2013 SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY

Transcription

1 6961 Russell Avenue Burnaby, BC V5J 4R8 Phone: Fax: SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY Prepared for Regional District of Fraser Fort George 155 George Street Prince George, BC V2L 1P8 Prepared by TRI Environmental Consulting Inc Russell Avenue Burnaby, BC V5J 4R8 JULY 31, 2013 FILE: R Expect Integrity Serving Since 1982

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Characterization of solid waste provides important information about the composition of waste produced by residential, commercial, industrial and institutional sources and is a useful tool for waste management planning purposes. The RDFFG is responsible for managing solid waste within its boundaries, and recognizes the value of conducting a waste characterization study in assessing the effectiveness of the current solid waste management planning. Solid waste characterization studies provide information about the waste streams generated by residents, businesses, institutions and industry. The studies are useful for managing waste flows, and can help with the development and implementation of waste reduction strategies. A waste characterization study to estimate the overall composition of waste generated within the RDFFG was undertaken at the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill in the City of Prince George, BC. The (herein referred to as the Study) for the RDFFG provides an update to the previous study completed in The Study was completed at the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill between June 17 and June 28, A total of fifty five (55) waste samples, each weighing approximately 100 kg were collected and analyzed. Each sample was classified according to one of the following sources: residential curbside, recycling transfer station, non recycling transfer station, self haul residential, self haul commercial, industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI). All samples were weighed and sorted into twelve (12) primary categories, forty six (46) secondary categories and fifty nine (59) tertiary categories. The mass of each category was recorded and used to calculate the sample composition. The data were subjected to statistical analysis to determine the mean and standard deviations. The primary category constituting the greatest mass was compostable organics with a mass percent representing 30.7% of the total waste sorted. The second largest primary category was paper, comprising a mean composition of 16.5%, followed by plastics at 13.0%. Collectively, paper and organics represented nearly half of waste delivered to the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill. The next largest waste constituents were non compostable organics comprising a mean composition of 9.3% followed by building materials with a mean composition of 8.2%. The remainder of the primary categories (i.e. glass, metals, electronic waste, household hazardous waste, household hygiene, bulky objects and fines) each comprised approximately 5% or less of the total waste stream. The three largest waste categories from single family residential waste were compostable organics, paper and plastics. Compostable organics made up the largest quantity at 38.2%, followed by paper at 17.9% and plastics at 16.4%. In total, compostable organics, paper and plastics made up 72.5% or nearly three quarters of single family residential waste entering the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill. Due to the expansive area for which the RDFFG has waste collection responsibility, rural transfer stations are recognized as a significant source of waste delivered to the landfill. Six of seventeen transfer stations (excluding the Quinn Street Recycling Depot) offer recycling services on site. Waste arising from rural transfer stations with and without recycling facilities had a higher quantity of electronics at 6.7% and 9.4% respectively, compared to other waste streams. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. i

3 In general, paper, plastics, and compostable organics collectively made up the largest portion of waste for single family residential, transfer station, institution, commercial, and industrial sources. Self haul residential or commercial wastes contained significant quantities of building material and noncompostable organics as they typically are associated with renovation and construction activities. The RDFFG maintains an extensive system for collecting recyclables. A sub group of the recyclable waste products is regulated under the Recycling Regulation and is subject to specific BC Product Stewardship Programs (currently referred to as the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs) which direct the responsibility for reuse, recycling and disposal of specific consumer products to manufacturers and their customers. In this Study, electronic waste, small appliances and refundable beverage containers constituted the majority of product waste delivered to the landfill. Combined, these three waste categories comprise approximately 4.5% of the total mass of waste sorted. The primary and secondary category data was subjected to statistical analysis using the provincial waste characterization tool to determine the means and standard deviations of each of the categories. The standard deviations of waste within each of the primary categories calculations indicated a fairly good consistency for the residential samples. The residential waste samples were from all five garbage collection zones in the City of Prince George, each of which would be expected to have a similar waste composition. The waste composition for the ICI sector shows a higher standard deviation for all primary waste categories than the residential sector. Higher standard deviations are expected for the ICI sector because the primary sources can be vastly different. In addition, each delivery may contain waste from several primary sources, but the load is not necessarily well mixed. The standard deviations for a majority of the categories of the self haul waste are large. However, this is due to having a significant number of the samples from the self haul sector containing waste from only a few primary categories. A large confidence interval does not necessarily indicate that the data is unreliable; instead it can indicate that the data from a particular sector is highly variable depending on the source, with different subsectors producing different types of waste. When the data was compared to the 2007 study, the greatest changes in waste composition were observed in paper waste which saw a drop of almost 12% since the 2007 study. Plastics saw a 7.3% drop overall. Organic content showed an increase by 10.8%. Building material (construction and demolition materials 2007 study) rose from 2.9% to 12.8%. Household hazardous waste (hazardous by products 2007 study) remained approximately the same. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. ii

4 NOTE TO THE READER The samples collected and audited for this study are snapshots in time, meaning the reported quantities are estimates and only represent the conditions for the period of time in which they were collected. Seasonal and annual variability, weather, and other factors can affect the amount and composition of waste and recyclables generated by the various sectors at any given time. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. iii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS / TERMINOLOGY METHODOLOGY DESIGN OF THE SAMPLING PROGRAM LOAD SOURCE AND SAMPLE ACQUISITION WASTE CHARACTERIZATION CATEGORIES WASTE SORTING METHODOLOGY HEALTH AND SAFETY DATA ANALYSIS QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES RESULTS SAMPLE SOURCE AND DISTRIBUTION OVERALL WASTE COMPOSITION BY CATEGORY WASTE COMPOSITION BY SECTOR Single Family Residential (SFRES) Recycling Rural Transfer Station (RRTS) Non Recycling Rural Transfer Station (NRRTS) Self Haul Residential Self Haul Commercial Commercial (ICI) EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (EPR) MATERIALS OVERALL WASTE COMPOSITION COMPARISON OF RRTS AND NRRTS WASTE STREAM COMPOSITION COMPARISON WITH 2007 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS LIMITATIONS: SOURCES OF ERROR DURING THE SORTS CONCLUSIONS CLOSURE AND PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. iv

6 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1: Solid Waste Source Definition and Methodology for Sampling... 3 Table 2: Number of Samples and Total Mass Sorted... 7 Table 3: Mean Primary Category Distribution... 8 Table 4: Composition of Primary and Secondary Categories from All Sectors Table 5: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the Single Family Residential Sector Table 6: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the Recycling Rural Transfer Station Sector Table 7: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the Non Recycling Rural Transfer Stations Sector Table 8: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the Self Haul Residential Sector Table 9: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the Self Haul Commercial Sector Table 10: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the ICI Sector Table 11: Summary of Waste Characterized under the EPR Category Table 12: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the Rural Transfer Station Sector Table 13: Comparison of Data between the 2007 and 2013 Study TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. v

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition All Sectors Excluding SHICI... 9 Figure 2: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition of the Single Family Residential Sector Figure 3: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition of Recycling Rural Transfer Station Sector Figure 4: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition Non Recycling Rural Transfer Station Sector Figure 5: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition Self Haul Residential sector Figure 6: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition Self Haul Commercial sector Figure 7: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition Commercial ICI Figure 8: Overall Waste Composition by Sector and Primary Category Figure 9: Comparison between RRTS and NRRTS Waste Streams LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I: Waste Characterization Categories Appendix II: City of Prince George Curbside Waste Collection Schedule and Zones Appendix III: Calculation Methodology Appendix IV: Selected Site Photographs TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. vi

