed Waste 56 Figure 14: Source-contaminated Paper 56 Figure 15: Clean Newspaper 56 Figure 16: Contamination Source for Other Material Classes in Overall Disposed Waste 57 Figure 17: Load-contaminated Plastic 57 Figure 18: Clean Aluminum Cans 57 Figure 19: Contamination Source for the Paper Material Class in Commercial Disposed Waste 59 Figure 20: Contamination Source for Other Material Classes in Commercial Disposed Waste 59 Figure 21: Contamination Source for the Paper Material Class in Residential Disposed Waste 61 Figure 22: Contamination Source for Other Material Classes in Residential Disposed Waste 61 Figure 23: Contamination Source for the Paper Material Class in Self-hauled Disposed Waste 63 Figure 24: Contamination Source for Other Material Classes in Self-hauled Disposed Waste 63 Figure 25: Two Shingle Types In the Same Load 65 Figure 26: Regions Considered in the Study 70 Figure 27: Overview of Waste Disposal Sectors and Subsectors 72 Figure 28: The 16-Cell Grid as Applied to a Tipped Load 80 Figure 29.Tarped Sample Waiting to be Sorted 81 Figure 30. Clean vs. Load Contaminated Paper 82 111111111111111111111=11111=111111■11111=1111011111111•11111111.110■1111111111111101111111111111111111,1111■111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study vi Figure 31. Clean Materials 83 Figure 32.Load Contaminated Materials 83 Figure 33. Source Contaminated Materials 84 Figure 34. Sample of Shingles to be Hand Sorted 85 Figure 35: Roofing Subsample RF-6-CS-2 86 Figure 36: Roofing Subsample COM-3-TP-1 87 Figure 37: Chain of Custody Form 88 Figure 38: Asbestos Testing Results 89 Figure 39: Overview of California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream 147 Figure 40: Overview of Commercial Disposed Waste 149 Figure 41: Overview of Overall Residential Disposed Waste 151 Figure 42: Overview of Single-Family Residential Disposed Waste 153 Figure 43: Overview of Multifamily Residential Disposed Waste 155 Figure 44: Overview of Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste 157 Figure 45: Overview of Commercial Self-hauled Disposed Waste 159 Figure 46: Overview of Residential Self-hauled Disposed Waste 161 INMENNEMINIIIIIIII11111111111,111.11■ Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study vii Acknowledgments This study would not have been possible without the cooperation and assistance of solid waste management companies, solid waste facilities,waste haulers,and apartment managers and owners throughout the state of California who generously agreed to participate in this effort. MINNMNIMIMINII■IMIIIMMUI■NMNIMMNIIMIMnplilEMME Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study viii Executive Summary Introduction and Objectives The California Integrated Waste Management Board(Board)is acting on California's commitment to a zero waste goal in order to reduce greenhouse gases,conserve resources, and maintain California's unique natural environment.As part of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006(AB32),the Board is tasked with implementing waste management strategies to reduce the production of greenhouse gases.The move toward zero waste means reducing waste whenever possible.The Board has a role in directing all materials to their highest and best use,while protecting public health and safety and the environment.To realize these goals,the Board needs up-to-date information on the types and amounts of materials disposed in the state's waste stream. In 2008,the Board commissioned a study on the types and amounts of materials disposed at solid waste facilities throughout the state.This study followed similar standards and protocols to those used in the statewide waste characterization study conducted in 2004.The first statewide study was done in 1999 and used a different methodology.As with the previous two studies,the present study estimates quantity and composition of the commercial,residential,and self-hauled waste streams in California and aggregates this data to estimate the overall composition. The 2008 study incorporated several additional research and analysis tasks,including: • A divertibility analysis to determine the extent and source of contamination on commonly recoverable paper,plastic,and metal materials found in disposed waste; • A laboratory analysis of asbestos in roofing materials since the presence of asbestos could be of concern for recycling these materials; Study Methodology A stratified random sampling methodology was used to sample waste from numerous subgroups (strata)to develop a waste composition profile for each stratum. Strata considered in this study included the geographical region,the waste sector(residential,commercial,or self-hauled),and the waste subsector(single-family residential,multifamily residential,residential self-hauled,and commercial self-hauled).The strata were then"`added together"in a way that reflects each stratum's relative contribution to the overall waste stream,thus producing overall waste composition information. The state was divided into five regions defined by similarities in demographic,climatic, geographic, and economic characteristics. Data regarding waste composition were gathered from 751 waste samples sorted at 27 solid waste facilities(landfills and transfer stations)during four seasons.Whenever possible,a randomized process was used to select participating solid waste facilities,dates for field work,vehicles carrying waste,and multifamily dwellings. Approximately equal numbers of waste samples from each waste sector were obtained from each region of the state. The sampled waste was sorted into 85 material types. In contrast,the detailed composition tables in the main body of the report are presented using the 62 Standard Material Types drawn from the California Integrated Waste Management Board's Uniform Waste Disposal Characterization Method.The expanded list of 85 material types used for sorting allows additional detail on Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 1 materials of interest,yet is designed to be"folded up"into the standard list used for presenting results in this study and to the Board. All material types were chosen and defined such that they can be compared to the material types used during California's 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. These materials are described in Appendix B: List and Definitions of Material Types.Tables containing waste composition data using the expanded list are found in Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables. In addition,drivers at participating solid waste facilities were surveyed in order to determine the waste-generating sector and the net weight of each load,among other data.Results from these surveys were used to estimate the portion of California's waste derived from each waste sector and subsector. Surveys were conducted on the same days that waste was sampled,with an additional 15 survey-only days split across the four study seasons. On these days,vehicles bringing disposed waste to the site were surveyed,for a total of 6,896 surveys completed over the study period. Results The data gathered during the sampling efforts were compiled and statistical analyses were performed in order to extrapolate the findings to statewide estimates.This report includes detailed findings for the following areas: • Disposed waste composition and tonnage for the state's overall waste stream and the commercial,residential,and self-hauled sectors,as well as the subsectors of single-family residential and multifamily residential waste and commercial self-hauled and residential self- hauled waste; • Disposed waste tonnage for four waste-generating activities that comprise commercial self- hauled waste(construction,demolition,and remodeling activities;roofing activities; landscaping activities;and other commercial or industrial activities); • A divertibility assessment of the levels of contamination and likely sources of contamination for commonly recoverable materials encountered in loads at solid waste facilities; and • A laboratory assessment of the prevalence of asbestos in samples of material from roofing removal or replacement projects. Table ES-1 depicts each sector's estimated contribution to the overall waste stream. Figure ES- 1 through Figure ES-4 display the breakdown of the waste stream by 10 Material Classes for the overall waste stream and each of the three studied waste sectors. Table ES-2 presents the ten most prevalent material types in the overall disposed waste stream. Finally,Table ES-3 provides a detailed breakdown of the composition of the overall waste stream by material type. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 2 Table ES-1: Estimated Contribution of Each Sector to California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream Sector Est. Percentage Est.Tons of Disposed Disposed Waste Stream Statewide Commercial 49.5°k 19,672,547 Residential 30.0% 11,935,173 Single-family residential 21.6% 8,583,746 Multifamily residential 8.4% 3,351,428 Self-hauled 20.4°ij 8,115,098 Commercial self-hauled 17.2% 6,812,464 Residential self-hauled 3.3% 1,302,634 Totals 100.0% 39,722,818 Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Source:Individual facility records and 2008 vehicle survey findings applied to Board's Disposal Reporting System 2007 tonnage figures. NOMMIMEMMININIMENIENIMITIMMINIE Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 3 Figure ES- 1: Material Classes in Figure ES-2: Material Classes in the California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream Commercial Disposed Waste Stream Special Special Mixed Waste Waste Mixed HHW HHW 0.3%� 3.9% Residue Paper 0.3% 3.1% Residue 17.3% 0.1% Paper Inerts and 1 iii 20.7% Other Glass Glass 29.1% 1.4% 2% Metal 4.6% Inerts and Metal , _,,,i111111111110114-- Electronics Ot __ 4,5% 27 her%8 0.5% Electronics iPlastic 0.5% 9.6% Plastic 11.3% Other Other Organic Organic 32.4% 30.4% Figure ES-3: Material Classes in the Figure ES-4: Material Classes in the Residential Disposed Waste Stream Self-hauled Disposed Waste Stream Special Mixed paper Glass Waste Residue 5.5% 0.5% HHW 15% Mixed Special 0.1% 0.3%\ Residue Waste Metal Inerts and 2.5% Paper 9.3% 5.6% li19.6% HHW Electronics Other 11.2% Glass 0.4% 0.4% 2'4% Plastic Metal 5.8% 4.0% Mil ' Other Organic Electronics 13.6% Other aY' 0.7% Inerts and Organic Plastic Other 48.6% 9.2% 58.8% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. MMMINIIMIMMMMIIIMMNNNMMIMOMNIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITIIIIIIIIIIIIIN Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 4 Table ES-2: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in California's Overall Disposed Waste System Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Food 15.5% 15.5% 6,158,120 Lumber 14.5% 30.0% 5,765,482 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 5.5% 35.5% 2,175,322 Remainder/Composite Paper 5.2% 40.7% 2,056,546 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 4.8% 45.5% 1,905,897 Remainder/Composite Organic 4.3% 49.8% 1,719,743 Leaves and Grass 3.8% 53.6% 1,512,832 Bulky Items 3.5% 57.1% 1,393,091 Carpet 3.2% 60.3% 1,285,473 Rock, Soil and Fines 3.2% 63.5% 1,259,308 Total 63.5% 25,231,814 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding.Note that the material type remainder/composite inerts and other includes such items as tiles,toilets,and fiberglass insulation.Remainder/composite paper includes such items as waxed corrugated cardboard, aseptic packages,paper Towels,and photographs. Examples of remainder/composite organic include leather items,cork,garden hoses,carpet padding,and diapers. 11111111■11=1111111■1111111111rMill= Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 5 Table ES-3: Composition of California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream by Material Type Est. Est. Est. Est Material Percent +1- Tons Material Percent +1- Tons Paper 17.3% 6,859,121 Other Organic 32.4% 12,888,039 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 4.8% 0.9% 1;905,897 Food 15.5% 1.9% 6,158,120 Paper Bags 0.4% 0.1% 155,848 Leaves and Grass 3.8% 0.7% 1,512,832 Newspaper 1.3% 0.3% 499,960 Prunings and Trimmings 2.7% 1.5% 1,058,854 White Ledger Paper 0.7% 0.3% 259,151 Branches and Stumps 0.6% 0.4% 245,830 Other Office Paper 1.2% 0.6% 472,147 Manures 0.1% 0.1% 20,373 Magazines and Catalogs 0.7% 0.2% 283,069 Textiles 2.2% 0.3% 886,814 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.0% 24,149 Carpet 3.2% 2.0% 1,285,473 Other Miscellaneous Paper 3.0% 0.4% 1,202,354 Remainder/Composite Organic 4.3% 0.5% 1,719,743 Remainder/Composite Paper 5.2% 0.7% 2,056,546 Inerts and Other 29.1% 11,577,768 Glass 1.4% 565,844 Concrete 1.2% 0.4% 483,367 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.5% 0.1% 196,093 Asphalt Paving 0.3% 0.4% 129,834 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.2% 0.1% 79,491 Asphalt Roofing 2.8% 1.5% 1,121,945 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.3% 0.1% 108,953 Lumber 14.5% 2.2% 5,765,482 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.1% 0.0% 40,570 Gypsum Board 1.6% 0.7% 642,511 Flat Glass 0.1% 0.1% 33,899 Rock,Soil and Fines 3.2% 1.1% 1,259,308 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.3% 0.1% 106,838 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 5.5% 1.3% 2,175,322 Metal 4.6% 1,809,684 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 120,752 Tin/Steel Cans 0.6% 0.1% 236,405 Paint 0.1% 0.1% 48,025 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.1% 17,120 Vehicle and Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 6,424 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 3,610 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 3,348 Other Ferrous 2.0% 0.4% 801,704 Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 19,082 Aluminum Cans 0.1% 0.0% 47,829 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.1% 0.1% 43,873 Other Non-Ferrous 0.2% 0.1% 84,268 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.6% 0.5% 618,747 Special Waste 3.9% 1,546,470 Ash 0.1% 0.1% 40,736 Electronics 0.5% 216,297 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.2% 0.1% 76,725 Bulky Items 3.5% 1.2% 1,393,091 Computer-related Electronics 0.1% 0.1% 32,932 Tires 0.2% 0.1% 60,180 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.1% 0.0% 34,588 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.1% 0.1% 52,463 Video Display Devices 0.2% 0.1% 72,053 Mixed Residue 0.8% 330,891 Plastic 9.6% 3,807,952 Mixed Residue 0.8% 0.2% 330,891 PETE Containers 0.5% 0.1% 199,644 HDPE Containers 0.4% 0.1% 157,779 Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 0.4% 0.1% 163,008 Plastic Trash Bags 0.9% 0.1% 361,997 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.3% 0.0% 123,405 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.5% 0.2% 194,863 Film Products 0.3% 0.2% 113,566 Other Film 1.4% 0.3% 554,002 Durable Plastic Items 2.1% 0.4% 834,970 Totals 100.0% 39,722,818 Remainder/Composite Plastic 2.8% 0.7% 1,104,719 Sample Count 751 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. More detailed composition tables can be found in Appendix D:Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables IMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMITIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Contractor's Report tc the Board California 2008 Statewide 'Naaste Characterization Study 6 Overall Key Findings • The findings show that,statewide,the commercial sector produces 50 percent of the disposed waste stream,and the residential sector(single-family plus multifamily)produces 30 percent. The self-hauled sector represents the remaining 20 percent. • Inerts and Other materials account for nearly one-third(29 percent)of the statewide disposed waste stream,with lumber representing nearly 15 percent of disposed waste. • Compostable materials,including food and vegetative materials,account for more than 20 percent of the statewide disposed waste stream. Of these,food is the largest component, comprising nearly 16 percent of disposed waste. • Paper and fiber materials represent slightly more than 17 percent of disposed waste,with uncoated corrugated cardboard being the most prevalent recyclable material and representing more than one-quarter of the paper and fiber that is disposed. Additional Research and Analysis Key Findings • The divertibility analysis indicates that nearly two-thirds of the commonly recycled types of paper,plastic,and metal materials found in disposed waste are uncontaminated at the time they arrive at disposal facilities. • Of the 191 roofing samples collected and analyzed,just one sample of roofing mastic was found to contain traces of asbestos. • The detailed analysis of material types found that of all PETE plastic containers disposed,26 percent are water bottles of one liter or less in size. More than half of all roofing materials disposed consist of asphalt composition shingles. In the overall lumber type,37 percent is clean dimensional lumber or clean pallets and crates. • Detailed sorting of plastic carryout bags to determine sources(related to a statewide plastic bag recycling program)showed that 44 percent of bags disposed are from grocery stores. Comparison with 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study • The proportions of the waste stream contributed by the commercial,residential,and self- hauled sectors remained about the same. • The largest change in the overall waste stream composition is an increase,from 22 percent to 29 percent,in the Inerts and Other category(formerly the Construction and Demolition category).This is largely due to an increase in disposal of lumber. • In the commercial sector,disposal of Paper,Glass,and Metal decreased while Inerts and Other increased,again mainly due to increased disposal of lumber. • Food waste increased from 17 percent to 25 percent of all residential waste disposed.The disposed tonnage of Paper, Glass,and Metal decreased. • Overall per capita disposal decreased slightly from 1.11 to 1.06 tons per person per year (calculated by dividing tons of all disposed municipal solid waste by total population). Residential per capita disposal decreased from 0.35 to 0.32 tons per resident per year (calculated by dividing all disposed residential waste by total population). Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 7 Introduction and Overview California has committed to a zero waste goal to reduce greenhouse gases,conserve resources, and maintain California's unique natural environment.To achieve this goal,local governments, industries,and the public each must take responsibility for their contribution of the estimated 93 million tons of waste generated each year in California.As part of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006(AB32),the Board is tasked with implementing waste management strategies to reduce the production of greenhouse gases.The move toward zero waste means reducing waste whenever possible. The California Integrated Waste Management Board(Board) has a role in directing all materials to their highest and best use,while protecting public health and safety and the environment. With up-to-date information on the types and amounts of materials disposed in the state's waste stream,the Board can better determine where changes are needed to achieve California's zero waste goal.These data are essential for solid waste planning,assessment of waste diversion activities,market development for recovered materials,and charting progress toward climate impact goals. Through periodic studies,the Board can track California's ever-changing waste stream while gathering new information on materials of concern as they are identified. Data generated from these studies are critical for several reasons: • An accurate appraisal of recyclable materials in the disposed waste stream can ensure that diversion goals are both reasonably set and effectively reached and that recyclable materials are being directed to their highest and best uses; • Reducing the amount of bulky and biodegradable organic materials from the disposed waste stream is an effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while extending the life of landfills; and • Household hazardous waste,electronic waste,and other types of special waste are constantly fluctuating with the changing list of goods on the market.The impact of these wastes on the natural environment is of constant concern. Staying abreast of these materials and current ways of handling them is of utmost importance for a healthy California. The Board contracted with Cascadia Consulting Group to characterize and quantify the current statewide waste stream in 2008.This report presents the findings of the 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. Relation to the Previous Studies Cascadia previously conducted statewide waste characterization studies in 1999,2004, and 2006. The 1999 study developed a comprehensive set of baseline estimates of the quantity and composition of disposed municipal solid waste statewide,and it included detailed examination of disposed waste for individual industry groups within the commercial sector.The 2004 study,like the present study,also developed comprehensive estimates of the statewide disposed waste stream,without the more detailed examination of individual industry groups. In 2006,four specific portions of the waste stream were studied in depth,and a major focus of the 2006 study was to examine disposal and recycling practices of certain industry groups even more closely. Thus,the findings of the present study are most directly comparable to those of the 2004 statewide study and are also comparable to parts of the 1999 statewide study. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 8 The primary objectives of the 2004 and 2008 projects were to characterize and quantify the residential,commercial,and self-hauled sectors of the disposed waste stream at the statewide level.The 2004 study characterized a total of 550 samples,while the 2008 study characterized 751 samples. Table 1 provides the sample allocations by sector and subsector for both years. Table 1: Numbers of Waste Samples Characterized,by Sector and Subsector,2004 vs.2008 Sector Number of Samples: Number of Samples: 2004 2008 Commercial 200 250 Residential 150 251 Single-family residential 110 201 Multifamily residential 40 50 Self-hauled 200 250 Commercial self-hauled 133 139 Residential self-hauled 67 111 Total 550 751 The 2008 study incorporated several additional inquiries: • A divertibility analysis to determine the ra,:e and source of contamination on commonly recoverable paper,plastic,and metal materials; • A laboratory analysis of asbestos in roofing materials; • Detailed sorting of plastic bags to determine sources,in relation to a statewide plastic bag recycling program; • Additional vehicle surveys to quantify the amount of waste from C&D activities; and • Additional vehicle surveys at large facilities.To quantify waste from each sector,vehicles bringing waste to facilities used in the study were surveyed to determine the sector of origin. In all past Board studies,facilities were selected in each region randomly. But with random selection large facilities may be completely missed,and large amounts of tonnage in the region may not be represented in the study. To address this,additional large facilities were included in the study for vehicle surveys only,in order to compare sector tonnages estimated using data from randomly selected facilities with that from deliberately chosen large sites. In order to allow comparisons between the 2004 and 2008 studies,every effort has been taken to ensure consistency in study methodology and presentation of findings from 2004 to 2008. In the interest of clarity,the Board has changed the Material Class name Construction and Demolition,used in previous studies,to Inerts and Other for the 2008 study.The Inerts and Other tonnage represents only a portion of the total statewide disposal of material from all construction and demolition(C&D)activities. Data from the two Material Classes are still directly comparable. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 9 Objectives and General Methodology of the 2008 Study The primary objectives of this project were to characterize and quantify the residential, commercial,and self-hauled sectors of the disposed waste stream at the statewide level. Part of this effort involved examining important subsectors of the disposed waste stream including single-family residential and multifamily residential waste,residential self-hauled waste,and self- hauled waste generated by several common commercial activities. Waste was sampled using a stratified random sampling methodology. Waste was sampled from numerous subgroups(strata such as geographical region and waste sector)to develop a waste composition profile for each stratum.The strata were then"added together"in a way that reflects each stratum's relative contribution to the overall waste stream,thus producing overall waste composition information. The remainder of this section outlines the planning and data collection strategies implemented during this study.The planning phase included: • Identifying the regions of the state to be visited; • Defining the waste sectors to be examined during the study; • Recruiting and scheduling solid waste disposal sites statewide for surveying and sampling; and • Selecting the material types to be examined throughout the study. The data-collection phase included: • Determining the composition of the waste stream through sampling and sorting; • Quantifying the waste stream through vehicle surveys; and • Conducting additional research and analysis tasks including a divertibility study and an analysis of asbestos in roofing materials. Identifying Regions For the purposes of this study,the state was divided into five regions,as shown in Figure 1. Regions were delineated based upon certain shared characteristics,such as demographics, climate,geography,and economics.The assignment of individual counties to regions is identical to the approach used in the 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study and can be found in Appendix A: Detailed Methodology.In general,the regions can be characterized as follows: • Bay Area: Includes the counties in the San Francisco Bay Area,which are generally more metropolitan than counties in other regions and have strong industrial components in the economy; • Coastal: Includes the counties on the coast that are not in either the Bay Area or Southern regions. The coastal region is more populated than the rural mountain region and has a large agricultural component similar to the Central Valley; • Mountain: Includes counties mainly in the eastern part of the state that are primarily rural with strong agricultural economies,low population density, and a low industrial base; MONNIINMOMNMIIMINMMMNMMNNMNIOIMMNMIMINIIMNMMMMIMIMTIIMNNNIIIIIII Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 10 • Southern: Includes counties in the southern part of the state that are strongly industrial with large populations and some agricultural influences;and • Central Valley: Includes counties between the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Coast Range that have a major agricultural base with important population centers and some manufacturing. Figure 1: Regions Considered in the Study si.lcyou Modoo Shasta Lassen V hama � PMans Glenn Butte „ MOUNTAIN miii%.**-...,,,„.z, Sonoma , BAY ' Napa Solano ►v°: Mario / ►� Corns 6 Tuolumne Costa San Frendsco Alameda Mariposa San Mateo Santa Clara Madero COASTAL °" ► ie • ALLEY --__ Santa Cruz i \ Finam\ lLlam >'' Kinds t@, $$$@$ Kern y ' San Bernardino OMOUNTAIN Vemura Los t "; Angeles •BAY AREA COASTAL O CENTRAL VALLEY Orange R ve s de •SOUTHERN San Diego Imperial IIIIMIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIOMIIIIMIIIIIIIFIMIIIMIIIII Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 11 Defining Waste Sectors In each of the five regions,waste was characterized for the three sectors,four subsectors,and four activities,as shown in Figure 2 below. Figure 2: Overview of Waste Disposal Sectors and Subsectors Sector Subsector Activity Description Commercial waste Waste disposed by businesses, industries (e.g., factories,farms), institutions,and governments (e.g.,schools, highways, parks)that is collected and transported by contracted and franchised haulers Residential Waste Waste disposed by households that is collected and transported by contracted and franchised haulers Single-family residential waste Waste that is collected from either single-family residences or buildings that include no more than four living units Multifamily residential waste Waste that is collected from multi-unit buildings with greater than four living units Self-hauled waste Waste hauled by individuals, businesses,or government agencies that haul their own garbage; includes waste delivered by anyone other than a contracted or franchised hauler Commercial self-hauled waste Waste that is hauled to a disposal site by a commercial enterprise(e.g., landscaper, contractor)even if waste is from residential dwellings Waste generated during the construction, Construction, demolition, demolition, or remodeling of buildings by — and remodeling waste construction professionals Waste generated during the installation or — Roofing waste replacement of roofs, including tear-off, by roofing professionals Waste generated as part of landscaping and —Landscaping waste other yard care activities by landscaping professionals Other commercial and All waste generated at businesses or — industrial self-hauled institutions and hauled by these businesses waste that is not construction, remodeling, demolition;landscaping;or roofing waste Self-hauled residential waste Waste that is hauled to a disposal site by a resident from his or her home Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 12 Scheduling Sites Once the study regions and sectors were defined,solid waste facilities in each region were randomly selected for sampling and surveying from a comprehensive list of landfills and transfer stations throughout the state. Potential sites were eliminated from the list if they did not meet certain minimum criteria,as follows: 1. The site must accept waste that is destined for final disposal. For a landfill,this would mean waste that is to be buried; for a transfer station,waste that is not subjected to any separation or diversion techniques. 2. The site must accept waste from all three waste sectors(commercial,residential,and self- hauled)in quantities that would allow a predetermined sampling quota to be met. 3. The site must not only grant permission to perform sampling and sorting but must be able to provide a safe and logistically sensible space in which to work. 4. The site must receive an average of at least 100 tons of incoming disposed waste per day.' Five facilities from each region agreed to participate in the study,for a total of 25 facilities. During each season, 12 or 13 facilities were visited(two to three per region). Each facility was visited twice,with visits to an individual facility staggered by approximately six months. Small rural facilities were usually visited for two days for each sorting event to ensure that adequate numbers of samples and gate surveys were obtained. During the course of the study,two original facilities had to be replaced due to logistical difficulties,so a total of 50 sampling visits were made to 27 facilities.Appendix A: Detailed Methodology contains a list of all facilities visited for sampling. The sampling dates were as follows: • Winter: Jan. 14-29,2008; • Spring: April 8-24,2008; • Summer: July 16-31,2008; • Autumn:Nov. 6-21,2008. Appendix A: Detailed Methodology contains a thorough description of the selection and screening procedures. This requirement was waived for the mountain region as few,if any,of the facilities in that region average 100 tons per day. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 13 Selecting Material Types Waste samples were sorted and characterized according to 85 material types,as described in Appendix B: List and Definitions of Material Types.The 85 material types are organized into 10 Material Classes as follows: • 11 types of Paper • Six types of Glass • Seven types of Metal • Five types of Electronics • 17 types of Plastic • Eight types of Other Organic waste • 15 types of Inerts and Other waste • Nine types of Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) • Six types of Special Waste • One type of Mixed Residue. Fewer material types were characterized in this study than in 2004,when 98 material types were characterized.The primary reason for this decrease is that the 2004 study involved a special assessment of California Redemption Value(CRV)and Rigid Plastic Packaging Containers (RPPC),not included in the 2008 study. Other notable changes include the following: • The name of the class Construction and Demolition was changed to Inerts and Other to better reflect the fact that this category does not represent all or only materials disposed from construction and demolition(C&D)activities; • The number of Inerts and Other materials increased from seven to 15,including an expanded list of wood and roofing material types; • The number of HHW materials increased from five to nine,including the addition of sharps, pharmaceuticals,fluorescent lights and other mercury-containing items, and lead-acid (automotive)batteries;and • Sewage solids and industrial sludge were removed from the 2008 Special Waste class since these materials are not typically encountered in standard waste characterization studies. These changes reflect the changes in data needs as new material types come into focus,but maintain consistency with past studies so that data can be compared over time. Though samples were sorted into 85 material types,composition results are presented in the main body of this report according to the Board's 62 item Standard List of Material Types for Waste Sorting. The expanded list provides more detail and helps direct Board efforts towards zero waste. Detailed composition tables displaying all 85 materials can be found in Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables.All changes made to the 2008 materials list allow comparisons to be made between the lists used in the 1999 and 2004 studies. Appendix B: Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 14 List and Definitions of Material Types contains both the condensed and expanded material lists and definitions for all materials. Determining the Composition of the Waste Stream Samples of disposed waste from the Figure 3: Hand-Sorting Waste Sample single-family residential,commercial, commercial self-hauled,and residential self-hauled sectors were captured at selected solid waste facilities(landfills or transfer stations)in each region and subjected to a hand-sorting separation process. Samples from the multifamily residential sector were collected straight from the dumpsters at apartment buildings and complexes rather than at solid waste facilities.This allowed for more detailed analysis of the i multifamily waste stream. 111 The sampling and sorting process ,, :: Y produced data on the amount of each material in each sample.This data was "►`' then aggregated and subjected to statistical analysis to assess the , composition(the relative percentage of each material)of each waste sector,and ultimately the entire waste stream. Samples associated with each waste sector and subsector were apportioned equally among facilities and regions. Table 2 shows the number of samples that were collected for each sector. Table 2: Numbers of Waste Samples Characterized,by Sector and Subsector Sector Number of Samples Commercial 250 Residential 251 Single-family residential 201 Multifamily residential 50 Self-hauled 250 • Commercial self-hauled 139 Residential self-hauled 111 Total 751 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 15 See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for a detailed account of planned and actual waste samples and Table 42 for the distribution of samples among facilities. Generally,samples were distributed evenly among seasons and regions. In addition to standard waste characterization,commonly recoverable materials in approximately one in four of the samples were assessed to determine their rate and point of contamination. A count of the number of samples analyzed for contamination from each sector is presented in Table 3 and in greater detail in Appendix A: Detailed Methodology. Table 3:Numbers of Samples Assessed for Contamination,by Sector and Subsector Sector Number of Samples Commercial 75 Residential 72 Single-family residential 57 Multifamily residential 15 Self-hauled 47 Commercial self-hauled 19 Residential self-hauled 28 Total 194 Quantifying the Waste Stream To determine how many tons of Figure 4: Surveying a Self-hauled Vehicle disposed waste were associated with each of the waste sectors, subsectors, , w� and activities,drivers were surveyed concurrently with sampling and F sorting activities at participating ' ,� .�- facilities. r— Vehicle surveys were conducted on each sampling day,as well as for an "; 7 additional 15 days,at sites selected �► and distributed across the five regions. An extra day of surveying was added for each sampling event at small rural sites since vehicle traffic is typically very light at these sites. Over the course of the study, 6,896 vehicle surveys were completed. Table 4 shows the number of vehicle surveys completed by region and by season. Appendix A: Detailed Methodology includes a list of survey-only facilities. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 16 Table 4: Vehicle Survey Responses,by Region and Season Season Bay Area Coastal Mountain Southern Valley Totals Winter 2008 559 78 450 314 234 1,635 Spring 2008 577 177 307 495 290 1,846 Summer 2008 187 291 357 744 380 1,959 Autumn 2008 473 346 173 200 264 1,456 Totals 1796 892 1287 1753 1168 6,896 The survey data,in conjunction with daily transaction reports and annual tonnage reports from facilities,were used to estimate the fraction of the overall waste stream disposed from each of the waste sectors, subsectors,and activities at each participating facility.The Board provided annual disposed tonnage figures,by region and statewide,which allowed these estimated percentages to be converted into annual tonnages for each sector at the regional and statewide levels.Appendix A: Detailed Methodology describes how this information was then used to estimate the relative magnitude of each part of the disposed waste stream on a regional basis and statewide. Copies of the survey forms are included in Appendix C: Forms Used in the Study. Incorporating Additional Research and Analysis Tasks Besides characterizing and quantifying the residential,commercial, and self-hauled sectors of the disposed waste stream,this study also took a closer look at some specific material types through the following additional research and analysis tasks. Divertibility Analysis Commonly recoverable materials were visually assessed in approximately one in four of the samples to determine the level and point at which contamination occurred,either before the material was disposed or during transport in a solid waste vehicle.The materials assessed were then sorted and weighed to determine amounts contaminated at the different points.This was a general assessment of contamination and did not include cleaning materials and re-weighing them to get numerical amounts of contamination for each material type. Laboratory Analysis of Asbestos in Roofing Loads To measure the incidence of asbestos-containing materials in disposed roofing,samples of composition shingles,tar paper/felt,roofing mastic,built-up roofing,and other asphalt roofing material were collected and tested for asbestos by an independent accredited laboratory using polarized light microscopy. Details on Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags Recent legislation in California requires implementation of a statewide plastic bag recycling program for large grocery stores and pharmacies. In order to get more detailed data on disposal of these bags,plastic grocery and other merchandise bags was further sorted to identify bags from grocery stores,pharmacies,and other sources. MINIMMOMM1111=1111.1•r■li Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 17 Statewide Characterization Results This section presents vehicle survey results for statewide tonnages by sector and detailed characterization results for the overall disposed waste stream as well as for the residential, commercial,and self-hauled waste sectors. Interpreting the Results How Data Is Presented For the overall disposed waste stream, and for each waste sector and subsector,data are presented in three ways: • First,an overview of waste composition by broad Material Class is presented in both pie chart and tabular formats. • Next,the 10 most prevalent individual material types,by weight,are shown in a table. • Finally,a detailed table lists the full composition and quantity results for the 62 standard material types. Refer to Appendix B: Expanded and Standard List of Material Types for a comparison between the 2008 and 2004 standard material types and a detailed list of material definitions used in the study. Tables containing data for the 85 expanded material types can be found in Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables. Means and Error Ranges The data from the sorting process were treated with a statistical procedure that provided two kinds of information for each of the material types: • The percent-by-weight estimated composition of waste represented by the samples examined in the study;and • The degree of precision of the composition estimates. All estimates of precision were calculated at the 90 percent confidence level.The equations used in these calculations appear in the section Description of Calculations and Statistical Procedures Used in Appendix A: Detailed Methodology. The example below illustrates how the results can be interpreted. In this example,the best estimate of the amount of leaves and grass present in the universe of waste sampled is 3.8 percent.The figure 0.7 percent reflects the precision of the estimate.When calculations are performed at the 90 percent confidence level,we are 90 percent certain that the true amount of leaves and grass is between 3.8 percent plus 0.7 percent and 3.8 percent minus 0.7 percent. In other words,we are 90 percent certain that the mean lies between 4.5 percent and 3.1 percent. Material Type Est. Pct. +/- Leaves and grass 3.8% 0.7% Rounding When interpreting the results presented in the tables and figures in this report,it is important to consider the effect of rounding. =IllMINMM■al•IMM=MlMMlM■MIMMNNMMMMOMMMITIIMIIIMI Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 18 To keep the waste composition tables and figures readable,estimated tonnages are rounded to the nearest ton,and estimated percentages are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. Due to this rounding,the tonnages presented in the report,when added together,may not exactly match the subtotals and totals shown. Similarly,the percentages,when added together,may not exactly match the subtotals or totals shown. Percentages less than 0.05 percent are shown as 0.0 percent. It is important to recognize that the tons shown in the report were calculated using the more precise percentages. Therefore,using the rounded percentages to calculate tonnages yields quantities that are less precise than those shown in the report. For example,the rounded percentage for lumber in Table 7 is shown as 14.5 percent of the disposed substream,while the more precise percentage was 14.5142815944385 percent. If the rounded percentage for lumber in Table 7 were used to calculate the tonnage,it would yield the following: 14.5 percent x 39,722,818 (the total tonnage)=5,759,809 tons. However,if the more precise percentage for this material is used,it yields the following: 14.5142815944385 percent x 39,722,817.79(the total tonnage)=5,765,481.6312863 tons,or 5,765,482 tons when rounded to the nearest ton.The more precise tonnage of 5.765,482 is used in the table. All confidence intervals were derived using a 90 percent confidence level,meaning that there is a 90 percent certainty that the actual composition is within the calculated range. In charts throughout this report,the values graphed represent the mean component percentage,not the range. Infrequent Material Types Composition estimates for certain materials have a higher degree of uncertainty because the materials are infrequently disposed,and,consequently,appear infrequently in samples.Examples of such materials include paint,sharps,tires,and ash.Because the composition results are based on few instances of these materials,the results are less certain,as shown by the relatively large confidence intervals.As an example, tires are estimated to comprise 0.2 percent of the overall disposed stream with a 0.1 confidence interval. In other words,tires may comprise 50 percent more or 50 percent less of the waste stream than their best estimate(0.2 percent). Small, lightweight materials that appear frequently in samples also comprise a small percentage of the overall composition.These frequently found materials,in contrast,have smaller relative confidence intervals.An example is PETE containers,which comprise a small percentage of the overall waste stream(0.5 percent)and have a relatively small confidence interval(0.1 percent). Material Class Change: Construction and Demolition now Inerts and Other In the 2008 study,the Material Class formerly known as Construction and Demolition is re- named Inerts and Other.The new Inerts and Other class is directly comparable with the Construction and Demolition class from previous waste characterization studies in every way. The Board saw reason to change the name of this Material Class because this category represents neither all nor only materials created during C&D activities. Specifically: • The data in this class reflect the total amounts of these material types in the overall disposed waste stream,regardless of the activity generating the material. For example,the lumber material type would include wood scraps from a home craft project that were disposed in a residential garbage can,or a pallet that a business disposed in its Dumpster.These materials were not generated by C&D activities,but they fall under the lumber material type in the Inerts and Other class. ONMIN■1■111.111111=11,■11 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 19 • C&D activities generate other materials in addition to those listed under the Inerts and Other class,such as cardboard,ferrous metal,and plastic film.These materials are counted under the Paper,Metal,and Plastic classes respectively,even though they were generated by C&D activities. • A separate survey conducted as part of this study estimated that 16 percent of the statewide disposed waste stream consists of materials from C&D activities. In sum,the amounts of materials listed previously in the Construction and Demolition class could not be used as an estimate of the total amount of waste disposed from all C&D activities in California.The 2006 Detailed Characterization of Construction and Demolition Waste study characterized and quantified C&D waste as a separate waste stream. New Presentation of Organics Data The Board's standard material type list splits materials that are of interest for organics recycling between the Other Organic and the Inerts and Other classes.Table 29 has been included at the end of this section which groups the typically compostable/recyclable organic materials together —food waste,yard waste,manure,and certain types of wood waste. Statewide Tonnages by Sector Vehicle surveys are used to apportion tons between the various sectors,subsectors,and activities included in this study.Table 5 shows the estimated disposed tonnage from each sector and subsector of the waste stream. Table 5: Estimated Contribution of Each Sector to California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream Sector Est. Percentage Est.Tons of Disposed Disposed Waste Stream Statewide Commercial 49.5% 19,672,547 Residential 30.0% 11,935,173 Single-family residential 21.6% 8,583,746 Multifamily residential 8.4% 3,351,428 Self-hauled 20.4% 8,115,098 Commercial self-hauled 17.2% 6,812,464 Residential self-hauled 3.3% 1,302,634 Totals 100% 39,722,818 Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Commercial and residential waste includes all waste collected and transported to solid waste sites by contracted and franchised waste haulers from commercial or residential sources. Self-hauled waste includes both commercial and residential wastes that are hauled by anyone other than a contracted or franchised hauler(e.g.,an individual homeowner,a construction company,a landscaper). For the purposes of this study,commercial self-hauled loads were those hauled by a 1111111=1111111■1=1■11=1■111■■=1MITI•1 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 20 commercial enterprise(e.g.,contractor,landscaper)even if the source of the waste was a residential dwelling. Residential self-hauled loads were those loads transported by a resident from their home to the solid waste site. The facilities used for composition sampling and the accompanying vehicle surveys were selected randomly in order to be comparable to past studies.Then for each region,an additional three facilities were selected from a pool of the largest facilities in the region.These large facilities were surveyed once during the study. Vehicle survey data collected during the study were grouped in several ways and then analyzed to estimate statewide proportions of waste from each sector:randomly chosen sites only(as done in past studies),the largest five sites in each region(includes randomly-chosen sites as well as deliberately-chosen large),and all sites. The results from the three analyses differed significantly. A closer examination of the data was made to investigate these differences.Using data from all facilities probably gives the best estimate at the statewide level simply because it is a larger body of data,representing more tonnage surveyed. In looking at data from all the sites,one particular very large site stood out. This one landfill,the largest in the state,received 3.6 million tons of waste in 2007-9 percent of the entire state's waste. This tonnage represented 46 percent of the waste surveyed in the region, and the southern region represents 62 percent of the state's disposed waste.Almost half of the waste received at this landfill was from the sel f-hauled sector—an unusually high amount compared to most other facilities in the study.Therefore,when gate survey data were aggregated, this one site had a very large influence on the;.tatewide estimate that skewed the sector proportions toward self-hauled waste. To address this,the sector tonnage estimates for the southern region were calculated without this site,which was treated as a separate entity. The sector estimates for the large landfill were then added back in to the region to get the final esti mates of tons from each sector for the southern region.Then data from each region were aggregated up to the statewide level according to the usual protocol.Therefore the sector tonnage estimates for this study were made using a different method than the 2004 study(more sites, some large ones chosen deliberately,and adjustments made),but are considered to be the most accurate representation for the state. Single-family and multifamily residential waste together account for 30 percent of the state's waste stream. Commercial waste is the largest substream,comprising 50 percent of the state's waste stream. Overall,the per-capita disposal rate for the state was approximately 1.06 tons per person per year in 2007. It should be noted that per-capita disposal rates include all waste disposed at landfills,including that from industrial,institutional,and construction and demolition sources. Other states and federal agencies may define municipal solid waste differently from California.The per-capita disposal rate for residential waste(single-family and multifamily)was approximately 0.32 tons per person per year.The average per unit disposal rate for the multifamily subsector was 0.96 tons per unit per year. Overall Disposed Waste Stream The objective of this portion of the study was to characterize the overall disposed municipal solid waste stream for the entire state of California, combining all of the sectors and subsectors considered elsewhere in this study. 11■111010111=1111111111111111111111r1111.111111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 21 Overview and Analysis Composition estimates by Material Class for the overall waste stream are illustrated in Figure 5. The largest Material Class in the overall waste stream was Other Organic which accounted for nearly one third(32 percent)of the waste stream,by weight,followed by Inerts and Other(29 percent)and Paper(17 percent). Figure 5: Overview of California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream Special Waste Mixed Residue HHW 3.9% 0.8% Paper Est. 0.3% 17.3% Material Class Percent qt Inerts and t Glass Paper 17.3% Other 1.4% Glass 1.4% 29.1% ( 111 Metal Metal 4.6% 4.6% Electronics 0.5% Electronics Plastic 9.6% 0.5% Other Organic 32.4% Inerts and Other 29.1% Plastic HHW 0.3% 9.6% Special Waste 3.9% Mixed Residue 0.8% Other Organic Total 100% 32.4% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Ten Most Prevalent Materials Of the 10 most prevalent material types in the overall waste stream by weight,as shown in Table 6,lumber and uncoated corrugated cardboard are typically recyclable and together account for about 19 percent of the waste stream. Additionally,food and leaves and grass are compostable material types and account for another 19 percent of the waste stream. Together,the top 10 material types compose approximately 64 percent of overall disposed waste. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 22 Table 6: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Food 15.5% 15.5% 6,158,120 Lumber 14.5% 30.0% 5,765,482 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 5.5% 35.5% 2,175,322 Remainder/Composite Paper 5.2% 40.7% 2,056,546 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 4.8% 45.5% 1,905,897 Remainder/Composite Organic 4.3% 49.8% 1,719,743 Leaves and Grass 3.8% 53.6% 1,512,832 Bulky Items 3.5% 57.1% 1,393,091 Carpet 3.2% 60.3% 1,285,473 Rock, Soil and Fines 3.2% 63.5% 1,259,308 Total 63.5% 25,231,814 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. For the HHW material sharps,items found in samples were both weighed and counted.On average,3.2 sharps per ton are estimated to occur in the overall waste stream. Since sharps appeared infrequently in the study,this estimate has a higher degree of uncertainty. Sharps were found in 3 percent of the samples. The number of sharps varied from 1 to 196 in a sample,and weights varied from 0.005 pound to 1.3 pounds in a 200-pound sample.They occurred singly or a few at a time or in a container like a plastic milk jug filled with sharps. Most samples containing sharps came from the residential sector. As samples were sorted the field crew estimated the proportion of leaves and grass that was leaves and the proportion that was grass.A total of 319 samples contained leaves and grass. Data from these samples were used to estimate that leaves and grass in California's overall disposed waste is approximately 46 percent leaves by weight;grass comprises the remaining 54 percent. Detailed Composition The composition percentages by weight for each material type in California's overall waste stream are listed in Table 7.Tables containing data for the 85 expanded material types can be found in Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables. MININNIMMOM1111111111111111111111111,11=1=1 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 23 Table 7: Composition of California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream Est. Est. Est Est Material Percent +/- Tons Material Percent +/- Tons Paper 17.3% 6,859,121 Other Organic 32.4% 12,888,039 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 4.8% 0.9% 1,905,897 Food 15.5% 1.9% 6,158,120 Paper Bags 0.4% 0.1% 155,848 Leaves and Grass 3.8% 0.7% 1,512,832 Newspaper 1.3% 0.3% 499,960 Prunings and Trimmings 2.7% 1.5% 1,058,854 White Ledger Paper 0.7% 0.3% 259,151 Branches and Stumps 0.6% 0.4% 245,830 Other Office Paper 1.2% 0.6% 472,147 Manures 0.1% 0.1% 20,373 Magazines and Catalogs 0.7% 0.2% 283,069 Textiles 2.2% 0.3% 886,814 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.0% 24,149 Carpet 3.2% 2.0% 1,285,473 Other Miscellaneous Paper 3.0% 0.4% 1,202,354 Remainder/Composite Organic 4.3% 0.5% 1,719,743 Remainder/Composite Paper 5.2% 0.7% 2,056,546 Inerts and Other 29.1% 11,577,768 Glass 1.4% 565,844 Concrete 1.2% 0.4% 483,367 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.5% 0.1% 196,093 Asphalt Paving 0.3% 0.4% 129,834 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.2% 0.1% 79,491 Asphalt Roofing 2.8% 1.5% 1,121,945 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.3% 0.1% 108,953 Lumber 14.5% 2.2% 5,765,482 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.1% 0.0% 40,570 Gypsum Board 1.6% 0.7% 642,511 Flat Glass 0.1% 0.1% 33,899 Rock,Soil and Fines 3.2% 1.1% 1,259,308 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.3% 0.1% 106,838 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 5.5% 1.3% 2,175,322 Metal 4.6% 1,809,684 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 120,752 Tin/Steel Cans 0.6% 0.1% 236,405 Paint 0.1% 0.1% 48,025 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.1% 17,120 Vehicle and Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 6,424 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 3,610 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 3,348 Other Ferrous 2.0% 0.4% 801,704 Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 19,082 Aluminum Cans 0.1% 0.0% 47,829 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.1% 0.1% 43,873 Other Non-Ferrous 0.2% 0.1% 84,268 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.6% 0.5% 618,747 Special Waste 3.9% 1,546,470 Ash 0.1% 0.1% 40,736 Electronics 0.5% 216,297 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.2% 0.1% 76,725 Bulky Items 3.5% 1.2% 1,393,091 Computer-related Electronics 0.1% 0.1% 32,932 Tires 0.2% 0.1% 60,180 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.1% 0.0% 34,588 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.1% 0.1% 52,463 Video Display Devices 0.2% 0.1% 72,053 Mixed Residue 0.8% 330,891 Plastic 9.6% 3,807,952 Mixed Residue 0.8% 0.2% 330,891 PETE Containers 0.5% 0.1% 199,644 HDPE Containers 0.4% 0.1% 157,779 Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 0.4% 0.1% 163,008 Plastic Trash Bags 0.9% 0.1% 361,997 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.3% 0.0% 123,405 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.5% 0.2% 194,863 Film Products 0.3% 0.2% 113,566 Other Film 1.4% 0.3% 554,002 Durable Plastic Items 2.1% 0.4% 834,970 Totals 100.0% 39,722,818 Remainder/Composite Plastic 2.8% 0.7% 1,104,719 Sample Count 751 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. More detailed composition tables can be found in Appendix D:Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables NOMIOIIMMOOMMNMMOMMIMIONOMIOIMMIMMNMMMIIIIINIIMIIIIIIIMIIIIMIIITIIIIIIIIIIIIII entractof s 'Report to the Board California tUJ Statewide -.Waste Characterization Study 24 Commercial Waste The objective of this portion of the study was to characterize California's disposed waste from commercial and industrial sources.Commercial waste is defined as waste disposed by businesses, industries,and public organizations that is collected and transported by contracted and franchised waste haulers.This includes waste delivered to disposal facilities by both packer trucks serving businesses on regular routes and loose or compacted drop boxes serving individual sites. Overview and Analysis Samples of commercial waste were obtained from randomly selected vehicles at the landfills and transfer stations participating in this study.Composition percents and estimated tons for each material were derived by combining data at the regional level with weighting proportionate to the estimated amount of commercial waste disposed in each region,as derived from the vehicle surveys.As shown in Table 5 the commercial sector accounts for approximately 50 percent of California's municipal solid waste stream. See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for a description of the methods used in selecting,sorting,and analyzing samples. Table 8 presents the numbers of samples that were obtained in each region and each season for commercial waste. In total,250 samples of commercial waste were analyzed. Table 8: Overall Commercial Samples Obtained,by Region and Season Season Bay Area Coastal Mountain Southern Valley Totals Winter 2008 10 11 16 13 10 60 Spring 2008 16 13 10 13 16 68 Summer 2008 12 10 13 15 11 61 Autumn 2008 12 16 11 9 13 61 Totals 50 50 50 50 50 250 See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for the names and locations of the solid waste facilities that were visited. Composition results by Material Class for commercial waste are illustrated in Figure 6 and described in detail in Table 10.The largest Material Classes of the commercial waste stream are Other Organic and Inerts and Other,which account for about 30 percent and 28 percent of the total,respectively. MMINNMEMMENINNEMNIFIMMI Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 25 Figure 6: Overview of Commercial Disposed Waste Special Waste 3.1% Mixed Residue Est. HHW 0.10/0 Paper 0.3% 20.7% Material Class Percent Inerts and Paper 20.7% Other Glass Glass 1.2% 27.8/o 0 1.2% Metal 4.5% Metal Electronics 0.5% 0 4.5/o Plastic 11.3% • Electronics Other Organic 30.4% 0.5% Inerts and Other 27.8% HHW 0.3% Plastic Special Waste 3.1% 0 11.3/o Mixed Residue 0.1% Other Organic Total 100% 30.4% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Ten Most Prevalent Materials The 10 most prevalent material types(Table 9)account for about 67 percent of commercial waste.Typically recyclable material types,including lumber,uncoated corrugated cardboard, and other miscellaneous paper,make up roughly 26 percent of the commercial waste stream. Food and prunings and trimmings account for an additional 19 percent of the waste stream and are compostable. MINOMMOMMEN•MMINNO■IIMMONOMMONIONOINIIIITIOMINNIN Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 26 Table 9: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Commercial Disposed Waste Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Lumber 15.7% 15.7% 3,088,666 Food 15.4% 31.1% 3,032,805 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 7.2% 38.4% 1,423,530 Remainder/Composite Paper 6.2% 44.5% 1,218,271 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 5.1% 49.6% 994,839 Remainder/Composite Plastic 4.0% 53.6% 788,056 Carpet 3.5% 57.2% 697,461 Prunings and Trimmings 3.3% 60.5% 658,051 Remainder/Composite Organic 3.2% 63.7% 628,700 Other Miscellaneous Paper 3.0% 66.7% 587,236 Total 66.7% 13,117,616 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Detailed Composition Table 10 presents detailed composition results for the commercial waste stream.Tables containing data for the 85 expanded material types can be found in Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables. MINMONN■111•111111111,0111111MIN Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 27 Table 10: Composition of Commercial Disposed Waste Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent +I- Tons Material Percent +I- Tons Paper 20.7% 4,072,311 Other Organic 30.4% 5,982,161 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 7.2% 1.8% 1,423,530 Food 15.4% 3.7% 3,032,805 Paper Bags 0.4% 0.1% 71,741 Leaves and Grass 3.0% 1.0% 584,919 Newspaper 1.0% 0.3% 190,237 Prunings and Trimmings 3.3% 2.9% 658,051 White Ledger Paper 1.0% 0.5% 202,791 Branches and Stumps 0.5% 0.5% 100,513 Other Office Paper 1.3% 1.1% 249,456 Manures 0.0% 0.0% 149 Magazines and Catalogs 0.6% 0.3% 117,828 Textiles 1.4% 0.4% 279,563 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.1% 11,220 Carpet 3.5% 3.6% 697,461 Other Miscellaneous Paper 3.0% 0.6% 587,236 Remainder/Composite Organic 3.2% 0.8% 628,700 Remainder/Composite Paper 6.2% 1.3% 1,218,271 Inerts and Other 27.8% 5,461,616 Glass 1.2% 245,547 Concrete 0.9% 0.5% 167,312 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.4% 0.2% 85,349 Asphalt Paving 0.0% 0.0% 4,786 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.2% 0.1% 29,764 Asphalt Roofing 2.3% 2.6% 455,701 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.3% 0.1% 51,366 Lumber 15.7% 3.2% 3,088,666 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 7,798 Gypsum Board 1.5% 1.3% 300,703 Flat Glass 0.1% 0.1% 16,927 Rock,Soil and Fines 2.3% 1.4% 449,609 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.3% 0.2% 54,343 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 5.1% 2.0% 994,839 Metal 4.5% 880,362 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 55,007 Tin/Steel Cans 0.6% 0.2% 113,789 Paint 0.2% 0.2% 41,084 Major Appliances 0.1% 0.1% 17,120 Vehicle and Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 1,076 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 234 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 146 Other Ferrous 2.0% 0.6% 398,270 Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 4,768 Aluminum Cans 0.1% 0.0% 20,169 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.0% 0.0% 7,934 Other Non-Ferrous 0.2% 0.1% 43,557 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.5% 0.8% 287,223 Special Waste 3.1% 617,641 Ash 0.2% 0.2% 32,314 Electronics 0.5% 96,710 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.2% 0.1% 38,583 Bulky Items 2.5% 1.7% 489,093 Computer-related Electronics 0.0% 0.0% 2,686 Tires 0.3% 0.3% 55,700 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.1% 0.0% 10,516 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.2% 0.2% 40,534 Video Display Devices 0.2% 0.3% 44,926 Mixed Residue 0.1% 28,507 Plastic 11.3% 2,232,684 Mixed Residue 0.1% 0.1% 28,507 PETE Containers 0.5% 0.1% 89,177 HDPE Containers 0.4% 0.1% 74,261 Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 0.4% 0.1% 84,301 Plastic Trash Bags 1.2% 0.3% 233,075 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.2% 0.1% 43,671 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.8% 0.4% 166,675 Film Products 0.2% 0.1% 38,321 Other Film 1.7% 0.6% 329,444 Durable Plastic Items 2.0% 0.6% 385,704 Totals 100.0% 19,672,547 Remainder/Composite Plastic 4.0% 1.4% 788,056 Sample Count 250 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. More detailed composition tables can be found in Appendix D:Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables Contractors Report to the Board California 2C8 Btatevvide `..taste Characterization Study 28 Residential Waste The objective of this portion of the study was to characterize California's residential waste stream at the state level. Residential waste is defined as waste disposed by households that is collected and transported by contracted and franchised waste haulers. This section presents composition findings for the statewide residential sector as a whole,followed by findings for single-family residential waste and multifamily residential waste. Overview and Analysis The residential sector accounts for approximately 30 percent of California's municipal solid waste stream. The single-family residential subsector accounts for approximately 22 percent and the multifamily residential subsector accounts for approximately 8 percent. As with many waste composition studies,this study considered single-family residential waste separately from multifamily residential waste. Multifamily waste is typically collected along with commercial waste,and it becomes impractical to separate the multifamily from the commercial waste for sampling at solid waste sites.The present study therefore captured multifamily waste at the point of generation(apartment complexes). Samples of single-family residential waste were obtained from randomly selected vehicles at the landfills and transfer stations that participated in this study. Samples of multifamily residential waste were collected at multifamily complexes that were selected randomly from the area surrounding the participating solid waste facilities. Composition percents and estimated tons for each material type were derived separately for the single-family residential and multifamily residential subsectors.The estimates for the two subsectors were then combined,with weighting proportionate to the prevalence of each subsector in the overall waste stream,as derived from the vehicle surveys. See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for a description of the methods used in selecting, sorting,and analyzing samples. Table 13 and Table 16 present the numbers of samples that were obtained in each region and each season for single-family residential waste and multifamily residential waste,respectively. In all, 251 samples of residential waste were analyzed(201 single-family and 50 multifamily). Composition results by Material Class for residential disposed waste are illustrated in Figure 7 and described in detail in Table 12.A large portion—an estimated 49 percent—of the residential waste stream was composed of Other Organic.material. NONNIUMNOMMONNIMMITINNIIIM Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 29 Figure 7: Overview of Overall Residential Disposed Waste Special Waste Mixed Residue HHW 1.5% 2.5% 0.3% Paper Est. !nuts and 19.6% Material Class Percent Other Paper 19.6% 11.2% Glass Glass 2.4% 2.4% Metal 4.0% Metal Electronics 0.7% 4.0% Plastic 9.2% Other Organic 48.6% Electronics Inerts and Other 11.2% 0.7% HHW 0.3% Plastic Special Waste 1.5% Other Organic 9.2% Mixed Residue 2.5% 48.6% Total 100% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Ten Most Prevalent Materials The 10 most prevalent material types,shown in Table 11,include the compostable food and leaves and grass. Prevalent recyclable material types found include lumber(about 7 percent), other miscellaneous paper(5 percent),and uncoated corrugated cardboard(3 percent). MOONOMMINIMMINNIN•■•■•■•01,111111.11011 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 30 Table 11: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Overall Residential Disposed Waste Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Food 25.4% 25.4% 3,034,040 Remainder/Composite Organic 8.4% 33.8% 1,002,937 Lumber 6.7% 40.5% 794,897 Leaves and Grass 6.0% 46.5% 715,353 Remainder/Composite Paper 6.0% 52.5% 714,716 Other Miscellaneous Paper 4.5% 57.0% 538,988 Textiles 4.2% 61.2% 506,658 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 2.8% 64.1% 339,929 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 2.7% 66.8% 323,058 Mixed Residue 2.5% 69.3% 297,515 Total 69.3% 8,268,092 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. As samples were sorted the field crew estimated the proportion of the material leaves and grass that was leaves and the proportion that was grass. The field crew sorted 170 residential samples containing leaves and grass.The leaves and grass in the residential disposed waste is approximately 43 percent leaves by weight; grass comprises the remaining 57 percent. Detailed Composition Table 12 presents the composition percentages,by weight,for each material type in the overall residential sector. Tables containing data for the 85 expanded material types can be found in Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables. MMMMMMMIMMMNIMNMMMIIrIIMMI Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 31 Table 12: Composition of Overall Residential Disposed Waste Est. Est. Est Est. Material Percent +/- Tons Material Percent +I- Tons Paper 19.6% 2,337,272 Other Organic 48.6% 5,800,260 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 2.7% 0.4% 323,058 Food 25.4% 2.2% 3,034,040 Paper Bags 0.5% 0.1% 59,705 Leaves and Grass 6.0% 1.3% 715,353 Newspaper 2.4% 0.6% 288,196 Prunings and Trimmings 1.9% 0.7% 225,375 White Ledger Paper 0.4% 0.1% 43,352 Branches and Stumps 0.1% 0.1% 17,032 Other Office Paper 1.7% 0.4% 203,895 Manures 0.2% 0.2% 20,224 Magazines and Catalogs 1.3% 0.2% 153,431 Textiles 4.2% 0.7% 506,658 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.1% 11,929 Carpet 2.3% 2.2% 278,641 Other Miscellaneous Paper 4.5% 0.5% 538,988 Remainder/Composite Organic 8.4% 1.1% 1,002,937 Remainder/Composite Paper 6.0% 0.6% 714,716 inerts and Other 11.2% 1,340,446 Glass 2.4% 282,933 Concrete 0.5% 0.4% 63,281 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.9% 0.2% 106,493 Asphalt Paving 0.0% 0.0% 544 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.4% 0.1% 48,187 Asphalt Roofing 0.2% 0.1% 22,010 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.5% 0.2% 55,403 Lumber 6.7% 3.2% 794,897 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.2% 0.1% 29,633 Gypsum Board 0.2% 0.1% 28,585 Flat Glass 0.0% 0.0% 1,125 Rock,Soil and Fines 0.8% 0.5% 91,199 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.4% 0.2% 42,093 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 2.8% 1.8% 339,929 Metal 4.0% 478,431 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 34,117 Tin/Steel Cans 1.0% 0.1% 115,920 Paint 0.0% 0.0% 3,449 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 4,252 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 3,012 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 2,843 Other Ferrous 1.3% 0.4% 149,347 Batteries 0.1% 0.1% 13,376 Aluminum Cans 0.2% 0.0% 26,171 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.1% 0.0% 10,196 Other Non-Ferrous 0.3% 0.1% 31,512 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.3% 0.4% 152,469 Special Waste 1.5% 174,453 Ash 0.1% 0.0% 6,960 Electronics 0.7% 86,262 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.2% 0.1% 28,421 Bulky Items 1.3% 1.0% 154,051 Computer-related Electronics 0.1% 0.1% 11,357 Tires 0.0% 0.0% 2,570 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.2% 0.1% 23,388 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.1% 0.1% 10,873 Video Display Devices 0.2% 0.2% 23,096 Mixed Residue 2.5% 297,515 Plastic 9.2% 1,103,485 Mixed Residue 2.5% 0.8% 297,515 PETE Containers 0.9% 0.1% 105,170 HDPE Containers 0.7% 0.1% 78,846 Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 0.6% 0.1% 74,429 Plastic Trash Bags 0.9% 0.1% 109,464 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.6% 0.1% 76,760 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.0% 0.0% 4,422 Film Products 0.1% 0.1% 6,428 Other Film 1.7% 0.2% 207,770 Durable Plastic Items 2.0% 0.5% 238,180 Totals 100.0% 11,935,173 Remainder/Composite Plastic 1.7% 0.2% 202,017 Sample Count 251 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. More detailed composition tables can be found in Appendix D:Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables 1.11111.1111111111.111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.111111111.1,11111111.1111111 Contrxt,,:q s R. hart Cr the Board California 2 ;U8 St eCr de Sane Characterization Study 32 Single-Family Residential Waste The objective of this portion of the study was to characterize California's single-family residential waste stream at the state level. This is a subsector of the residential waste stream,and includes waste that is collected by haulers from single-family residences. Overview and Analysis Samples of single-family residential waste were obtained from randomly selected vehicles at the landfills and transfer stations participating in this study.Approximately 40 samples were obtained from each of the five regions of the state. See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for a description of the methods used in selecting,sorting,and analyzing samples. Table 13 presents the numbers of samples that were obtained in each region and each season. Statewide,201 samples of single-family residential waste were collected and sorted. Table 13: Single-Family Residential Samples Obtained,by Region and Season Season Bay Area Coastal Mountain Southern Valley Totals Winter 2008 8 9 11 13 9 50 Spring 2008 12 12 8 5 12 49 Summer 2008 8 8 15 12 8 51 Autumn 2008 12 12 fi 10 11 51 Totals 40 41 40 40 40 201 See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for the names and locations of the solid waste facilities that were visited. Composition results by Material Class for single-family residential waste are illustrated in Figure 8 and described in detail in Table 15.The largest Material Class in the single-family residential waste stream is Other Organic,which accounted for an estimated 51 percent of the total,by weight.Paper,the next largest Material Class,accounted for about 19 percent of the waste. INNOMMINNMEMONE■1111,11■1 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 33 Figure 8: Overview of Single-Family Residential Disposed Waste Special Waste HHW 0.3% 0.3% Mixed Residue Est. 3.0% Paper Material Class Percent Inerts and 18.7% Paper 18.7% Other 9.6% Glass Glass 2.1% 2.1 /o Metal 4.1% Metal Electronics 0.7% 4.1% Plastic 10.0% /IdaElectronics Other Organic 51.1% 0.7% Inerts and Other 9.6% HHW 0.3% Plastic Special Waste 0.3% 10.0% Mixed Residue 3.0% Other Organic 51.1% Total 100.0% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Ten Most Prevalent Materials As shown in Table 14,the compostable food,leaves and grass,and prunings and trimmings together make up about 37 percent of the single-family residential waste stream.Prevalent material types that are typically recyclable include lumber and other miscellaneous paper. INNINIMI•■■•■•111MINIMMINIMINTIIIMIIMI Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 34 Table 14: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Single-Family Residential Disposed Waste Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Food 26.5% 26.5% 2,277,194 Remainder/Composite Organic 8.3% 34.8% 708,770 Leaves and Grass 7.5% 42.3% 646,018 Remainder/Composite Paper 6.5% 48.8% 556,734 Lumber 5.1% 53.9% 439,877 Textiles 4.5% 58.4% 382,018 Other Miscellaneous Paper 4.3% 62.7% 371,979 Mixed Residue 3.0% 65.7% 259,331 Prunings and Trimmings 2.5% 68.3% 218,759 Durable Plastic Items 2.5% 70.7% 211,961 Total 70.7% 6,072,641 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Detailed Composition Table 15 presents the detailed composition results for the single-family residential subsector. Tables containing data for the 85 expanded material types can be found in Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 35 Table 15: Composition of Single-Family Residential Disposed Waste Est. Est Est. Est. Material Percent +I- Tons Material Percent +I- Tons Paper 18.7% 1,608,183 Other Organic 51.1% 4,389,119 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 2.1% 0.3% 176,011 Food 26.5% 2.2% 2,277,194 Paper Bags 0.5% 0.1% 42,817 Leaves and Grass 7.5% 1.7% 646,018 Newspaper 2.2% 0.3% 188,462 Prunings and Trimmings 2.5% 1.0% 218,759 White Ledger Paper 0.4% 0.1% 30,485 Branches and Stumps 0.2% 0.2% 17,032 Other Office Paper 1.4% 0.2% 118,662 Manures 0.2% 0.3% 20,224 Magazines and Catalogs 1.3% 0.2% 112,805 Textiles 4.5% 0.7% 382,018 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.1% 10,228 Carpet 1.4% 0.8% 119,105 Other Miscellaneous Paper 4.3% 0.4% 371,979 Remainder/Composite Organic 8.3% 0.9% 708,770 Remainder/Composite Paper 6.5% 0.6% 556,734 Inerts and Other 9.6% 823,269 Glass 2.1% 179,435 Concrete 0.7% 0.5% 63,228 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.7% 0.1% 63,908 Asphalt Paving 0.0% 0.0% 544 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.4% 0.1% 30,567 Asphalt Roofing 0.3% 0.2% 21,945 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.4% 0.1% 32,855 Lumber 5.1% 2.3% 439,877 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.2% 0.0% 15,985 Gypsum Board 0.3% 0.2% 27,070 Flat Glass 0.0% 0.0% 542 Rock,Soil and Fines 1.1% 0.8% 90,658 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.4% 0.2% 35,578 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 2.1% 1.1% 179,948 Metal 4.1% 355,542 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 23,304 Tin/Steel Cans 1.0% 0.1% 85,059 Paint 0.0% 0.0% 3,137 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 2,217 Used Oil Fitters 0.0% 0.0% 3,010 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 2,843 Other Ferrous 1.3% 0.4% 111,328 Batteries 0.1% 0.1% 11,114 Aluminum Cans 0.3% 0.0% 21,610 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.0% 0.0% 3,993 Other Non-Ferrous 0.3% 0.1% 25,401 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.3% 0.4% 109,134 Special Waste 0.3% 24,313 Ash 0.0% 0.0% 4,034 Electronics 0.7% 62,806 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.3% 0.2% 23,037 Bulky Items 0.1% 0.1% 7,904 Computer-related Electronics 0.1% 0.1% 10,305 Tires 0.0% 0.0% 2,570 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.2% 0.2% 19,995 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.1% 0.1% 9,805 Video Display Devices 0.1% 0.2% 9,469 Mixed Residue 3.0% 259,331 Plastic 10.0% 858,442 Mixed Residue 3.0% 0.9% 259,331 PETE Containers 0.8% 0.1% 70,247 HDPE Containers 0.6% 0.1% 47,659 Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 0.6% 0.1% 53,492 Plastic Trash Bags 1.0% 0.1% 84,372 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.7% 0.1% 58,641 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.0% 0.0% 4,016 Film Products 0.0% 0.0% 1,687 Other Film 1.9% 0.3% 167,064 Durable Plastic Items 2.5% 0.6% 211,961 Totals 100.0% 8,583,746 Remainder/Composite Plastic 1.9% 0.2% 159,302 Sample Count 201 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. More detailed composition tables can be found in Appendix D:Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables Contract Jr s W hii i'. to the Board Califon-la 2N8 tatemde Waste Charactehzatiorn Study 36 • Multifamily Residential Waste The objective of this portion of the study was to characterize California's multifamily residential waste stream at the state level.This subsector includes waste that is collected by haulers from apartments or condominiums. Overview and Analysis Samples of multifamily residential waste were obtained from apartment complexes that were selected randomly from the area surrounding the solid waste facilities that participated in the study. See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for a list of participating facilities.Fifty samples of multifamily waste were collected in the five regions of the state. Table 17 presents the numbers of samples that were obtained in each region and each season. Table 16: Multifamily Residential Samples Obtained,by Region and Season Season Bay Area Coastal Mountain Southern Valley Totals Winter 2008 2 2 3 3 2 12 Spring 2008 3 3 2 2 3 13 Summer 2008 2 2 3 3 2 12 Autumn 2008 3 3 2 2 3 13 Totals 10 10 10 10 10 50 Composition results by Material Class for multifamily residential waste are illustrated in Figure 9 and described in detail in Table 18.As shown in Figure 9,the largest Material Class is Other Organic,which accounts for about 42 percent, followed by Paper,which makes up about 22 percent of the multifamily residential waste stream by weight. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 37 Figure 9: Overview of Multifamily Residential Disposed Waste Special Waste 4.50/o Mixed Residue HHW 1.1% Est. 0.30/0 Paper Material Class Percent ° Inerts and 21.8/o Paper 21.8% Other Glass 3.1% 15.4% i Glass Metal 3.7% 3.1% Electronics 0.7% Metal Plastic 7.3% 3.7% Other Organic 42.1% Inerts and Other 15.4% Electronics HHW 0.3% 0.7% Special Waste 4.5% Other Organic Plastic Mixed Residue 1.1% 9 7.3% 42.1% Total 100% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Ten Most Prevalent Materials As shown in Table 17,food(23 percent)is the most prevalent material type in multifamily residential waste. Typically recyclable prevalent material types,including lumber,other miscellaneous paper,and uncoated corrugated cardboard, account for 20 percent of the total. Table 17: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Multifamily Residential Disposed Waste Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Food 22.6% 22.6% 756,846 Lumber 10.6% 33.2% 355,021 Remainder/Composite Organic 8.8% 42.0% 294,167 Other Miscellaneous Paper 5.0% 46.9% 167,009 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 4.8% 51.7% 159,982 Carpet 4.8% 56.5% 159,536 Remainder/Composite Paper 4.7% 61.2% 157,982 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 4.4% 65.6% 147,048 Bulky Items 4.4% 69.9% 146,147 Textiles 3.7% 73.7% 124,641 Total 73.7% 2,468,377 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 38 Detailed Composition Table 18 presents the detailed composition results for the multifamily residential subsector. Tables containing data for the 85 expanded material types can be found in Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 39 Table 18: Composition of Multifamily Residential Disposed Waste Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent +/_ Tons Material Percent +/- Tons Paper 21.8% 729,089 Other Organic 42.1% 1,411,140 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 4.4% 1.2% 147.048 Food 22.6% 5.5% 756.846 Paper Bags 0.5% 0.1% 16,887 Leaves and Grass 2.1% 1.8% 69,336 Newspaper 3.0% 2.1% 99,735 Prunings and Trimmings 0.2% 0.1% 6,616 White Ledger Paper 0.4% 0.2% 12,867 Branches and Stumps 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other Office Paper 2.5% 1.2% 85,234 Manures 0.0% 0.0% 0 Magazines and Catalogs 1.2% 0.5% 40,627 Textiles 3.7% 1.7% 124,641 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.1% 1,702 Carpet 4.8% 7.5% 159,536 Other Miscellaneous Paper 5.0% 1.4% 167,009 Remainder/Composite Organic 8.8% 3.0% 294,167 Remainder/Composite Paper 4.7% 1.4% 157,982 Inerts and Other 15.4% 517,176 Glass 3.1% 103,497 Concrete 0.0% 0.0% 53 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 1.3% 0.6% 42,585 Asphalt Paving 0.0% 0.0% 0 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.5% 0.4% 17,620 Asphalt Roofing 0.0% 0.0% 65 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.7% 0.5% 22,548 Lumber 10.6% 9.8% 355,021 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.4% 0.3% 13,648 Gypsum Board 0.0% 0.1% 1,515 Flat Glass 0.0% 0.0% 582 Rock,Soil and Fines 0.0% 0.0% 541 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.2% 0.1% 6,514 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 4.8% 5.9% 159,982 Metal 3.7% 122,889 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 10,813 Tin/Steel Cans 0.9% 0.3% 30,862 Paint 0.0% 0.0% 312 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Equipment Fluids 0.1% 0.1% 2,036 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 2 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other Ferrous 1.1% 0.9% 38,019 Batteries 0.1% 0.1% 2,261 Aluminum Cans 0.1% 0.1% 4,561 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.2% 0.1% 6,204 Other Non-Ferrous 0.2% 0.1% 6,111 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.3% 0.9% 43,335 Special Waste 4.5% 150,140 Ash 0.1% 0.1% 2,926 Electronics 0.7% 23,456 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.2% 0.2% 5,384 Bulky Items 4.4% 3.6% 146,147 Computer-related Electronics 0.0% 0.1% 1,052 Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.1% 0.1% 3,393 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.0% 0.1% 1,067 Video Display Devices 0.4% 0.6% 13,626 Mixed Residue 1.1% 38,183 Plastic 7.3% 245,043 Mixed Residue 1.1% 1.4% 38,183 PETE Containers 1.0% 0.4% 34,923 HDPE Containers 0.9% 0.3% 31,186 Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 0.6% 0.2% 20,937 Plastic Trash Bags 0.7% 0.1% 25,092 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.5% 0.2% 18,119 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.0% 0.0% 406 Film Products 0.1% 0.2% 4,741 Other Film 1.2% 0.4% 40,706 Durable Plastic Items 0.8% 0.2% 26,219 Totals 100.0% 3,351,428 Remainder/Composite Plastic 1.3% 0.3% 42,715 Sample Count 50 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. More detailed composition tables can be found in Appendix D:Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables Contractors Report tio the Board Cahtorn a 2v:N St_,tetd de Paste Cb a:actenzatIon Study 40 Self-hauled Waste The objective of this portion of the study was to characterize California's self-hauled waste stream at the state level. Self-hauled waste is waste that is transported to the solid waste disposal site by someone other than a contracted or franchised hauler.This section presents composition findings for the statewide self-hauled sector as a whole,followed by findings for commercial self- hauled waste and residential self-hauled waste. Overview and Analysis As shown in Table 5 the self-hauled waste sect or accounts for approximately 20 percent of California's municipal solid waste stream.The commercial self-hauled and residential self-hauled subsectors make up approximately 17 percent and 3 percent,respectively. Samples of self-hauled waste were obtained from randomly selected vehicles at the landfills and transfer stations visited in this study. Fifty samples were obtained from each of the five regions of the state.Overall self-hauled composition results are based on the commercial and residential subsectors,weighted at the regional level. See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for a description of the methods used in selecting, sorting,and analyzing samples. As part of the vehicle survey,drivers of vehicles carrying commercial self-hauled waste to solid waste facilities were asked to classify the activity that generated the waste.The possible responses were construction/demolition/remodeling,roofing,landscaping,and other commercial or industrial activities.Their responses indicate that commercial self-hauled waste from construction,demolition,and remodeling activities represents 7 percent of the total waste stream. Waste from commercially self-hauled roofing and landscaping activities constitute less than two and one percent of the overall waste stream respectively.Other miscellaneous commercial activities generate commercial self-hauled waste that represents approximately 8 percent of the overall waste stream.These results are shown in Table 22. Table 19 presents the numbers of samples that were obtained in each region and each season. Overall,250 samples of self-hauled waste were sorted. Table 19: Self-hauled Samples Obtained by Region and Season Season Bay Area Coastal Mountain Southern Valley Totals Winter 2008 10 8 15 16 9 58 Spring 2008 16 17 10 11 14 68 Summer 2008 8 11 14 15 9 57 Autumn 2008 16 14 11 8 18 67 Totals 50 50 50 50 50 250 See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for the names and locations of the solid waste facilities that were visited. Composition results by Material Class for self-hauled waste are illustrated in Figure 10 and described in detail in Table 21.More than half of the overall self-hauled waste stream— approximately 59 percent—was comprised of the class Inerts and Other. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 41 Figure 10: Overview of Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste Mixed Residue Glass 0.1% Paper 0.5% Special Waste 5.5% Metal Est. 9.3% 5.6% Material Class Percent HHW Electronics Paper 5.5% ° 0.4/0 0.4% Glass 0.5% Plastic Metal 5.6% 5.8% Electronics 0.4% Plastic 5.8% Other Organic 13.6% Inerts and Other 58.8% Other Organic HHW 0.4% Inerts and 13.6% Special Waste 9.3% Other Mixed Residue 0.1% 58.8% Total 100% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Ten Most Prevalent Materials Lumber, a readily recyclable material,was most prevalent in self-hauled waste,accounting for an estimated 23 percent of the overall self-hauled waste stream. Other readily recyclable material types included asphalt roofing,gypsum board,other ferrous metal,and concrete,as shown in Table 20. Table 20: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Lumber 23.2% 23.2% 1,881,918 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 10.4% 33.5% 840,554 Bulky Items 9.2% 42.8% 749,947 Rock, Soil and Fines 8.9% 51.6% 718,500 Asphalt Roofing 7.9% 59.6% 644,234 Gypsum Board 3.9% 63.4% 313,223 Carpet 3.8% 67.3% 309,371 Other Ferrous 3.1% 70.4% 254,087 Concrete 3.1% 73.5% 252,774 Leaves and Grass 2.6% 76.1% 212,560 Total 76.1% 6,177,167 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. MONINIMMOMMINNIMMIII■11111111111111111111111111111=111111111111,111111111111111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 42 Detailed Composition Table 21 presents the detailed composition results for the overall self-hauled sector.Tables containing data for the 85 expanded material types can be found in Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables. 111=1111.1■01=11IIIIIMI111,1■1 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 43 Table 21: Composition of Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent +I- Tons Material Percent +/- Tons Paper 5.5% 449,539 Other Organic 13.6% 1,105,618 - Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 2.0% 0.6% 159,309 Food 1.1% 0.5% 91,275 Paper Bags 0.3% 0.2% 24,402 Leaves and Grass 2.6% 1.1% 212,560 Newspaper 0.3% 0.3% 21,526 Prunings and Trimmings 2.2% 1.2% 175,428 White Ledger Paper 0.2% 0.2% 13,008 Branches and Stumps 1.6% 1.4% 128,285 Other Office Paper 0.2% 0.3% 18,795 Manures 0.0% 0.0% 0 Magazines and Catalogs 0.1% 0.1% 11,810 Textiles 1.2% 0.5% 100,593 Phone Books and Directories 0.0% 0.0% 999 Carpet 3.8% 2.4% 309,371 Other Miscellaneous Paper 0.9% 0.8% 76,130 Remainder/Composite Organic 1.1% 0.4% 88,106 Remainder/Composite Paper 1.5% 0.7% 123,558 Inerts and Other 58.8% 4,775,706 Glass 0.5% 37,364 Concrete 3.1% 1.5% 252,774 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.1% 0.0% 4,251 Asphalt Paving 1.5% 2.0% 124,504 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 1,540 Asphalt Roofing 7.9% 3.5% 644,234 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 2,184 Lumber 23.2% 5.5% 1,881,918 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.1% 3,139 Gypsum Board 3.9% 1.8% 313,223 Flat Glass 0.2% 0.2% 15,848 Rock,Soil and Fines 8.9% 4.2% 718,500 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.1% 0.1% 10,403 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 10.4% 3.7% 840,554 Metal 5.6% 450,890 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.4% 31,628 Tin/Steel Cans 0.1% 0.0% 6,696 Paint 0.0% 0.0% 3,492 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 1,096 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 364 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 359 Other Ferrous 3.1% 1.0% 254,087 Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 938 Aluminum Cans 0.0% 0.0% 1,489 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.3% 0.4% 25,743 Other Non-Ferrous 0.1% 0.1% 9,199 Remainder/Composite Metal 2.2% 1.2% 179,056 Special Waste 9.3% 754,376 Ash 0.0% 0.0% 1,462 Electronics 0.4% 33,325 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.1% 0.1% 9,721 Bulky Items 9.2% 3.7% 749,947 Computer-related Electronics 0.2% 0.4% 18,888 Tires 0.0% 0.0% 1,910 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.0% 0.0% 685 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.0% 0.0% 1,056 Video Display Devices 0.0% 0.0% 4,031 Mixed Residue 0.1% 4,870 Plastic 5.8% 471,782 Mixed Residue 0.1% 0.0% 4,870 PETE Containers 0.1% 0.0% 5,296 HDPE Containers 0.1% 0.0% 4,672 Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 0.1% 0.0% 4,279 Plastic Trash Bags 0.2% 0.1% 19,458 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.0% 0.0% 2,974 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.3% 0.2% 23,767 Film Products 0.8% 0.9% 68,817 Other Film 0.2% 0.1% 16,787 Durable Plastic Items 2.6% 1.3% 211,086 Totals 100.0% 8,115,098 Remainder/Composite Plastic 1.4% 0.8% 114,646 Sample Count 250 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. More detailed composition tables can be found in Appendix D:Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables Contractors Rucort to the Board California 20G3 , tatemde ll\taste Characterization Study 44 Commercial Self-hauled Waste The objective of this portion of the study was to characterize California's commercial self-hauled waste stream at the state level.This sector includes waste hauled to a solid waste disposal site by a commercial enterprise, such as a landscaper or contractor,even if the source of waste was residential dwellings. Overview and Analysis Samples of commercial self-hauled waste were obtained from randomly selected vehicles at the landfills and transfer stations visited in this study. Drivers bringing commercial self-hauled waste were asked to describe the activity that generated the waste.Table 22 shows the estimated amount of disposed material corresponding to each activity statewide. Table 22: Contribution of Specific Activities to Commercial Self-hauled Waste Activity Est. Percentage Est.Tons of Disposed Disposed Waste Stream Statewide Construction &Demolition 6.9% 2,758,567 Roofing 1.8% 713,913 Landscaping 0.6% 233,598 Other Commercial 7.8% 3,106,386 Totals 17.2% 6,812,464 Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. An average of 28 samples was obtained from each of the five regions of the state. See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for a description of the methods used in selecting,sorting,and analyzing samples.Table 23 presents the numbers of samples that were obtained in each region and each season. In total, 139 samples of commercial self-hauled waste were sorted. Table 23: Commercial Self-hauled Samples Obtained,by Region and Season Season Bay Area Coastal Mountain Southern Valley Totals Winter 2008 5 5 5 11 6 32 Spring 2008 11 6 3 8 8 36 Summer 2008 4 7 5 12 8 36 Autumn 2008 10 9 6 4 6 35 Totals 30 27 19 35 28 139 See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for the names and locations of the solid waste facilities that were visited. Composition results by Material Class for commercial self-hauled waste are illustrated in Figure 11 and described in detail in Table 25. An esti mated 61 percent of the commercial self-hauled waste stream was comprised of the class Inerts and Other. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 45 Figure 11: Overview of Commercial Self-hauled Disposed Waste Paper Glass Mixed Residue 5.6% ° ° Special Waste 0.0/° °Metal Est. 8.8% Material Class Percent 4.9% HHW Paper 5.6% 0.3% Electronics Glass 0.2% 0.1% Metal 4.9% Plastic Electronics 0.1 5.5/o Plastic 5.5% Other Organic Other Organic 13.4% 13.4% Inerts and Other 61.0% HHW 0.3% Inerts and Special Waste 8.8% Other Mixed Residue 0.0% 61.0% Total 100% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Ten Most Prevalent Materials Table 24 shows the 10 most prevalent material types of the commercial self-hauled waste stream, by weight.Lumber,asphalt roofing,gypsum board,and other ferrous metal are readily recyclable and,together,account for about 39 percent of this waste stream. NMMN■MMM•MMI■MMMMN■NNMM■NirNNINMM Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 46 Table 24: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Commercial Self-hauled Disposed Waste Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Lumber 23.3% 23.3% 1,586,923 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 10.9% 34.2% 742,415 Rock, Soil and Fines 10.2% 44.4% 694,103 Asphalt Roofing 9.2% 53.6% 625,732 Bulky Items 8.8% 62.3% 597,335 Carpet 3.9% 66.2% 266,518 Gypsum Board 3.8% 70.0% 257,269 Other Ferrous 3.0% 73.0% 201,107 Leaves and Grass 2.7% 75.7% 186,928 Durable Plastic Items 2.4% 78.1% 163,400 Total 78.1% 5,321,729 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Detailed Composition Table 25 presents the detailed composition results for the commercial self-hauled subsector. Tables containing data for the 85 expanded material types can be found in Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 47 Table 25: Composition of Commercial Self-hauled Disposed Waste Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent +/- Tons Material Percent +/- Tons Paper 5.6% 384,854 Other Organic 13.4% 915,720 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 2.0% 0.8% 134,247 Food 0.9% 0.5% 63,049 Paper Bags 0.3% 0.3% 22,558 Leaves and Grass 2.7% 1.3% 186,928 Newspaper 0.3% 0.3% 18,148 Prunings and Trimmings 2.3% 1.4% 155,697 White Ledger Paper 0.2% 0.2% 11,966 Branches and Stumps 1.8% 1.7% 120,016 Other Office Paper 0.2% 0.3% 16,265 Manures 0.0% 0.0% 0 Magazines and Catalogs 0.1% 0.1% 8,234 Textiles 0.9% 0.5% 63,784 Phone Books and Directories 0.0% 0.0% 0 Carpet 3.9% 2.8% 266,518 Other Miscellaneous Paper 0.9% 1.0% 64,022 Remainder/Composite Organic 0.9% 0.4% 59,729 Remainder/Composite Paper 1.6% 0.9% 109,413 Inerts and Other 61.0% 4,155,221 Glass 0.2% 16,107 Concrete 2.1% 1.3% 145,871 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 1,722 Asphalt Paving 1.5% 2.3% 102,909 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 1,172 Asphalt Roofing 9.2% 4.2% 625,732 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 679 Lumber 23.3% 6.5% 1,586,923 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.1% 2,766 Gypsum Board 3.8% 2.0% 257,269 Flat Glass 0.1% 0.1% 5,740 Rock,Soil and Fines 10.2% 5.0% 694,103 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.1% 0.0% 4,027 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 10.9% 4.3% 742,415 Metal 4.9% 333,090 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 23,427 Tin/Steel Cans 0.1% 0.0% 4,257 Paint 0.0% 0.0% 1,851 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 684 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 267 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 185 Other Ferrous 3.0% 1.1% 201,107 Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 818 Aluminum Cans 0.0% 0.0% 1,006 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.3% 0.4% 19,888 Other Non-Ferrous 0.1% 0.1% 4,987 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.8% 1.3% 121,467 Special Waste 8.8% 598,930 Ash 0.0% 0.0% 965 Electronics 0.1% 6,259 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.0% 0.1% 2,496 Bulky Items 8.8% 4.3% 597,335 Computer-related Electronics 0.0% 0.0% 1,589 Tires 0.0% 0.0% 629 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.0% 0.0% 374 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Video Display Devices 0.0% 0.0% 1,799 Mixed Residue 0.0% 812 Plastic 5.5% 378,044 Mixed Residue 0.0% 0.0% 812 PETE Containers 0.0% 0.0% 3,169 HDPE Containers 0.0% 0.0% 2,757 Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 0.0% 0.0% 1,506 Plastic Trash Bags 0.3% 0.1% 17,042 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.0% 0.0% 1,998 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.3% 0.2% 23,625 Film Products 1.0% 1.0% 66,026 Other Film 0.1% 0.1% 10,031 Durable Plastic Items 2.4% 1.5% 163,400 Totals 100.0% 6,812,464 Remainder/Composite Plastic 1.3% 1.0% 88,489 Sample Count 139 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. More detailed composition tables can be found in Appendix D:Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables Contractor's senor to the Board California 200R t tevid laSte Characterization Study 48 Residential Self-hauled Waste The objective of this portion of the study was to characterize California's residential self-hauled waste stream at the state level.This subsector includes waste that is hauled to a solid waste disposal site by a resident from their home. Overview and Analysis Samples of residential self-hauled waste were obtained from randomly selected vehicles at the landfills and transfer stations visited in this study. An average of 22 samples was obtained from each of the five regions of the state. See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for a description of the methods used in selecting,sorting, and analyzing samples. Table 26 presents the numbers of samples that were obtained in each region and each season. Overall, 111 samples of residential self-hauled waste were sorted. Table 26: Residential Self-hauled Samples Obtained,by Region and Season Season Bay Area Coastal Mountain Southern Valley Totals Winter 2008 5 3 10 5 3 26 Spring 2008 5 11 7 3 6 32 Summer 2008 4 4 9 3 1 21 Autumn 2008 6 5 5 4 12 32 Totals 20 23 31 15 22 111 See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for the names and locations of the solid waste facilities that were visited. Composition results by Material Class for residential self-hauled waste are illustrated in Figure 12 and described in detail in Table 28.Nearly half(48 percent)of the residential self-hauled waste was comprised of Inerts and Other material types. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 49 Figure 12: Overview of Residential Self-hauled Disposed Waste Mixed Residue Paper Glass 0.3% 5.0% Special Waste 1.6% Electronics Est. 11.9% Metal Material Class Percent HHW 0.6 9.0% Paper 5.0% °�' Glass 1.6% % " �' ��:;1�`' o Metal 9.0% °4 f 2.1 /o Electronics 2.1% Plastic Plastic 7.2% 7.2% Other Organic 14.6% Inerts and Other 47.6% HHW 0.6% Inerts and Special Waste 11.9% Other Organic Other 14.6% Mixed Residue 0.3% 47.6% Total 100% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Ten Most Prevalent Materials Table 27 lists the 10 most prevalent material types for the residential self-hauled waste stream. Lumber,concrete,gypsum board, and other ferrous metal are all typically recyclable and, together,make up about 39 percent of the waste from the residential self-hauled waste stream. MINI■MMOINNIM11111111111.1.1111■111111111111111111111111.11111111911111■1 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 50 Table 27: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Residential Self-hauled Disposed Waste Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Lumber 22.6% 22.6% 294,995 Bulky Items 11.7% 34.4% 152,612 Concrete 8.2% 42.6% 106,903 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 7.5% 50.1% 98,139 Remainder/Composite Metal 4.4% 54.5% 57,589 Gypsum Board 4.3% 58.8% 55,955 Other Ferrous 4.1% 62.9% 52,980 Durable Plastic Items 3.7% 66.5% 47,686 Carpet 3.3% 69.8% 42,853 Textiles 2.8% 72.7% 36,810 Total 72.7% 946,520 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Detailed Composition Table 28 presents the detailed composition results for the residential self-hauled subsector.Tables containing data for the 85 expanded material types can be found in Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables. NOMMINIll■■111■111111T111■11 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 51 Table 28: Composition of Residential Self-hauled Disposed Waste Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent +I- Tons Material Percent +/- Tons Paper 5.0% 64,685 Other Organic 14.6% 189,898 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 1.9% 0.6% 25,062 Food 2.2% 0.8% 28.226 Paper Bags 0.1% 0.1% 1,844 Leaves and Grass 2.0% 1.1% 25,632 Newspaper 0.3% 0.1% 3,378 Prunings and Trimmings 1.5% 1.6% 19,731 White Ledger Paper 0.1% 0.0% 1,042 Branches and Stumps 0.6% 0.8% 8,269 Other Office Paper 0.2% 0.1% 2,530 Manures 0.0% 0.0% 0 Magazines and Catalogs 0.3% 0.1% 3,576 Textiles 2.8% 1.2% 36,810 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.1% 999 Carpet 3.3% 2.4% 42,853 Other Miscellaneous Paper 0.9% 0.3% 12,108 Remainder/Composite Organic 2.2% 0.9% 28,377 Remainder/Composite Paper 1.1% 0.4% 14,145 Inerts and Other 47.6% 620,485 Glass 1.6% 21,257 Concrete 8.2% 6.0% 106,903 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.2% 0.1% 2,529 Asphalt Paving 1.7% 2.5% 21,595 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 368 Asphalt Roofing 1.4% 1.6% 18,503 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.1% 0.1% 1,505 Lumber 22.6% 5.0% 294,995 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 373 Gypsum Board 4.3% 3.5% 55,955 Flat Glass 0.8% 0.8% 10,108 Rock,Soil and Fines 1.9% 1.5% 24,396 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.5% 0.3% 6,376 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 7.5% 3.2% 98,139 Metal 9.0% 117,800 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.6% 8,201 Tin/Steel Cans 0.2% 0.1% 2,439 Paint 0.1% 0.2% 1,641 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 412 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 97 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 173 Other Ferrous 4.1% 1.5% 52,980 Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 120 Aluminum Cans 0.0% 0.0% 483 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.4% 0.5% 5,855 Other Non-Ferrous 0.3% 0.3% 4,212 Remainder/Composite Metal 4.4% 2.3% 57,589 Special Waste 11.9% 155,445 Ash 0.0% 0.1% 497 Electronics 2.1% 27,066 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.6% 0.4% 7,224 Bulky Items 11.7% 4.2% 152,612 Computer-related Electronics 1.3% 2.2% 17,299 Tires 0.1% 0.1% 1,280 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.0% 0.0% 310 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.1% 0.1% 1,056 Video Display Devices 0.2% 0.2% 2,232 Mixed Residue 0.3% 4,058 Plastic 7.2% 93,738 Mixed Residue 0.3% 0.2% 4,058 PETE Containers 0.2% 0.1% 2,128 HDPE Containers 0.1% 0.1% 1,915 Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 0.2% 0.2% 2,772 Plastic Trash Bags 0.2% 0.1% 2,416 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.1% 0.0% 976 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.0% 0.0% 141 Film Products 0.2% 0.1% 2,791 Other Film 0.5% 0.3% 6,756 Durable Plastic Items 3.7% 1.2% 47,686 Totals 100.0% 1,302,634 Remainder/Composite Plastic 2.0% 1.2% 26,157 Sample Count 111 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. More detailed composition tables can be found in Appendix D:Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables IIIIIIIIMIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIMIIIITMIIIIIIIIIIIII Contractor s Pc r to the Board California 2008 1a owiae Ciaste Cnaiacterrzation Study 52 Organics Table 29 groups together organic materials found in two separate Material Classes: Other Organics and Inerts and Other.This new grouping focuses on the material types that typically can be composted or mulched. Clean dimensional lumber and clean pallets and crates are subtypes of lumber which are commonly accepted for composting or mulch applications.The table shows the proportions of each material type in each sector, as well as in the overall waste stream. Table 29: Selected Organics and Wood Waste Types,Amounts Disposed By Sector Material Type Est. Percent Est.Overall Est.Percent Est. Est. Percent Est. Est. Percent Est.Self- of Overall Tons of Commercial of Residential of Self- hauled Tons Waste Commercial Tons Residential Tons hauled Waste Waste Waste Food 15.5% 6,158,120 15.4% 3,032,805 25.4% 3,034,040 1.1% 91,275 Leaves and Grass 3.8% 1,512,832 3.0% 584,919 6.0% 715,353 2.6% 212,560 Prunings and Trimmings 2.7% 1,058,854 3.3% 658,051 1.9% 225,375 2.2% 175,428 Branches and Stumps 0.6% 245,830 0.5% 100,513 0.1% 17,032 1.6% 128,285 Manure 0.1% 20,373 0.0% 149 0.2% 20,224 0.0% - Clean Dimensional Lumber 3.0% 1,184,375 3.7% 730,278 0.6% 74,475 4.7% 379,622 Clean Engineered Wood 2.7% 1,054,198 2.8% 546,861 0.6% 71,483 5.4% 435,853 Clean Pallets and Crates 2.5% 975,866 3.8% 746,760 1.1% 130,571 1.2% 98,534 Total 30.8% 12,210,447 32.5% 6,400,336 35.9% 4,288,553 18.8% 1,521,557 IIMMMMNMMOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIINIIIIMIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITIIIIIIIIMIOII Sontraetur's Report to the Board S:el:forela 20,18 ,tatemde Waste Cha acterioatFo l Study 53 Additional Research and Analysis Tasks The primary objectives of both the 2004 and 2008 studies were to characterize and quantify the residential,commercial,and self-hauled sectors of the disposed waste stream at the statewide level.The current study also examined some specific material types through the following additional research and analysis tasks: • A divertibility analysis to determine the extent and source of contamination for commonly recoverable paper,plastic,and metal materials that are encountered in waste loads at solid waste facilities; • A laboratory analysis of asbestos in roofing materials; • Detailed sorting of plastic bags to determine sources,in relation to a statewide plastic bag recycling program;and • Additional vehicle surveys to quantify the amount of waste from C&D activities. Results from the divertibility analysis,asbestos analysis,and plastic bag sorting are contained in the following sections. Divertibility Analysis Overview The purpose of the divertibility analysis was to assess the extent of contamination and the source of contamination for commonly recoverable materials in a portion of the samples sorted. Approximately one in four of the residential,commercial,residential self-hauled,and commercial self-hauled samples that were collected at solid waste facilities were randomly selected for this assessment. Samples from the construction,demolition,and remodeling;roofing; and landscaping activity types were excluded from the divertibility analysis. Samples included in the divertibility analysis were sorted just like other samples except that the 15 targeted materials were further subsorted into three categories: (a)clean,(b)contaminated during collection(load-contaminated),and(c)contaminated prior to collection(source- contaminated). Fuller explanations of these categories along with pictures of examples can be found in Appendix A: Detailed Methodology. Table 30 shows the number of samples assessed from each sector. The material types assessed are listed in Table 31. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 54 Table 30:Numbers of Samples Assessed for Contamination,by Sector and Subsector Sector Number of Samples Commercial 75 Residential 72 Single-family residential 57 Multifamily residential 15 Self-hauled 47 Commercial self-hauled 19 Residential self-hauled 29 Total 194 Table 31: Material Types Included in the D ivertibility Assessments Material Type Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard Aluminum Cans Paper Bags PETE Water Bottles Newspaper PETE Sealed Containers White Ledger Other PETE Containers Other Office Paper HDPE Containers Other Miscellaneous Paper ;#3-#7 Sealed Containers Remainder/Composite Paper 43-#7 Other Containers Tin/Steel Cans The divertibility analysis included estimates of the percentages of each targeted material that appeared to be(a)clean,(b)contaminated during collection, and(c)contaminated prior to collection. Findings are provided below for thi,overall disposed waste stream as well as for the commercial,residential,and self-hauled waste sectors. See Appendix A: Detailed Methodology for a description of data analysis methods used to develop these percentages. How Data Are Presented For the overall disposed waste stream,and for each waste sector,data are presented in two ways: • First,an overview of waste composition by Contamination Class is presented in both pie chart and tabular formats. The first pie chart compares the proportion of clean,load- contaminated,and source-contaminated materials for the Paper class.The second pie chart compares the proportion of clean,load-contaminated,and source-contaminated materials for all other Material Classes(Paper is excluded). • Next,a detailed table lists the full composition and quantity results for the 15 material types included in the divertibility analysis. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 55 Overall Disposed Waste Stream This portion of the results characterizes divertibility of certain materials found in the overall disposed solid waste stream for the entire state of California. As shown in Figure 13 and Figure 16,almost two thirds of the disposed material in the Paper class,and three quarters of materials in the other Material Classes(including Plastic and Metal) are clean enough to be diverted.Material contaminated at the source(either at home or the workplace,depending on the load source)comprised about 19 percent of paper and 14 percent of other materials in the 194 samples assessed. Figure 13: Contamination Source for the Paper Material Class in Overall Disposed Waste Source Contaminated 18.9% Contamination Est. Class Percent i t ort41 Clean 61.4% ,,,,,,,.., Load Contaminated 19.7% ,� Source Load "° � Contaminated 18.9% Contaminated -�� < 19.7°/o Clean Total 100.0% 61.4% . - } d A•ys_ ... Bpi`^,,. Figure 14: Source-contaminated Paper Figure 15: Clean Newspaper IIMMONOMONOMMOOMMEMMEN■■••••■■••TIMMI Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 56 Figure 16: Contamination Source for Other Material Classes in Overall Disposed Waste Source Contaminated 14.0% Contamination Est. Class Percent Load Contaminated Clean 75.2% 10.9% Load Contaminated 10.9% Source Clean Contaminated 14.0% 752% i Total 100.0% ( \7 'nf / ■ , fir } " ` + . ' I if b r Y fp m. ..,,, s I e . ` i f -jY�:�4=P��{}o,,t- . Figure 17: Load-contaminated Plastic Figure 18: Clean Aluminum Cans As Table 32 shows,nearly two-thirds of the commonly recycled materials found in the disposed waste stream are clean enough to be readily recycled. Of those clean materials,nearly one quarter is clean uncoated corrugated cardboard. 