8 1 INTRODUCTION To determine the effectiveness of the present waste diversion and reduction strategies implemented TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. (TRI) was engaged by the Regional District of Fraser Fort George (RDFFG) to undertake a Waste Characterization Study (the Study). The assessment of the overall composition of waste generated within the RDFFG was undertaken with samples collected at the Foothills Boulevard Landfill in the City of Prince George, BC. As the largest landfill in the Regional District, the landfill serves a population of approximately 92,000 residents. The landfill receives materials from the City of Prince George municipal and commercial collection services, outlying rural transfer stations, the general public and area contractors. The RDFFG is responsible for managing solid waste within its boundaries, and recognizes the value of conducting a waste characterization study in assessing the effectiveness of the current solid waste management planning. Solid waste characterization studies provide information about the waste streams generated by residents, businesses, institutions and industry. The studies are useful for managing waste flows, and can help with the development and implementation of waste reduction strategies. 1.1 OBJECTIVE The purpose of this Study was to gain an up to date estimate of the composition of the municipal solid waste (MSW) within the RDFFG. Information obtained from this Study will be extrapolated to determine the overall waste composition for the region. It will be used as a tool for Solid Waste Management planning, including determining any changes in the waste composition since the implementation of expanded stewardship programs in the region, and to identify the improvements and changes in recycling behaviour. The Waste Characterization Report 1 prepared by TRI in 2007 will serve as a baseline for comparison and the methodology used was derived from the new draft Waste Characterization Tool developed by the Ministry of Environment in The methodology, as well as the terms and conditions for the Study were described in the Request for Proposal (RFP ES 13 06), dated April 9, DEFINITIONS / TERMINOLOGY During the waste composition analysis, the as received wet mass of the waste samples and compositions were recorded. In this report, Study refers to this waste characterization study, hauler refers to the vehicle delivering the waste, load refers to the total amount of waste contained in a hauler truck, sample refers to the portion of the load that was sorted and weighed, and load source refers to the origin of a specific sample. Refer to Appendix I for waste category definitions. 1 Technology Resource Inc. (TRI), Waste Characterization Study Foothills Boulevard Landfill. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 1

9 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 DESIGN OF THE SAMPLING PROGRAM The sampling program for the waste composition monitoring was based on industry accepted techniques, 2,3,4 previous experience gained by TRI, with modifications made according to the requirements of the present Study. The design of the sampling program was consistent with the proposal 5 prepared by TRI, which provided a work plan and a detailed waste source allocation list identifying the number of waste samples to be sorted by source category at the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill. Samples were completed from six different sources of municipal waste. 2.2 LOAD SOURCE AND SAMPLE ACQUISITION Municipal waste received at the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill is classified as originating from one of the following six (6) sectors: Single family residential curbside collection (SFRES) Rural transfer stations; with on site recycling services (RRTS) Rural transfer stations; with no on site recycling services (NRRTS) Self haul; residential (SHRES) Self haul; commercial (SHICI) Commercial ICI (ICI) In general, SFRES, RRTS, NRRTS and ICI loads are sent directly to the landfill face, while self haul loads are delivered either to the landfill face or to a series of forty yard bins for self hauled drop off. To obtain a sample from SFRES, RRTS, NRRTS and ICI waste, a front end loader collected a portion of the load that was dropped at the landfill face and brought it to the sort area. The sort supervisor confirmed the truck number and the source of a given load with the front end loader operator and randomly selected samples from the dropped material. A ticket indicating the net mass of the load was collected from the scale house operator at the end of the day. In order to safely sample self haul residential and commercial waste, the scale house arranged for all self haul loads to be dumped into one 20 yard container which was then transported to the landfill face 2 SENES Consultants Ltd., April 30, Recommended Waste Characterization Methodology for Direct Waste Analysis Studies in Canada, 39 pp. 3 Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection (MWLAP), November, Procedural Manual for Municipal Solid Waste Composition Analysis. 4 TRI Environmental Consulting Inc., May 14, Solid Waste Characterization Studies: Standardized Spreadsheet Tool For Assisting In The Planning, Execution And Reporting For Solid Waste Characterization Studies (Draft Version) prepared for the BC Ministry of Environment. 5 TRI Environmental Consulting Inc., April 26, Proposal to Undertake a Waste Composition Analysis Services (RFP ES 13 06). TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 2

10 where samples were collected by the sort supervisor. The sort supervisor randomly selected a sample from each self haul load once permission to analyze the waste was obtained from the customer. The load mass was recorded at the scale house, and this information was obtained by the sort supervisor at the end of each day. Every effort was made to randomly select loads for sampling; however at times when only a small number of vehicles were arriving at the facility, any available load was selected for sampling. A description of waste source, including originating sector, and how the samples were obtained from the waste haulers is outlined in Table 1. Table 1: Solid Waste Source Definition and Methodology for Sampling Solid Waste Source Single Family Residential (SFRES) Rural transfer stations; Recycling (RRTS) and Rural transfer stations; Non Recycling (NRRTS) Category Description and Sampling Method Definition Contractor hauled municipal loads from regular residential curbside pick up routes where waste is collected using garbage cans and bags. Primarily detached single family and duplex homes. Sample Collection Haulers identified to meet the definition above were sampled randomly. The Single Family Residential (SFRES) waste is collected from the curb side residential sector. SFRES waste is delivered to the landfill by garbage trucks as part of the automated collection system in the city of Prince George. The city is divided into 5 separate garbage collection areas or zones (Appendix II). The garbage pickup is scheduled such that each area is serviced once every week. An equal number of samples from SFRES waste were collected each day; resulting in samples uniformly sourced from all zones of the city garbage collection plan. Definition Recycling transfer stations included: Cummings Road, Dunster, McBride, Shelley, Valemount and Vanway. Non Recycling transfer stations included: Bear Lake, Berman Lake, Buckhorn, Chief Lake, Hixon, McLeod Lake, Miworth, Red Rock, Summit Lake, West Lake and Willow River. Waste is collected in self drop off 40 cubic yard roll off bins located at the transfer stations. Sample Collection Scale operators were asked to notify TRI Site Supervisor when haulers carrying waste from RRTS arrived. Once the truck emptied TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 3

11 Solid Waste Source Category Description and Sampling Method the load at the landfill face the loader operator delivered a portion of the waste to TRI sorting station. Self haul Residential (SHRES) and Self haul Commercial (SHICI) Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Definition Load < (less than) 1,000 kg. Pick up trucks or Vehicles with trailers. Non account residential AND non account commercial drop off. Sample Collection Haulers were identified by random selection at the scale house. The selected drop off customers were asked the following questions: Hi, I m conducting a survey to help the Regional District of Fraser Fort George implement better waste management programs. Is it ok if I ask you two short questions? 1. Was this waste generated at a single family residential, multifamily residential or commercial property? 2. What kind of activity generated the waste (e.g. renovation/demolition, bulky object clean up, moving clean up, or special social event party)? The scale house at the landfill arranged for all self haul and commercial loads to be dumped into two separate 20 yard container which was then transported to the landfill face where samples were collected by the sort supervisor. The sort supervisor randomly selected a sample from each self haul load once permission to analyze the waste was obtained from the customer. The load mass was recorded at the scale house, and this information was obtained by the sort supervisor at the end of each day. Definition Waste delivered to the landfill face by contractors collecting garbage from bins or dumpsters located at light industrial, commercial and institutional facilities. Sample Collection Haulers identified to meet the definition above were sampled randomly. 2.3 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION CATEGORIES The waste composition was achieved by grouping the waste into twelve (12) primary categories and forty six (46) secondary categories. The primary categories included paper, plastics, compostable TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 4

12 organics, non compostable organics, metals, glass, building materials, electronic waste, household hazardous waste (HHW), household hygiene, bulky objects and fines. The secondary categories further divided the primary categories into materials that are commonly found in municipal waste. A tertiary categorization was used to further segregate the waste into more specific categories. In all fifty nine (59) categories of waste were used to systematically characterize the waste stream sampled in the Study. The primary category Fines was used for items that were aggregates of several categories of waste but were too small or indistinguishable to separate. The complete list of waste characterization categories is given in Appendix I along with a description of the equivalent category names from the 2007 study. 2.4 WASTE SORTING METHODOLOGY Waste material from source loads was delivered by the loader operator to the waste sorting area. The waste pile was first visually inspected by the sort supervisor to confirm source of waste and to ensure no cross contamination from other waste had occurred. Materials were randomly collected using 97 L plastic garbage cans from all sides of the waste pile to acquire the most representative sample. Large items in a sample were weighed directly on a calibrated electronic weigh scale and then discarded back onto the waste pile. The filled garbage cans were weighed to confirm 110 kg ± 5kg of sample acquisition. The sorting station was set up under a portable canopy tent to protect the samples from any added water content due to precipitation. The sorting was performed by two waste technicians and the sort supervisor. The technicians were trained in the sorting method to identify and segregate waste items into the various waste categories and place them in the appropriate categorized 26 L plastic bins. The bins were arranged around the sort table such that they were readily accessible. The sort supervisor watched for items placed into incorrect bins and assisted in categorizing unusual items. When possible, food waste in containers was separated and sorted accordingly. Items that contained multiple components that could not be separated, such as metal and plastic, were placed into bins representing the material with the highest weight content. After the contents of the sample were sorted, each bin was weighed using the electronic scale and the data recorded on the waste categorization field sheet. 2.5 HEALTH AND SAFETY TRI developed a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) specifically intended for the waste audit at the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill and this plan was used to implement all safety measures on site. The sort supervisor and all waste technicians received health and safety training to manage hazards associated with sorting waste as well as site specific hazards. All workers were required to have up to date tetanus shots. Sharp objects (i.e. straight razors, syringes and broken glass) in the waste presented a significant hazard which were occasionally hidden and mixed with other wastes. Tongs were used to sort through waste if medical waste or signs of sharps were identified in the samples. Syringes and needles were immediately placed in a medical waste container upon discovery. The most important safety issue at the facilities was vehicular traffic. Visual contact with drivers was maintained when working around vehicles. Workers at the site were provided with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 5

13 2.6 DATA ANALYSIS Data analysis for the Study was performed at the TRI office. Raw data was entered into a British Columbia Ministry of Environment spreadsheet tool for facilitating waste characterization studies. The weighted mean compositions for all categories (primary, secondary, and tertiary) for each waste category and source were calculated for the waste. Standard deviations about the means were also determined. Additionally, TRI has employed basic statistical methods to derive quantitative information from the data. Appendix III has a detailed description of the calculations used to arrive at the results presented in this report. 2.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES In addition to the methods described above, a quality control program was undertaken concurrently with the Study to ensure accurate results. The raw waste composition data was reviewed on a daily basis following the sorts. This review allowed the sort supervisor to determine if items had been omitted from the data sheets. All samples were weighed at the beginning before any sorting occurred, and then again at the end to ensure all material was accounted for. Also, office staff reviewed the accuracy of 100% of the data that was transcribed into spreadsheet format. The accuracy of all data was reviewed by calculating the difference between the sum of the sorted category masses and the unsorted sample mass. Data entry corrections were made as necessary for the samples exhibiting discrepancies greater than 5% of the unsorted sample mass. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 6

14 3 RESULTS The results of the analysis of the data collected in this Study are presented including the composition of waste from all sectors coming into the landfill by waste category, and a breakdown for each waste generating sector. This comparative approach allows for a better understanding of the total amount and type of waste coming into the landfill and the sectors that are generating the waste. 3.1 SAMPLE SOURCE AND DISTRIBUTION During the Study a total of fifty five (55) waste samples were sorted between June 17 and June 28, 2013; comprising of twenty (20) SFRES, four (4) RRTS, ten (10) NRRTS, six (6) SHRES, five (5) SHICI and ten (10) ICI with a combined mass of 5,536 kg. The mean sample size was approximately kg. The mean sample masses are consistent with the recommended sample size of 100 kg 5. Selected photographs taken during the waste sorting operations are provided in Appendix IV. A summary of the number of samples and the tonnages generated from different sources of waste is provided in Table 2. Table 2: Number of Samples and Total Mass Sorted Waste Source Number of Samples Sorted % of Samples Total Mass Sorted (kg) Tonnes Total Waste Buried in 2012 Single family residential ,993 14,921 Rural transfer stations; Recycling Rural transfer stations; Nonrecycling ,023 6,135 Self haul; residential ,340 Self haul; commercial ,449 Commercial ICI ,015 28,679 Total ,536 79,524 As Table 2 identifies, the number of samples sorted correlates with the waste source allocation requirements provided by the RDFFG. All waste sorts were completed at the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill. The RDFFG provided information concerning the waste pickup schedule for various neighbourhoods in Prince George. Clarification concerning those transfer stations with and without provisions for recycling was also made. Sources of waste from distinct residential neighbourhoods and from the various recycling and non recycling rural transfer stations were identified. 3.2 OVERALL WASTE COMPOSITION BY CATEGORY The average waste composition was calculated using the tonnage that each waste sector contributes to the total tonnes of waste buried at the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill in Two averages were calculated and are presented in Table 3 and Table 4. The first average is based on the tonnage percentage each sector contributed to the total tonnage of waste buried in 2012at the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill, and the second average excludes the contributions from the SHICI sector. The SHICI sector is primarily demolition and land clearing (DLC) waste and this waste source is expected Commented [u1]: Not all waste is landfilled at Foothills, there is also the Mackenzie landfill. So the number provided is only the material buried at Foothills in 2012 TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 7

15 to be highly variable depending on the season, therefore the samples completed during this study do not fully characterize this waste stream, and a second average is calculated without the influence of this waste stream on the total waste characterization. All averages are calculated by taking into account the mass percentage of waste buried that contribute to the overall waste stream characterization. The primary category constituting the greatest mass was compostable organics with a mass percent representing 30.7% of the total waste sorted. The second largest primary category was paper, comprising a mean composition of 16.5%, followed by plastics at 13.0%. Collectively, paper and organics make up nearly half of the waste delivered to the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill. The next largest waste constituents were non compostable organics comprising a mean composition of 9.3% followed by building materials with a mean composition of 8.2%. The remainder of the primary categories (i.e. glass, metals, electronic waste, household hazardous waste, household hygiene, bulky objects and fines) each comprised approximately 5% or less of the total waste stream. The data is summarized below in Table 3, and presented graphically in Figure 1. Table 3: Mean Primary Category Distribution All Sources 6 All Sources 7 (excluding SHICI) kg waste generated/ capita 8 PAPER 13.8% 16.5% PLASTIC 10.8% 13.0% 92.2 COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS 28.3% 30.7% NON COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS 8.1% 9.3% 65.6 METALS 4.5% 5.5% 38.7 GLASS 1.4% 1.7% 12.1 BUILDING MATERIAL 20.8% 8.2% 58.3 ELECTRONIC WASTE 2.8% 3.4% 23.9 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS (HHW) 1.6% 2.0% 13.9 HOUSEHOLD HYGIENE 3.3% 4.1% 28.8 BULKY OBJECTS 2.3% 2.8% 19.8 FINES 0.6% 0.7% % 100.0% Average is based on the percentage tonnage each sector contributed to the total tonnage of waste buried in 2012 in RDFFG 7 Average is based on the percentage tonnage each sector contributed to the total tonnage of waste buried in 2012 in RDFFG, excluding tonnage from the SHICI sector 8 kg/capita is based on a population estimate of 92,000 in the RDRRG in 2012 TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 8

16 1.7% 5.5% 8.2% 9.3% 2.0% 4.1% 2.8% 0.7% 3.4% 30.7% 16.5% 13.0% PAPER PLASTIC COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS NON COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS METALS GLASS BUILDING MATERIAL ELECTRONIC WASTE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS (HHW) HOUSEHOLD HYGIENE BULKY OBJECTS FINES Figure 1: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition All Sectors Excluding SHICI 3.3 WASTE COMPOSITION BY SECTOR Table 4 presents the waste composition as a percentage of all categories for the SFRES, RRTS, NRRTS, SHRES, and ICI. The average compositions are based on the tonnage each sector contributes to overall waste generated in the RDFFG in The calculation method is given in Appendix II. Note: all percentages in the following sections are of cumulative total sample weight content. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 9