1111111MMINIMMINIONMINITIIIIIIIIIIMI Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 57 Table 32: Detailed Assessment of Contamination Source in Overall Disposed Waste Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent Tons Material Percent Tons Clean Materials 62.9% 4,625,916 Source Contaminated Materials 18.4% 1,351,037 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 13.1% 960,854 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 0.3% 21,744 Paper Bags 1.5% 109,033 Paper Bags 0.3% 20,466 Newspaper 6.3% 460,411 Newspaper 0.0% 2,860 White Ledger Paper 3.4% 252,751 White Ledger Paper 0.0% 0 Other Office Paper 6.3% 461,304 Other Office Paper 0.0% 0 Other Miscellaneous Paper 12.9% 948,332 Other Miscellaneous Paper 0.0% 3,240 Remainder/Composite Paper 11.3% 828,489 Remainder/Composite Paper 16.2% 1,190,460 Tin/Steel Cans 2.4% 179,430 Tin/Steel Cans 0.4% 30,679 Aluminum Cans 0.6% 42,569 Aluminum Cans 0.0% 1,533 PETE Water Bottles 0.6% 45,410 PETE Water Bottles 0.0% 1,822 PETE Sealed Containers 0.1% 10,615 PETE Sealed Containers 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 1.4% 102,403 Other PETE Containers 0.2% 15,873 HDPE Containers 1.5% 109,631 HDPE Containers 0.3% 21,672 #3-#7 Sealed Containers 0.2% 12,861 #3-#7 Sealed Containers 0.0% 3,574 #3-#7 Other Containers 1.4% 101,823 #347 Other Containers 0.5% 37,115 Load Contaminated Materials 18.8% 1,379,614 Totals 100.0% 7,356,568 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 12.6% 923,299 Sample Count 194 Paper Bags 0.4% 26,350 Newspaper 0.5% 36,688 White Ledger Paper 0.1% 6,401 Other Office Paper 0.1% 10,843 Other Miscellaneous Paper 3.4% 250,782 Remainder/Composite Paper 0.5% 37,596 Tin/Steel Cans 0.4% 26,296 Aluminum Cans 0.1% 3,727 PETE Water Bottles 0.1% 4,474 PETE Sealed Containers 0.1% 7,862 Other PETE Containers 0.2% 11,184 HDPE Containers 0.4% 26,476 #3-#7 Sealed Containers 0.0% 1,692 #3-#7 Other Containers 0.1% 5,943 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. Commercial Disposed Waste Stream This portion of the results characterizes the divertibility of certain materials found in the commercial disposed municipal solid waste stream for the state of California. Figure 19 shows the source of contamination for materials in the Paper class in disposed commercial loads. Similarly,Figure 20 shows the source of contamination for materials in the other Material Classes in disposed commercial loads. Paper is less likely to be clean enough for diversion than the materials in the other Material Classes.Approximately one quarter of the disposed material in the Paper class is load-contaminated. 11111111111111111■■■■111111111111.11■1111.111■111=r1=1.111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 58 Figure 19: Contamination Source for the Paper Material Class in Commercial Disposed Waste Source Contaminated 16.1% Contamination Est. Class Percent Clean 59.3% its'c� Load Contaminated 24.6% Source Load Contaminated 16.1% Contaminated , Clean 24.6% 559.a% Total 100.0% Figure 20: Contamination Source for Other Material Classes in Commercial Disposed Waste Source Contaminated 17.0% Contamination Est. Class Percent Load Clean 77.4% Contaminated 5.6% Load Contaminated 5.6% Source Clean Contaminated 17.0% 77.4% Total 100.0% Overall,nearly one quarter of the assessed materials in the commercial sector were clean enough for recovery when originally placed in a waste bin but were soiled while being transported to a disposal facility(load-contaminated). See Table 33 for the commercial disposed waste stream divertibility results. NOMMINON■11111111.111111,111111111111111111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 59 Table 33: Detailed Assessment of Contamination Source in Commercial Disposed Waste Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent Tons Material Percent Tons Clean Materials 60.9% 2,633,062 Source Contaminated Materials 16.2% 699,167 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 12.2% 526,924 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 0.0% 0 Paper Bags 1.6% 67,598 Paper Bags 0.0% 0 Newspaper 4.2% 182,291 Newspaper 0.0% 0 White Ledger Paper 4.7% 202,241 White Ledger Paper 0.0% 0 Other Office Paper 5.8% 249,289 Other Office Paper 0.0% 0 Other Miscellaneous Paper 12.7% 549,642 Other Miscellaneous Paper 0.1% 3,240 Remainder/Composite Paper 12.9% 559,789 Remainder/Composite Paper 14.6% 631,019 Tin/Steel Cans 2.0% 87,132 Tin/Steel Cans 0.6% 25,739 Aluminum Cans 0.4% 17,942 Aluminum Cans 0.0% 1,398 PETE Water Bottles 0.5% 22,188 PETE Water Bottles 0.0% 450 PETE Sealed Containers 0.2% 8,153 PETE Sealed Containers 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 1.1% 46,415 Other PETE Containers 0.2% 8,143 HDPE Containers 1.2% 52,382 HDPE Containers 0.2% 7,068 #3-#7 Sealed Containers 0.2% 8,529 #347 Sealed Containers 0.0% 1,906 #347 Other Containers 1.2% 52,548 #347 Other Containers 0.5% 20,204 Load Contaminated Materials 23.0% 992,730 Totals 100.0% 4,324,960 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 20.7% 896,606 Sample Count 75 Paper Bags 0.1% 4,143 Newspaper 0.2% 7,945 White Ledger Paper 0.0% 551 Other Office Paper 0.0% 167 Other Miscellaneous Paper 0.8% 34,355 Remainder/Composite Paper 0.6% 27,463 Tin/Steel Cans 0.0% 918 Aluminum Cans 0.0% 828 PETE Water Bottles 0.0% 1,915 PETE Sealed Containers 0.0% 1 Other PETE Containers 0.0% 1,914 HDPE Containers 0.3% 14,811 #3-#7 Sealed Containers 0.0% 687 #3-#7 Other Containers 0.0% 427 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. Overall Residential Disposed Waste Stream This section characterizes the divertibility of certain materials found in the overall disposed residential solid waste stream. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show the source of contamination in disposed residential loads for materials in the Paper class and other Material Classes,respectively.Nearly 60 percent of the disposed material in the Paper class is clean enough for recovery. OMMINONNUMMENNOMM■OMITIMMEM Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 60 Figure 21: Contamination Source for the Paper Material Class in Residential Disposed Waste Source Contaminated 26.2% Contamination Est. Class Percent Clean 59.3% Load Contaminated 14.5% --Clean Source °�"$.` 59.3% Contaminated 26.2% Load Total 100.0% Contaminated 14.5% Figure 22: Contamination Source for Other Material Classes in Residential Disposed Waste Source Contaminated 11.2% Contamination Est. Class Percent Load Clean 72.4% Contaminated 16.5% Load Contaminated 16.5% Source Contaminated 11.2% Clean y Total 100.0% 72.4% As shown in Table 34, source contaminated remainder/composite paper is the most common included material type,comprising more than 20 percent of all the materials assessed. 011■1■11111111111111111111111111,1111111111M Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 61 Table 34: Detailed Assessment of Contamination Source in Residential Disposed Waste Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent Tons Material Percent Tons Clean Materials 61.3% 1,577,363 Source Contaminated Materials 23.9% 613,828 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 10.8% 277,360 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 0.8% 20,182 Paper Bags 1.6% 40,750 Paper Bags 0.0% 116 Newspaper 10.0% 257,025 Newspaper 0.1% 2,860 White Ledger Paper 1.5% 37,502 White Ledger Paper 0.0% 0 Other Office Paper 7.5% 193,220 Other Office Paper 0.0% 0 Other Miscellaneous Paper 12.5% 322,753 Other Miscellaneous Paper 0.0% 0 Remainder/Composite Paper 6.2% 158,879 Remainder/Composite Paper 21.2% 545,933 Tin/Steel Cans 3.3% 85,621 Tin/Steel Cans 0.2% 4,924 Aluminum Cans 0.9% 23,156 Aluminum Cans 0.0% 117 PETE Water Bottles 0.8% 21,835 PETE Water Bottles 0.1% 1,372 PETE Sealed Containers 0.1% 2,084 PETE Sealed Containers 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 2.1% 52,945 Other PETE Containers 0.3% 7,314 HDPE Containers 2.0% 52,579 HDPE Containers 0.6% 14,604 #3-#7 Sealed Containers 0.1% 3,812 #347 Sealed Containers 0.1% 1,668 #347 Other Containers 1.9% 47,842 #347 Other Containers 0.6% 14,736 Load Contaminated Materials 14.8% 381,257 Totals 100.0% 2,572,448 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 1.0% 25,516 Sample Count 72 Paper Bags 0.7% 18,838 Newspaper 1.1% 28,311 White Ledger Paper 0.2% 5,850 Other Office Paper 0.4% 10,675 Other Miscellaneous Paper 8.4% 216,236 Remainder/Composite Paper 0.4% 9,904 Tin/Steel Cans 1.0% 25,375 Aluminum Cans 0.1% 2,899 PETE Water Bottles 0.1% 2,560 PETE Sealed Containers 0.3% 7,861 Other PETE Containers 0.4% 9,199 HDPE Containers 0.5% 11,662 #3-#7 Sealed Containers 0.0% 1,005 #3-#7 Other Containers 0.2% 5,365 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste Stream This section characterizes the divertibility of certain materials found in the overall self-hauled solid waste stream,combining the commercial self-hauled and residential self-hauled subsectors. As shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24, source contamination is more common than load contamination in the self-hauled sector. Even so,about 90 percent of assessed materials are clean when they are unloaded at a disposal facility. 0•11■•=11•■■•■■■Iril■I Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 62 Figure 23: Contamination Source for the Paper Material Class in Self-hauled Disposed Waste Source Contaminated Load 8.1% Contaminated 1.2% Contamination Est. Class Percent Clean 90.7% Load Contaminated 1.2% Source Contaminated 8.1% Clean 90.7% Total 100.0% Figure 24: Contamination Source for Other Material Classes in Self-hauled Disposed Waste Source Contaminated 11.7% Load Contamination Est. Contaminated Class Percent 1.0% Clean 87.3% \ Load Contaminated 1.0% Source Contaminated 11.7% Clean / Total 100.0% 87.3% Clean uncoated corrugated cardboard is the most prevalent of the assessed materials in the self- hauled sector,comprising more than one third of the materials. Overall,more than 90 percent of the assessed materials in the self-hauled sector are clean enough for recovery at the time they are unloaded at a disposal site.Table 35 presents the detailed divertibility results for the self-hauled disposed waste stream. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 63 Table 35: Detailed Assessment of Contamination Source in Self-hauled Disposed Waste Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent Tons Material Percent Tons Clean Materials 90.5% 415,491 Source Contaminated Materials 8.3% 38,043 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 34.1% 156,570 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 0.3% 1,561 Paper Bags 0.1% 684 Paper Bags 4.4% 20,349 Newspaper 4.6% 21,095 Newspaper 0.0% 0 White Ledger Paper 2.8% 13,008 White Ledger Paper 0.0% 0 Other Office Paper 4.1% 18,795 Other Office Paper 0.0% 0 Other Miscellaneous Paper 16.5% 75,938 Other Miscellaneous Paper 0.0% 0 Remainder/Composite Paper 23.9% 109,821 Remainder/Composite Paper 2.9% 13,508 Tin/Steel Cans 1.5% 6,677 Tin/Steel Cans 0.0% 15 Aluminum Cans 0.3% 1,471 Aluminum Cans 0.0% 18 PETE Water Bottles 0.3% 1,387 PETE Water Bottles 0.0% 0 PETE Sealed Containers 0.1% 378 PETE Sealed Containers 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 0.7% 3,044 Other PETE Containers 0.1% 416 HDPE Containers 1.0% 4,670 HDPE Containers 0.0% 0 #3-#7 Sealed Containers 0.1% 521 #3-#7 Sealed Containers 0.0% 0 #3-#7 Other Containers 0.3% 1,432 #347 Other Containers 0.5% 2,175 Load Contaminated Materials 1.2% 5,626 Totals 100.0% 459,160 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 0.3% 1,177 Sample Count 47 Paper Bags 0.7% 3,369 Newspaper 0.1% 432 White Ledger Paper 0.0% 0 Other Office Paper 0.0% 0 Other Miscellaneous Paper 0.0% 192 Remainder/Composite Paper 0.1% 230 Tin/Steel Cans 0.0% 3 Aluminum Cans 0.0% 0 PETE Water Bottles 0.0% 0 PETE Sealed Containers 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 0.0% 71 HDPE Containers 0.0% 2 #347 Sealed Containers 0.0% 0 #3-#7 Other Containers 0.0% 150 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. 111111111111111111.11111111111111111111.111.1101111111111111111111.111111111111.1111110111111111111011.11111rEMEN Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 64 • Laboratory Analysis of Asbestos in Roofing Loads Overview The purpose of this analysis was to Figure 25: Two Shingle Types In the Same Load measure the incidence of asbestos- containing materials in disposed roofing. Samples of asphalt composition shingles, roofing tar paper/felt,roofing mastic, built-up roofing,and other asphalt roofing material were collected and tested for asbestos by an independent accredited laboratory using polarized light -' microscopy.These materials are traditionally believed to be the source of nearly all asbestos found in roofing waste, though the use of asbestos in roofing r manufacturing was limited. A total of 191 material samples were .. collected and analyzed from 88 loads. Of the samples tested,a single sample of roofing mastic collected during the Autumn season tested positive for the presence of asbestos. Appendix A: Detailed Methodology contains a thorough description of the roofing materials collection and analysis process. Table 36 shows the total number of loads in which roofing materials were sampled,while Table 37 shows the total number of samples submitted for asbestos testing.About two samples per load were submitted for asbestos testing. Self-hauled loads were sampled most frequently and provided the greatest variety of material types for sampling. Table 36: Number of Roofing Loads Sampled, by Sector Sector Number of Sampled Loads Commercial 9 Residential 5 Self-hauled 74 Total 88 Table 37: Number of Roofing Samples Tested, by Material Type and Sector Sector Composition Tar Paper/ Roofing Built Up Other Asphalt Total Shingles Felt Mastic Roofing Roofing Commercial 9 5 0 0 1 15 Residential 6 3 0 0 0 9 Self-hauled 82 68 5 9 3 167 Total 97 76 5 9 4 191 NIMMINIMMON■1111M11,111111=1 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 65 Plastic Bags California's At-Store Recycling Program for plastic carryout bags requires large grocery stores and retailers with pharmacies to provide drop-off recycling service for grocery and merchandise bags. Part of the waste characterization study consisted of further sorting of plastic grocery and other merchandise bags into four subtypes: • Bags from grocery stores; • Bags from retailers with large pharmacies; • Bags from retailers other than those listed above; and • Bags whose source could not be determined During field sampling,for 100 randomly chosen samples,materials sorted as plastic grocery and other merchandise bags were set aside for more detailed sorting. Fifty samples came from the residential sector and 50 from the commercial sector,with one of each taken every day during field work so that all facilities were represented.A total of 70 pounds of bags were sorted. The results are shown in Table 38. Table 38: Results of Plastic Bag Sorting Percent of plastic grocery Plastic Bag Type and other merchandise bags by weight Bags from grocery stores 44 Bags from retailers with large pharmacies 14 Bags from retailers other than those listed above 23 Bags whose source could not be determined 19 Total 100 C&D Survey During the vehicle survey,additional information was collected from drivers to identify loads coming from C&D activities. The sector of origin and weight of load was also determined,as part of the regular vehicle survey procedure. Results showed that overall, 16 percent of the state's disposed waste comes from C&D activities. For single-family residential waste about nine percent is from C&D activities,and for the commercial sector the proportion is about 11 percent. In the self-hauled sector,51 percent of commercial self-hauled waste and 12 percent of residential self hauled waste come from C&D activities. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 66 Appendix A: Detailed Methodology Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 67 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 68 Overview This appendix describes the major elements of the study methodology,ranging from the initial selection of locations for sampling and surveying,to the sampling and surveying procedures,to the data analysis approach. Planning and carrying out a waste characterization study is challenging.These studies seek to apply pure statistical methods within the real-world limitations imposed by budgetary considerations and the day-to-day operations of solid waste transfer and solid waste disposal sites. This study sought to find the proper balance: a statistically valid analysis that was cost-effective and a process for gathering data that was not disruptive to facility operators or their customers. Definition of Regions, Waste Sectors and Subsectors Description and definitions of the waste sectors and regions used to stratify data collection for the 2008 study are presented in the following sections. Selection of Regions This study divided California into five regions to account for any regional variations in waste composition.A random sampling methodology was used to select the facilities at which data were collected within each region. In addition,three extra large sites were selected in each region for gate surveys only(see below). The stratified sampling plan initially targeted an equal number of samples for each region in order to ensure that the information collected would be comparable statewide and that it would represent the breadth of communities within the state.The regions are shown graphically in Figure 26,and the counties within each region are cited in Table 39. For more background on how the regions were defined,see Appendix A of the 1999 Statewide Waste Characterization Study(available at www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=824). Some of the regions in this study were modified slightly from the 1999 study,but they match the regions used in the 2004 study. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 69 Figure 26: Regions Considered in the Study Oil V Modoe 1111 111:1 11111=3 MOUNTAIN IiiiblefrAtoiro Sonoma• Q BAY • �,, Solana 04VritA...._ • Mann 00 Comma Coati Sall FfYl ma Alameda ra Clara Clara COASTAL 1 RA ALLEY SantaC� Fenno San Bernardino 0 MOUNTAIN Loa aiOUTIMiRN Vnnhaa Angel •BAY AREA 0 COASTAL 0 CENTRAL VALLEY orange Riverside •SOUTHERN San Cargo Imperial ar=m The,five regions shown above are defined as follows: • Bay Area: Includes the counties in the San Francisco Bay Area,which are more metropolitan than other counties in other regions,and have strong industrial components in the economy. • Coastal: Includes the counties on the coast that are not in either the Bay Area or Southern regions.The coastal region is more populated than the rural mountain region and has a large agricultural component similar to the Central Valley. • Mountain: Includes counties mainly in the eastern part of the state that are primarily rural, with strong agricultural economies,low population density, and a low industrial base. IMMINNNOMMEMON■MONOMM■lal■ONINMINT■ Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 70 • Southern: Includes counties in the southern part of the state that are strongly industrial with large populations and some agricultural influences. • Central Valley: Includes counties between the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Coast Range that have a major agricultural base with important population centers and some manufacturing. Table 39: Counties in the Five Sampling Regions Bay Area Coastal Mountain Southern Central Valley Alameda Del Norte Alpine Imperial Butte Contra Costa Humboldt Amador Los Angeles Colusa Marin Lake Calaveras Orange Fresno Napa Mendocino El Dorado Riverside Glenn San Francisco Monterey Inyo San Bernardino Kern San Mateo San Benito Lassen San Diego Kings Santa Clara San Luis Obispo Mariposa Ventura Madera Solano Santa Barbara Modoc Merced Sonoma Santa Cruz Mono Placer Nevada Sacramento Plumas San Joaquin Sierra Shasta Siskiyou Stanislaus Trinity Sutter Tuolumne Tehama Tulare Yolo Yuba NEMINSOMMONNMENINIMINIT■ll Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 71 Waste Sectors In each of the five regions,waste was characterized for the three sectors,four subsectors,and four activities,as shown in Figure 27 below. Figure 27: Overview of Waste Disposal Sectors and Subsectors Sector Subsector Activity Description Commercial waste Waste disposed by businesses, industries(e.g., factories,farms), institutions, and governments (e.g.,schools, highways, parks)that is collected and transported by contracted and franchised haulers Residential Waste Waste disposed by households that is collected and transported by contracted and franchised haulers Single-family residential waste Waste that is collected from either single-family residences or buildings that include no more than four living units Multifamily residential waste Waste that is collected from multi-unit buildings with greater than four living units Self-hauled waste Waste hauled by individuals, businesses,or government agencies that haul their own garbage; includes waste delivered by anyone other than a contracted or franchised hauler Commercial self-hauled waste Waste that is hauled to a disposal site by a commercial enterprise(e.g., landscaper, contractor)even if waste is from residential dwellings Waste generated during the construction, Construction, demolition demolition, or remodeling of buildings by — and remodeling waste construction professionals Waste generated during the installation or — Roofing waste replacement of roofs, including tear-off, by roofing professionals Waste generated as part of landscaping and —Landscaping waste other yard care activities by landscaping professionals Other commercial and All waste generated at businesses or — industrial self-hauled institutions and hauled by these businesses waste that is not construction, demolition, or remodeling;landscaping;or roofing waste Self-hauled residential waste Waste that is hauled to a disposal site by a resident from his or her home Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 72 Selection of and Scheduling and Logistics at Solid Waste Facilities and Multifamily Sites A stratified random sampling methodology was used to sample waste from numerous subgroups (strata such as geographical region and waste sector)to develop a waste composition profile for each stratum. The strata were"added together"in a way that reflects each stratum's relative contribution to the overall waste stream,thus producing overall waste composition information. Strata considered in this study included the geographical region,the waste sector(residential, commercial, or self-hauled),and the waste subsector(single-family residential,multifamily residential,residential self-hauled,and commercial self-hauled).Waste from the multifamily subsector was sampled at the point of generation(i.e.,at multifamily buildings with more than four units).Waste from the other sectors and subsectors was sampled at solid waste facilities. Waste sampling and the quantification of waste through vehicle surveys occurred during four seasons to account for any seasonal variations in waste disposal patterns.Twelve or 13 sampling and sorting days were scheduled for each season. The sampling/sorting dates were: • Winter: Jan. 14-29,2008; • Spring: April 8-24,2008; • Summer: July 16-31,2008; • Autumn:Nov. 6-21,2008. Selection and Recruitment of Sites Solid waste facilities(landfills and transfer stations)for the study were randomly selected from a comprehensive list of facilities in the state. The goal was to recruit five facilities in each region, with the expectation that each facility would be visited twice during periods approximately six months apart.Within each region,potential sorting sites were screened for eligibility based on the following minimum criteria: • The site handled waste destined for final cisposal(waste was not subject to any further processing or sorting); • It was possible to obtain credible tonnage data from all three waste sectors(commercial, residential,and self-hauled)at the site; and • It was possible to perform waste sampling and sorting at the site. Solid waste facilities were selected using the steps described below. • Board staff assembled a complete list of solid waste facilities in the state that were believed to handle 100 tons or more of waste per day(considering only waste that had not already passed through a waste transfer station). Facilities on the list were grouped according to sampling region. • A random number generator was used to randomize the list of facilities within each region. The first 10 candidate facilities were selected from each region's random-ordered list,for a total of 50 candidate facilities,from which five facilities in each region were to be selected. MOOMMIN■1■101111111,1111.11=1 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 73 • The facilities were then contacted by telephone in the order they appeared on the list. Facility staff were invited to participate in the study and were asked a series of questions as an eligibility screen. Screening criteria were as follows: (1)the facility had to receive an average of at least 100 tons of directly-hauled waste per operating day,2 (2)an adequate number of vehicles from all waste streams had to be available daily to be sampled,and(3)management had to be willing to accommodate the expected waste sampling and sorting activities. • Eligible facilities which were interested in participating were assigned alternately to either a spring-autumn or a summer-winter sampling schedule,depending on their position on the randomized list. • If a recruited facility was later rejected(see below),the next facility in the randomly sorted list for that region was contacted. A number of facilities initially contacted were determined to be ineligible because they received a significant amount of material being processed for recovery. Many of these facilities were not officially named as materials recovery facilities(MRFs). Many rural mountain region facilities contacted were fairly small and did not receive many loads from one or more of the desired sectors on any given day. In some cases special arrangements had to be made to collect samples from all sectors. Samples were collected and sorted at 27 facilities(two of the original facilities were replaced due to logistical difficulties).Table 40 lists all participating facilities. 2 This requirement was waived for the mountain region as few,if any,of the facilities in that region average 100 tons per day. IMMUMMMIliMMINMENENNIMMENNEIMMENNEMOMMENNEMEMETIONMM Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 74 Table 40: Participating Sampling Facilities Region County Facility City Seasons 2008 Dates Bay Area Solano Potrero Hills Landfill Suisun City Winter/Summer 1/18 and 7/21 Sonoma Healdsburg Transfer Healdsburg Winter/Summer 1/21 and 7/16 Santa Clara Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill San Jose Spring/Autumn 4/16 and 11/13 Contra Costa Golden Bear Transfer Pittsburg Spring/Autumn 4/17 and 11/14 Marin Redwood Sanitary Landfill Novato Spring/Autumn 4/24 and 11/17 Coastal Santa Cruz City Of Santa Cruz Sanitary Landfill Santa Cruz Winter/Summer 1/22 and 7/22 Monterey Johnson Canyon Sanitary Landfill Gonzales Winter/Summer 1/23 and 7/23 San Luis Obispo Chicago Grade Sanitary Landfill Templeton Spring/Autumn 4/14 and 11/11 Monterey Jolon Road Sanitary Landfill King City Spring/Autumn 4/15 and 11/12 Mendocino Willits Solid Waste Transfer Willits Spring/Autumn 4/23 and 11/18 Mountain Lassen Bass Hill Sanitary Landfill Johnstonville Winter/Spring 1/14 and 4/21 Nevada McCourtney Road Transfer Grass Valley Winter/Summer 1/16 and 7/18 Mariposa Mariposa County Sanitary Landfill Mariposa Winter/Summer 1/24 and 7/24 Calaveras Rock Creek Sanitary Landfill Milton Spring/Autumn 4/18 and 11/20 Mono Benton Crossing Sanitary Landfill Whitmore Hot Springs Summer 7/24 Amador Western Amador Transfer(WARF) lone Autumn 11/21 Southern Riverside Edom Hill Transfer Cathedral City Winter/Summer 1/26 and 7/29 Los Angeles Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill Valencia Winter/Summer 1/28 and 7/30 Los Angeles Falcon Transfer Wilmington Winter/Summer 1/29 and 7/31 San Diego Sycamore Sanitary Landfill San Diego Spring/Autumn 4/8 and 11/6 Riverside Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill Beaumont Spring/Autumn 4/9 and 11/7 Valley Yolo Yolo County Central Sanitary Landfill Davis Winter/Summer 1/17 and 7/17 Tulare Woodville Sanitary Landfill Tulare Winter 1/24 Kern Taft Sanitary Landfill Taft Spring/Autumn 4/10 and 11/8 Kern Shafter-Wasco Sanitary Landfill Shafter Spring/Autumn 4/11 and 11/10 Butte Oroville Transfer Oroville Spring/Autumn 4/22 and 11/19 Fresno Jefferson Avenue Transfer Fresno Summer 7/28 Site Scheduling and Logistics A telephone interview was conducted with personnel at each selected solid waste facility(see questionnaire in Appendix C: Forms Used in the Study).The following information was obtained through this interview: • Written directions to the facility; • The facility's days and hours of operation. and whether vehicles were accepted outside of those hours; • Contact information for the owner of the facility,an employee with the authority to provide permission to use the site,staff to assist in making arrangements for data collection,an on- Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 75 site contact for logistics information, and a person to be the point of contact on the day of sampling; • A plan or agreement about the exact location of sampling and sorting operations at the facility; • Confirmation of the facility's willingness to make a loader available for sample collection; • A plan for the use of scales and the cooperation of gatehouse personnel to obtain vehicle net weights; • The number of scalehouses at the facility and the process by which vehicles are directed to the scalehouses(e.g.,whether commercial haulers use a separate gate than do self-haul or cash customers); • Approximate daily and weekly load counts and tonnage by waste sector, subsector,and total for the facility; • Estimated vehicle traffic expected for each sector on each day of the week and the estimated peak time of day for each type of load; • Specific information about numbers and types of vehicles arriving on weekend days; • Any rules used for recording the net weight of vehicles and for recording alternate minimum weights for small vehicles; • Information about existing recycling or recovery operations at the facility,and how the study team may obtain samples of waste after any recycling or recovery operations have already been applied to the waste; and • Tips about any unusual conditions(e.g.,weather,anomalies in traffic patterns)that might affect data collection. During these conversations,the study team also explained the data collection crew's need for sorting space,assistance from a loader and operator,and access to restrooms and shelter at the facility. Selecting Multifamily Sites Prior to each sampling season,the study team identified apartment buildings and complexes for inclusion in the study and contacted the management of those buildings to gather information and confirm the suitability of the sites. Selected multifamily sites generally were within 15 miles of the corresponding solid waste facility where waste sampling and sorting took place.A multifamily site is defined as a building consisting of five or more dwelling units.Two multifamily sites—one primary and one backup—were identified for each sampling day.For each day.,sampling arrangements were made with both the primary and backup site,although only one site ultimately was chosen to provide the day's sample of multifamily waste. The study team contacted the management at each multifamily site to determine the exact location of each waste container that was to be included in sampling and waste generation measurements.The study team confirmed that access to each waste container was possible early on the morning of sampling or,in some cases,the night before the scheduled sampling day. A specific procedure for accessing the waste was developed for each site. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 76 For sites where the waste containers are not normally accessible during early morning hours(for example,in a locked area),the study team made arrangements to ensure that the sampling crew would be granted access without delay. If a multifamily site could not provide the required information and guarantee that the waste containers would be accessible to the data collection crew at the time indicated,then the site was dropped from inclusion in the study.The study team also obtained the number of existing and occupied dwelling units at each selected site. Numbers of Samples The State of California's Uniform Waste Characterization Method guides the determination of the number of samples to sort from each waste sector in each region of the state.A total of 750 samples were planned to be collected over the course of the study(250 residential samples,250 commercial samples,and 250 self-hauled samples). The number of samples in each sector was divided evenly among the five regions.The actual number of samples collected was very similar to the plan,as shown in Table 41. Table 41: Planned vs.Actual Numbers of Waste Samples Sector Planned Number of Actual Number of Samples Samples Commercial 250 250 Residential 250 251 Single-family residential 200 201 Multifamily residential 50 50 Self-hauled 250 250 Total 750 751 Table 42 presents a detailed account of the waste samples that were characterized at each facility, in each region,and in each season. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 77 Table 42: Waste Samples Characterized During the Study Season Winter-Actual Spring-Actual Summer-Actual Fall-Actual Sector SF MF Com SH SF MF Com SH SF MF Corn SH SF MF Com SH Totals 1 Potrero Hills Landfill 4 1 5 5 4 1 5 5 30 Healdsburg Transfer 4 1 5 5 4 1 7 3 30 Bay Area Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill 4 1 5 5 4 1 4 6 30 Golden Bear Transfer 4 1 5 6 4 1 4 5 30 Redwood Sanitary Landfill 4 1 6 5 4 1 4 5 30 City Of Santa Cruz Sanitary Landfill 4 0 5 5 4 2 5 5 30 Johnson Canyon Sanitary Landfill 5 2 6 3 4 0 5 6 31 Coastal Chicago Grade Sanitary Landfill 4 1 4 6 4 1 7 3 30 Jolon Road Sanitary Landfill 4 1 4 6 4 1 5 5 30 Willits Solid Waste Transfer 4 1 5 5 4 1 4 6 30 Bass Hill Sanitary Landfill 4 1 6 4 4 1 6 4 30 McCourtney Road Transfer 4 1 5 5 4 1 5 5 30 Mariposa County Sanitary Landfill 3 1 5 6 6 1 4 4 30 Mountain Rock Creek Sanitary Landfill 4 1 4 6 3 1 5 6 30 Benton Crossing Sanitary Landfill 5 1 4 5 15 Western Amador Transfer(WARF) 3 1 6 5 15 Edom Hill Transfer 1 1 7 6 7 1 2 5 30 Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill 7 1 2 5 2 1 8 4 30 Southern Falcon Transfer 5 1 4 5 3 1 5 6 30 Sycamore Sanitary Landfill 2 1 6 8 5 1 5 2 30 Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill 3 1 7 3 5 1 4 6 30 Yolo County Central Sanitary Landfill 4 1 5 5 4 1 5 5 30 Woodville Sanitary Landfill 5 1 5 4 15 Valley Taft Sanitary Landfill 4 1 5 5 3 1 4 7 30 Shafter-Wasco Sanitary Landfill 4 1 5 5 4 1 5 5 30 Oroville Transfer 4 1 6 4 4 1 4 6 30 Jefferson Avenue Transfer 4 1 6 4 15 Totals 50 12 60 58 49 13 68 68 51 12 61 57 51 13 61 67 751 OOMMMIMOMMOIMIMIMNIMMINMIMMIIMIIIIOOIMIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIININIIIIITIIIIIIOIIIII Contractor s Report to till hoard ,; v``lia 20(i8 State.Aacie ic'aSrE , =riC'.(Iza11 f Study 78 In addition to the traditional characterization,z.pproximately one in four samples in each waste sector was assessed to determine the extent and point of contamination of commonly recoverable materials in the sample.The numbers of divertibility samples are presented in Table 43,below. Table 43: Numbers of Samples Assessed for Contamination,by Sector and Subsector Sector Number of Samples Commercial 75 Residential 72 Single-family residential 57 Multifamily residential 15 Self-hauled 47 Commercial self-hauled 19 Residential self-hauled 28 Total 194 Obtaining and Sorting Waste Samples Sampling at Solid Waste Facilities Upon arriving at each solid waste site,the team reviewed the sampling plan and sorting requirements with the site's operational staff. They verified the information collected during the telephone interview,including the most suitable area for sorting and the availability of equipment for selecting samples and transporting them to the sorting area. DIVERTING SELECTED LOADS A systematic selection procedure was used to identify the vehicles that provided waste samples at municipal solid waste facilities.A sampling interval for each waste sector was established to calculate vehicle sampling frequency. Sampling intervals were determined by dividing the total number of loads for each sector arriving at the facility each day—estimated from solid waste site interviews—by the number of samples needed each day.The resulting number was the sampling frequency,used to determine whether, for example,every third vehicle,every sixth vehicle,or every 20th vehicle is selected for sampling. This strategy is termed"selecting every nth vehicle" within a waste sector. See Appendix C: Forms Used in the Study for an example of a vehicle selection form that specifies the intervals chosen for a particular day of sampling. Every time one of the designated nth vehicles in each waste sector arrived,the gate surveyor placed a sample placard on the vehicle's windshield or dashboard to identify it as a vehicle intended for sampling and directed the driver to the sampling area. See Appendix C: Forms Used in the Study for an example of a sample placard. When the sampling crew intercepted the vehicle,the field crew supervisor recorded the information from the sample placard onto the sample sorting and characterization form(see Appendix C: Forms Used in the Study).The field crew supervisor also noted any unusual circumstances associated with the load or the sample. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 79 OBTAINING WASTE SAMPLES;ADEQUATE SAMPLE WEIGHTS Each load selected for sampling was tipped into an elongated pile on the ground or the floor of the solid waste facility.The field crew supervisor then oversaw the following steps to obtain the sample: 1. Visually divide each sample load into 16 cells.An imaginary 16-cell grid was superimposed on the tipped load,as depicted in Figure 28 below.3 2. Instruct the loader operator to capture waste from a randomly selected cell in the grid. The desired cell number corresponding to each sample was pre-selected at random and recorded on the sample placards that were provided to the sampling crew. (See Appendix C: Forms Used in the Study for an example of a sample placard.)The field crew supervisor directed the loader operator to the randomly selected cell in the grid to obtain the waste sample. 