17 Regional District of Fraser Fort George Table 4: Composition of Primary and Secondary Categories from All Sectors Primary Secondary Tertiary Average 9 Average 10 SFRES RRTS NRRTS SHRES SHICI ICI PAPER Subtotal 13.8% 16.5% 17.9% 12.6% 14.0% 5.4% 1.4% 22.4% Fine, computer, office 4.9% 5.9% 6.7% 1.9% 2.8% 1.8% 0.1% 8.5% OCC Clean OCC 1.4% 1.5% 0.9% 1.8% 3.1% 0.5% 1.1% 2.0% Waxed and other non recyclable OCC 0.3% 0.4% 0.7% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% Boxboard 1.9% 2.3% 2.9% 2.1% 1.3% 1.2% 0.1% 2.6% Bound paper products (books) 1.0% 1.2% 1.1% 1.2% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% Beverage containers Dairy or Dairy Substitute Drink Box / Aseptic 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% Containers (Tetra) Non Dairy (refundable) 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Tissue / Paper Towels, other paper (food contaminated paper, paper plates, etc.) 4.7% 5.7% 5.4% 5.1% 4.4% 1.8% 0.1% 8.2% PLASTIC Subtotal 10.8% 13.0% 16.4% 22.6% 15.4% 6.6% 0.7% 13.7% Film 3.8% 4.6% 4.2% 4.9% 5.4% 1.7% 0.3% 6.2% Textiles Rigid Beverage Containers Rigid containers All others Clothing (natural fibers, blends, polyester, Gore Tex, fleece, nylon, etc.) 2.2% 2.6% 3.6% 4.5% 2.9% 1.7% 0.2% 2.4% Deposit Containers (juice, pop, alcohol) 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% Non Deposit (milk/milk substitute) 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% #1 PETE; #2 HDPE; #3 PVC; #4 LDPE; #5 PP; #6 Non Foam/Foam; #7 Mixed Resin Plastic 2.2% 2.7% 4.3% 3.8% 3.2% 1.8% 0.1% 2.1% 9 Average is based on the percentage tonnage each sector contributed to the total tonnage of waste buried in 2012 at Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill 10 Average is based on the percentage tonnage each sector contributed to the total tonnage of waste buried in 2012 at Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill, excluding tonnage from the SHICI sector TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 10

18 Regional District of Fraser Fort George Table 4: Composition of Primary and Secondary Categories from All Sectors Primary Secondary Tertiary Average 9 Average 10 SFRES RRTS NRRTS SHRES SHICI ICI Other Plastics Durable products, toys, etc. 3.1% 3.8% 3.5% 7.6% 3.3% 1.1% 0.0% 5.2% COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS Subtotal 28.3% 30.7% 38.2% 24.7% 27.7% 34.1% 17.5% 25.7% Yard and Garden Food Waste Small yard waste (leaves, branches, grass clippings 9.7% 9.2% 13.2% 4.9% 6.8% 20.2% 11.9% 1.9% Compostable (e.g. fruits, vegetables). Backyard Non compostable (Meat, bones, breads, non liquid dairy, fats) 12.8% 15.3% 24.2% 14.9% 18.6% 10.9% 1.6% 12.6% Clean Wood 5.4% 5.7% 0.9% 4.9% 2.4% 3.1% 4.1% 10.2% NON COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS Subtotal 8.1% 9.3% 6.2% 5.2% 5.8% 18.3% 3.1% 6.8% Treated/Painted Wood/Composite Wood 5.2% 5.6% 1.2% 1.4% 0.5% 17.3% 3.1% 2.7% Rubber 0.7% 0.8% 1.2% 0.1% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% Multiple/Composite organic materials (footwear, etc.) 2.3% 2.8% 3.9% 3.8% 4.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.0% METALS Subtotal 4.5% 5.5% 4.5% 6.3% 8.9% 3.0% 0.0% 6.7% Beverage Containers Alcoholic 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Non alcoholic 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Food Containers, Trays or Foil Wraps 0.8% 1.0% 1.5% 1.1% 1.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.9% Other Metals 3.5% 4.3% 2.7% 4.8% 7.3% 2.2% 0.0% 5.7% GLASS Subtotal 1.4% 1.7% 2.7% 3.0% 2.3% 0.5% 0.1% 1.7% Beverage containers Refundable alcoholic 0.3% 0.4% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% Refundable non alcoholic 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Non refundable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Food containers 0.4% 0.4% 1.1% 1.3% 1.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Other glass 0.7% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 1.3% BUILDING MATERIAL Subtotal 20.8% 8.2% 2.6% 3.6% 8.0% 18.8% 77.2% 5.8% Gypsum/drywall, plaster 2.5% 2.0% 0.4% 1.8% 0.0% 4.6% 5.0% 1.7% TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 11

19 Regional District of Fraser Fort George Table 4: Composition of Primary and Secondary Categories from All Sectors Primary Secondary Tertiary Average 9 Average 10 SFRES RRTS NRRTS SHRES SHICI ICI Masonry (bricks, blocks, concrete, etc.) 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% Rock, sand, dirt, ceramic, porcelain 4.9% 0.7% 0.5% 1.1% 0.7% 0.0% 23.8% 1.3% Rigid Asphalt Products 9.6% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 36.2% 0.6% Carpet Waste (and underlay) 2.8% 1.6% 1.0% 0.1% 5.8% 0.0% 8.0% 2.2% Other Inorganics (linoleum, etc.) 0.3% 0.3% 0.7% 0.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% ELECTRONIC WASTE Subtotal 2.8% 3.4% 3.8% 6.7% 9.4% 1.1% 0.0% 3.2% Computers and peripherals 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.8% TV & Audio/video equipment 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.7% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% Telephones & Equipment 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Small appliances & floor care appliances 1.0% 1.3% 1.9% 3.9% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% Electronic or electrical tools 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 1.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% Electronic toys 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% Lighting equipment and light bulbs 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Smoke/CO detectors 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other e waste 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 1.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS (HHW) Subtotal 1.6% 2.0% 1.5% 3.1% 1.5% 1.1% 0.0% 2.7% Batteries 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% HHW (product &/or container) Paint 0.6% 0.7% 0.4% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% 1.0% Fertilizers/Pesticides 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Automotive 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.9% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% Pharmaceuticals 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 12

20 Regional District of Fraser Fort George Table 4: Composition of Primary and Secondary Categories from All Sectors Primary Secondary Tertiary Average 9 Average 10 SFRES RRTS NRRTS SHRES SHICI ICI Solvents 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Cosmetics 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mercury Containing Items Thermostats and switches 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other (old thermometers) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other HHW 0.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 1.0% HOUSEHOLD HYGIENE Subtotal 3.3% 4.1% 5.1% 3.4% 1.2% 10.2% 0.1% 0.7% Biological Diapers, feminine hygiene products 1.3% 1.6% 3.0% 1.4% 0.9% 2.6% 0.0% 0.5% Pet Waste (kitty litter, dog waste) 2.0% 2.5% 2.1% 2.0% 0.3% 7.6% 0.1% 0.3% BULKY OBJECTS Subtotal 2.3% 2.8% 0.1% 8.3% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% Furniture 2.3% 2.8% 0.1% 8.3% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% FINES Subtotal 0.6% 0.7% 0.9% 0.4% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.6% TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 13

21 3.3.1 Single Family Residential (SFRES) A total of twenty (20) waste samples were sorted from the SFRES sector. The percent composition for primary waste categories identified in these samples is provided in descending order in Table 5 and Figure 2. The largest quantity of the SFRES waste stream was compostable organics representing 38.2% of the total weight sampled. Out of the 38.2% compostable organic content, food waste was at 24.2%, yard and garden waste was at 13.2% and the rest was clean wood. Paper comprised the second largest waste category at 17.9%, with 11.8% of that being recyclable paper products. Plastics was the next largest category with about 4.2% plastic films, 5.2% recyclable plastic containers and the rest being synthetic textile material and other durable plastic products, comprising a total percent content of 16.4%. It was noted by the sorting team that electronic waste items were consistently present in the SFRES waste stream consisting mostly of small appliances and electronic equipment in most samples. Electronic waste made up a total percent content of 3.8% which was more than glass waste and building materials. The waste composition for the SFRES sector was relatively consistent throughout the samples and the standard deviation for each waste category is lower than the other waste sources. Typically residential waste is more consistent and does not vary largely within the same area. The high standard deviation for the compostable organics was caused by the variable amount of yard waste in some of the waste samples. All samples would have a consistent amount of food waste; however some samples would have a large quantity of yard waste, while others would have no yard waste, which leads to the larger standard deviation observed. Table 5: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the Single Family Residential Sector Percent Total Mass Standard Deviation Compostable Organics 38.2% 14.9% Paper 17.9% 5.1% Plastic 16.4% 5.4% Non Compostable Organics 6.2% 5.0% Household Hygiene 5.1% 4.2% Metals 4.5% 3.3% Electronic Waste 3.8% 3.9% Glass 2.7% 1.4% Building Material 2.6% 3.4% Household Hazardous (HHW) 1.5% 1.4% Fines 0.9% 0.8% Bulky Objects 0.1% 0.5% Total 100% TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 14

22 Single Family Residential 0.1% 0.9% 1.5% 5.1% 2.6% 3.8% 17.9% 2.7% 4.5% 6.2% 38.2% 16.4% PAPER PLASTIC COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS NON COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS METALS GLASS BUILDING MATERIAL ELECTRONIC WASTE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS (HHW) HOUSEHOLD HYGIENE BULKY OBJECTS FINES Figure 2: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition of the Single Family Residential Sector Recycling Rural Transfer Station (RRTS) For this Study a total of four waste samples were sorted from the RRTS. The percent composition for primary waste categories identified in these samples is provided in descending order in Table 6 and Figure 3. The largest quantity of the RRTS waste stream is compostable organics representing 24.7% of the total weight sampled. Out of the total compostable organic content, food waste was approximately 15% (more than half of the compostable organics); yard and garden waste and clean wood were at 4.9% each. Plastic comprised the second largest waste category having 4.9% plastic films, 5.6% recyclable plastic containers and the rest being synthetic textile material and other durable plastic products comprising a total percent content of 22.6%. Paper was the next largest category at 12.6%, with 7.5% of that being recyclable paper products. Electronic waste was present in large quantities making up to 6.7% of the total RRTS waste sampled with small appliances making the majority of the refuse electronic items. Bulky objects also constituted a large percent of the weight content at 8.3%; however the high standard deviation indicates the variability in the frequency of these items thrown away by users of the RRTSs. Additionally, a consistent amount of household hazardous waste was present in all samples with batteries, paint and automotive TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 15

23 oil and antifreeze containers making up the majority of the waste. These three categories combined constituted approximately 2.5% of the RRTS waste stream sampled. Due to the relatively small number of samples sorted from RRTS the standard deviation in the primary categories, especially bulky objects and plastics, is larger than for other sectors sampled in this study. Table 6: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the Recycling Rural Transfer Station Sector Percent Total Mass Standard Deviation Compostable Organics 24.7% 9.4% Plastic 22.6% 11.1% Paper 12.6% 5.3% Bulky Objects 8.3% 16.4% Electronic Waste 6.7% 5.8% Metals 6.3% 4.9% Non Compostable Organics 5.2% 3.2% Building Material 3.6% 3.5% Household Hygiene 3.4% 1.9% Household Hazardous (HHW) 3.1% 2.4% Glass 3.0% 2.2% Fines 0.4% 0.3% Total 100.0% TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 16

24 RRTS 3.4% 8.3% 3.1% 0.4% 12.6% PAPER PLASTIC COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS 6.7% NON COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS METALS 3.6% 3.0% 6.3% 22.6% GLASS BUILDING MATERIAL ELECTRONIC WASTE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS (HHW) 5.2% 24.7% HOUSEHOLD HYGIENE BULKY OBJECTS FINES Figure 3: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition of Recycling Rural Transfer Station Sector Non Recycling Rural Transfer Station (NRRTS) For this Study a total of ten (10) waste samples were sorted from the NRRTS sector. The percent composition for primary waste categories identified in these samples is provided in descending order in Table 7 and Figure 4. The largest quantity of the NRRTS waste stream is compostable organics representing 27.7% of the total weight sampled. Out of the total compostable organic content, food waste was approximately 18.6% (more than two thirds of the compostable organics), yard and garden waste and clean wood made up 6.7% and 2.4% weight content respectively. Including the non backyard compostable, organics made up around 34% of the total NRRTS waste stream sampled. Plastic comprised the second largest waste category with 5.4% plastic films, 3.8% recyclable plastic containers and the rest being synthetic textile material and other durable plastic products, comprising a total percent content of approximately 15%. Paper was the next largest category at 14%, with a vast majority (9.2%) out of that being recyclable paper products. Electronic waste was present in large quantities making up to 9.4% of the total NRRTS waste sampled. Small appliances and TV/Audio equipment in roughly the same proportions made up the majority of the refuse electronic items. Building materials, metals objects and bulky materials combined also constituted a large percent of the weight content at 8%, 8.9% and 5.3% respectively; however the high standard deviation in these primary categories indicates the variability in the frequency of these items TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 17

25 thrown out by users of the NRRTSs. The vast majority of the metal waste in the NRRTS stream however was non recyclable metals and non recyclable beverage container or food storage items. Moreover, a small yet consistent amount of household hazardous waste was present in all samples with batteries, paint and automotive waste making up the majority of the waste. These five categories combined together constituted approximately 32% of the NRRTS waste stream sampled. Table 7: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the Non Recycling Rural Transfer Stations Sector Percent Total Mass Standard Deviation Compostable Organics 27.7% 13.7% Plastic 15.4% 7.3% Paper 14.0% 6.2% Electronic Waste 9.4% 10.5% Metals 8.9% 10.4% Building Material 8.0% 11.9% Non Compostable Organics 5.8% 4.9% Bulky Objects 5.3% 6.9% Glass 2.3% 1.7% Household Hazardous (HHW) 1.5% 1.2% Household Hygiene 1.2% 1.6% Fines 0.5% 0.5% Total 100.0% TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 18

26 NRRTS 0.5% 1.5% 1.2% 5.3% 9.4% 8.0% 2.3% 8.9% 5.8% 14.0% 27.7% 15.4% PAPER PLASTIC COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS NON COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS METALS GLASS BUILDING MATERIAL ELECTRONIC WASTE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS (HHW) HOUSEHOLD HYGIENE BULKY OBJECTS FINES Figure 4: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition Non Recycling Rural Transfer Station Sector Self Haul Residential For this Study a total of six (6) waste samples were sorted from the self haul residential sector. The percent composition for primary waste categories identified in these samples is provided in descending order in Table 8 and Figure 5. The waste composition was highly variable for the self haul residential sector; however there were occurrences of common trends in each of the samples sorted. Compostable Organics once again constituted the largest portion at 34.1%; however the large standard deviation suggests the high variability of organic waste as a constituent to the self haul residential waste stream. Moreover, more than two thirds of the organic waste (23.2%) included yard and garden waste and clean wood. Noncompostable organics which made up a significant 18.3% of the weight content most commonly contained treated/painted wood. Building Materials generated from renovation activities made up a large portion of the waste stream at approximately 18.8%. Rigid asphalt products such as roofing tiles was the largest portion of this waste category at around 14.3% in addition to 4.5% of gypsum/drywall plaster. Household hygiene waste made up 10.2% of the total with pet waste being the vast majority at 7.6%. Paper and plastic waste were significantly lower than other waste sectors at 5.4% and 6.6% respectively. Moreover, the plastic content included very little recyclable material whereas the paper content was two thirds recyclable paper products. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 19