3. Select a sample estimated to weigh at least 200 pounds from the pile.Material from the identified cell was placed onto a tarpaulin for sorting. In most cases,a loader was available to transport the material,but at some facilities samples were removed from the pile by hand. Prior to sorting each sample,a crew member took a digital photograph of the sample with the sample placard and identification number visible in the picture.These pictures were later incorporated into the sampling results database. The specifications for selecting self-hauled samples were slightly different,because self-hauled loads vary greatly in size. A sample of at least 200 pounds was taken only if the entire load weighed at least 250 pounds. For loads weighing between 175 and 250 pounds,the entire load was sorted as a sample. In cases when a load weighed less than 175 pounds,additional loads from the same waste subsector(commercial self-hauled or residential self-hauled)were collected until the total weight exceeded 200 pounds.The combined loads were then sorted as one sample. Figure 28: The 16-Cell Grid as Applied to a Tipped Load a _ 7 5 'i Sampling at Multifamily Sites OBTAINING WASTE SAMPLES AT MULTIFAMILY SITES The volume of waste in each waste container was measured using a tape measure along each dimension,and the dimensions were recorded on a multifamily site visit form created specifically for that multifamily site. (See Appendix C: Forms Used in the Study for an example of a multifamily site visit form.)Later,the waste disposal rate for each multifamily site was calculated based on the total volume of accumulated waste that was measured,divided by the time elapsed since the most recent waste pickup. All the waste disposal bins at the site were inspected to determine whether any substantial and obvious differences existed among waste in the bins. In most cases,the waste sample was obtained from a single bin,chosen at random from among those present at the site. If clear differences were apparent in the waste from bin to bin,then subsamples from two bins were taken to ensure a representative sample. However,the waste in all waste containers associated with the building was measured in order to calculate a waste disposal rate for the entire site. Each waste sample was extracted from the bin by pulling out a vertical cross-section of waste estimated to weigh at least 200 pounds.The sample was loaded into the back of a van,transported to the solid waste site scheduled for that day,and sorted according to the same protocol that was used for samples of waste from other sectors. Sorting Samples and Recording Data After a sample was Figure 29.Tarped Sample Waiting to be Sorted collected and placed on a tarp,the material was sorted by hand into the , prescribed component Y 4, AG types.The material types ' ' Q ` l _ o are defined in Appendix ' - ( (I B: List and Definitions of — '` * Material Types. Plastic laundry baskets were ;;,,, ;„ )p--A17 "' '/-;,._ • :• , used to contain the "� ,,,,.• `• ' ,.�/�' '- �"' separated components. "<. : ''�:''�.° ✓® ,,..i... . Three crew members �, +' • �'" ` , sorted the contents of � � � t � _.. . each sample and placed �a „ . , : 1-t i t each material type in the ` . 1 appropriate basket,while ,. , ‘. the field crew supervisor monitored the consistency and accuracy of each crew member's work. Crew members typically specialize in groups of material types,such as papers or plastics. In addition to manually sorting loads,the sorting crew estimated the percentage of leaves and the percentage of grass,by weight,in the leaves and grass material category, and counted the number of sharps found in the load. The field crew supervisor monitored the homogeneity of the material that the sorting crew placed into the assigned component baskets,and directed the re-sorting of material types if they were 1=1■110•01=111.111111111,111=1.111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 81 improperly classified. Open laundry baskets allowed the supervisor to see the material at all times. The supervisor also verified the purity of each component as it was weighed,before recording the weight into the sample sorting and characterization form. See Appendix C: Forms Used in the Study for an example of a sample sorting and characterization form. The material types were sorted to the greatest reasonable level of detail by hand,until no more than a small amount of homogeneous fine material(mixed residue)remained. The baskets holding each material category were weighed(accounting for each basket's empty weight)on a set of scales that was calibrated to accuracy within one-tenth of a pound.The field crew supervisor recorded composition weights and the information obtained from the driver on the sample sorting and characterization form. The data from each season's waste sorts were then entered into a database,which was developed using Microsoft Access®prior to the start of sampling.The database permitted entry of the characteristics of the waste load associated with each sample,as well as the weights of the material components in each sample. Material component weights were entered twice, independently,for each sample, and the entered weights were compared to verify that the first entry matched the second entry. Divertibility Analysis The field crew assessed the extent and Figure 30.Clean vs.Load Contaminated Paper point of contamination for commonly recoverable materials on a portion of the z , samples sorted.Approximately one in four of the residential,commercial,residential ' g self hauled,and commercial self-hauled samples that were collected were randomly selected for the divertibility �'• assessment. Samples from the ri.''' 'y construction,demolition,and remodeling; roofing; and landscaping activity types were excluded from the divertibility 4. analysis. Samples included in the • divertibility analysis were sorted just like other samples except that the 15 targeted ► z i,:t t'2908 materials were subsorted into three categories: (a)clean,(b)contaminated during collection(load-contaminated),and(c) contaminated prior to collection(source-contaminated). The materials included in the divertibility assessments are shown in Table 44.Their definitions can be found in Appendix B: List and Definitions of Material Types. The contamination categories were defined as follows: 1111.11111111111M1M11111111.111111111111111.11•1111.1111111■11111111111111111,111111111111111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 82 Figure 31. Clean Materials 1. Clean.Material did not become soiled 4 .4'. ' . 4 or contaminated during hauling and L� '� r'�a.- s could reasonably be expected to be , . t. recycled in recycling programs 4 targeting the material without special • -" . �_ ��, � * "� processing,cleaning,and/or repair. . , .,,,.a ` For example,a clean plastic soda 4."�"'- w , .< '1_ bottle,dry office paper,a glass wine - ` =°` "" bottle still intact without any residue `�A 4 on the outside,or a clean,dry, and still ,,� folded newspaper. -- :.,,,. Figure 32.Load Contaminated Materials 2. Load-Contaminated.Material appears a ., `. to have been contaminated after '" . 4 ', `. - disposal(in individual can or ' Y:� < dumpster)or during waste collection. / �. Typically materials are contaminated. ^h• >'` Or with moisture or food,such as a ''.. "'�, .! , newspaper wet from a leaked beverage, . .. , , a plastic soda bottle covered with food ,. •y on the outside,or a bottle or can •. •covered in grass clippings. • ..,;,- %` . r .....,.. U r '�_ • Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 83 Figure 33. Source Contaminated Materials -4` 4 3. Source-Contaminated. Material • •I p appears to have been contaminated ; through use or prior to collection. For R example,cardboard with a lot of tape, - ' - newspaper covered with paint used for masking,newspaper used to wrap fish, -# . paper plates with food residue,or # ,, "` w.' peanut butter jars with residue. 0" lir . ,f akL- t ® r. . r ., a 01 Table 44: Materials Included in the Divertibility Assessments Material Type Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard Aluminum Cans Paper Bags PETE Water Bottles Newspaper PETE Sealed Containers White Ledger Other PETE Containers Other Office Paper HDPE Containers Other Miscellaneous Paper #3-#7 Sealed Containers Remainder/Composite Paper #3-#7 Other Containers Tin/Steel Cans Asbestos Testing in Roofing Loads This study tested for the presence of asbestos in roofing waste,targeting five material types: 1. Asphalt composition shingles; 2. Roofing tar paper/felt; 3. Roofing mastic; 4. Built-up roofing; and 5. Other asphalt roofing material. INOMNMMMMN■MNMMOI■111111N1■lIllIllallIlllrllNMIII Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 84 The asbestos sampling process was carried out in five steps: 1. Selecting loads; 2. Collecting samples; 3. Labeling samples; 4. Maintaining sample chain of custody;and 5. Testing samples for asbestos and analyzing results. Selecting Loads All vehicles entering the sampling facility were interviewed by a member of the study team(the "gatekeeper"). Every facility had a quota for roofing loads to be sampled for asbestos(generally two to three loads per facility,per season),as well as a quota for roofing loads to be sorted,or characterized(generally one per day,per season).All roofing loads being sorted were sampled for asbestos testing,though not all loads selected for sampling were sorted. Roofing loads were to be randomly selected for sampling until the daily quota had been achieved. In the first two seasons of sampling,the study team encountered very few roofing loads,potentially due to poor weather and a general slowdown in the construction industry.This meant that virtually every roofing load surveyed was selected for sampling and approximately every other roofing load was sorted, some days in excess of the daily quota to guard against days in which no roofing loads were available. When the gatekeeper determined that a vehicle contained roofing material,the vehicle was marked with a sample placard.The sample placard indicated to the sorting crew that a roofing sample was to be collected from the selected vehicle. Collecting Samples When a selected vehicle arrived at Figure 34. Sample of Shingles to be Hand Sorted the tipping area,a member of the field crew collected the sample placard and prepared to collect a roofing sample. If the load was to be sorted, a 200-pound cell of material ' was selected and set aside for sorting and the roofing sample for asbestos testing was collected from the material remaining in the load. , < Figure 34 shows a sample of asphalt r , composition shingles,with the sample placard visible on top of the pile,waiting to be sorted.The same =1'., ,! procedure for collecting the sample was used whether or not a portion of material was removed for hand � E sorting.The asbestos sampling ' 1 ".. . ` < procedure included three steps: _ i ," 11...........1■11111,1111111111■ Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 85 1. Where space and site conditions permitted,the member of the field crew collecting the sample walked around the entire load and noted which roofing materials were present; 2. The collector cut a four-square-inch sample of each roofing material type noted.When there appeared to be more than one roof in the load(either the roofs came from multiple houses or a single house had newer roofing over an older roof)material was collected from each of the identified roofs; and 3. Samples were placed in individual,labeled,re-sealable plastic bags.Each material from each layer was placed in a separate bag to prevent cross-contamination of the samples and each carried a unique sample identification label.All sample baggies from a single load were then placed in a one-gallon plastic bag for storage. Labeling Samples Every bagged item was labeled with a unique identifier consisting of four parts.Figure 35 presents an example of a sample ID for a load that was only sampled,not sorted.As detailed in the figure,there are four components of the sample ID: • The first two parts allow a roofing sample to be cross referenced with the vehicle survey; • The third part is a short letter code to designate the material type(e.g.,CS for composition shingles,TP for tar paper);and • The final part of the identifier is a number used to identify multiple samples of the same material from an individual load. If two samples of composition shingles are collected from a single load,one composition shingle sample will have a"1"in the fourth part of the identifier,the next will be designated with a"2"and so on for each sample of composition shingles in that load. Figure 35: Roofing Subsample RF-6-CS-2 Material in this load was only sampled, not hand sorted. This bag contains a four square inch piece of composition shingles. RF- 6- CS- 2 This is the sixth roofing load to be sampled. This is the second piece of composition shingles sampled from this load. Figure 36 presents a potential sample ID for a load that was also sorted. In this case,the sorting ID is used for the first two parts of the sample ID. NMOINNI■■•■■•■■••■•711•1111111111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 86 Figure 36: Roofing Subsample COM-3-TP-:I Material in this load was also hand sorted as part of a commercial load. This bag contains a four square inch piece of tar paper. I COM- 3- TI'- 1 This is the third commercial load sorted. This is the first piece of tar paper sampled from this load. Maintaining Sample Chain of Custody After all samples from a load were bagged and labeled,the collector recorded the data from the sample label plus the name of the facility and the date on a sample log.An example of the roofing sample log is shown in Figure 37.At the end of the field season this log accompanied the samples to the testing facility.The testing facility acknowledged receipt of the samples and verified the samples listed on the log against the samples r3ceived.Any discrepancies were rectified before the analysis began. INOMMINNOMMNIS■1111110.111111.11111I Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 87 Figure 37: Chain of Custody Form Sam•le ID Date Facill Sector Material Type CS=Asphalt Roofing Compsition Shingles . Tar=Roofing Tar Paper/Felt RM=Roofing Mastic BR-Built-up Roofing 0=Other Asphalt Roofing Material ex. SHI-CS 15-Jan Bass COM RES SH CS MEIIVENIUMI 15-Jan '• COM RES caw Tar x'1`1''1' 111111E1M! e,owe WEE c eA+f-6-CS-3 'f g 6ye.a. +more •1' RES SH ' P-7,11/v1-1 Y/9 •T“l'4" COM RES f 'M •//5 i-.� -- COM RES 613) -1;.t.--- 121;-Z-CS-1 if4 7; COM RES c5 TP-I 9 :.j , ,,. ' COM RES . eigerami©zmingi • COM RES 4i. -c I arnrr� COM RES -i:• [c • rIMENall COM RES r t Er`- --TP '2 80217 COM RES b r P ' .1 K {q f COM RES AV> 12A4 �-''I COM RES C_5 RF H r-'-2 VI I cq-4- COM RES iffP CS 2F' _ r COM RES -i. rp Li W2- COM RES :1P a r-f Cs-l © __ _! COM RES 1! w IrI®ICAMINIIIIraa' .RES . SH ' c r _ l' /=©BIEM ►iQ�A� ____ COM RES al L CZ F- -71'- RIMNIIIMIMINMEI COM RES :Air r F raissammi imme RES SH Ti? -f ©1TI = L..6t'm RES SH MI, #tiMinf �=1: e -- _ MEI leILIMTN COM RES VI T4 IIIIIII® e,M1 COM RES laic II -0-®101111111111MIIII ' r tZ �9-TP'1 •f��RES SH 'Q b �, �I COM. RES ff 0-cc-( rs .10 aK COM RES G5 -lU-c -2- Yjf km COM RES (S 4e" COM RES #=" C 9 S ll{L S'-C %1 'n c ro km COM RES -111 C f y _ COM RES SIP Testing Samples for Asbestos and Analyzing Results The asbestos testing was performed by an independent asbestos testing lab using EPA Method 600./R-93-116. The lab analyzed the material in each bag separately;when that material was composed of multiple layers(as with composition shingles which contain tar paper,felt, and stone layers),each layer was analyzed separately. Results were provided electronically and indicate the presence or absence of asbestos as well as the composition of the various fiber types found for each sample.An example lab results page is included as Figure 38. OMIIMOEONONMMIIMMMMMIOMNMMMIMIMMNIMMMNIMMIMMIWMIOINNIN Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 88 Figure 38: Asbestos Testing Results Bulk Asbestos Analysis ,EPA Method 6CC R-93-:1,5.Visual area Estimatim) Cauadia Consul:in;Group Client ID: 11116 Karst O:efsayDieter E;1::es Report Number: 8112369 1109 Is:Ave Date Received: C5 C2 C3 Suite 400 Date Analyzed: C5 C6 C3 Seattle.WA 99 101 Date Printed: C5 C6 C3 Firu Reported: C5 C6 C3 Job ID'Site: not indicated FASI Job ID: LI116 Total Samples Submitted: 5i Dates)Collected: 4-11-0S.4-14-CS.4-15-09.4-16-C8.4-13-0S,4-21-0S.4-23-C3.4-24-08.44 Total Samples Analyzed: Si Asbestos Per.eat x Asbestos Perm:¢ Asbestos Percent in Sample ID Lab Nianber 'type Later. ':.Fe Later Type Layer C O\I-6-CS-1 10751607 Latter.Stones ND Later.3lrca Tar ND Later.Black Felt \D Iotal Composite Values of Fibrous Components Asbestos tM) Fibrosis Glass(45'.) C OM-6-CS-2 1075160.3 Later.Stones ND Later.Black Tar Later.31ac's Felt Total Composite Values of Fibrosis Cotnpcaents Asbestos(NT) Fibrosis Glass(45.01 C OBI-6-CS-3 10751609 Layer.Stones La•.er.Slack Tar ND Layer.Black Felt Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components Asbestos(MI) Fibrous Glass(45,e) Vehicle Surveys In order to quantify the waste associated with each sector and subsector,surveys were conducted at the entrance of all 27 participating sampling facilities as well as at an additional 15 survey-only facilities,shown below in Table 45.These 15 sites were not randomly selected,but chosen from the largest sites in each region. This was done to ensure that some large sites were included in the vehicle survey analysis,since random sampling may not always select large sites. 11111.11■■•■••ONNTEIMMI Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 89 Table 45: Additional 15 Survey-Only Facilities 2008 Region County Facility City Seasons Dates Bay Area Alameda Davis Street Transfer San Leandro Winter 2/1 San Francisco San Francisco Transfer San Francisco Spring 4/25 Sonoma Central Transfer Petaluma Autumn 12/3 Coastal Monterey Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill Salinas Winter 1/22 Santa Cruz Buena Vista Landfill Watsonville Summer 7/15 San Luis Obispo Cold Canyon Sanitary Landfill San Luis Obispo Autumn 12/1 Mountain Amador Western Amador Transfer(WARF) lone Spring 4/18 lnyo Bishop Sunland Sanitary Landfill Bishop Summer 7/25 Siskiyou Yreka Transfer Yreka Autumn 12/4 Southern Los Angeles Carson Transfer Carson Spring 4/7 Los Angeles Puente Hills Sanitary Landfill Industry Summer 7/11 Orange Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill Brea Summer 7/12 Valley Fresno Jefferson Avenue Transfer Fresno Winter 1/31 Kern Bena Sanitary Landfill Caliente Summer 7/14 Madera Fairmead Sanitary Landfill Chowchilla Autumn 12/2 The surveys were administered to the drivers of each vehicle entering the facility through the gate at which the surveyor was posted. If the facility had multiple gates,then the surveyor rotated among the gates at regular intervals of approximately one hour. Additional information on weekend disposal patterns was gathered from the facility to supplement survey data for weekdays and adjust data to better reflect overall disposal at the facility. The ultimate product of the survey data and weekend data was an estimate of the fraction of the overall waste stream contributed by each of the waste sectors,subsectors,and activities at each participating facility.The Quantifying Disposed Waste section of Appendix A: Detailed Methodology describes how this information was then used to estimate the relative magnitude of each part of the disposed waste stream on a regional basis and statewide. On survey days,the surveyor arrived at the site at the scheduled start time,which was scheduled to permit full coverage throughout the day and at times of greatest traffic at the facility.The surveyor introduced himself or herself to the scalehouse staff and verified the procedure for administering the survey that day by confirming several key details: • The procedure for obtaining vehicle net weights; • Any rules the facility used for assigning a minimum net weight to certain types of vehicles, such as those carrying residential self-hauled loads; and • Any rules governing the assignment of net volume estimates instead of net weights. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 90 The surveyor positioned himself or herself at the designated entrance to the facility and interviewed the driver of each passing vehicle.The information gathered through the interview included the following: • The jurisdiction from which the trash originated; • The waste sector(residential,commercial,or self-hauled)and subsector(single-family residential,multifamily residential,residential self-hauled,or commercial self-hauled); • Whether the load consisted of residuals from a materials recovery facility,and if so,the name of the facility; • In cases where loads were comprised of waste from multiple sectors,the estimated proportions of the sectors represented in the load; • The activity that generated the waste; and • Vehicle type. An example vehicle survey form that was used to collect the data is included in Appendix C: Forms Used in the Study. At most of the facilities,it was possible for the surveyor to obtain net weights for vehicles by observing the weighing process at the scalehouse and recording the weight at the same moment the vehicle drove across the scales. In some cases,the surveyor coordinated with scalehouse personnel periodically throughout the day to obtain weight tickets(transaction receipts) corresponding to every load of waste brought':o the facility. In all cases,the surveyor recorded the type of waste and net weight,net volume,or default assigned weight for every vehicle encountered that was carrying disposed waste that did not come from another solid waste facility.The survey slid not record loads of non-disposed waste,material to be recycled or recovered,alternative daily cover,or material brought from transfer stations or other solid waste or recovery facilities. Data taken on the survey forms was checked for accuracy in the field. The surveyor checked the forms to ensure that all appropriate information had been gathered.The survey supervisor checked the surveys after they were returned to the office to confirm that all the required data was properly entered. Survey entries with errors or that were incomplete were not used. At the end of each data collection season,the data on the survey forms was entered into a Microsoft Access®database.Following data entry,the entries were compared in two separate checks with the written field records. First,the field survey data were entered twice into a customized database that compared the two sets of entries and flagged any that did not match. Second,each database record was reviewed and compared against the original field form. Any data entry errors were addressed. In cases where data entry errors or omissions could not be resolved,the entry was deleted. Description of Calculations and Statistical Procedures Used Data from vehicle surveys,facility tonnage reports,and the sorting of waste samples were analyzed to yield estimates of percentages and.tonnages of material types in California's waste stream.This section describes the methodology used to obtain each estimate and its associated confidence interval(error range). MMINIMOMM■NOMIITIMMIMIN Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 91 The general calculation strategy involved two common themes: (1)the use of ratio estimators to determine the composition percentages of the waste stream; and(2)aggregation of sample data from the regional level to the statewide level. A ratio estimator involves the ratio of two quantities,both of which are random variables. For most of the steps in the analysis,the basic ratio estimator was derived as the ratio of the weight of material in a given sample over the total weight of the sample. The general procedure involved creating a new ratio estimator by weighting across ratios from a lower level. For example,statewide ratio estimators were created by weighting of the region-level ratio estimators. Quantifying Disposed Waste Disposed waste from each sector was quantified through the use of vehicle surveys and tonnage reports at the facilities participating in the study.The calculation method is described below. Step 1: Aggregating Survey Records to Produce Findings at the Facility Level.For a given facility on a given day,each vehicle that was included in the gatehouse survey had its net weight of waste assigned to one or more of the established waste sectors,according to the response of the driver. Thus,the tonnage from each vehicle was assigned or apportioned to one or more of the commercial,single-family residential,multifamily residential,commercial self-hauled,or residential self-hauled sectors. Where possible,self-hauled tonnages were also assigned to activity categories: construction and demolition,roofing,landscaping,or other/unknown.The tonnages identified through the survey were used to calculate the relative proportions of the waste stream associated with each sector,subsector,and activity. Transaction records from facilities supplemented survey data with additional information on the quantities of commercially-collected compared to self-hauled tonnages. Most survey days were scheduled for weekdays, so transaction records for both weekdays and weekend days were requested from all facilities.The study team determined the tonnages on those additional days brought by franchised haulers and by self-hauled vehicles.These estimates were used to improve the overall breakdown between franchised and self-hauled vehicles over the whole week, including weekends. Within the broad categories of franchised and self-hauled loads,survey data were applied to designate tonnage from transaction records to the sectors,subsectors,and activity types. For example,the transaction record tonnage for franchised haulers was assigned to the residential and commercial sectors in the same proportion as had been found on survey days. Because for several sites only weekday survey data were available,weekend tonnage from transaction records within a category(franchised or self-hauled)were designated to a sector or subsector(i.e. commercial,single-family,and multifamily)using the weekday proportions.The weekend information improves the overall proportion estimates by providing a more accurate picture of the breakdown between franchised and self-haulers on weekends.While most tonnage is brought by franchised haulers on weekdays,tonnage from self-hauled vehicles is typically higher on weekend days.The method is described below: 1. Using survey data from all days(weekday and weekend),the relative proportion of waste brought by franchised haulers assigned to each relevant sector and subsector and the relative proportion of waste brought by self-hauled vehicles assigned to each relevant subsector (commercial self-hauled,residential self-hauled)were estimated. 2. These proportions were applied to the franchised and self-hauled tonnages from transaction records for weekdays and weekend days separately to derive additional"days"of data with an actual category tonnage(from transaction records)and estimated sector and subsector tonnages. MNIMNMMNIMNNMMMOMM■NNM■MMONMirMINMIII Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 92 3. The tonnages from survey days and additional days were summed for each facility,by weekday and weekend day,and then divided by the total number of"days"of data to derive. an average weekday and average weekend day for each facility. The projection of waste tonnage for an average weekday,based on the vehicle survey and supplementary information,was scaled up by the number of weekdays per week a given facility is open(typically five)to produce an estimate of tonnages for each type of waste for all weekdays during a given week. Similarly,the projection of waste tonnage for an average weekend day,based on the vehicle survey and supplementary information,was scaled up by the number of weekend days a given facility is open to produce an estimate of tonnages for each type of waste for all weekend days a waste facility was open during a given week. The weekday and weekend day tonnages were summed to produce a composite set of estimates of the amount of waste from each sector,subsector,and activity arriving at the solid waste facility over a representative week.These tonnages were converted to relative proportions(percentages). Each facility's reported tonnage figures for disposed waste were obtained for the calendar year 2007.The relative proportions described above were applied to these reported figures to produce estimates of the tons of disposed waste associated with each sector,subsector,and activity at the facility in question. Example of Estimating Sector Proportions at the Facility Level For example,imagine that Facility A was visited on two weekdays. Suppose that Facility A also provided transaction records for one weekday and one weekend day.The following scenario describes how the percentages of waste for each sector and subsector were calculated for this facility. First,survey data from the facility for the two weekdays the study crew was present were examined to determine the tons associated with the studied sectors and subsectors.A hypothetical accounting of tonnages from two daily transaction reports is shown below. Example numbers are rounded and decimals are not carried through calculations. Franchised Self-hauled Total Facility A Commercial Single- Multifamily Commercial Residential family Residential Self-hauled Self-hauled Residential Tonnage from 20 20 20 15 15 90 survey weekday 1 Tonnage from 30 15 25 20 10 100 survey weekday 2 Tonnage for 50 35 45 35 25 190 two weekdays Next,the tonnages were converted into percentages within the franchised and self-hauled categories,as shown below. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 93 Franchised Self-hauled Facility A Commercial Single- Multifamily Total Commercial Residential Total family Residential Franchised Self-hauled Self-hauled Self- Residential hauled Tonnage for 50 35 45 130 35 25 60 two weekdays Percentages 38% 27% 35% 100% 58% 42% 100% These percentages were then applied to the franchised and self-hauled tonnages from transaction records supplied by the facility. Franchised Self-hauled Facility A Commercial Single- Multifamily Commercial Residential family Residential Self-hauled Self-hauled Residential Tonnage from 75 20 weekday 29 20 26 12 8 records Tonnage from 30 100 weekend day 11 8 11 58 42 records The calculated daily tonnages were averaged to create typical weekdays and weekend days. An average week was then constructed by the days each facility is open.For this example,suppose that Facility A operates from Monday through Saturday,or five weekdays and one weekend day. Franchised Self-hauled Facility A Commercial Single- Multifamily Commercial Residential family Residential Self-hauled Self-hauled Residential Average (50+29)/3= (35+20)/3= (45+26)/3= (35+12)/3= (25+8)/3= weekday 26 18 24 16 11 tonnage Average (11)/1= (8)/1= (11)/1= (58)/1= (42)/1= weekend day tonnage 11 8 11 58 42 Average (26*5)+11 (18*5)+8 (24*5)+11 (16*5)+58 (11*5)+42 weekly 141 98 131 138 97 tonnage The average weekly tonnage for each facility was converted to percentages for each sector, subsector,and activity and then multiplied by the total tons of waste disposed by that facility in 2007,according to the Board's Disposal Reporting System. Suppose that Facility A accepted 500,000 tons of waste in 2007. The amounts that would be assigned to each sector and subsector are shown in the table below. MIINMNIOIIIIMMINNINIMNMMNMNMMMMMMMIIIMMIOINMNMMIOINMIIMIMINIIOIIIIIIIIPIIIIMIIIIIIIM Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 94 Franchised Self-hauled Facility A Commercial Single- Multifamily Commercial Residential family Residential Self-hauled Self-hauled Residential Average weekly 141 98 131 138 97 tonnage Percentage of Facility 23% 16% 22% 23% 16% tonnage Annual 115,000 80,000 110,000 115,000 80,000 tonnage Step 2: Aggregating Tonnage from Facilities to Produce Findings at the Regional Level. Tonnage estimates for each type of waste were combined for participating facilities within each region,using a weighted averaging method.The tonnage estimates for each type of waste at all participating facilities within a region were aggregated,and relative proportions were calculated for each sector,subsector,and activity.The aggregated proportions for each sector,subsector,and activity were then applied to the total 2007 disposal figure for the region,as drawn from the Disposal Reporting System. For example,hypothetical annual tonnages by subsector for two facilities visited in a region are shown in the table below. Commercial Single-family Multifamily Commercial Residential Total Residential Residential Self-hauled Self-hauled Facility A 115,000 80,000 110,000 115,00 80,000 500,000 Facility B 150,000 80,000 10,000 30,000 5,000 275,000 Total(tons) 265,000 160,000 120,000 145,000 85,000 775,000 %of Total 34% 21% 15% 19% 11% 100% • Self-hauled commercial waste was further subdivided into construction and demolition, landscaping,roofing,and other activities,using survey data as in the table below. Construction Roofing Landscaping Other Total &Demolition Commercial Commercial Self-hauled Facility A(tons) 34,000 35,000 6,500 39,500 115,000 Facility B(tons) 12,000 10,500 3,000 4,500 30,000 Totals of both 46,000 45,500 9,500 44,000 145,000 facilities %of total 32% 31% 7% 30% 100% Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 95 Using an annual tonnage for this region of 2 million tons,we can assign tonnages to sectors, subsectors,and activities according to the percentages from the survey data. Region 1 Commercial Single-family Multifamily Commercial Residential Total Residential Residential Self-hauled Self-hauled Percents 34% 21% 15% 19% 11% 100% Tons 680,000 420,000 300,000 380,000 220,000 2,000,000 Construction Roofing Landscaping Other &Demolition Commercial Percents 32% 31% 7% 30% Tons 121,600 117,800 26,600 114,000 Step 3: Aggregating Regional Findings to Produce Sector Tonnage Estimates Statewide.The relative proportions of disposed waste corresponding to each sector were combined among regions using a weighted aggregation method.The weightings associated with each region were proportional to the total disposed tonnage for the region for calendar year 2007. This step resulted in a final set of proportions reflecting the relative disposal of waste corresponding to each waste sector statewide.The proportions were then multiplied by the total 2007 statewide disposal figure to produce the statewide tonnage estimate associated with each sector. The 2007 figures for disposed tonnage associated with each region,as drawn from the Disposal Reporting System,are shown in Table 46. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 96 Table 46: Total Waste Disposal(Tons)in Each County and Region,2007 Bay Area Coastal Mountain Southern Central Valley Alameda 2,071,934 Del Norte 0 Alpine 0 Imperial 259,585 Butte 174,815 Contra Costa 814,846 Humboldt 0 Amador 0 Los Angeles 9,766,692 Colusa 557 Marin 352,659 Lake 51,940 Calaveras 47,384 Orange 4,507,852 Fresno 870,815 Napa 39,546 Mendocino 0 El Dorado 1,328 Riverside 3,450,571 Glenn 20,356 San Francisco 0 Monterey 524,644 lnyo 18,435 San Bernardino 1,723,496 Kern 865,688 San Mateo 695,684 San Benito 90,133 Lassen 21,398 San Diego 3,693,881 Kings 643,048 Santa Clara 1,115,949 San Luis Obispo 278,089 Mariposa 13,855 Ventura 1,152,330 Madera 130,141 Solano 1,175,378 Santa Barbara 376,712 Modoc 0 Merced 248,460 Sonoma 0 Santa Cruz 179,456 Mono 33,901 Placer 252,393 Nevada 0 Sacramento 905,970 Plumas 0 San Joaquin 1,647,923 Sierra 3,925 Shasta 301,107 Siskiyou 8,752 Stanislaus 439,609 Trinity 0 Sutter 0 Tuolumne 0 Tehama 48,581 Tulare 249,897 Yolo 186,929 Yuba 266,175 Totals: 6,265,996 1,500,973 148,979 24,554,405 7,252,464 15.8% 3.8% 0.4% 61.8% 18.3% Total Statewide: 39,722,818 tons Source: Board's Disposal Reporting System. Counties showing 0 tons disposed do not have local solid waste facilities and send waste to other counties. iliiiMINOMMIIIIIIIIMIN11.111■111111111111111111111111.1■11111111.11111111111111,1111.011111111 Contractor's Report to the Board Coliforma 2008 Statewide '1\4-late ChaIxterizatIon Study 97 Estimating Waste Composition Waste composition estimates were calculated using a method that gave equal weighting or "importance"to each sample within a given stratum. Confidence intervals(error ranges)were calculated based on assumptions of normality in the composition estimates.The divertibility analysis composition data was calculated using the same method only with a reduced material list to reflect the reduced number of materials actually subsorted as part of the divertibility analysis. For the commercial sector and overall composition estimates the commercial sector was subdivided into large and small vehicle subsectors. Packer trucks were considered large vehicles and roll-off boxes were considered small vehicles.Typically roll-off boxes are lighter than packer trucks but they dump in approximately equal numbers.The commercial sector was divided to correct for this disparity between the number of roll-off boxes and their tonnage contribution to the waste stream. In the descriptions of calculation methods,the following variables are used frequently: • i denotes an individual sample; • j denotes the material type; • c;is the weight of the material type j in a sample; • w is the weight of an entire sample; • ry is the composition estimate for material j(r stands for ratio); • a denotes a region of the state(a stands for area); • s denotes a particular sector or subsector of the waste stream;and • n denotes the number of samples in the particular group that is being analyzed at that step. ESTIMATING THE COMPOSITION The following method was used to estimate the composition of waste belonging to the single- family residential,multifamily residential,commercial,commercial self-hauled,and residential self-hauled sectors. For a given stratum(that is,for the samples belonging to the same waste sector within the same region),the composition estimate denoted by ry represents the ratio of the component's weight to the total weight of all the samples in the stratum.This estimate was derived by summing each component's weight across all of the selected samples belonging to a given stratum and dividing by the sum of the total weight of waste for all of the samples in that stratum, as shown in the following equation: Ecif r. __ (1) E w; Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 98 where: • c=weight of particular component; • w=sum of all component weights; • for i= 1 to n,where n=number of selected samples; and • for j= 1 to m,where m=number of components. For example,the following simplified scenario involves three samples. For the purposes of this example,only the weights of the component carpet are shown. Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Weight(c)of carpet 5 3 4 Total Sample Weight(w) 80 70 90 5+3+4 _ rcarpet _— 80+70+90 0.05 To find the composition estimate for the component carpet,the weights for that material are added for all selected samples and divided by the total sample weights of those samples.The resulting composition is 0.05,or 5 percent. In other words, 5 percent of the sampled material, by weight,is carpet.This finding is then projected onto the stratum being examined in this step of the analysis. The confidence interval for this estimate was derived i:a two steps. First,the variance around the estimate was calculated,accounting for the fact that the ratio included two random variables(the component and total sample weights). The variance of the ratio estimator equation follows:• 1 1 11(E(c`J —r'w`1 Var(r.) (n)(w2J n-1 (2) where: E wi w= r (3) (For more information regarding Equation 2,refer to Sampling Techniques, 3rd Edition by William G. Cochran [John Wiley& Sons,Inc., 1977].) Second,precision levels at the 90 percent confidence level were calculated for a component's mean as follows: Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 99 r. ±(z JVar(r )) (4) where z=the value of the z-statistic(1.645)corresponding to a 90 percent confidence level. Composition results for strata were then combined,using a weighted averaging method,to estimate the composition of larger portions of the waste stream. The relative tonnages associated with each stratum served as the weighting factors.The calculation was performed as follows: 0 =(P1 *rjl) +(p2 *rj2 (p3 *rj3)+... (5) where: • p=the proportion of tonnage contributed by the noted waste stratum(the weighting factor); • r=ratio of component weight to total waste weight in the noted waste stratum(the composition percent for the given material component);and • for j= 1 to m,where m=number of material components. For example,the above equation is illustrated here using three waste strata. Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 Ratio(r)of carpet 5% 10% 10% Tonnage 25,000 100,000 50,000 Proportion of tonnage(p) 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% To estimate the portion of larger portions of the waste stream,the composition results for the three strata are combined as follows. Ocarnet = (0.143*0.05)+(0.571*0.10)+(0.286*0.10)=0.093 = 9.3% The variance of the weighted average was calculated as follows: Var(0j)= (pi Var(ri1))+(p2 Var(rj2))+(P3 Var(rj3))+... (6) ESTIMATING COMPOSITION OF ENTIRE STATEWIDE DISPOSED WASTE STREAM Composition results for all waste sectors were combined,using a weighted averaging method,to estimate the composition of the entire statewide disposed waste stream. The relative tonnages associated with each sector served as the weighting factors. The calculation was performed as follows: 01 =(pl *rjl) + (p2 *rj2)+(p3 *rj3)+... (7) Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 100 where: • p=the proportion of tonnage contributed by the noted waste sector(the weighting factor); • r=ratio of component weight to total waste weight in the noted waste sector(the composition percent for the given material component); and • for j= 1 to m,where m=number of material components. The following scenario illustrates the above equation.This example involves the component carpet in three waste sectors. Waste Sector 1 Waste Sector 2 Waste Sector 3 Ratio of carpet(r) 0.05 0.10 0.15 Proportion of Tonnage(p) 0.50 0.25 0.25 OCarpet = (0.50*0.05)+(0.25*0.10)+(0.25*0.15) =0.0875 So,it is estimated that 0.0875 or 8.75%of the entire waste stream is composed of carpet. The variance of the weighted average was calculated as follows: Var(O1) =(p; Var(rr,))+(pz Var(rr2))+(03 Var(rj3))+... (8) Disposal Rates Applied to Population Estimates Population and housing unit data from 2007 was used and was collected from the California Department of Finance Financial&Economic Data estimates as of January 2009. Disposal Rate per Capita Residential disposal was the combined tonnage of both single-family and multifamily subsectors. The residential disposal rate was calculated by dividing the residential sector disposal estimate by the statewide population. The statewide overall disposal rate estimate was calculated by dividing the total disposed tonnage in the state by the total population. Disposal Rate per Multifamily Unit Complexes with five or more units were considered multifamily for the purposes of this study.A percent of vacancies was subtracted from the total number to obtain an occupancy rate.Also included in the number of multifamily units is the number of mobile home units. Disposal rate per multifamily unit was calculated by dividing the statewide disposed tonnage estimate for the multifamily subsector by the number of occupied multifamily units. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 101 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 102 Appendix B: List and Definitions of Material Types 11••••••■•••■,■10 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 103 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 104 Introduction The list and definitions of the Standard Material Types were drawn from the California Integrated Waste Management Board's Uniform Waste Disposal Characterization Method. Currently,the Standard list consists of 62 material types,down from a list of 67 in 2004.Detailed composition tables in the main body of the report are presented using this standard list.However,samples were sorted and characterized based on an expanded list of 85 material types in 2008,down from an expanded list of 98 in 2004. Both the standard list and the expanded list have changed over time as some materials become less prevalent in the waste stream and others become of more interest,but enough consistency has been maintained to allow comparison of data over time.The expanded list of material types is designed to be"folded up"into the standard list of 62 used for presenting results in this study and provides additional detail on materials of interest to the Board. Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables presents detailed composition tables using the expanded material list. Table 47 compares the 2008 Standard Material List and the 2004 Standard Material List.Table 48 shows how the 85 materials,those which are used to sort and characterize the waste stream,are "folded up"into the standard list used in the main report. Changes in the standard list between 2004 and 2008 include: • Combining the 2004 colored ledger,computer paper,and other office paper into the 2008 other office paper; • Renaming the 2004 televisions and other items with CRT's to video display devices in 2008 and changing the definition; • Combining the 2004 agricultural crop residues and remainder/composite organics into the 2008 remainder/composite organics; and • Combining the 2004 sewage solids, industrial sludge,and remainder/composite special waste into the 2008 remainder/composite special waste. Following the materials table,this appendix also contains the section Definitions of Material Types(Expanded List). NONOMONIIIIIIIIINNIIII■01.11■1111111111111111111.1111.111111,111■111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 105 Expanded and Standard List of Material Types Table 47: Comparison Between the 2008 Standard List and 2004 Standard List Category 2008 Standard Material List 2004 Standard Material List Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard Paper Bags Paper Bags Newspaper Newspaper White Ledger Paper White Ledger Colored Ledger aOther Office Paper Computer Paper Other Office Paper Magazines and Catalogs Magazines and Catalogs Phone Books and Directories Phone Books and Directories Other Miscellaneous Paper Other Miscellaneous Paper Remainder/Composite Paper Remainder/Composite Paper Clear Glass Bottles and Containers Clear Glass Bottles and Containers Green Glass Bottles and Containers Green Glass Bottles and Containers Brown Glass Bottles and Containers Brown Glass Bottles and Containers ca 0 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers Flat Glass Flat Glass Remainder/Composite Glass Remainder/Composite Glass Tin/Steel Cans Tin/Steel Cans Major Appliances Major Appliances Used Oil Filters Used Oil Filters CD Other Ferrous Other Ferrous Aluminum Cans Aluminum Cans Other Non-Ferrous Other Non-Ferrous Remainder/Composite Metal Remainder/Composite Metal Brown Goods Brown Goods ▪c Computer-related Electronics Computer-related Electronics L mOther Small Consumer Electronics Other Small Consumer Electronics w Video Display Devices Television and Other Items with CRTs PETE Containers PETE Containers HDPE Containers HDPE Containers Miscellaneous Plastic Containers Miscellaneous Plastic Containers Plastic Trash Bags Plastic Trash Bags ▪ Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film Packaging Film Film Products Film Products Other Film Other Film Durable Plastic Items Durable Plastic Items Remainder/Composite Plastic Remainder/Composite Plastic Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 106 Table 47(cont.) Category 2008 Standard Material List 2004 Standard Material List Food Food Leaves and Grass Leaves and Grass • Prunings and Trimmings Prunings and Trimmings a, Branches and Stumps Branches and Stumps O Manures Manures m Textiles Textiles p Carpet Carpet Remainder/Composite Organic Agricultural Crop Residues Remainder/Composite Organics Concrete Concrete Asphalt Paving Asphalt Paving p Asphalt Roofing Asphalt Roofing Lumber Lumber • Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Rock, Soil and Fines Rock, Soil, and Fines c Remainder/Composite Construction and Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other Demolition Paint Paint c Vehicle &Equipment Fluids Vehicle and Equipment Fluids -oar Used Oil Used Oil co Batteries Batteries i CO Remainder/Composite Household Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous Hazardous Ash Ash Treated Medical Waste Treated Medical Waste U, • Bulky Items Bulky Items Tires Tires Sewage Solids °. Remainder/Composite Special Waste Industrial Sludge cn Remainder/Composite Special Waste m 'a 3 CD N Mixed Residue Mixed Residue MINOMMONN■1111111111111.11111,111111=1111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 107 Table 48: Comparison between the 2008 Standard List and 2008 Expanded List Category 2008 Standard Material List 2008 Expanded Material List Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard Paper Bags Paper Bags Newspaper Newspaper White Ledger Paper White Ledger Paper Other Office Paper Other Office Paper Magazines and Catalogs Magazines and Catalogs Phone Books and Directories Phone Books and Directories a Other Miscellaneous Paper-Non-food Other Miscellaneous Paper Packaging All Other Miscellaneous Paper Remainder/Composite Paper-Non-food Remainder/Composite Paper Packaging All Other Remainder/Composite Paper Clear Glass Bottles and Containers Clear Glass Bottles and Containers Green Glass Bottles and Containers Green Glass Bottles and Containers co • Brown Glass Bottles and Containers Brown Glass Bottles and Containers Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers Flat Glass Flat Glass Remainder/Composite Glass Remainder/Composite Glass Tin/Steel Cans Tin/Steel Cans Major Appliances Major Appliances Used Oil Filters Used Oil Filters • Other Ferrous Other Ferrous Aluminum Cans Aluminum Cans Other Non-Ferrous Other Non-Ferrous Remainder/Composite Metal Remainder/Composite Metal y Brown Goods Brown Goods Computer-related Electronics-Large Computer-related Electronics .• Computer-related Electronics-Small • Other Small Consumer Electronics Other Small Consumer Electronics Video Display Devices Video Display Devices Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 108 Table 48(cont.) Category 2008 Standard Material List 2008 Expanded Material List PETE Water Bottles PETE Containers PETE Sealed Containers Other PETE Containers HDPE Containers HDPE Containers PLA Water Bottles Miscellaneous Plastic Containers #3-#7 Sealed Containers #3-#7 Other Containers Plastic Trash Bags Plastic Trash Bags N Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags `—° Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film Packaging Film Film Products Film Products Other Film Food Contact Film Packaging Other Film HDPE Buckets Durable Plastic Items #347 Buckets Durable Plastic Items Remainder/Composite Plastic Remainder/Composite Plastic Food Food • Leaves and Grass Leaves and Grass • Prunings and Trimmings Prunings and Trimmings Branches and Stumps Branches and Stumps O Manures Manures rTextiles Textiles O Carpet Carpet Remainder/Composite Organic Remainder/Composite Organic Concrete Concrete Asphalt Paving Asphalt Paving Asphalt Composition Shingles Roofing Tar Paper/Felt Asphalt Roofing Roofing Mastic Built-up Roofing O Other Asphalt Roofing Material Clean Dimensional Lumber 03 • Lumber Clean Engineered Wood Clean Pallets and Crates Other Wood Waste Gypsum Board _c Clean Gypsum Board Painted/Demolition Gypsum Board Rock, Soil and Fines Rock, Soil and Fines Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 109 Table 48(cont.) Cate o 2008 Standard Material List 2008 Expanded Material List Paint Paint • Vehicle&Equipment Fluids Vehicle&Equipment Fluids o Used Oil Used Oil co I- Lead-acid (automotive) Batteries Batteries Other Batteries Sharps t Pharmaceuticals Remainder/Composite Household Fluorescent Lights/Other Mercury-containing o Hazardous Items = Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous m Ash Ash Treated Medical Waste Treated Medical Waste co _ Bulky Items Bulky Items `° Vehicle and Truck Tires Tires fl, Other Tires Remainder/Composite Special Waste Remainder/Composite Special Waste x H Mixed Residue Mixed Residue Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 110 Definitions of Material Types (Expanded List) Paper 1. Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard usually has three layers.The center wavy layer is sandwiched between the two outer layers. 1:t does not have any wax coating on the inside or outside. Examples include entire cardboard containers,such as shipping and moving boxes, computer packaging cartons,and sheets and pieces of boxes and cartons.This type does not include chipboard boxes such as cereal and tissue boxes. 2. Paper Bags means bags and sheets made from kraft paper. The paper may be brown (unbleached)or white(bleached). Examples include paper grocery bags,fast food bags, department store bags,and heavyweight sheets of kraft packing paper. 3. Newspaper means paper used in newspapers. Examples include newspaper and glossy inserts found in newspapers,and all items made from newsprint,such as free advertising guides, election guides,and tax instruction booklets. 4. White Ledger Paper means bleached,uncolored bond,rag,or stationery grade paper, without ground wood fibers. It may have colored ink on it.When the paper is torn,the fibers are white. Examples include white paper used in photocopiers and laser printers, and letter paper. 5. Other Office Paper means paper used in offices other than white ledger paper. Examples include colored ledger,computer paper,manila folders,manila envelopes,index cards,white envelopes,white window envelopes,notebook paper,ground wood computer paper,junk mail, and carbonless forms. 6. Magazines and Catalogs means items made of glossy coated paper.This paper is usually slick,smooth to the touch,and reflects light. Examples include glossy magazines,catalogs, brochures,and pamphlets. 7. Phone Books and Directories means thin paper between coated covers. These items are bound along the spine with glue. Example;include whole or damaged telephone books, Yellow Pages,real estate listings,and some non-glossy mail order catalogs. 8. Other Miscellaneous Paper—Non-food Packaging means items made mostly of paper that are used for packaging things other than food,and that do not fit into any of the other paper types.Paper may be combined with minor amounts of other materials such as wax or glues. Examples include chipboard packaging like tissue boxes,paperboard boxes for software, paper sleeves for CD or DVD cases,paper packaging for over-the-counter medications,boxes for games,containers for printer ink or toner cartridges,and non-corrugated consumer electronics packaging. 9. All Other Miscellaneous Paper means items made mostly of paper that do not fit into any of the other paper types that are also not packaging for items other than food.Paper may be combined with minor amounts of other materials such as wax or glues.This type includes items made of chipboard,ground wood paper,and deep-toned or fluorescent dyed paper. Examples include cereal and cracker boxes,unused paper plates and cups,goldenrod colored paper,school construction paper,butcher paper,milk cartons,ice cream cartons and other frozen food boxes,pulp paper egg cartons,unused pulp paper plant pots,and hard cover and soft cover books. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 111 10. Remainder/Composite Paper—Non-food Packaging means items used for packaging things other than food that are made mostly of paper but combined with large amounts of other materials such as wax,plastic,glues,foil,food,and moisture. Examples include packages laminated with Mylar,boxes with large plastic windows(common for children's toys),and packages with foam or plastic cushions integrated into the package,paper-coated polystyrene containers. 11. All Other Remainder/Composite Paper means items made mostly of paper but combined with large amounts of other materials such as wax,plastic,glues,foil,food,and moisture, that also are not packaging for items other than food. Examples include some waxed or plastic-impregnated corrugated cardboard(common for packaging produce or seafood), aseptic packages,plastic-coated paper milk cartons,waxed paper,tissue,paper towels, blueprints,sepia,onion skin,fast food wrappers,carbon paper,self adhesive notes,and photographs. Glass 12. Clear Glass Bottles and Containers means clear glass containers with or without a California Redemption Value(CRV)label. Examples include whole or broken clear soda and beer bottles,fruit juice bottles,peanut butter jars,and mayonnaise jars. 13. Green Glass Bottles and Containers means green-colored glass containers with or without a CRV label. Examples include whole or broken green soda and beer bottles,and whole or broken green wine bottles. 14. Brown Glass Bottles and Containers means brown-colored glass containers with or without a CRV label. Examples include whole or broken brown soda and beer bottles,and whole or broken brown wine bottles. 15. Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers means colored glass containers and bottles other than green or brown with or without a CRV label.Examples include whole or broken blue or other colored bottles and containers. 16. Flat Glass means clear or tinted glass that is flat.Examples include glass window panes, doors and table tops, flat automotive window glass(side windows),safety glass,and architectural glass.This type does not include windshields,laminated glass,or any curved glass. 17. Remainder/Composite Glass means glass that cannot be put in any other type. It includes items made mostly of glass but combined with other materials. Examples include Pyrex, CorningWare, crystal and other glass tableware,mirrors,non-fluorescent light bulbs,auto windshields,laminated glass,or any curved glass. Metal 18. Tin/Steel Cans means rigid containers made mainly of steel. These items will stick to a magnet and may be tin-coated. This type is used to store food,beverages,paint,and a variety of other household and consumer products. Examples include canned food and beverage containers,empty metal paint cans,empty spray paint and other aerosol containers,and bimetal containers with steel sides and aluminum ends. 19. Major Appliances means discarded major appliances of any color. These items are often enamel-coated. Examples include washing machines,clothes dryers,hot water heaters, 11111111.0.1.11111111111111■1111=11111■11■11■111111111111111111111111111111/11,111111.111111111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 112 stoves,and refrigerators.This type does no:include electronics,such as televisions and stereos. 20. Used Oil Filters means metal oil filters used in motor vehicles and other engines,which contain a residue of used oil.Note: This type was classified under Other Ferrous in the original 57 standard material types used in the 1999 Statewide Study and the solid waste characterization database. 21. Other Ferrous means any iron or steel tha:is magnetic or any stainless steel item.This type does not include tin/steel cans. Examples include structural steel beams,metal clothes hangers,metal pipes, stainless steel cookware,security bars,and scrap ferrous items. 22. Aluminum Cans means any food or beverage container made mainly of aluminum. Examples include aluminum soda or beer cans,and some pet food cans.This type does not include bimetal containers with steel sides and aluminum ends. 23. Other Non-Ferrous means any metal item, other than aluminum cans,that is not stainless steel and that is not magnetic.These items may be made of aluminum,copper,brass,bronze, lead,zinc,or other metals. Examples include aluminum window frames,aluminum siding, copper wire,shell casings,brass pipe,and aluminum foil. 24. Remainder/Composite Metal means metal that cannot be put in any other type. This type includes items made mostly of metal but combined with other materials and items made of both ferrous metal and non-ferrous metal combined.Examples include small non-electronic appliances such as toasters and hair dryers,motors,insulated wire,and finished products that contain a mixture of metals,or metals and other materials,whose weight is derived significantly from the metal portion of its construction. Electronics 25. Brown Goods means generally larger,non-portable electronic goods that have some circuitry.Examples include microwaves,stereos,VCRs,DVD players,large radios,and audio/visual equipment. Does not include items with video display devices.Note: This type was classified under Remainder/Composite Metal in the original 57 standard material types used in the 1999 Statewide Study and the solid waste characterization database. 26. Computer-related Electronics—Large IT electronics with large circuitry that is computer-related,not including monitors. Items in this category should be larger than a basketball. Examples include processors,keyboards,printers,and fax machines.Note: This type was classified under Remainder/Composite Metal in the original 57 standard material types used in the 1999 Statewide Study and the solid waste characterization database. 27. Computer-related Electronics—Small means electronics with large circuitry that is computer-related,not including monitors. 1 tems in this category should be smaller than a basketball. Examples include mice, disk drives,and modems.Note: This type was classified under Remainder/Composite Metal in the original 57 standard material types used in the 1999 Statewide Study and the solid waste characterization database. 28. Other Small Consumer Electronics means portable non-computer-related electronics with large circuitry.Examples include personal digital assistants(PDA),cell phones,phone systems,phone answering machines,computer games and other electronic toys,portable CD players,camcorders,and digital cameras.Note: This type was classified under Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 113 Remainder/Composite Metal in the original 57 standard material types used in the 1999 Statewide Study and the solid waste characterization database. 29. Video Display Devices means items with video displays larger than 4 inches. Includes televisions,computer monitors, and other items containing a cathode ray tube(CRT), portable DVD players,laptop computers,and non-CRT televisions(such as LCD televisions). Note: This type was classified under Remainder/Composite Metal in the original 57 standard material types used in the 1999 Statewide Study and the solid waste characterization database. Plastics 30. PETE Water Bottles means clear or colored PETE(polyethylene terephthalate)bottles for non-carbonated water that are one liter or less in size. When marked for identification,they bear the number 1 in the center of the triangular recycling symbol and may also bear the letters PETE or PET.The color is usually transparent green or clear.A PETE water bottle usually has ribs and a narrow neck as well as a small dot left from the manufacturing process, not a seam. It does not turn white when bent. Examples include single-serve plain water bottles,flavored water bottles,and vitamin,mineral,or otherwise enhanced water bottles. 31. PETE Sealed Containers means PETE(polyethylene terephthalate)containers that must be cut,pried,or torn to be opened,and have 2 or more parts,which may be hinged or fitted,that are sealed together.When marked for identification,they bear the number 1 in the center of the triangular recycling symbol and may also bear the letters PETE or PET.A PETE sealed container may have a small dot left from the manufacturing process. Examples include hardware,small electronics and battery packaging; these containers may be clear but could also be colored. 32. Other PETE Containers means PETE(polyethylene terephthalate) containers other than water bottles and sealed containers. This includes boxes,clamshells,jars,bottles,and cartons. When marked for identification,they bear the number 1 in the center of the triangular recycling symbol and may also bear the letters PETE or PET. A PETE container usually has a small dot left from the manufacturing process,not a seam. It does not turn white when bent. Examples include soft drink and liquor bottles,water bottles larger than 1 liter in size, cooking oil bottles,pastry jars,food jars,aspirin bottles,and frozen food or other trays. 33. PLA Water Bottles means clear or colored PLA(polylactic acid)water bottles.The bottle may not be marked with a recycling code for identification. However,the label on the bottle may claim that the container is"degradable,""biodegradable,"or"compostable."The container may also bear the letters"PLA."The color is usually clear or blue tinted.A PLA water bottle usually has ribs and a narrow neck as well as a small dot left from the manufacturing process,not a seam. Major brand names that may appear on the label of PLA water bottles include the"Biota"brand(www.biotaspringwater.com)or"Be lu" (www.belu.org)brand name. PLA containers will have a very similar appearance to PETE containers,but will be distinguishable based on the label(degradable claim or marked with "PLA"lettering or above brand names)and by absence of the triangular recycling symbol, although it is possible that the symbol may be included on the container with the number"7." 34. HDPE Containers means natural and colored HDPE(high-density polyethylene)containers, not including HDPE buckets of five gallons or less in size.This plastic is usually either cloudy white,allowing light to pass through it(natural)or a solid color,preventing light from IMM11111■•11■1■1•11■MIMINIIM=1,1=1•111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 114 passing through it(colored). When marked for identification,it bears the number 2 in the triangular recycling symbol and may also bear the letters HDPE. Examples include milk jugs, water jugs,detergent bottles, some hair-care bottles,HDPE sealed containers(must be cut, pried,or torn to be opened),empty motor oil,empty antifreeze,and other empty vehicle and equipment fluid containers. 35. #3-#7 Sealed Containers means containers made of types of plastic other than HDPE(high- density polyethylene)or PETE(polyethylene terephthalate)that must be cut,pried or torn to be opened,and have two or more parts,which may be hinged or fitted,that are sealed together. Items may be made of PVC(polyvinyl chloride),LDPE(low-density polyethylene), PP(polypropylene),PS(polystyrene), or mixed resins.When marked for identification,these items may bear the number 3,4, 5,6,or 7 i.n the triangular recycling symbol and may also bear letters(PS,PP,PVC, etc).Examples include hardware,small electronics and battery packaging;these containers may be clear but could also be colored. 36. #3-#7 Other Containers means plastic containers other than sealed containers and#3-#7 buckets of five gallons or less in size,made of types of plastic other than HDPE(high-density polyethylene)or PETE(polyethylene terephthalate)that include boxes,clamshells,jars, bottles,and cartons. Items may be made of PVC(polyvinyl chloride),LDPE(low-density polyethylene),PP(polypropylene),PS(polystyrene),or mixed resins.When marked for identification,these items may bear the number 3,4,5,6,or 7 in the triangular recycling symbol and may also bear the letters PS,PP,PVC,etc. Examples include bakery packaging with hinged lids,hardware and fastener packaging,food containers such as bottles for salad dressings and vegetable oils, flexible and brittle yogurt cups,syrup bottles,margarine tubs, microwave food trays,and clamshell-shaped fast food containers.This type also includes some shampoo containers,vitamin bottles. foam egg cartons,and clamshell-like muffin containers. 37. Plastic Trash Bags means plastic bags sold for use as trash bags,for both residential and commercial use.This type includes garbage,kitchen,compactor,can-liner,composting,yard, lawn,leaf,and recycling bags. This type does not include other plastic bags,like shopping bags,that might have been used to contain trash.Note: This type was classified under Film Plastic in the original 57 standard material types used in the 1999 Statewide Study and the solid waste characterization database. 38. Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags means plastic shopping bags used to contain merchandise to transport from the place of purchase,given out by the store with the purchase. This type includes dry cleaning bags intended for one-time use. Does not include produce bags.Note: This type was classified under Film Plastic in the original 57 standard material types used in the 1999 Statewide Study and the solid waste characterization database. 39. Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film means film plastic used for large- scale packaging or transport packaging.Examples include shrink-wrap,mattress bags, furniture wrap,and film bubble wrap.Note: This type was classified under Film Plastic in the original 57 standard material types used in the 1999 Statewide Study and the solid waste characterization database. 40. Film Products means plastic film used for purposes other than packaging. Examples include agricultural film(films used in various farming and growing applications,such as silage greenhouse films,mulch films,and wrap for hay bales),plastic sheeting used as drop cloths, and building wrap.Note: This type was classified under Film Plastic in the original 57 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 115 standard material types used in the 1999 Statewide Study and the solid waste characterization database. 41. Food Contact Film Packaging means all plastic film used as food packaging,i.e.,was sold holding a food product. This type does not include plastic carryout bags or bags that were purchased separately and later used to hold food(such as sandwich bags). Examples include produce bags,frozen vegetable bags,bread bags,food wrappers such as candy bar wrappers, deli bags, and other point-of purchase plastic film packaging with a label or sticker. 42. Other Film means all other plastic film that does not fit into any other type. Examples include other types of plastic bags such as sandwich bags,zipper-recloseable bags,newspaper bags,mailing pouches,bank bags,X-ray film,and metalized film(wine containers and balloons).Note:This type was classified under Film Plastic in the original 57 standard material types used in the 1999 Statewide Study and the solid waste characterization database. 43. HDPE Buckets means colored and natural buckets and pails made of HDPE(high-density polyethylene) and designed to hold five gallons or less of material. This plastic is usually either cloudy white,allowing light to pass through it(natural)or a solid color,preventing light from passing through it(colored).When marked for identification,it bears the number 2 in the triangular recycling symbol and may also bear the letters HDPE. This category includes buckets regardless of whether they are attached to metal handles. Examples include large paint buckets and commercial buckets used to contain food for commercial use(restaurants, etc.).These objects are packages containing material for sale,and are not sold as buckets themselves(such as mop buckets). 44. #3-#7 Buckets means all types of buckets and pails made of plastic other than HDPE or PETE and designed to hold five gallons or less of material.This category includes buckets regardless of whether they are attached to metal handles. Items may be made of PVC (polyvinyl chloride),LDPE(low-density polyethylene),PP(polypropylene),PS (polystyrene),or mixed resins.When marked for identification,these items bear the number 3,4,5,6,or 7 in the triangular recycling symbol. Examples include large paint buckets and commercial buckets used to contain food for commercial use(restaurants,etc.).These objects are packages containing material for sale,and are not sold as buckets themselves(such as mop buckets). 45. Durable Plastic Items means plastic items other than containers,film plastic,HDPE buckets, or#3-#7 buckets that are often made to last for more than one use.These items may bear the numbers 1 through 7 in the triangular recycling symbol.Examples include plastic outdoor furniture,plastic toys and sporting goods,CDs,and plastic housewares, such as mop buckets, dishes,cups,and cutlery.This type also includes building materials such as house siding, window sashes and frames,housings for electronics such as computers,televisions and stereos,fan blades, impact-resistant cases such as tool boxes and first aid boxes,and plastic pipes and fittings. 46. Remainder/Composite Plastic means plastic that cannot be put in any other type. These items are usually recognized by their optical opacity.This type includes items made mostly of plastic but combined with other materials. Examples include auto parts made of plastic attached to metal,plastic drinking straws, foam drinking cups,produce trays,foam packing blocks,packing peanuts,cookie trays found in cookie packages,plastic strapping,foam plates/bowls,and new Formica,vinyl,or linoleum. 1111.1111111111111111■11111111111■111111111110111111111111111111111.1.11,1111111111=1 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 116 Other Organic 47. Food means food material resulting from the processing, storage,preparation,cooking, handling,or consumption of food. This type includes material from industrial,commercial,or residential sources.Examples include discarded meat scraps, dairy products,egg shells,fruit or vegetable peels,and other food items from homes,stores,and restaurants.This type includes grape pomace and other processes.residues or material from canneries,wineries,or other industrial sources. 48. Leaves and Grass means plant material,except woody material,from any public or private landscape.Examples include leaves,grass clippings,plants,and seaweed.This type does not include woody material or material from agricultural sources. 49. Prunings and Trimmings means woody plant material up to 4 inches in diameter from any public or private landscape. Examples include prunings, shrubs,and small branches with branch diameters that do not exceed four inches.This type does not include stumps,tree trunks,branches exceeding four inches in diameter, or material from agricultural sources. 50. Branches and Stumps means woody plant material,branches,and stumps that exceed four inches in diameter,from any public or private landscape. 51. Manures means manure and soiled bedding materials from domestic,farm,or ranch animals. Examples include manure and soiled bedding from animal production operations,race tracks, riding stables,animal hospitals,and other sources. 52. Textiles means items made of thread,yarn, fabric,or cloth. Examples include clothes, fabric trimmings,draperies,and all natural and synthetic cloth fibers.This type does not include cloth covered furniture,mattresses,leather shoes,leather bags,or leather belts. 53. Carpet means flooring applications consisting of various natural or synthetic fibers bonded to some type of backing material.This type does not include carpet padding.Note: This type was classified under Remainder/Composite Organic in the original 57 standard material types used in the 1999 Statewide Study and the solid waste characterization database. 54. Remainder/Composite Organic means organic material that cannot be put in any other type. This type includes items made mostly of organic materials,but combined with other material types. Examples include leather items, cork,hemp rope,garden hoses,rubber items,hair, carpet padding,cigarette butts,diapers,feminine hygiene products,small wood products (such as Popsicle sticks and tooth picks),sawdust,agricultural crop residues,and animal feces. Inerts and Other Note: To reduce confusion surrounding the amount of debris disposed from construction and demolition activities,the Inerts and Others c lass replaces the Construction and Demolition class from the 1999 and 2004 studies. 55. Concrete means a hard material made from sand, aggregate,gravel,cement mix and water. Examples include pieces of building foundations,concrete paving,and concrete/cinder blocks. 56. Asphalt Paving means a black or brown, tar-like material mixed with aggregate used as a paving material. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 117 57. Asphalt Composition Shingles means composite shingles composed of fiberglass or organic felts saturated with asphalt and covered with inert aggregates. Does not include built-up roofing. Commonly known as three tab roofing. 58. Roofing Tar Paper/Felt means a heavy paper impregnated with tar or a fiberglass or polyester fleece impregnated with tar and used as part of a roof for waterproofing. 59. Roofing Mastic means a paste-like material used as an adhesive or seal in roofing applications. 60. Built-up Roofing means other roofing material made with layers of felt,asphalt,aggregates, and attached roofing tar and tar paper normally used on flat/low pitched roofs usually on commercial buildings. 61. Other Asphalt Roofing Material means any other roofing material containing asphalt that cannot be put into any of the other roofing material types. 62. Clean Dimensional Lumber means unpainted new or demolition dimensional lumber. Includes materials such as 2x4s,2x6s,2x 12s,and other residual materials from framing and related construction activities. May contain nails or other trace contaminants. 63. Clean Engineered Wood means unpainted new or demolition scrap from sheeted goods such as plywood,particleboard,wafer board,oriented strand board,and other residual materials used for sheathing and related construction uses. May contain nails or other trace contaminants. 64. Clean Pallets and Crates means unpainted wood pallets,crates,and packaging made of lumber/engineered wood. 65. Other Wood Waste means wood waste that cannot be put into any other material type. This type may include untreated/unpainted scrap from production of prefabricated wood products such as wood furniture or cabinets,untreated or unpainted wood roofing and siding,painted or stained wood,and treated wood. 66. Clean Gypsum Board means unpainted gypsum wallboard or interior wall covering made of a sheet of gypsum sandwiched between paper layers. Examples include used or unused, broken or whole sheets. Gypsum board may also be called Sheetrock,drywall,plasterboard, gypboard,Gyproc,or wallboard. 67. Painted/Demolition Gypsum Board means painted gypsum wallboard or interior wall covering made of a sheet of gypsum sandwiched between paper layers. Examples: This type includes used or unused,broken or whole sheets. Gypsum board may also be called Sheetrock, drywall,plasterboard,gypboard, Gyproc,or wallboard. 68. Rock, Soil and Fines means rock pieces of any size and soil,dirt,and other matter. Examples include rock,stones, sand,clay,soil,and other fines. This type also includes non- hazardous contaminated soil. 69. Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other means inerts and other material that cannot be put in any other type.This type may include items from different types combined,which would be very hard to separate. Examples include brick,ceramics,tiles,toilets,sinks,and fiberglass insulation.This type may also include demolition debris that is a mixture of items such as plate glass,wood,tiles, gypsum board,and aluminum scrap. MENNIMIIMIII1111■111111111111111111.1111111■11111■111111rall1011111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 118 Household Hazardous Waste 70. Paint means containers with paint in them. Examples include latex paint,oil based paint,and tubes of pigment or fine art paint.This type does not include dried paint,empty paint cans,or empty aerosol containers. 71. Vehicle and Equipment Fluids means containers with fluids used in vehicles or engines, except used oil. Examples include used antifreeze and brake fluid.This type does not include empty vehicle and equipment fluid containers. 72. Used Oil means the same as defined in Health and Safety Code section 25250.1(a). Examples include spent lubricating oil such as crankcase and transmission oil,gear oil,and hydraulic oil. 73. Lead-acid(automotive)Batteries means batteries fueled by lead-acid cells, such as auto batteries. 74. Other Batteries means any type of battery other than lead-acid(automotive)batteries. Examples include household batteries such as AA,AAA,D,button cell, 9 volt,and rechargeable batteries used for flashlights, small appliances,watches,and hearing aids. 75. Sharps means hypodermic needles,pen needles,intravenous needles,lancets,and other devices that are used to penetrate the skin for the delivery of medications derived from sources other than medical facilities. 76. Pharmaceuticals means both prescription and over-the-counter medications and supplements in all forms,including pills,liquid medications,creams,and ointments.Does not include containers for these items,except for tubes for creams and ointments and other containers that cannot be easily separated from the product they contain. 77. Fluorescent Lights and Other Mercury-containing Items means both compact and tube- style fluorescent lights,thermostats,thermometers,and other items that are readily identifiable as containing mercury. Since some mercury-containing items are not identifiable in the field,data for this material type should not be considered to be comprehensive. 78. Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous means household hazardous material that cannot be put in any other type. This type also includes household hazardous material that is mixed.Examples include household hazardous waste which if improperly put in the solid waste stream may present handling problems or other hazards, such as pesticides and caustic cleaners. Special Waste 79. Ash means a residue from the combustion of any solid or liquid material. Examples include ash from fireplaces,incinerators,biomass facilities,waste-to-energy facilities,and barbecues. This type also includes ash and burned debris from structure fires. 80. Treated Medical Waste means medical waste that has been processed in order to change its physical,chemical,or biological character or composition,or to remove or reduce its harmful properties or characteristics,as defined in Section 25123.5 of the Health and Safety Code. INOMMOMMINIMINNINIMIONIMINNO Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 119 81. Bulky Items means large hard to handle items that are not defined elsewhere in the material types list,including furniture,mattresses, and other large items. Examples include all sizes and types of furniture,mattresses,box springs,and base components. 82. Vehicle and Truck Tires means pneumatic tires or solid tires manufactured for use on any type of motor vehicle such as trucks,automobiles,motorcycles,and heavy equipment. 83. Other Tires means tires not used on motor vehicles such as bicycle tires and lawn mower tires. 84. Remainder/Composite Special Waste means special waste that cannot be put in any other type.Examples include asbestos-containing materials such as certain types of pipe insulation and floor tiles,auto fluff,auto bodies,trucks,trailers,truck cabs,untreated medical waste, and artificial fireplace logs. Mixed Residue 85. Mixed Residue means material that cannot be put in any other type or category. This category includes mixed residue that cannot be further sorted. Examples include clumping kitty litter,cosmetics,and residual material from a materials recovery facility or other sorting process that cannot be put in any other material type,including remainder/composite types. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 120 Appendix C: Forms Used in the Study •mi=•=milimmli••■=1•11■■■■,•■1 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 121 01■111110■1110■1111= M11■1110,11■11 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 122 List of Forms Used Examples of the field forms used in the study appear in this appendix in the following order: • Vehicle Selection Form; • Sample Placard; • Sample Sorting&Characterization Form; • Vehicle Survey Form; • Snapshot of Multifamily Site Recruitment Database; • Multifamily Site Visit Form; • Roofing Sample Form; • Special Study Form; • Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form; • Snapshot of Waste Composition Data Entry Database;and • Snapshot of Vehicle Survey Data Entry Spreadsheet Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 123 Vehicle Selection Form CIWM B 2008 Waste Characterization Study Vehicle Selection Form Site: Lamb Date: November7,2008 Goal: 16 Samples Total Each number represents an expected vehicle based on the available data. Cross off one number for each category of vehicle entering the landfill. When you reach the number circled,ask this vehicle to go to the sorting area. When you reach the number with an"S"on it,ask this vehicle to go to the sorting area. Ask all pure roofing loads to go to the sorting area for asbestos subsample. Only the roofing loads that are selected through the random selection process should be sorted. RE- SIDENTIAL: (Res 2-6) NEED 5 TOTAL *Must be at least 80%single-family residential waste. a2 4 5 O ;° 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (expect 15) CO- MMERCIAL: (Corn 1-4) NEED 4 TOTAL *Must be at least 80%commercial waste. 1 2 0 4 5 ` 7 n 9 10 11 '1,41 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ti 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 (expect 67) SELF HAULED: (SH 1-6) NEED 6 TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 gyl 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Ci 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 ® 56 57 58 59 60 N 61 62 63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 = 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 k `' 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 1• 16 117 118 119 120 t..�' 121 122 12 3 12 5 126 12 7 128 12 9 130 131 132 133 134 13 12 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 "` 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 1• 56 157 158 159 160 161 162 16 3 164 16 5 166 16 7 168 16 9 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 (expect 175) Mu- lti-family Generator Sample(Res-1) NEED 1 TOTAL --o IIIMMIIIIIIIIIINIMINNINMIIMMMIMMNNNIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINITIIIIIIIIIIIII Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 124 Sample Placard Cell Number : 5 Lamb Com 1 11 /7/2008 WC & Special Study Divertibility Study Special Study Roofing Subsample Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 125 Sample Sorting & Characterization Form (front) C2WMB Waste Characterization 2008 Sample ID PHOTO PAPER PLASTIC 1 _ OCC(Clean) I I PET Water(Clara) I I Date TAKEN (Load Cortaminated) (Load Contaminated) (Source Contaminated) (Source Contaminated) SECTOR:(circle) Kraft Bags(Clean) PET Sealed(Clean) SF-Single Family (Load Contaminated) (Load Contaminated) MF-Multi-Family IT Divertibility (Source Contaminated) (Source Contaminated) Sample? COM-Commercial Newspaper(Clean) PET Containers(Clean) SHC-SH Com (Load Contaminated) (Load Contaminated) 0 Grocery Bag SHOC-SH Other Corn Sample? (Source Contatnivted) (Source Contaminated) SHR-SH Res White Ledger(Clean) HOPE Containers(Clean) (Load Contaminated) (Load Contaminated) GLASS (Source Contaminated) (Source Contaminated) Clear Containers Office Paper(Clean) #347 Sealed(Clean) Green Containers (Load Contaminated) (Load Contaminated) Brown Containers (Source Contaminated) (Source Contaminated) Other Containers Low Grade(Clean) #347 Containers(Clean) Flat Glass (Load Contaminated) (Load Contaminated) R/C Gass (Source Contaminated) (Source Contaminated) METAL Non-Food Pkg.LG HDPE Buckets Tin Cans(Clean) RIC Paper(Clean) #3-#7 Buckets (Load Cordaminated) (Load Contaminated) PLA Water Bolles (Source Contaminated) (Source Contaminated) Trash Bags Aluminum Cans(aean) Non-Food Pkg:RIC Gocery/Merch Bags (Load Contaminated) Magazines/Catalogs Commercial Film (Source Contamalated) Phone Bock/Directory Fim Products Other Non-Ferrous Food Fim Other Ferrous CIWMB Waste Characterization 2008 Other Fim Mc r Appliances if please call 206-343-9759.Reward offered. Durable Products Used Oil Filters R/C Plastic RK Metal If found please call,206-343-9/59.*Reward afered. COrliraftOr's Report to the Board (...;iiiitliternia 2008 'Statewide tiiSaute Characterization Study 126 Sample Sorting & Characterization Form (back) CIWMB Waste Characterization 2008 C&D / WOOD OTHER ORGANICS Concrete Food CIWMB Waste Characterization 2008 Asphalt Paving (_ %Leaves)&Grass If found please call 208 443-0759.Reward offered, Asphalt Shingles Small Prunings<4' Tar Paper/Felt Branches&Stumps Roofing Mask Manures Bull-up Roofing Texties NOTES: Other Asphalt Roofing Cafpe1 Dimensional Lumber R/C Organic Engineered Wood ELECTRONICS Pallets&Crates Brown Goods Other Wood Large Computer Clean Gypsum Board Small Computer Painted Gypsum Board Small Bedrocks Rock,Soi&Fines Display Deuces MC Demo_ HAZARDOUS WASTE • SPECIAL WASTE Pain) Ash Vehicle Fluids Sewage Sdids Used Oil Industrial Sludge Lead-add Batteries Treated Medal Other Batteries Silky Items Sharps Sharps Count: Vehide Tires Pharmaceuticals(w/o coati Other Tires Fluorescents/Mercury Items R/C Special R/C Hazardous_ MIXED RESIDUE J IHotted Residual I I If found•lease call 208-343-9759. Reward offered. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 127 Vehicle Survey Form (front) Oak 1_1_ OMNI Vents Characterization Study 2008 IN*.____or___. — Survey Sale Surveyor Tes sheet Warted al NA Ofn Olininanno leaser wi ems site Checked by IIIRP A Non•ClID ,...ki,g, Settee All VeNcles COM Self-Haut ? Load? Surveyor's Notes If needed for net servile record leenselbseet ID I Veneta Typo Jurrsdation Soren From Consbuctron Zitor Isle Weight of Load Its hoot SF singotanOly of stmt.] OF mulliffmt resnlential Ono —..No•Not ion Const Sit Activity that Mamba. 00*.. COSA coirinertial ' N•new coosbuceon Generated UR Y•Yes OrWo setts If ,,,,,, ,,X in the CSH corarnornai sorwout Rworhodol 0.4%Nast* N•No eery arorn aa idiom car ite boot PSI4 arstdenhe seff-aia V yes -: D•denharips tha lame Passe/ rho toad • RF•rooling was . - . OC•other odd Dorsal unis sample:1 %$F %&V SICOM... 11.0311 OASIS Otreoset tans Mr yob Cr Pirko No N R 0 RF OC, L. 0 Y N trimi et yo No N it 0 RF OC L 0 ON ■ i .s„. NON R ORFOC L 0 Y N tons to yds No N R D RF OC LO ON No N it 0 RF OC I. 0 Y N ens to yo No N R D RF OC L 0 ON No N R 0 RF OC L 0 ON tons Ls vo No N R 0 RF OC L 0 ON No N R 0 RF OC I. 0 ON est es ye No N Ft D OF CC L 0 ON NON R DRFOC L 0 ON Sons Os yrs, No N Fl D RF OC L 0 TN NO N R 0 RF OC I. 0 V N ens itis Yrs .. NoN R DRFOC LO ON No N R 0 RF OC 1. 0 ON tons Os yls No N R D OF OC 1 0 ON No R 0RFOC, LO Y N errs Ft sris No N R D RF OC L 0 ON No N la 0 90 00 L 0 004 tons Of lonf I No N R D RF CC L 0 ON NON Fl 0RFOC L 0 Y N Orons to ylo No N R D OF OC 1 0 ON . If bowel pleas.cal 2084419700 Reward offered MMMIIINIMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITIIIINNNIINI Contr,-v-d,d .--, Ber-dd to tH Board 1,-'illfur.1 ) ): B:=t1(,,,,v0e 'L.,'.'dte '7,1-Lit,ictr,rcitIon Study 128 Vehicle Survey Form (back) GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS CMMB Waste Characterization Study 200e Make entries neatly in pen Enter the information at the top of each page.Enter total i of pages on each page at the end of the day. Enter the net weight of the load.If the operator measures self-haul bads by volume,record the volume and indicate that the unit is"yds". lithe load is from a construction she.circle only one of the activities in the For Construcion Site column. If load is not If its a commercial hauler askit load is MRF residuals. If you make an error on an entry.draw a line through the entire entry and start over on a new tee. STEP-SYSTEP INSTRUCTIONS CHECK IN WITH GATEHOUSE STAFF Confirm the method for getting net weighs. AS THE VEHICLE ARRIVES RECORD THE TYPE OF VEHICLE ON THE SURVEY SHEET AMEN A VEHICLE ARRIVES,STOP THE VEHICLE.THEN BEGIN OUESTIONS. ALL DRIVERS: Introduction:"Hello,the California Integrated Waste Management Board is conducting a survey today" Ask the driver what sector generated the load If you circle more than one sector,be sire to ask the driver for the estimated%of each Commercially collected residential:Single-family(SF) Waste that is collected by a commercial hauler from single-family residences Commerctaly collected residential'Mulrtamdy IMF I Waste that is collected by a commercial halo from multi-unit structures with greeter than 4 units Commercially collected commercial(COM) Waste disposed by businesses,industries(factories.farms,etc.).and governments(schools,highways.parks. Self-hauled residential(RSHI Waste hauled to a disposal site by a resident from their home Self-hauled commercial(CSH) Waste hauled to a disposal site by commercial enterpnse(e.g landscaper.contractor.etc.).even if source of ASK THE DRIVER IS THE LOAD IS FROM A CONSTRUCTION SITE. IF DRIVER IS FROM A CONSTRUCTION SITE.ASK. If it Is a CEO load.ask the diner what Activity generated the waste. New construction(NC) Construction materials generated from the construction of new buildings Remodel(R) Construction or demolition materials generated Iran the remodeling of buildings Materials generated from the teamg down of any facility,structure pavement or building.(wall,fence)whether in Demolition(DI whole or in part,whether interior or eidenor Roofing(RF) Waste generated by the installation or replacement of roofs Other construction&demolition(OC) Waste generated by construction or demolition of buildings,not included in categories above IF DRIVER IS NOT FROM A CONSTRUCTION SITE-ASK' If d is a not C&D load,ask the driver what=Mx generated the waste. Landscaping(L) Waste generated by landscaping or other yard care activities Other(0) Waste not included in above categories ASK COMMERCIALLY HAULED LOADS IF LOAD CONTAINS MRF RESIDUALS RECORD NET WEIGHTS If found please cal,206-343-9769.Reward offered. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 129 Snapshot of Multifamily Site Recruitment Database (Page 1) ©Microsofl Access [irmRecruitj i p1I® :3 Be Edit Yfrm nsert Pofmat Eecords IQ* W► deb '. _.1 Tdgma i 6 8 1 '41 Y J .l l• �.� SRe ID 2 Conparyllane: 'Siena Carman*AO ... _ Recruiter qi e ' � .-. ° ,sue # RemMbrKnt Date. Recniment r ;saz,*rc e .i+rr z"(�r t !.10119'2W7 Reward Data Entered 6anwal CoMaeta D O Schedule Sanpb id l,Pr*''R y i b s,'Ro,ds Creek`la'nd`4l ti [{f NuAmbYeAr R 7►EpaTrdT nOeBUILDINGS s DD'K3�0 a u r 5 k,a.4 j u + '-� ,® Cdure Md0«Pad xh". � a*t' t 9647 a " k' .{Y � , .:would Ike some herald document about study�C dsnbalty bought an fist vst `•Hauler.Wade ManspemsM r• €1 ■ r 'C.', Record: Q r 2 0m►r d 65 Form Mew Nu►1 ,, start r's�M... �I... YF•,. �E..• YM... "._ C. '�= R... �,® ssl;�ri IIIIIIIIIIIIII Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 130 Snapshot of Multifamily Site Recruitment Database (Page 2) ©Microsoft Access ,frmRecruitl c���i--� e e WI , e wrm« ehh orik I YNv tiab _ a x rahome - e '101 U,,i E W -i Site ID 2' Cowpii Naahr.iSNna Conahhonc�Apt Recruiter 'rommxys..v 9, '1 Rea+�nKnt Dete R.cnmmlat ay#" r "A: 10119f201t7 RecruitedData Enteral E •1 •ff . = `{ry �p�, F z y 6anwal W Ce tads Dhhhhgslwf 0 SaAadda Saahpla ftreahw Mat I 'beam wrbao. ... ... „umber of -- DaagntMR 00 oaaortUR 2' . CaetaYtara L ___. Container _.. A A to LocatMn& Container container Access Container Pick-up ID No. Desc iption 5fkae Type Procedures Locked? Schedule Pick-up Frequency Pick-up days/tune=in um CIZMI 11 ��1�warkh�� more„111.11111 1 WNW ®® Wry =�{ II IRS NI Pe`MIMI more» more» v Record: It I i' 110113 d 1 Record.m0 2 km.®d 65 Form Men 1 1 r s start ,M... ®1... 9e F,,. .j E... 9e M.., lb f... C.., T_ R... _ fC: 5;54 PJ? Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 131 Multifamily Site Visit Form (page 1) La Roca Plaza Apts. 10/27/2008 Santee 92071 Sampling Season: Fall On-site Contact: MEM Manager �- Sampling Facility: Phone: Sycamore Sanitary Landfill Other co Permission: Manager Data: Hauler: Manager General Phone: Substream #1 : MSW Container# I Description: W/M Type: dumpster : Multifamily Site Visit Form (Page 2) Substream #1 : MSW Container# 2 Description: sAp Type: dumpster Sampling vVindo%.Ai. Locked? Access Procedures Pick-op Sche,.:Iwe time(s) per Trash is taken out Before sampling: inches Width Length Height After sampling: inches Width _ength Height Time of Measurements: Time of Last Pick-up: Container# 3 Description: sAp Type: dumpster Sampling Window Locked? Access Procedures 0 Pick-up Schedule time(s) per Trash is taken out: Before sampling: inches Width Length Height After sampling: inches Width Length Height Time of Measurements: Time of Last Pick-up: Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 133 Roofing Sample Form Sample ID Date Facility Sector Material Type CS=Asphalt Roofing Composition Shingles Tar=Roofing Tar Paper/Felt RM=Roofing Mastic BR=Built-up Roofing 0=Other Asphalt Roofing Material ex. SH1-CS 15-Jan Bass COM RES cm, CS SH1-Tar 15-Jan Bass COM RES Tar COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH_ COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH _ COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COMRESSH_ _ COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH COM RES SH Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 134 Special Study Form Sample ID Survey Site Date I I Surveyor Please indicate with hash marks the number of each item found in the load. Check here if nothing was Tires found in load. Auto batteries Brown goods Computer-related electronics-Large Video display devices Major appliances U Check the box if this load was hand sorted. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Stucy 135 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form (Page 1) Name of site: 1. SCHEDULE Range of dates for sampling and surveying: 7 Jan 9-30,2008 and July 7-23,2008 April 7-23,2008 and Oct 6-24,2008 Dates that definitely will not work: Can we have access to a loader? Would it be available throughout the day? 2. TONNAGE&VEHICLE QUANTITIES Does the facility have a MRF? Yes No On Average what%of loads are MRF'ed? How many total tons of disposed waste does the facility receive daily? How many tons from transfer vehicles? biosolids? How many vehicles enter on a weekday,on average? Weekday Saturday Sunday Transfer trucks Residential-packers Haulers with business waste Roll-offs (trucks carrying commercial, industrial,government, Packers or military,or multifamily waste) compactors Self-haul vehicles Total Vehicle Count Peak times of day on a weekday? For transfer trucks: For haulers with residential waste: For haulers with business waste: For haulers with C&D waste: For self-haul vehicles, including contractors and landscapers: Are there any days during which you do not receive waste from one of these types of loads? **Can we have one weekday's transaction records? 3. FACILITY CONTACT INFORMATION Physical address: City,Zip: ISite owner/operator: Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 136 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form (Page 2) Person approving use of the site: Mailing address: City,Zip: Phone: Person with data about the site: Phone: Email: Fax: On-site manager or supervisor(primary contact for logistics): Phone: Email: Will this person be available on the indicated dates? Contact person for crew when they arrive the morning of sampling: Phone: Backup contact: Phone: Scalehouse contact: Phone: Correspondence should be sent to: 4. SITE TRAFFIC INFORMATION Facility's hours of operation: M T W Th F Sat Sun Do you accept vehicles before opening the gate to the public? If so,what hours do vehicles start arriving? (Fax or e-mail the definitions of waste sectors to the data contact person at the facility.) Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 137 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form (Page 3) 5. SITE INFORMATION Do you close early if you have reached your allowed daily tonnage amount? Yes No Estimate how many times per month this happens. /month Are there site conditions we need to be aware of such as high winds,snakes or other animals, or other special circumstances? Would it be possible for the sorting crew to be there when the site is closed,for example after hours or on weekends if needed? How many gatehouses does your facility have? How many scales? Do different types of vehicles go to different gatehouses—i.e.,all self-haul going to one scale? If yes,please explain. 6. NET WEIGHT PROCEDURES Do all vehicles get weighed? If not,which types of vehicles don't get weighed? Drivers of loads will be surveyed at the entrance throughout the day. The survey is very brief, involving just a few questions. We also will need to learn the net weight of each vehicle that we survey. We may give the driver of each vehicle a numbered card to hand to your gatehouse staff when the driver leaves the facility. Can your gatehouse staff write the net weight of each vehicle on each card? 7. MATERIAL HANDLING Other than MRFing,what materials are recovered at this site? How and when are vehicles diverted so that recovered materials can be separated from disposed waste? Material How and when diverted The purpose of the study is to take samples of disposed wastes only. How can we sample from vehicles after they have had materials recovered? Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 138 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form (Page 4) 8. SAMPLING AND SORTING PROCEDURES We need an area for the sorting crew to work in for the entire time we will be at the site. It should be about the size of two truck bays. Can the site accommodate this? Where do you think that will be? Crews have hardhats,orange vests,coveralls, boots,and gloves. Are there any other safety equipment or special procedures you want them to use? We need access to the load for enough time to collect the sample.After a load is tipped on the ground,the sorting crew will designate which part of the load should be picked up by the loader and moved to the sorting area. We expect that it will take from two to five minutes to obtain a sample. Is this okay? Some loads we will need to leave on the floor five to seven minutes in order to collect sub- samples or characterized other aspects of the load. Is this okay? 9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION What hauling companies do you work with primarily? Who should we contact to notify them about the study that will take place on the two days at your facility? Company: Contact person: Phone: Mailing address: In order to communicate with all drivers,we will develop translation cards that show the survey questions in several languages.What are the most common languages used by the drivers of vehicles that arrive at your facility? _English Spanish Other: 10.FINAL LOGISTICS Can you please send me a plan or map of the area where we could sample (taken from permit) Any other special circumstances we need to be aware of? We will send you a copy of our insurance policy. Is there anything else you need from us? Please remember to notify gate personnel of the dates we will be visiting your facility. The CIWMB may wish to set up site visits during sorting for Board staff to observe fieldwork for the project. Is this okay? Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 139 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form (Page 5) 11. AGRICULTURAL PLASTICS The Board is collecting information to assist in the development of diversion opportunities for agricultural plastics(as well as other types of plastic). Does your facility receive any agricultural plastics? Yes No If yes,see table below Does your facility have a ban on any agricultural plastic materials?Yes No If yes,which materials are banned? Do other facilities within 25 miles have a ban of agricultural plastic materials? Yes No If yes,which facility or facilities? Information on agricultural plastic material received: Type Annual amount Source(s)—s tons (preferred) �s) specific Month(s)of year or cu yd farms,crops, if known received Film—mulch,fumigation _ Film-greenhouse cover (hoop house) Film—other(from silage, manure piles,feed bags, etc.) Irrigation materials(drip _ tape, sprinklers,drip tubing, pipe,etc.) _ Pesticide containers Nursery containers (pots&trays/flats) _ Other ag plastics Do you have any diversion programs/opportunities at your site for agricultural plastics? Yes No If yes, describe, include tons diverted Do you know of any other diversion opportunities/practices in the area for agricultural plastics? Yes No If yes, please describe Do you have any other comments about agricultural plastics? Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 140 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form (Page 6) 12. SPECIAL ORGANICS There may be regulatory changes in the future that affect the disposal of certain types of organic materials, i.e.,non-disposal options may decrease,which may mean that the disposal of these materials in landfills may be increasing. Does your facility receive any of the following materials? Type Annual amount Source(s) Increase in amount tons(preferred) received in recent or cu yd years?(yes, no) Biosolids(treated sewage sludge) Food processing waste Manure Grape pomace (certain counties only) Grape Pomace Counties: Alameda El Dorado Kings Merced Sacramento Santa Barbara Stanislaus Amador Fresno Lake Monterey San Benito Santa Clara Tulare Colusa Glenn Madera Napa San Joaquin Solano Yob Contra Costa Kern Mendocino Riverside San Luis Obispo Sonoma Do you have any other comments? 13. BENEFICIAL RE-USE OF INERT DEBRIS Background: Facilities must report on alternative daily cover used, but they often lump all beneficial re-use of materials under ADC. Does your facility use inert debris for beneficial re-use such as road base or wet weather pads? Yes No If yes,what are the actual uses and tons of inerts for each? Type of Use Tons of Inerts Used Possible uses are: alternative daily cover(ADC),alternative intermediate cover(AIC),final cover foundation layer,liner operations layer, leachate and landfill gas collection system,construction fill,road base,wet weather operations pads and access roads,and soil amendments for erosion control and landscaping(reference:Title 27 California Code of Regulations (CCR),Division 2,Subdivision 1,Chapter 3,Subchapter 4,Articles 1,Sections 20510-20660.) 11111111.1111111111111101111.1111111.111111111,1111111111111111 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 141 Solid Waste Facility Recruitment Form (Page 7) 14. MRF Residuals As the Board looks at ways to increase the diversion of materials from landfills,conversion technology(or emerging technology)could be a possible option. MRF residuals could be a feedstock for this new technology. Does your facility receive any residuals from material recovery facilities(MRFs)? Yes No Name of facility delivering Type of facility if known(ss Annual amount residuals =single stream,MS—multi- tons (preferred)or cu yd stream,C&D,mixed waste/dirty MRF) Do you have any other comments? Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 142 Snapshot of Waste Composition Data Entry Database D Waste enataGtetnaren Data tmty t,mty,) r4:X ..x t a to w.*.Po.o mmtd To, goo. n�a ■ CIWMB Data Entry 2008 Sample ID: IExemplrl sae: l r-- Dae soaa i.Sky.luM smvov no.. , MIND Da cza Photo Take Nomk ® ❑Dive,Nbility Sample Nambat of Sharps: Weothu check d bad: • ❑6locety Bag Sample Peteent leaves: dod,Pumd. Gam w. Seam' sen.d,de m Site Notes SORT w.y:I d I I k I D ®� Last Neat Nosy_ C W IS leaf Wa.M Qwanatr.l.t Sea* IAfJWete_L• W ettetl: W measu mewl tu: ki J5Na•_Ih M#••Jk IN_One lass Paw of ixrdogeyst MF stet w Go to Sae < >(NEW Sie/Dq» bv.d: N r i OmI)dl Rem& NO 1 •Ell CEO a It Ilia foie Now 1111111111111111111111111111112111111/111111111.1111111111"1111.11111111111111111111111111.1111111111111111111.11.1111/1rMilIM Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 143 Snapshot of Vehicle Survey Data Entry Spreadsheet E Microsoft Excel-MII4 season vehicle surveyc7_12.xts ':Thif,fki I y1. IA MN. Cwt t'rr.tt. Io.M CAA Win. IW $44.••• Al t Dad • C D F • 0 » I K i L i. M 'i. N 0 i • 0 : » i / _ T I U. V V % V 1 i n tT'! _..• Y1LkMT_ mesV 7- ND•NarranCa". M4 v..•N.rw et*Nt 0mm. IIII !L Mneede .1Vwe E0 ......r... o-aMeum OC.atl.r M1 Qat'7 . 11.ri=a�7Fr"1 r-7./©O-- =OM ==1==1= .E » c r .r 2a =o= -^-= O.sr.==Maw OO�rs A s i;AAA s sr r=a©IMO=OI=MI tI=O1O O OOO »! r f7AIII=OM—WIN Ot.^—=ram OT_.f__OO■OI"S._7r 1 .vxuv s r.-71r..aMN oo IO0o==BOO r-s---——— -i . O INKINtlIMIN=000 .— +., r- �oa■or=r^� . ��0?�e��000�:?.c_ -_ AI 7 w. . --.•-'•� �00?�===000 x' r rr�00�o��-= -- ,._ . _ 000 c� A. - r-f10 a■O O'^'_'O O�..ar7O�..�.'O===I O_TL7O=OOO tJ.:'� s' - r-7.rr 000a=^-^����o�O�a0O0r0o==000 n • it w 1/111=21©OOI=CM 7 NO OSO• O=Oil O=1111=111= _A, r:R•1/C.7711OOI=MI .11E77=111 .• OrOtfmEN OOIO•ss: M Win-All©OOI OIIIII tOt OOe��OOO�.� xs' r.:.l���•7 O 000 . •Ot,•70070<O�'fl=_MEN O�_:_� •: r—rrr—a=oo O■I0s.0 moms 00O0m= n. mar-y- _---a�-±� �•O Or:��im we 000 � b; N r-7�©ago 07.0=. BO=00Oo f" r77 rJ O=11O=O"^�O =K.OTOr=OOOO ∎ n. so r'"77©O—O ___ O O[• NOFOlIOIE�OO■ S•a N r-zM©a�lo O�0*:�oO�O00 � »: r- r©ago NO OCOe��OOO � ,_ r a-77111.. -��..r-a..� . O—_wO_.__OOO—u b r.-ir ICJ O—INN=DM r-.•�- ONOxOO111111111111OO MIN--z— is n r-srn7aMI o ONE===OOO � K t-_S©OBI=O • Oil Ot1OM Ole 0�.':!:'Ot 1T .s r"Z7 MGM OMEIO= .. . NO OxOe==iOOO111===11 Is▪ it c r.• .7 f.:7 OOI O _ _ .. OMMM O.OI OEOtf__OO O 111// :.... ss M mew . sr r�-rroa∎OO-» ��OxOe��000 � N . r-rioa�or^-� . NAM=OT>•e==MIN=0 N n 0o ri-7r©OOM— ��=EMI=r.MI 000�—� M' .�. .M r^l,©OMI= OMEI=AM MilirLO1 MIN=0—.--ion• e'mw n sr s * p a MI O y• 0 000=000 » .'• \Z.,i s.m/sftr 3/s.o o. Am...L./stZttirccu Lt./ "" k J ..+ar MI' IIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIITIIIIMIIIIIIIII Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 144 Appendix D: Expanded Statewide Waste Characterization Tables 1.11.1.===••■•=immil■■•■■•"■1 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 145 Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 146 This Appendix contains waste composition tables using the expanded list of 85 detailed material types. Definitions of the types can be found in Appendix B: List and Definitions of Material Types. Overall Disposed Waste Stream Figure 39: Overview of California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream Est. Special Waste Mixed Residue Material Class Percent 0 HHW 3.9% 0.8% Paper Paper 17.3% 0.3% 17.3% Glass 1.4% Inerts and Glass Metal 4.6% Other 1 4% Electronics 0.5% 29.1% Metal Plastic 9.6% 4.6% Other Organic 32.4% -- Electronics lnerts and Other 29.1% 0.5% HHW 0.3% Plastic Special Waste 3.9% i 9.6% Mixed Residue 0.8% Total 100% Other Organic 32.4% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Table 49: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream Using Expanded Material Types Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Food 15.5% 15.5% 6,158,120 Other Wood Waste 6.4% 21.9% 2,551,044 Remainder/Composite lnerts and Other 5.5% 27.4% 2,175,322 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 4.8% 32.2% 1,905,897 All Other Remainder/Composite Paper 4.5% 36.7% 1,796,617 Remainder/Composite Organic 4.3% 41.1% 1,719,743 Leaves and Grass 3.8% 44.9% 1,512,832 Bulky Items 3.5% 48.4% 1,393,091 Carpet 3.2% 51.6% 1,285,473 Rock, Soil and Fines 3.2% 54.8% 1,259,308 Total 54.8% 21,757,447 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 147 Table 50: Composition of California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream Using Expanded Material Types Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent +/- Tons Material Percent +/- Tons Paper 17.3% 6,859,121 Other Organic 32.4% 12,888,039 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 4.8% 1.4% 1,905,897 Food 15.5% 1.9% 6,158,120 Paper Bags 0.4% 0.1% 155,848 Leaves and Grass 3.8% 0.7% 1,512,832 Newspaper 1.3% 0.4% 499,960 Prunings and Trimmings 2.7% 1.5% 1,058,854 White Ledger Paper 0.7% 0.3% 259,151 Branches and Stumps 0.6% 0.4% 245,830 Other Office Paper 1.2% 0.6% 472,147 Manures 0.1% 0.1% 20,373 Magazines and Catalogs 0.7% 0.2% 283,069 Textiles 2.2% 0.3% 886,814 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.0% 24,149 Carpet 3.2% 2.0% 1,285,473 Other Miscellaneous Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.2% 0.0% 86,591 Remainder/Composite Organic 4.3% 0.5% 1,719,743 All Other Miscellaneous Paper 2.8% 0.6% 1,115,763 Remainder/Composite Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.7% 0.2% 259,929 Inerts and Other 29.1% 11,577,768 All Other Remainder/Composite Paper 4.5% 1.1% 1,796,617 Concrete 1.2% 0.4% 483,367 Asphalt Paving 0.3% 0.4% 129,834 Glass 1.4% 565,844 Asphalt Composition Shingles 1.6% 1.3% 637,912 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.5% 0.1% 196,093 Roofing Tar Paper/Felt 0.3% 0.1% 100,648 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.2% 0.1% 79,491 Roofing Mastic 0.0% 0.1% 18,559 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.3% 0.1% 108,953 Built-up Roofing 0.3% 0.5% 108,162 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.1% 0.0% 40,570 Other Asphalt Roofing Material 0.6% 0.4% 256,664 Flat Glass 0.1% 0.1% 33,899 Clean Dimensional Lumber 3.0% 0.9% 1,184,375 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.3% 0.1% 106,838 Clean Engineered Wood 2.7% 0.8% 1,054,198 Clean Pallets and Crates 2.5% 0.9% 975,866 Other Wood Waste 6.4% 1.6% 2,551,044 Metal 4.6% 1,809,684 Clean Gypsum Board 1.1% 0.7% 449,097 Tin/Steel Cans 0.6% 0.2% 236,405 Painted/Demolition Gypsum Board 0.5% 0.2% 193,414 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.1% 17,120 Rock,Soil and Fines 3.2% 1.1% 1,259,308 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 3,610 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 5.5% 1.3% 2,175,322 Other Ferrous 2.0% 0.4% 801,704 Aluminum Cans 0.1% 0.0% 47,829 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 120,752 Other Non-Ferrous 0.2% 0.1% 84,268 Paint 0.1% 0.1% 48,025 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.6% 0.5% 618,747 Vehicle&Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 6,424 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 3,348 Electronics 0.5% 216,297 Lead-acid(automotive)Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 5,728 Brown Goods 0.2% 0.1% 76,725 Other Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 13,353 Computer-related Electronics-Large 0.1% 0.1% 26,357 Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 1,009 Computer-related Electronics-Small 0.0% 0.0% 6,574 Pharmaceuticals 0.0% 0.0% 5,887 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.1% 0.0% 34,588 Fluorescent Lights/Other Mercury-containing Items 0.0% 0.0% 1,057 Video Display Devices 0.2% 0.1% 72,053 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.1% 0.1% 35,920 Plastic 9.6% 3,807,952 Special Waste 3.9% 1,546,470 PETE Water Bottles 0.1% 0.0% 51,706 Ash 0.1% 0.1% 40,736 PETE Sealed Containers 0.0% 0.0% 18,477 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 0.3% 0.1% 129,460 Bulky Items 3.5% 1.2% 1,393,091 PLA Water Bottles 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Truck Tires 0.1% 0.1% 23,627 HDPE Containers 0.4% 0.1% 157,779 Other Tires 0.1% 0.1% 36,553 #347 Sealed Containers 0.0% 0.0% 18,127 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.1% 0.1% 52,463 #347 Other Containers 0.4% 0.1% 144,881 Plastic Trash Bags 0.9% 0.1% 361,997 Mixed Residue 0.8% 330,891 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.3% 0.0% 123,405 Mixed Residue 0.8% 0.2% 330,891 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.5% 0.2% 194,863 Film Products 0.3% 0.2% 113,566 Food Contact Film Packaging 0.4% 0.2% 154,250 Other Film 1.0% 0.2% 399,752 HDPE Buckets 0.2% 0.1% 79,108 #347 Buckets 0.0% 0.0% 504 Durable Plastic Items 1.9% 0.4% 755,357 Totals 100.0% 39,722,818 Remainder/Composite Plastic 2.8% 0.7% 1,104,719 Sample Count 751 