27 According to responses to the questions asked of self haul residential customers; renovation, clean up, and construction activities were the most common activities that generated the waste. The standard deviations for those primary categories contributing significant quantities of waste within the self haul residential sector were generally higher than found for the residential and commercial ICI sectors. The higher standard deviation may reflect the more diverse sources of waste. SHRES samples are also highly variable, as activities such as construction, renovations and bulky object clean up can generate many different types of waste. Notably, the waste is heavily weighted by the three main categories: compostable, non compostable organics and building materials. Compostable organics mainly comprised of clean wood while, non compostable organics mainly consisted of painted wood. Table 8: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the Self Haul Residential Sector Percent Total Mass Standard Deviation Compostable Organics 34.1% 42.1% Building Material 18.8% 34.9% Non Compostable Organics 18.3% 40.6% Household Hygiene 10.2% 10.2% Plastic 6.6% 4.0% Paper 5.4% 3.4% Metals 3.0% 3.1% Electronic Waste 1.1% 1.8% Household Hazardous (HHW) 1.1% 0.8% Fines 0.8% 1.4% Glass 0.5% 0.6% Bulky Objects 0% 0% Total 100.0% TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 20

28 Self Haul Residential 1.1% 1.1% 10.2% 0.0% 0.8% 5.4% 6.6% PAPER PLASTIC COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS NON COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS METALS 18.8% GLASS BUILDING MATERIAL 34.1% ELECTRONIC WASTE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS (HHW) 0.5% 3.0% 18.3% HOUSEHOLD HYGIENE BULKY OBJECTS FINES Figure 5: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition Self Haul Residential sector Self Haul Commercial For this Study a total of five (5) waste samples were sorted from the self haul commercial sector. The percent composition for primary waste categories identified in these samples is provided in descending order in Table 9 and Figure 6. Like the self haul residential sector, the waste composition for the self haul commercial sector was highly variable however similar common trends occurred. Building Materials generated from renovation activities made up the largest portion of the waste stream at 77.2%. Rigid asphalt products such as roofing tiles was the largest portion of this waste category at 36.2% followed by construction demolition material (rock, sand, dirt, porcelain and ceramic) at around 23.8%, carpet waste constituted 8%, whereas gypsum/drywall plaster and masonry constituted only 5% and 3.9% respectively. Compostable Organics content in the self haul commercial waste stream was the lowest of any other sector; however as expected the yard and garden waste constituted the greatest portion of the organics. The large standard deviation suggests the high variability of organic waste as a constituent to the self haul commercial waste stream, attributable to the fact that many self haul commercial loads have a significant amount of organic content and many have none at all. Non compostable organics which made up only 3%of the weight content contained exclusively treated/painted wood. Paper and plastic waste were the lowest than any other waste sectors at 1.4% and 0.7% respectively. Almost half of the plastic content was recyclable plastic containers whereas the paper content was almost entirely recyclable paper products. Household hygiene waste made up an insignificant 0.1% of TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 21

29 the total weight with pet waste being the vast majority. A large number of the samples from this sector contained waste from only a few of the waste categories. In the samples taken from the self haul commercial sector bulky objects were not encountered; however it is highly likely that items such as furniture and other bulky waste would enter the landfill through this waste stream. Table 9: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the Self Haul Commercial Sector Percent Total Mass Standard Deviation Building Material 77.2% 65.2% Compostable Organics 17.5% 28.4% Non Compostable Organics 3.1% 7.0% Paper 1.4% 2.2% Plastic 0.7% 0.8% Glass 0.1% 0.2% Household Hygiene 0.1% 0.1% Metals 0.0% 0% Electronic Waste 0% 0% Household Hazardous (HHW) 0% 0% Bulky Objects 0% 0% Fines 0% 0% Total 100.0% TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 22

30 Self Haul Commercial 0.1% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% PAPER PLASTIC 17.5% COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS NON COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS 3.1% 0.0% 0.1% METALS GLASS BUILDING MATERIAL ELECTRONIC WASTE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS (HHW) HOUSEHOLD HYGIENE 77.2% BULKY OBJECTS FINES Figure 6: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition Self Haul Commercial sector Commercial (ICI) For this Study a total of ten (10) waste samples were sorted from the commercial ICI sector. The percent composition for primary waste categories identified in these samples is provided in descending order in Table 10 and Figure7. Compostable Organics made up the largest portion of the waste representing 25.7%. Food waste represented approximately half of the compostable organics followed by clean wood. Paper was the next largest portion of the waste stream at 22.4% followed by plastic at 13.7%. Fine paper, old corrugated cardboard (OCC) and boxboard were the largest portion of the paper waste stream, and plastic film was the largest portion of the plastic waste stream. The waste composition for the ICI sector shows a higher standard deviation for all primary waste categories than the residential sector. The higher standard deviations may reflect the more diverse individual source sites, e.g. office buildings, restaurants, repair shops, institutions, etc. Generally in ICI samples, the contents were variable, depending on the sample s origin as one ICI sample was often shown to have a vastly different waste composition compared to another, depending on the source of the load. In general, the ICI waste composition is highly variable overall as there are many different activities that occur in the ICI sector that generate varying types of waste. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 23

31 Since no information was available about the source of the commercial ICI waste little inferences can be made on the statistical results of the sampling with regards to the type of waste coming from different industrial, commercial or institutional sources. Table 10: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the ICI Sector Percent Total Mass Standard Deviation Compostable Organics 25.7% 21.8% Paper 22.4% 10.2% Plastic 13.7% 7.1% Non Compostable Organics 6.8% 7.2% Metals 6.7% 5.6% Building Material 5.8% 7.6% Bulky Objects 5.0% 6.1% Electronic Waste 3.2% 4.5% Household Hazardous (HHW) 2.7% 2.3% Glass 1.7% 2.0% Household Hygiene 0.7% 1.3% Fines 0.6% 0.6% Total 100.0% Commercial ICI 0.6% 2.7% 0.7% 5.0% 3.2% PAPER 1.7% 5.8% 22.4% PLASTIC COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS NON COMPOSTABLE ORGANICS 6.7% METALS GLASS 6.8% 13.7% BUILDING MATERIAL ELECTRONIC WASTE 25.7% HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS (HHW) Figure 7: Mean Primary Waste Category Composition Commercial ICI TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 24

32 3.4 EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (EPR) MATERIALS Table 11 below summarizes the waste characterized under the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) category. Small appliances was the EPR category with the largest proportion at 1.8 % of all waste sorted, with RRTS contributing 3.9% of that, closely followed by NRRTS at 3.2%. Other E waste was the second largest category with 1.5%, 3.8% of which came from the NRRTS sector. Refundable beverage containers were the third largest category with 1.2%, 3.2% of which came from the RRTS sector. Large quantities of quarter to half full paint containers were found comprising a total of 0.5 % of all the waste sorted; largest contributing sector was RRTS at 0.8%. All other EPR categories were below 0.5% of total sorted weight content from each sector. EPR categorized waste was found to be highest in the RRTS sector totalling 10.7% of all the waste sorted from that sector, followed by NRRTS at 9.6%. EPR waste in the SFRES sector comprised a total of 6.3% of the total waste sorted which is close to the average for all sectors at 5.9%. Table 11: Summary of Waste Characterized under the EPR Category EPR Category Average SFRES RRTS NRRTS SHRES SHICI ICI Refundable Beverage Containers 1.2% 1.7% 3.2% 1.1% 0.7% 0% 0.6% Tires 0.02% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% E waste 1.5% 1.2% 0.9% 3.8% 0.5% 0% 1.3% Cell Phones 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Small Appliances 1.8% 1.9% 3.9% 3.2% 0.0% 0% 1.1% Fluorescent Lights and Tubes 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0% 0.2% Smoke and CO Alarms 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Batteries 0.2% 0.3% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0% 0.1% Paint 0.5% 0.4% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4% 0% 1.0% Used Oil/ Antifreeze 0.4% 0.3% 0.9% 0.5% 0.2% 0% 0.5% Thermostats 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total by Sector 5.9% 6.3% 10.7% 9.6% 1.8% 0.0% 4.9% TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 25

33 3.5 OVERALL WASTE COMPOSITION Waste from SFRES areas was made up of approximately 44% organics, 18% paper and 16 % plastic. Collectively, these three primary categories accounted for more than three quarters (78%) of the total residential waste stream entering the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill. Organics also comprised the largest percentage of waste from recycling transfer stations (approx. 30%) and from non recycling transfer stations (approx. 34%). Plastic is the second largest category from both sectors at around 23% from RRTS and 15% from NRRTS; followed by paper for both sector at around 13% and 14% respectively. The next largest categories of waste from RRTS, in descending order, was bulky items (approx. 8%), electronic waste (approx. 7%), metals (approx. 6%), building materials (approx. 4%), household hygiene (approx. 3%), HHW (approx. 3%), glass (approx. 3%), fines (> 1%); and from NRRTS in descending order, was electronic waste (approx. 9%), metals (approx. 9%), building materials (approx. 8%), bulky items (approx. 5%), glass (approx. 2%), HHW (approx. 1%), household hygiene (approx. 1%), fines (> 1%). An analysis of the data for the self haul residential waste revealed that organics accounted for over half (approx. 52%) of the waste stream; however unlike SFRES the organic content was mostly yard waste. Building materials such as asphalt roof tiles, gypsum and drywall was the second largest category (approx. 19%) from this sector; followed by paper and plastic at approximately 5% and 7% respectively. All other categories were below 5% total content. Over three quarters of the waste from self haul commercial sector was building material (approx. 77%). The second highest contributor was organics (approx. 20%). Paper and plastic were a little less than 2% and 1% respectively. All other categories were negligible. The data show that organic matter is the largest contributor to the commercial ICI waste (approx. 33%). Paper was the second largest category; together paper and organic content accounted for 55% of the waste from this sector. The composition of waste from commercial ICI was similar to that of SFRES with the three primary categories, organics, paper and plastic accounting for about three quarters of the total waste stream. As can be seen in the figure below the SFRES contributes the largest quantity of compostable organics in the total waste stream closely followed by self haul residential. Self haul residentail also had the largest quantity of noncompostable organics in the forms of treated/painted wood. The percentage of hazardous by products in the waste stream from RRTS was much higher than from any other waste source. Specifically, 3.1% of waste from the recycling transfer stations was reported as hazardous byproducts, significantly greater than the 0% to 2.7% range reported for all other waste sources. The greatest amount of electronic and metal waste came from NRRTSs. Most of the electronic waste was made up of small appliances, small electronic tools and TV/Video equipment. Majority of the metal waste was machinery components and/or building debris. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 26

34 Regional District of Fraser Fort George 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 77% All Sectors SFR Commercial ICI NRRTS RRTS Self Haul RES Self Haul COMM 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Figure 8: Overall Waste Composition by Sector and Primary Category TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 27

35 3.6 COMPARISON OF RRTS AND NRRTS WASTE STREAM COMPOSITION Due to the expansive area for which the RDFFG has waste collection responsibility, rural transfer stations are recognized as a significant source of waste delivered to the landfill. Not all transfer stations however, are equipped with services to collect recyclable products. Of the 17 rural transfer stations in the RDFFG, six offer recycling services. Notably, the percentage of plastic in the waste stream from transfer stations was higher in recycling transfer stations (22.6%) than from the non recycling transfer station at 15.4%. However, the recyclable plastic in both streams is comparable at 3.8% for NRRTS and 5.6% for RRTS. Notably, the percentage of hazardous by products in the waste stream from transfer stations was much higher in recycling transfer stations (3.1%) than from any other waste sources; the lowest being 1.1% from self haul residential waste stream and the second highest from commercial ICI at 2.7%. Also, the HHW waste from RRTSs was double that of NRRTSs. Hazardous by products encountered during this Study included solvents, pesticides, paint cans, aerosol canisters, used motor oil, batteries and pharmaceutical products. As anticipated, a greater percentage of paper was found in NRRTS than the RRTS stream however the difference was only a little more than 1%. Table 12: Mean Primary Category Distribution for the Rural Transfer Station Sector Commented [u2]: There is no reference in this section to Table 12 or Figure 9 Percent Total Mass RRTS Standard Deviation Percent Total Mass NNRTS Standard Deviation Paper 12.6% 5.3% 14.0% 6.2% Plastic 22.6% 11.1% 15.4% 7.3% Compostable Organics 24.7% 9.4% 27.7% 13.7% Non Compostable Organics 5.2% 3.2% 5.8% 4.9% Metals 6.3% 4.9% 8.9% 10.4% Glass 3.0% 2.2% 2.3% 1.7% Building Material 3.6% 3.5% 8.0% 11.9% Electronic Waste 6.7% 5.8% 9.4% 10.5% Household Hazardous (HHW) 3.1% 2.4% 1.5% 1.2% Household Hygiene 3.4% 1.9% 1.2% 1.6% Bulky Objects 8.3% 16.4% 5.3% 6.9% Fines 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 28

36 Regional District of Fraser Fort George 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% RRTS NRRTS 5.00% 0.00% Figure 9: Comparison between RRTS and NRRTS Waste Streams TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 29

37 3.7 COMPARISON WITH 2007 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS Table 13 below includes data from both the 2007 data and the 2013 data for all the primary categories at the Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill. Appendix I includes a summary table of all the waste categories used in 2013, and the comparable waste categories that were used in Generally, waste in all categories showed a significant reduction compared to the 2007 study. Greatest reduction was observed in paper waste which saw a drop of almost 12% since the 2007 study. Plastics saw a 7.3%drop. Organic content (compostable and non backyard compostable) saw an increase by 10.8%. Building material (construction and demolition materials 2007 study) rose from 2.9% to 12.8 % an almost 10% increase. Household hazardous waste (hazardous by products 2007 study) remained approximately the same. Table 13: Comparison of Data between the 2007 and 2013 Study Primary Category 2007 Study Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill (N=60) Primary Category 2013 Study Foothills Boulevard Regional Landfill (N=55) Mean (+/ ) Mean (+/ ) Paper & Paperboard 26.7% 9.9% Paper 14.8% 7.2% Glass 4.7% 3.8% Glass 2.0% 1.7% Plastics 14.0% 4.0% Plastic 13.7% 6.8% Ferrous Metals 3.6% 2.4% Non Ferrous Metals 1.1% 1.3% Metals 5.3% 5.9% Organic Matter 24.6% 10.5% Compostable Organics 30.7% 22.6% Wood Products 2.5% 5.1% Non Compostable Organics 7.2% 14.3% Construction and Demolition Materials 2.9% 6.3% Building Material 12.8% 25.3% Hazardous By products 1.5% 2.6% Household Hazardous (HHW) 1.7% 1.6% Composite Products 10.2% 8.3% Electronic Waste 4.3% 5.8% Household Hygiene 3.6% 4.8% Other 0.0% 0.2% Bulky Objects 2.5% 6.1% TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 30

38 3.8 LIMITATIONS: SOURCES OF ERROR DURING THE SORTS Small discrepancies between the total sample mass and the sum of the sorted category masses can occur at the end of sorting a sample. Sample material falling to the floor and changes in moisture content during the sort would result in a sorted category mass that was different than the total sample mass. Also, errors in the recording of field data are possible reasons for the sum of the category masses being different from the total sample mass. Such errors were minor, and are controlled by our QA/QC procedures for error checking the data. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 31