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. Contractor s Rport to the Board California 0 8 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 148 Commercial Waste Figure 40: Overview of Commercial Disposed Waste Special Waste Mixed Residue 3.1% 0.1% Paper Est. HHW 20.7% Material Class Percent 0.3% Paper 20.7% VI Glass Glass 1.2% 1.2% Inerts and Metal 4.5% Other Metal Electronics 0.5% 27.8% 4.5% Plastic 11.3% Electronics Other Organic 30.4% 0.5% Inerts and Other 27.8% Plastic HHW 0.3% 0 11.3/° Special Waste 3.1% Other Organic Mixed Residue 0.1% 0 30.4 o Total 100% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Table 51: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Commercial Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Food 15.4% 15.4% 3,032,805 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 7.2% 22.7% 1,423,530 Other Wood Waste 5.4% 28.1% 1,064,767 All Other Remainder/Composite Paper 5.3% 33.4% 1,046,361 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 5.1% 38.4% 994,839 Remainder/Composite Plastic 4.0% 42.4% 788,056 Clean Pallets and Crates 3.8% 46.2% 746,760 Clean Dimensional Lumber 3.7% 50.0% 730,278 Carpet 3.5% 53.5% 697,461 Prunings and Trimmings 3.3% 56.8% 658,051 Total 56.8% 11,182,909 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 149 Table 52: Composition of Commercial Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est Est. Est, Est. Material Percent +I- Tons Material Percent +/- Tons Paper 20.7% 4,072,311 Other Organic 30.4% 5,982,161 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 7.2% 2.8% 1,423,530 Food 15.4% 3.7% 3,032,805 Paper Bags 0.4% 0.2% 71,741 Leaves and Grass 3.0% 1.0% 584,919 Newspaper 1.0% 0.4% 190,237 Prunings and Trimmings 3.3% 2.9% 658,051 White Ledger Paper 1.0% 0.6% 202,791 Branches and Stumps 0.5% 0.5% 100,513 Other Office Paper 1.3% 1.2% 249,456 Manures 0.0% 0.0% 149 Magazines and Catalogs 0.6% 0.3% 117,828 Textiles 1.4% 0.4% 279,563 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.1% 11,220 Carpet 3.5% 3.6% 697,461 Other Miscellaneous Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.2% 0.1% 31,834 Remainder/Composite Organic 3.2% 0.8% 628,700 All Other Miscellaneous Paper 2.8% 1.0% 555,402 Remainder/Composite Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.9% 0.4% 171,910 Inerts and Other 27.8% 5,461,616 Al Other Remainder/Composite Paper 5.3% 2.1% 1,046,361 Concrete 0.9% 0.5% 167,312 Asphalt Paving 0.0% 0.0% 4,786 Glass 1.2% 245,547 Asphalt Composition Shingles 1.5% 2.5% 304,841 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.4% 0.2% 85,349 Roofing Tar Paper/Felt 0.2% 0.2% 34,811 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.2% 0.1% 29,764 Roofing Mastic 0.0% 0.0% 575 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.3% 0.1% 51,366 Built-up Roofing 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 7,798 Other Asphalt Roofing Material 0.6% 0.6% 115,474 Flat Glass 0.1% 0.1% 16,927 Clean Dimensional Lumber 3.7% 1.6% 730,278 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.3% 0.2% 54,343 Clean Engineered Wood 2.8% 1.2% 546,861 Clean Pallets and Crates 3.8% 1.5% 746,760 Other Wood Waste 5.4% 2.1% 1,064,767 Metal 4.5% 880,362 Clean Gypsum Board 1.1% 1.2% 216,249 Tin/Steel Cans 0.6% 0.3% 113,789 Painted/Demolition Gypsum Board 0.4% 0.3% 84,454 Major Appliances 0.1% 0.1% 17,120 Rock,Soil and Fines 2.3% 1.4% 449,609 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 234 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 5.1% 2.0% 994,839 Other Ferrous 2.0% 0.6% 398,270 Aluminum Cans 0.1% 0.0% 20,169 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 55,007 Other Non-Ferrous 0.2% 0.1% 43,557 Paint 0.2% 0.2% 41,084 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.5% 0.8% 287,223 Vehicle&Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 1,076 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 146 Electronics 0.5% 96,710 Lead-acid(automotive)Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 49 Brown Goods 0.2% 0.1% 38,583 Other Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 4,719 Computer-related Electronics-Large 0.0% 0.0% 2,363 Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 357 Computer-related Electronics-Small 0.0% 0.0% 323 Pharmaceuticals 0.0% 0.0% 722 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.1% 0.0% 10,516 Fluorescent Lights/Other Mercury-containing Items 0.0% 0.0% 346 Video Display Devices 0.2% 0.3% 44,926 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.0% 0.0% 6,508 Plastic 11.3% 2,232,684 Special Waste 3.1% 617,641 PETE Water Bottles 0.1% 0.1% 24,552 Ash 0.2% 0.2% 32,314 PETE Sealed Containers 0.0% 0.0% 8,153 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 0.3% 0.1% 56,471 Bulky Items 2.5% 1.7% 489,093 PLA Water Bottles 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Truck Tires 0.1% 0.1% 23,452 HDPE Containers 0.4% 0.1% 74,261 Other Tires 0.2% 0.3% 32,248 #347 Sealed Containers 0.1% 0.1% 11,121 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.2% 0.3% 40,534 #347 Other Containers 0.4% 0.2% 73,179 Plastic Trash Bags 1.2% 0.3% 233,075 Mixed Residue 0.1% 28,507 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.2% 0.1% 43,671 Mixed Residue 0.1% 0.1% 28,507 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.8% 0.4% 166,675 Film Products 0.2% 0.1% 38,321 Food Contact Film Packaging 0.5% 0.4% 98,185 Other Film 1.2% 0.5% 231,259 HDPE Buckets 0.3% 0.2% 61,678 #347 Buckets 0.0% 0.0% 261 Durable Plastic Items 1.6% 0.5% 323,765 Totals 100.0% 19,672,547 Remainder/Composite Plastic 4.0% 1.4% 788,056 Sample Count 250 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. COntraCiOr S Report tO the Board Californ a hoP St it , ,`v ante Characterization Study 150 Residential Waste Figure 41: Overview of Overall Residential Disposed Waste Special Waste Mixed Residue HHW 1.5% 2.5% 0.3% Est. Inerts and Paper Material Class Percent Other 19.6% Paper 19.6% 11.2% Glass Glass 2.4% 0 2.4/° Metal 4.0% Metal Electronics 0.7% 7-4.0% Plastic 9.2% Electronics Other Organic 48.6% 0'7% Inerts and Other 11.2% Plastic HHW 0.3% Other Organic 9.2% Special Waste 1.5% 48.6 0° Mixed Residue 2.5% Total 100% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Table 53: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Overall Residential Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Food 25.4% 25.4% 3,034,040 Remainder/Composite Organic 8.4% 33.8% 1,002,937 Leaves and Grass 6.0% 39.8% 715,353 All Other Remainder/Composite Paper 5.4% 45.3% 648,650 Other Wood Waste 4.3% 49.6% 518,368 Textiles 4.2% 53.8% 506,658 All Other Miscellaneous Paper 4.1% 57.9% 486,397 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 2.8% 60.8% 339,929 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 2.7% 63.5% 323,058 Mixed Residue 2.5% 66.0% 297,515 Total 66.0% 7,872,906 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 151 Table 54: Composition of Overall Residential Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent +/- Tons Material Percent +/- Tons Paper 19.6% 2,337,272 Other Organic 48.6% 5,800,260 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 2.7% 0.9% 323,058 Food 25.4% 2.2% 3,034,040 Paper Bags 0.5% 0.1% 59,705 Leaves and Grass 6.0% 1.3% 715,353 Newspaper 2.4% 0.9% 288,196 Prunings and Trimmings 1.9% 0.7% 225,375 White Ledger Paper 0.4% 0.1% 43,352 Branches and Stumps 0.1% 0.1% 17,032 Other Office Paper 1.7% 0.6% 203,895 Manures 0.2% 0.2% 20,224 Magazines and Catalogs 1.3% 0.2% 153,431 Textiles 4.2% 0.7% 506,658 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.1% 11,929 Carpet 2.3% 2.2% 278,641 Other Miscellaneous Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.4% 0.1% 52,591 Remainder/Composite Organic 8.4% 1.1% 1,002,937 All Other Miscellaneous Paper 4.1% 1.1% 486,397 Remainder/Composite Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.6% 0.1% 66,066 Inerts and Other 11.2% 1,340,446 All Other Remainder/Composite Paper 5.4% 1.3% 648,650 Concrete 0.5% 0.4% 63,281 Asphalt Paving 0.0% 0.0% 544 Glass 2.4% 282,933 Asphalt Composition Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 2,372 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.9% 0.2% 106,493 Roofing Tar Paper/Felt 0.1% 0.1% 8,381 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.4% 0.1% 48,187 Roofing Mastic 0.0% 0.0% 1,975 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.5% 0.2% 55,403 Built-up Roofing 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.2% 0.1% 29,633 Other Asphalt Roofing Material 0.1% 0.1% 9,282 Flat Glass 0.0% 0.0% 1,125 Clean Dimensional Lumber 0.6% 0.3% 74,475 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.4% 0.2% 42,093 Clean Engineered Wood 0.6% 0.4% 71,483 Clean Pallets and Crates 1.1% 1.2% 130,571 Other Wood Waste 4.3% 3.0% 518,368 Metal 4.0% 478,431 Clean Gypsum Board 0.1% 0.0% 7,013 Tin/Steel Cans 1.0% 0.2% 115,920 Painted/Demolition Gypsum Board 0.2% 0.1% 21,572 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0 Rock,Soil and Fines 0.8% 0.5% 91,199 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 3,012 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 2.8% 1.8% 339,929 Other Ferrous 1.3% 0.4% 149,347 Aluminum Cans 0.2% 0.1% 26,171 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 34,117 Other Non-Ferrous 0.3% 0.1% 31,512 Paint 0.0% 0.0% 3,449 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.3% 0.4% 152,469 Vehicle&Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 4,252 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 2,843 Electronics 0.7% 86,262 Lead-acid(automotive)Batteries 0.0% 0.1% 5,680 Brown Goods 0.2% 0.1% 28,421 Other Batteries 0.1% 0.0% 7,696 Computer-related Electronics-Large 0.1% 0.1% 6,702 Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 636 Computer-related Electronics-Small 0.0% 0.0% 4,655 Pharmaceuticals 0.0% 0.0% 4,988 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.2% 0.1% 23,388 Fluorescent Lights/Other Mercury-containing Items 0.0% 0.0% 594 Video Display Devices 0.2% 0.2% 23,096 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.0% 0.0% 3,979 Plastic 9.2% 1,103,485 Special Waste 1.5% 174,453 PETE Water Bottles 0.2% 0.1% 25,767 Ash 0.1% 0.0% 6,960 PETE Sealed Containers 0.1% 0.0% 9,946 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 0.6% 0.2% 69,458 Bulky Items 1.3% 1.0% 154,051 PLA Water Bottles 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Truck Tires 0.0% 0.0% 7 HDPE Containers 0.7% 0.2% 78,846 Other Tires 0.0% 0.0% 2,563 #347 Sealed Containers 0.1% 0.0% 6,485 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.1% 0.1% 10,873 #3-#7 Other Containers 0.6% 0.1% 67,944 Plastic Trash Bags 0.9% 0.1% 109,464 Mixed Residue 2.5% 297,515 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.6% 0.1% 76,760 Mixed Residue 2.5% 0.8% 297,515 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.0% 0.0% 4,422 Film Products 0.1% 0.1% 6,428 Food Contact Film Packaging 0.5% 0.1% 54,793 Other Film 1.3% 0.2% 152,978 HDPE Buckets 0.1% 0.0% 7,661 #347 Buckets 0.0% 0.0% 65 Durable Plastic Items 1.9% 0.5% 230,454 Totals 100.0% 11,935,173 Remainder/Composite Plastic 1.7% 0.2% 202,017 Sample Count 251 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. tr l Report rt} / the o d I Ca! 1 l }}�l�L�the Board �/ Chaii1;,riiia 2008 Statewide Waste Characteiizahnn Study 152 Single-Family Residential Waste Figure 42: Overview of Single-Family Residential Disposed Waste Special Waste Mixed Residue 0.3% 3.0% HHW Paper Est. 0.3% 18.7% Material Class Percent Inerts and Glass Other 2.1% Paper 18.7% 9.6% Metal Glass 2.1% 4.1% Metal 4.1% Electronics 0.7% Electronics Plastic 10.0% 0.7% Other Organic 51.1% Plastic Inerts and Other 9.6% Other Organic 10.0% HHW 0.3% a 51.1 /o Special Waste 0.3% Mixed Residue 3.0% Total 100% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Table 55: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Single-Family Residential Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Food 26.5% 26.5% 2,277,194 Remainder/Composite Organic 8.3% 34.8% 708,770 Leaves and Grass 7.5% 42.3% 646,018 All Other Remainder/Composite Paper 5.9% 48.2% 505,554 Textiles 4.5% 52.7% 382,018 All Other Miscellaneous Paper 4.0% 56.6% 339,929 Mixed Residue 3.0% 59.6% 259,331 Other Wood Waste 2.9% 62.5% 250,240 Prunings and Trimmings 2.5% 65.1% 218,759 Durable Plastic Items 2.4% 67.5% 206,349 Total 67.5% 5,794,161 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 153 Table 56: Composition of Single-Family Residential Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent +1- Tons Material Percent +/- Tons Paper 18.7% 1,608,183 Other Organic 51.1% 4,389,119 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 2.1% 0.5% 176,011 Food 26.5% 2.2% 2,277,194 Paper Bags 0.5% 0.1% 42,817 Leaves and Grass 7.5% 1.7% 646,018 Newspaper 2.2% 0.6% 188,462 Prunings and Trimmings 2.5% 1.0% 218,759 White Ledger Paper 0.4% 0.1% 30,485 Branches and Stumps 0.2% 0.2% 17,032 Other Office Paper 1.4% 0.4% 118,662 Manures 0.2% 0.3% 20,224 Magazines and Catalogs 1.3% 0.2% 112,805 Textiles 4.5% 0.7% 382,018 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.1% 10,228 Carpet 1.4% 0.8% 119,105 Other Miscellaneous Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.4% 0.1% 32,051 Remainder/Composite Organic 8.3% 0.9% 708,770 All Other Miscellaneous Paper 4.0% 0.9% 339,929 Remainder/Composite Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.6% 0.1% 51,181 Inerts and Other 9.6% 823,269 All Other Remainder/Composite Paper 5.9% 1.3% 505,554 Concrete 0.7% 0.5% 63,228 Asphalt Paving 0.0% 0.0% 544 Glass 2.1% 179,435 Asphalt Composition Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 2,372 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.7% 0.1% 63,908 Roofing Tar Paper/Felt 0.1% 0.1% 8,316 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.4% 0.1% 30,567 Roofing Mastic 0.0% 0.0% 1,975 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.4% 0.1% 32,855 Built-up Roofing 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.2% 0.0% 15,985 Other Asphalt Roofing Material 0.1% 0.1% 9,282 Flat Glass 0.0% 0.0% 542 Clean Dimensional Lumber 0.6% 0.3% 51,812 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.4% 0.2% 35,578 Clean Engineered Wood 0.8% 0.6% 70,611 Clean Pallets and Crates 0.8% 1.1% 67,213 Other Wood Waste 2.9% 1.6% 250,240 Metal 4.1% 355,542 Clean Gypsum Board 0.1% 0.0% 5,710 Tin/Steel Cans 1.0% 0.2% 85,059 Painted/Demolition Gypsum Board 0.2% 0.2% 21,360 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0 Rock,Soil and Fines 1.1% 0.8% 90,658 Used Oil Fitters 0.0% 0.0% 3,010 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 2.1% 1.1% 179,948 Other Ferrous 1.3% 0.4% 111,328 Aluminum Cans 0.3% 0.1% 21,610 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 23,304 Other Non-Ferrous 0.3% 0.1% 25,401 Paint 0.0% 0.0% 3,137 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.3% 0.4% 109,134 Vehicle&Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 2,217 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 2,843 Electronics 0.7% 62,806 Lead-acid(automotive)Batteries 0.1% 0.1% 5,680 Brown Goods 0.3% 0.2% 23,037 Other Batteries 0.1% 0.0% 5,435 Computer-related Electronics-Large 0.1% 0.1% 5,652 Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 234 Computer-related Electronics-Small 0.1% 0.0% 4,653 Pharmaceuticals 0.0% 0.0% 2,183 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.2% 0.2% 19,995 Fluorescent Lights/Other Mercury-containing Items 0.0% 0.0% 452 Video Display Devices 0.1% 0.2% 9,469 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.0% 0.0% 1,124 Plastic 10.0% 858,442 Special Waste 0.3% 24,313 PETE Water Bottles 0.2% 0.1% 17,625 Ash 0.0% 0.0% 4,034 PETE Sealed Containers 0.1% 0.0% 5,455 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 0.5% 0.1% 47,167 Bulky Items 0.1% 0.1% 7,904 PLA Water Bottles 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Truck Tires 0.0% 0.0% 7 HDPE Containers 0.6% 0.1% 47,659 Other Tires 0.0% 0.0% 2,563 #347 Sealed Containers 0.1% 0.0% 5,814 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.1% 0.1% 9,805 #347 Other Containers 0.6% 0.1% 47,678 Plastic Trash Bags 1.0% 0.1% 84,372 Mixed Residue 3.0% 259,331 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.7% 0.1% 58,641 Mixed Residue 3.0% 0.9% 259,331 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.0% 0.0% 4,016 Film Products 0.0% 0.0% 1,687 Food Contact Film Packaging 0.5% 0.0% 39,483 Other Film 1.5% 0.3% 127,581 HDPE Buckets 0.1% 0.0% 5,547 #347 Buckets 0.0% 0.0% 65 Durable Plastic Items 2.4% 0.6% 206,349 Totals 100.0% 8,583,746 Remainder/Composite Plastic 1.9% 0.2% 159,302 Sample Count 201 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIOIIIIIIIMIIOIIIIIIMIIINIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIITMIIIIIII Contractor 5 "' p rt to the Board Calltorou 201.6 Statt3,,vide './Vtiste Characterization Study 154 Multifamily Residential Waste Figure 43: Overview of Multifamily Residential Disposed Waste Special Waste Mixed Residue 4.5% 1.1% Paper HHW 21.8% Est. 0.3% 11 Material Class Percent Inerts and Paper 21.8% Other Glass Glass 3.1% 15.4% `3.1 Metal 3.7% Metal Electronics 0.7% Z-3.7% Plastic 7.3% Other Organic 42.1% Electronics 0.7% Inerts and Other 15.4% HHW 0.3% Plastic Other Organic 7.3°/0 Special Waste 4.5% 42.1% Mixed Residue 1.1% Total 100% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Table 57: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Multifamily Residential Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Food 22.6% 22.6% 756,846 Remainder/Composite Organic 8.8% 31.4% 294,167 Other Wood Waste 8.0% 39.4% 268,129 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 4.8% 44.1% 159,982 Carpet 4.8% 48.9% 159,536 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 4.4% 53.3% 147,048 All Other Miscellaneous Paper 4.4% 57.7% 146,468 Bulky Items 4.4% 62.0% 146,147 All Other Remainder/Composite Paper 4.3% 66.3% 143,097 Textiles 3.7% 70.0% 124,641 Total 70.0% 2,346,059 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 155 Table 58: Composition of Multifamily Residential Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est Est Est. Est. Material Percent +/- Tons Material Percent +/• Tons Paper 21.8% 729,089 Other Organic 42.1% 1,411,140 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 4.4% 3.0% 147,048 Food 22.6% 5.5% 756,846 Paper Bags 0.5% 0.3% 16,887 Leaves and Grass 2.1% 1.8% 69,336 Newspaper 3.0% 2.8% 99,735 Prunings and Trimmings 0.2% 0.1% 6,616 White Ledger Paper 0.4% 0.3% 12,867 Branches and Stumps 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other Office Paper 2.5% 2.1% 85,234 Manures 0.0% 0.0% 0 Magazines and Catalogs 1.2% 0.5% 40,627 Textiles 3.7% 1.7% 124,641 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.1% 1,702 Carpet 4.8% 7.5% 159,536 Other Miscellaneous Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.6% 0.2% 20,541 Remainder/Composite Organic 8.8% 3.0% 294,167 All Other Miscellaneous Paper 4.4% 3.0% 146,468 Remainder/Composite Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.4% 0.2% 14,885 Inerts and Other 15.4% 517,176 All Other Remainder/Composite Paper 4.3% 3.0% 143,097 Concrete 0.0% 0.0% 53 Asphalt Paving 0.0% 0.0% 0 Glass 3.1% 103,497 Asphalt Composition Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 0 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 1.3% 0.6% 42,585 Roofing Tar Paper/Felt 0.0% 0.0% 65 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.5% 0.4% 17,620 Roofing Mastic 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.7% 0.5% 22,548 Built-up Roofing 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.4% 0.3% 13,648 Other Asphalt Roofing Material 0.0% 0.0% 0 Flat Glass 0.0% 0.0% 582 Clean Dimensional Lumber 0.7% 0.9% 22,663 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.2% 0.1% 6,514 Clean Engineered Wood 0.0% 0.0% 872 Clean Pallets and Crates 1.9% 3.1% 63,358 Other Wood Waste 8.0% 9.7% 268,129 Metal 3.7% 122,889 Clean Gypsum Board 0.0% 0.1% 1,303 Tin/Steel Cans 0.9% 0.7% 30,862 Painted/Demolition Gypsum Board 0.0% 0.0% 213 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0 Rock,Soil and Fines 0.0% 0.0% 541 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 2 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 4.8% 5.9% 159,982 Other Ferrous 1.1% 0.9% 38,019 Aluminum Cans 0.1% 0.1% 4,561 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 10,813 Other Non-Ferrous 0.2% 0.1% 6,111 Paint 0.0% 0.0% 312 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.3% 0.9% 43,335 Vehicle&Equipment Fluids 0.1% 0.1% 2,036 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 0 Electronics 0.7% 23,456 Lead-acid(automotive)Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.2% 0.2% 5,384 Other Batteries 0.1% 0.1% 2,261 Computer-related Electronics-Large 0.0% 0.1% 1,051 Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 402 Computer-related Electronics-Small 0.0% 0.0% 2 Pharmaceuticals 0.1% 0.1% 2,806 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.1% 0.1% 3,393 Fluorescent Lights/Other Mercury-containing Items 0.0% 0.0% 142 Video Display Devices 0.4% 0.6% 13,626 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.1% 0.1% 2,855 Plastic 7.3% 245,043 Special Waste 4.5% 150,140 PETE Water Bottles 0.2% 0.2% 8,141 Ash 0.1% 0.1% 2,926 PETE Sealed Containers 0.1% 0.2% 4,490 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 0.7% 0.5% 22,291 Bulky Items 4.4% 3.6% 146,147 PLA Water Bottles 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Truck Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0 HDPE Containers 0.9% 0.7% 31,186 Other Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0 #347 Sealed Containers 0.0% 0.0% 672 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.0% 0.1% 1,067 #347 Other Containers 0.6% 0.4% 20,265 Plastic Trash Bags 0.7% 0.1% 25,092 Mixed Residue 1.1% 38,183 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.5% 0.2% 18,119 Mixed Residue 1.1% 1.4% 38,183 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.0% 0.0% 406 Film Products 0.1% 0.2% 4,741 Food Contact Film Packaging 0.5% 0.2% 15,310 Other Film 0.8% 0.3% 25,396 HDPE Buckets 0.1% 0.1% 2,114 #3-#7 Buckets 0.0% 0.0% 0 Durable Plastic Items 0.7% 0.2% 24,105 Totals 100.0% 3,351,428 Remainder/Composite Plastic 1.3% 0.3% 42,715 Sample Count 50 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. {COtnttractor S RE3port tO the Board i ahforni '',l ?. St,Tht:vadittt tkaste C,hl ra lerozatron Study 156 Self-hauled Waste Figure 44: Overview of Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste Mixed Residue Paper Special Waste 0'1% 5.5% Glass Est. 9.3% 0.5% Metal Material Class Percent HHW 5.6% Paper 5.5% 0.4% Electronics Glass 0.5% 0'4% Metal 5.6% Flastic 5 8% Electronics 0.4% Other Organic Plastic 5.8% 13.6% Other Organic 13.6% Inerts and Other 58.8% HHW 0.4% Inerts and Special Waste 9.3% Other Mixed Residue 0.1% 58.8% Total 100% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Table 59: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Other Wood Waste 11.9% 11.9% 967,909 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 10.4% 22.3% 840,554 Bulky Items 9.2% 31.5% 749,947 Rock, Soil and Fines 8.9% 40.4% 718,500 Clean Engineered Wood 5.4% 45.8% 435,853 Clean Dimensional Lumber 4.7% 50.4% 379,622 Asphalt Composition Shingles 4.1% 54.5% 330,698 Carpet 3.8% 58.3% 309,371 Other Ferrous 3.1% 61.4% 254,087 Concrete 3.1% 64.6% 252,774 Total 64.6% 5,239,313 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 157 Table 60: Composition of Overall Self-hauled Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est. Est Est Est Material Percent +/- Tons Material Percent +1- Tons Paper 5.5% 449,539 Other Organic 13.6% 1,105,618 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 2.0% 0.8% 159,309 Food 1.1% 0.5% 91,275 Paper Bags 0.3% 0.2% 24,402 Leaves and Grass 2.6% 1.1% 212,560 Newspaper 0.3% 0.3% 21,526 Prunings and Trimmings 2.2% 1.2% 175,428 White Ledger Paper 0.2% 0.2% 13,008 Branches and Stumps 1.6% 1.4% 128,285 Other Office Paper 0.2% 0.3% 18,795 Manures 0.0% 0.0% 0 Magazines and Catalogs 0.1% 0.1% 11,810 Textiles 1.2% 0.5% 100,593 Phone Books and Directories 0.0% 0.0% 999 Carpet 3.8% 2.4% 309,371 Other Miscellaneous Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.0% 0.0% 2,165 Remainder/Composite Organic 1.1% 0.4% 88,106 All Other Miscellaneous Paper 0.9% 0.9% 73,965 Remainder/Composite Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.3% 0.3% 21,953 Inerts and Other 58.8% 4,775,706 All Other Remainder/Composite Paper 1.3% 0.8% 101,605 Concrete 3.1% 1.5% 252,774 Asphalt Paving 1.5% 2.0% 124,504 Glass 0.5% 37,364 Asphalt Composition Shingles 4.1% 2.4% 330,698 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.1% 0.0% 4,251 Roofing Tar Paper/Felt 0.7% 0.3% 57,457 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 1,540 Roofing Mastic 0.2% 0.3% 16,009 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 2,184 Built-up Roofing 1.3% 2.2% 108,162 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.1% 3,139 Other Asphalt Roofing Material 1.6% 1.1% 131,908 Flat Glass 0.2% 0.2% 15,848 Clean Dimensional Lumber 4.7% 2.4% 379,622 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.1% 0.1% 10,403 Clean Engineered Wood 5.4% 2.6% 435,853 Clean Pallets and Crates 1.2% 0.8% 98,534 Other Wood Waste 11.9% 4.0% 967,909 Metal 5.6% 450,890 Clean Gypsum Board 2.8% 1.7% 225,835 Tin/Steel Cans 0.1% 0.0% 6,696 Painted/Demolition Gypsum Board 1.1% 0.7% 87,388 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0 Rock,Soil and Fines 8.9% 4.2% 718,500 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 364 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 10.4% 3.7% 840,554 Other Ferrous 3.1% 1.0% 254,087 Aluminum Cans 0.0% 0.0% 1,489 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.4% 31,628 Other Non-Ferrous 0.1% 0.1% 9,199 Paint 0.0% 0.0% 3,492 Remainder/Composite Metal 2.2% 1.2% 179,056 Vehicle&Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 1,096 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 359 Electronics 0.4% 33,325 Lead-acid(automotive)Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.1% 0.1% 9,721 Other Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 938 Computer-related Electronics-Large 0.2% 0.4% 17,292 Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 17 Computer-related Electronics-Small 0.0% 0.0% 1,596 Pharmaceuticals 0.0% 0.0% 176 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.0% 0.0% 685 Fluorescent Lights/Other Mercury-containing Items 0.0% 0.0% 118 Video Display Devices 0.0% 0.0% 4,031 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.3% 0.4% 25,433 Plastic 5.8% 471,782 Special Waste 9.3% 754,376 PETE Water Bottles 0.0% 0.0% 1,387 Ash 0.0% 0.0% 1,462 PETE Sealed Containers 0.0% 0.0% 378 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 0.0% 0.0% 3,531 Bulky Items 9.2% 3.7% 749,947 PLA Water Bottles 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Truck Tires 0.0% 0.0% 168 HDPE Containers 0.1% 0.0% 4,672 Other Tires 0.0% 0.0% 1,742 #347 Sealed Containers 0.0% 0.0% 521 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.0% 0.0% 1,056 #347 Other Containers 0.0% 0.0% 3,758 Plastic Trash Bags 0.2% 0.1% 19,458 Mixed Residue 0.1% 4,870 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.0% 0.0% 2,974 Mixed Residue 0.1% 0.0% 4,870 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.3% 0.2% 23,767 Film Products 0.8% 0.9% 68,817 Food Contact Film Packaging 0.0% 0.0% 1,272 Other Film 0.2% 0.1% 15,515 HDPE Buckets 0.1% 0.1% 9,769 #347 Buckets 0.0% 0.0% 179 Durable Plastic Items 2.5% 1.3% 201,138 Totals 100.0% 8,115,098 Remainder/Composite Plastic 1.4% 0.8% 114,646 Sample Count 250 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. C.CrlinCIOCS `':4pe in Tile Board alif-orned 2 1;,? S .tnvvo .test ,d racterization Study 158 Commercial Self-hauled Waste Figure 45: Overview of Commercial Self-hauled Disposed Waste Mixed Residue Special Waste 0.0% Paper Glass ° 5.6% o Est. g.g/° 0.2/° Metal Material Class Percent HHW 4.9% ° , Paper 5.6% 0.3/o � Electronics Glass 0.2% 0.1% 4.4:41 Plastic Metal 4.9% 5.5% Electronics 0.1% Other Organic Plastic 5.5% 13.4% Other Organic 13.4% Inerts and Other 61.0% Inerts and HHW 0.3% Other Special Waste 8.8% 61.0% Mixed Residue 0.0% Total 100% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Table 61: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Commercial Self-hauled Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Other Wood Waste 11.5% 11.5% 782,719 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 10.9% 22.4% 742,415 Rock, Soil and Fines 10.2% 32.6% 694,103 Bulky Items 8.8% 41.3% 597,335 Clean Engineered Wood 6.0% 47.4% 411,763 Clean Dimensional Lumber 4.7% 52.0% 317,552 Asphalt Composition Shingles 4.6% 56.6% 313,053 Carpet 3.9% 60.6% 266,518 Clean Gypsum Board 3.2% 63.8% 218,158 Other Ferrous 3.0% 66.7% 201,107 Total 66.7% 4,544,723 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 159 Table 62: Composition of Commercial Self-hauled Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est. Est Est. Est. Material Percent +/- Tons Material Percent +/- Tons Paper 5.6% 384,854 Other Organic 13.4% 915,720 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 2.0% 0.9% 134,247 Food 0.9% 0.5% 63,049 Paper Bags 0.3% 0.3% 22,558 Leaves and Grass 2.7% 1.3% 186,928 Newspaper 0.3% 0.3% 18,148 Prunings and Trimmings 2.3% 1.4% 155,697 White Ledger Paper 0.2% 0.2% 11,966 Branches and Stumps 1.8% 1.7% 120,016 Other Office Paper 0.2% 0.3% 16,265 Manures 0.0% 0.0% 0 Magazines and Catalogs 0.1% 0.1% 8,234 Textiles 0.9% 0.5% 63,784 Phone Books and Directories 0.0% 0.0% 0 Carpet 3.9% 2.8% 266,518 Other Miscellaneous Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.0% 0.0% 1,157 Remainder/Composite Organic 0.9% 0.4% 59,729 All Other Miscellaneous Paper 0.9% 1.0% 62,866 Remainder/Composite Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.3% 0.3% 17,647 Inerts and Other 61.0% 4,155,221 All Other Remainder/Composite Paper 1.3% 0.9% 91,766 Concrete 2.1% 1.3% 145,871 Asphalt Paving 1.5% 2.3% 102,909 Glass 0.2% 16,107 Asphalt Composition Shingles 4.6% 2.9% 313,053 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 1,722 Roofing Tar Paper/Felt 0.8% 0.4% 56,980 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 1,172 Roofing Mastic 0.2% 0.3% 15,776 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 679 Built-up Roofing 1.6% 2.6% 108,162 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.1% 2,766 Other Asphalt Roofing Material 1.9% 1.3% 131,761 Flat Glass 0.1% 0.1% 5,740 Clean Dimensional Lumber 4.7% 2.9% 317,552 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.1% 0.0% 4,027 Clean Engineered Wood 6.0% 3.1% 411,763 Clean Pallets and Crates 1.1% 1.0% 74,889 Other Wood Waste 11.5% 4.7% 782,719 Metal 4.9% 333,090 Clean Gypsum Board 3.2% 2.0% 218,158 Tin/Steel Cans 0.1% 0.0% 4,257 Painted/Demolition Gypsum Board 0.6% 0.4% 39,111 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0 Rock,Soil and Fines 10.2% 5.0% 694,103 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 267 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 10.9% 4.3% 742,415 Other Ferrous 3.0% 1.1% 201,107 Aluminum Cans 0.0% 0.0% 1,006 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.3% 23,427 Other Non-Ferrous 0.1% 0.1% 4,987 Paint 0.0% 0.0% 1,851 Remainder/Composite Metal 1.8% 1.3% 121,467 Vehicle&Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 684 Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 185 Electronics 0.1% 6,259 Lead-acid(automotive)Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.0% 0.1% 2,496 Other Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 818 Computer-related Electronics-Large 0.0% 0.0% 0 Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0 Computer-related Electronics-Small 0.0% 0.0% 1,589 Pharmaceuticals 0.0% 0.0% 157 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.0% 0.0% 374 Fluorescent Lights/Other Mercury-containing Items 0.0% 0.0% 70 Video Display Devices 0.0% 0.0% 1,799 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.3% 0.4% 19,661 Plastic 5.5% 378,044 Special Waste 8.8% 598,930 PETE Water Bottles 0.0% 0.0% 1,089 Ash 0.0% 0.0% 965 PETE Sealed Containers 0.0% 0.0% 158 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 0.0% 0.0% 1,921 Bulky Items 8.8% 4.3% 597,335 PLA Water Bottles 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Truck Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0 HDPE Containers 0.0% 0.0% 2,757 Other Tires 0.0% 0.0% 629 #347 Sealed Containers 0.0% 0.0% 326 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 #347 Other Containers 0.0% 0.0% 1,180 Plastic Trash Bags 0.3% 0.1% 17,042 Mixed Residue 0.0% 812 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.0% 0.0% 1,998 Mixed Residue 0.0% 0.0% 812 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.3% 0.2% 23,625 Film Products 1.0% 1.0% 66,026 Food Contact Film Packaging 0.0% 0.0% 791 Other Film 0.1% 0.1% 9,240 HDPE Buckets 0.1% 0.1% 5,722 #347 Buckets 0.0% 0.0% 156 Durable Plastic Items 2.3% 1.5% 157,522 Totals 100.0% 6,812,464 Remainder/Composite Plastic 1.3% 1.0% 88,489 Sample Count 139 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. Contrao; r: R„pr-rt ti,the Board 'alitarn, ' .lo kid . :i e C Hr teriz, tiol,Study 160 Residential Self-hauled Waste Figure 46: Overview of Residential Self-hauled Disposed Waste Mixed Residue Special Waste 0.3% Paper 11.9% 5.0% Est. Glass Material Class Percent HHW 1.6% 0.6% Metal Paper 5.0% ' 9.0% Glass 1.6% Electronics Metal 9.0% Vric 2.19/0 Electronics 2.1% Plastic Plastic 7.2% 7.2%o Other Organic 14.6% Inerts and Other 47.6% Inerts and Other HHW 0.6% 47.6% Other Organic 14.6% Special Waste 11.9% Mixed Residue 0.3% Total 100% Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Table 63: Ten Most Prevalent Material Types in Residential Self-hauled Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est. Cum. Material Percent Percent Est.Tons Other Wood Waste 14.2% 14.2% 185,190 Bulky Items 11.7% 25.9% 152,612 Concrete 8.2% 34.1% 106,903 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 7.5% 41.7% 98,139 Clean Dimensional Lumber 4.8% 46.4% 62,070 Remainder/Composite Metal 4.4% 50.9% 57,589 Other Ferrous 4.1% 54.9% 52,980 Painted/Demolition Gypsum Board 3.7% 58.6% 48,277 Durable Plastic Items 3.3% 62.0% 43,616 Carpet 3.3% 65.3% 42,853 Total 65.3% 850,228 Any differences between cumulative percent figures and the sum of estimated percent figures are due to rounding. Contractor's Report to the Board California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study 161 Table 64: Composition of Residential Self-hauled Disposed Waste Using Expanded Material Types Est. Est. Est. Est. Material Percent +/- Tons Material Percent +/- Tons Paper 5.0% 64,685 Other Organic 14.6% 189,898 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 1.9% 0.9% 25,062 Food 2.2% 0.8% 28,226 Paper Bags 0.1% 0.1% 1,844 Leaves and Grass 2.0% 1.1% 25,632 Newspaper 0.3% 0.1% 3,378 Prunings and Trimmings 1.5% 1.6% 19,731 White Ledger Paper 0.1% 0.1% 1,042 Branches and Stumps 0.6% 0.8% 8,269 Other Office Paper 0.2% 0.1% 2,530 Manures 0.0% 0.0% 0 Magazines and Catalogs 0.3% 0.1% 3,576 Textiles 2.8% 1.2% 36,810 Phone Books and Directories 0.1% 0.1% 999 Carpet 3.3% 2.4% 42,853 Other Miscellaneous Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.1% 0.1% 1,009 Remainder/Composite Organic 2.2% 0.9% 28,377 All Other Miscellaneous Paper 0.9% 0.4% 11,099 Remainder/Composite Paper-Non-food Packaging 0.3% 0.3% 4,306 Inerts and Other 47.6% 620,485 All Other Remainder/Composite Paper 0.8% 0.4% 9,839 Concrete 8.2% 6.0% 106,903 Asphalt Paving 1.7% 2.5% 21,595 Glass 1.6% 21,257 Asphalt Composition Shingles 1.4% 1.6% 17,645 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.2% 0.1% 2,529 Roofing Tar Paper/Felt 0.0% 0.1% 477 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 368 Roofing Mastic 0.0% 0.0% 233 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.1% 0.1% 1,505 Built-up Roofing 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 0.0% 0.0% 373 Other Asphalt Roofing Material 0.0% 0.0% 148 Flat Glass 0.8% 0.8% 10,108 Clean Dimensional Lumber 4.8% 1.9% 62,070 Remainder/Composite Glass 0.5% 0.3% 6,376 Clean Engineered Wood 1.8% 1.0% 24,090 Clean Pallets and Crates 1.8% 1.4% 23,645 Other Wood Waste 14.2% 4.3% 185,190 Metal 9.0% 117,800 Clean Gypsum Board 0.6% 0.8% 7,678 Tin/Steel Cans 0.2% 0.1% 2,439 Painted/Demolition Gypsum Board 3.7% 3.5% 48,277 Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0 Rock,Soil and Fines 1.9% 1.5% 24,396 Used Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 97 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 7.5% 3.2% 98,139 Other Ferrous 4.1% 1.5% 52,980 Aluminum Cans 0.0% 0.0% 483 Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) 0.6% 8,201 Other Non-Ferrous 0.3% 0.3% 4,212 Paint 0.1% 0.2% 1,641 Remainder/Composite Metal 4.4% 2.3% 57,589 Vehicle&Equipment Fluids 0.0% 0.0% 412 - Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 173 Electronics 2.1% 27,066 Lead-acid(automotive)Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0 Brown Goods 0.6% 0.4% 7,224 Other Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 120 Computer-related Electronics-Large 1.3% 2.2% 17,292 Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 17 Computer-related Electronics-Small 0.0% 0.0% 7 Pharmaceuticals 0.0% 0.0% 19 Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.0% 0.0% 310 Fluorescent Lights/Other Mercury-containing Items 0.0% 0.0% 48 Video Display Devices 0.2% 0.2% 2,232 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.4% 0.5% 5,772 Plastic 7.2% 93,738 Special Waste 11.9% 155,445 PETE Water Bottles 0.0% 0.0% 298 Ash 0.0% 0.1% 497 PETE Sealed Containers 0.0% 0.0% 220 Treated Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0 Other PETE Containers 0.1% 0.1% 1,610 Bulky Items 11.7% 4.2% 152,612 PLA Water Bottles 0.0% 0.0% 0 Vehicle and Truck Tires 0.0% 0.0% 168 HDPE Containers 0.1% 0.1% 1,915 Other Tires 0.1% 0.1% 1,113 #347 Sealed Containers 0.0% 0.0% 194 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.1% 0.1% 1,056 #347 Other Containers 0.2% 0.2% 2,578 Plastic Trash Bags 0.2% 0.1% 2,416 Mixed Residue 0.3% 4,058 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.1% 0.0% 976 Mixed Residue 0.3% 0.2% 4,058 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.0% 0.0% 141 Film Products 0.2% 0.1% 2,791 Food Contact Film Packaging 0.0% 0.0% 481 Other Film 0.5% 0.3% 6,275 HDPE Buckets 0.3% 0.2% 4,046 #347 Buckets 0.0% 0.0% 23 Durable Plastic Items 3.3% 1.2% 43,616 Totals 100.0% 1,302,634 Remainder/Composite Plastic 2.0% 1.2% 26,157 Sample Count 111 Confidence intervals calculated at the 90%confidence level.Percentages for material types may not total 100%due to rounding. IIIIIMIIIMIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIBIOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOIIIIMIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIINIIMIIIIIFMIIIIIIMIIII Contractors Repair to the Board Cialifomid 20iir8 Statewide `haste Characterization Study 162