39 4 CONCLUSIONS Analysis of the overall waste composition from all sectors coming into the landfill demonstrates that compostable organics make up the largest portion of the waste at 30.7%. This includes yard and garden waste, food scraps and clean wood. Paper and Plastic were second and third largest categories at 16.5% and 13.0% respectively. Non compostable organics was the next largest contributor at 9.3% followed by building material at 8.2%. However large quantities of only building material were recovered from several samples taken from the self haul commercial and residential sectors and this may be expected to be seasonal waste, as most construction such as roofing projects and outdoor renovations take place in the summer months. Building materials made up a large portion of the waste generated from renovation activities. Rigid asphalt products were the largest portion of this waste category at 5% followed by demolition debris and carpet waste in approximately the same proportions. It was noted by the sorting team that there were consistently household hazardous waste items present in most samples. The percentage of hazardous by products in the waste stream from RRTS was much higher than from any other waste source at 3.1% which is significantly greater than the 0% to 2.7% range reported for all other waste sources. Household hazardous waste included batteries, solvents, empty oil containers, empty, or nearly empty paint and aerosol cans, and half full fertilizer or pesticide containers. The total quantity of household hazardous waste is comparable to results obtained for a similar study in the Regional District of North Okanagan; however there was approximately twice as much household hazardous waste in this Study as is typically found in similar studies for Metro Vancouver. Larger quantities of HHW appear to occur in rural waste streams where agricultural activities may require the use of herbicides and insecticides. It is also hypothesized that in rural settings there is more tendency to do it yourself repairing and servicing of vehicles, compared to the predominant urban representation in the Metro Vancouver waste stream. All other categories contributed less than 5% to the total quantity of waste going into the landfill. Electronic waste was found in all waste streams, however the greatest quantity came from NRRTSs where 9.4% of the total mass sorted was electronic waste almost 2.5 times more than the SFRES sector. Bulky electronics such as vacuum cleaners, pressure washers, and other electronic appliances are examples of electronic items that were observed. The primary and secondary category data was subjected to statistical analysis using the provincial waste characterization tool to determine the means and standard deviations of each of the categories. The standard deviations of waste within each of the primary categories calculations indicated a fairly good consistency for the SFRES samples. Each load of SFRES waste represents the 5 garbage collection zones, each of which would be expected to have a similar waste composition. The waste composition for the ICI sector shows a higher standard deviation for all primary waste categories than the residential sector. Higher standard deviations are expected for the ICI sector because the primary sources can be vastly different. In addition, each delivery may contain waste from several primary sources, but the load is not necessarily well mixed. The standard deviations for a majority of the categories of the self haul waste are large. However, this is due to having a significant number of the samples from the self haul sector containing waste from only a few primary categories. A large confidence interval does not necessarily TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 32

40 indicate that the data is unreliable; instead it can indicate that the data from a particular sector is highly variable depending on the source, with different sub sectors producing different types of waste. When the data was compared to the 2007 study, the greatest changes in waste composition were observed in paper waste which saw a drop of almost 12% since the 2007 study. Plastics saw a 7.3% drop overall. Organic content showed an increase by 10.8%. Building material (construction and demolition materials 2007 study) rose from 2.9% to 12.8%. Household hazardous waste (hazardous by products 2007 study) remained approximately the same. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 33

41 5 CLOSURE AND PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. prepared the foregoing report for the exclusive use and information of the Regional District of Fraser Fort George. The information and data were collected and compiled in accordance with the general level of care and skill normally exercised by environmental science and engineering professionals practicing under similar circumstances. During the preparation of this report, TRI has relied on reports, data, studies, specifications, documents and other information provided by others. TRI has taken care to verify the information provided where possible, but makes no warranty as to the accuracy of the reports, data, studies, specifications, documents and other information prepared by others and accepts no responsibility for information contained in them. Any use by a third party of the foregoing report, or any reliance upon or decisions made by a third party based upon them, are the sole responsibility of such third parties. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on the foregoing report. Thank you for choosing TRI for this Project. Should you have questions concerning this report, or if you require additional information, please contact the undersigned at (604) Sincerely, TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Leandro Torrella, RPBio Field Supervisor Leandro@tri.bc.ca Ahmed Aibak, M.Eng Project Coordinator Avery Gottfried, ME, P.Eng Project Manager Avery@tri.bc.ca Tauseef Waraich, M.Sc., P.Ag, EP Senior Reviewer Tauseef@tri.bc.ca TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. 34

42 APPENDICES TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendices

43 APPENDIX I WASTE CHARACTERIZATION CATEGORIES TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix I

44 APPENDIX II CITY OF PRINCE GEORGE WASTE COLLECTION SCHEDULE AND ZONES TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix II

45 APPENDIX III CALCULATION METHODOLOGY TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix III

46 Waste Composition Estimation 1. The weighted mean of a particular category or subcategory was calculated by first summing the weights of that particular category across all the samples. 2. Next, the weights of each sample were summed to obtain the total weight for all samples within that set (eg. Round 1 of SF RES sector). 3. The weighted mean is finally calculated by dividing the first sum by the second. This method was chosen to calculate the mean compositions because not every sample is exactly the same weight. This method ensures that the average gives more emphasis to those samples that contain a greater weight. A simple illustration is provided for the sample calculation for the weighted mean of newsprint. RES 1 RES 2 RES 3 RES 4 Newsprint (weight) Boxboard (weight) Total Weight of Sample Following Step 1, the sum is of the weights is taken across all samples of newsprint = 7.9 Step 2 entails summing the total weights of each sample across all samples = 15.2 Finally, the weighted mean of newsprint is calculated by dividing the two sums. 7.9 / 15.2 = 0.52 Mathematically, the calculations of the weighted mean can be shown as follows: Let Then, i represent an individual sample j represent the waste category k ij represent the weight of waste category j in sample i w i represent the weight of sample i Weight Mean of Waste Category j = Σ i k ij / Σ i w i TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix III

47 Standard Deviation Calculations The non biased standard deviation method was applied to the Study to estimate how much the waste in a particular category varies about the average from sample to sample. 1. All data was converted from weight in kilograms to percentage of sample weight. For example, Sample 1 has a total mass is kg. Suppose 1.65 kg out of kg consisted of Fine Office Paper then in terms of percentages, 1.65/100.2 or 1.65 percent of Sample 1 consisted of Fine Office Paper. 2. The non biased, or n 1 equation for standard deviation was then applied to the percentages of a particular waste category across all samples. Using the above example, the weights are converted to percentages to obtain the following table. RES 1 RES 2 RES 3 RES 4 Newsprint (%) 65% 43% 32% 71% Boxboard (%) 35% 57% 68% 29% Total % of Sample 100% 100% 100% 100% Then, applying the non biased equation for standard deviation to newsprint, (values 65%, 43%, 32%, and 71%) the standard deviation of newsprint is obtained to be 18.47%. SD newsprint = sqrt((4((65%)^2 + (43%)^2 + (32%)^2 + (71%)^2) (65% + 43% + 32% + 71%)^2) / 4(3) ) = % Mathematically, the calculations of the standard deviation can be shown as follows: SD j n i 2 x ij n ( n ( i 1 ) x ij ) 2 *Note Where i represents an individual sample j represents the waste category n is the number of samples x ij is the percentage waste in the waste category j of sample i The standard deviations for Primary Waste Categories were calculated by first calculating the standard deviations for Secondary Categories using the above method, and then summing those standard deviations to obtain standard deviations for the Primary Categories. For the Study, the same methods for calculating weighted averages and standard deviations of waste categories in one particular facility have been extended to calculating weighted averages and standard deviations across data sets of an entire sector or round. TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix III

48 APPENDIX IV SELECTED SITE PHOTOS TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix IV

49 Sorting Station HHW Paint Cans Compostable Organics Clean Wood Textiles Paper Soiled Paper Electrical Vacuum Cleaner TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix IV

50 Metals Alcoholic Beverage Containers HHW Other Plastics Rigid Containers Plastics Rigid Beverage Containers HHW Insecticide Organics Compostable TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix IV

51 Electronics Telephone Metal Foil and Food Trays Paper Food Contaminated OCC Clean OCC Paper Beverage Container Dairy Paper Fine TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix IV

52 Fines Plastic Film Plastics Durable Building Material Carpet Waste HHW Automotive Glass Food Containers TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix IV

53 Plastic Non deposit Rigid Beverage Containers Electrical TV & Audio Equipment Paper Fine Metal Other Household Hygiene Pet Waste Plastics Durable TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix IV

54 Electronics Lighting Equipment Plastic Durable Compostable Organic Yard Waste Household Hygiene Diapers HHW Batteries Non Compostable Organics Composite TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix IV

55 Electronics Pressure Washer Non Compostable Organics Rubber Glass Beverage Containers Metals Other Paper Bound Paper Organics Food TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix IV

56 HHW Pharmaceuticals and Medical Bulky Furniture Building Material Masonry Non Compostable Organics Treated/Painted Wood Non Compostable Organics Footwear HHW Paint Containers TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix IV

57 Building Material Gypsum/Drywall Compostable Organics Meat Non Compostable Organics Rubber Tire Electronics Small Toy TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. Appendix IV