2015 Demolition, Land-clearing, and Construction Waste Composition Monitoring Program

Transcription

1 2015 Demolition, Land-clearing, and Construction Waste Composition Monitoring Program PRESENTED TO Metro Vancouver JANUARY 11, 2016 ISSUED FOR USE FILE: SWM.SWOP Tetra Tech EBA Inc. Suite th Floor, 885 Dunsmuir Street Vancouver, BC V6C 1N5 CANADA Tel Fax

2 This page intentionally left blank.

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tetra Tech EBA Inc. (Tetra Tech) was retained by both Metro Vancouver and the City of Vancouver to complete a joint-demolition, Land-clearing and Construction (DLC) Waste Composition Study. The objective of this joint study was to establish current data on the composition of DLC waste disposed of at the following locations: Western 40 Hectares (W40Ha) site at the Vancouver Landfill (VLF) located in Delta BC; EcoWaste Landfill in Richmond, BC; and Out-of-region DLC waste facilities. The sampling work was conducted in September and October Metro Vancouver funded the sampling work at EcoWaste Landfill while the City of Vancouver covered the DLC sampling work at the VLF. The results for each facility, along with the estimate of out-of-region waste, were then combined to obtain an overall regional estimate of DLC waste composition. The City of Vancouver commissioned a separate waste composition report comprising both the results of the VLF DLC waste audit and an audit on their residential garbage and green waste streams. Metro Vancouver is commissioning this report as a part of its commitment to continually monitor the composition of the region s municipal solid waste stream over time, and track progress towards reaching its waste diversion targets. DLC WASTE COMPOSITION At each facility, DLC waste was visually estimated into 16 primary categories and a total of 44 subcategories. Table A-1 summarizes the DLC waste composition results by primary category at the Vancouver Landfill, Table A-2 summarizes the results at the EcoWaste Landfill, and Table A-3 summarizes the overall regional DLC waste composition. Detailed results are available in the report, and a summary of all secondary categories by material type are available in Table A directly after the report, or sorted by material use in Table B at the end of this report. Vancouver Landfill The percentage of wood in the VLF s DLC waste composition profile was significantly higher than it was in 2011, increasing 29 percentage points over the four years. However, the total weight of wood arriving is fairly comparable to 2011, as the total tonnage of DLC material received at the facility in 2015 dropped by 35 percentage points. It is important to note that at the VLF in 2011, the demolition loads were charged a fixed rate, whereas in 2015 they were charged per tonne. What was observed is that there is no longer a significant amount of rubble, concrete and masonry items within the DLC loads, whereas these materials used to account for 25% of the weight in Asphalt is the other major category that saw a significant drop in tonnage compared to These materials combined account for a majority of the decrease in the tonnage received at VLF between 2011 and Concrete and Asphalt are accepted at a lower tipping fee at the EcoWaste landfill as they have beneficial uses and can be recycled; also, there are other Concrete and Asphalt recyclers in the region where these materials are likely being diverted. Concrete and Asphalt that is received at the VLF is stockpiled on site and processed to create aggregate and other materials that can be used for operational or construction activities. i 2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring

4 Table A-1: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition Material Category by Type 2015 % by 2011 % by 2015 (tonnes) 2011 (tonnes) Change in 1 (tonnes) Wood 90.0% 61% 112, ,915-5,623 Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) 28.7% 31% 35,743 60,430-24, % 7% 23,365 13,550 9,815 Composite 24.9% 22% 31,095 43,219-12,124 Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 14.0% - 17,521-17,521 Asphalt 2.5% 6% 3,128 12,300-9,172 Plastic 1.5% 1% 1,892 2, Metal 1.5% 2% 1,855 3,268-1,413 Misc. Building 1.5% <1% 1,840 4,360-2,520 Land-clearing 1.2% 2% 1,538 3,567-2,029 Rubble 0.5% 18% ,921-34,356 Masonry 0.4% 2% 506 2,962-2,456 Concrete 0.3% 5% 332 9,147-8,815 Household 0.2% <1% Textiles 0.1% <1% Bulky 0.1% <1% Rubber 0.1% <1% Glass and Ceramics 0.0% <1% Paper 0.0% <1% Miscellaneous 0.0% <1% Total 2,3 100% 100% 125, ,000-67,000 1 In 2011 DLC loads at Vancouver Landfill were charged a flat rate per load, regardless of weight; in 2015 DLC loads are charged by weight. 2 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 3 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision. EcoWaste Landfill The largest portion of the DLC waste is wood (41%) from transfer station reloads, roofing projects, and construction sites. This includes, by weight, composite wood (18%), painted or treated dimensional lumber (10%), unpainted dimensional lumber (7%), and a small amount of wood flooring, wood shingles, and pallets make up the remaining 6%. The second largest category by weight is asphalt (13%), which consists of asphalt shingles. The third largest category by weight is miscellaneous building material (10%) including carpet, underlay, and fiberglass insulation. ii

5 The DLC waste composition is fairly similar to 2011 by overall percentage. The biggest changes are a decrease in the amount of rubble and concrete. There was very little concrete and rubble observed in any loads in 2015, compared to The overall tonnage of material arriving at EcoWaste Landfill has more than doubled since 2011, but as seen in Table 16, the overall composition is similar. As noted by Tom Land, President and CEO of EcoWaste Industries, the construction market in the Metro Vancouver has remained strong, which includes the removal of existing Single Family and smaller Multi-Family housing to create higher density development. This creates a very active demolition waste market, as well as waste from new construction activities. Recycling activities for large new construction activities appear to be effective, however Single Family housing demolition recycling activities tend to be more challenged due to space constraints for on-site source separation. Table A-2: EcoWaste DLC Waste Composition Material Category by Type 2015 % by 2011 % by 2015 (tonnes) 2011 (tonnes) Change in (tonnes) Wood 40.8% 37% 77,726 32,038 45,688 Asphalt 13.3% 12% 25,319 10,423 14,896 Misc. Building 9.8% 6% 18,747 5,266 13,481 Rubble 9.2% 20% 17,510 17, Plastic 8.6% 10% 16,305 8,554 7,751 Bulky 2.5% <1% 4, ,359 Land-clearing 2.4% 1% 4, ,634 Paper 2.3% <1% 4, ,112 Metal 2.2% 1% 4,230 1,093 3,137 Miscellaneous 2.2% 3% 4,192 2,565 1,627 Textiles 2.2% <1% 4, ,568 Household 1.9% 2% 3,667 1,415 2,252 Glass and Ceramics 1.3% 1% 2,466 1,280 1,186 Rubber 0.9% <1% 1, ,512 Masonry 0.3% <1% Concrete 0.1% 4% 155 3,744-3,589 Total 1,2 100% 100% 190,000 86, ,000 1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision. Regional DLC Waste Composition Wood continues to be the largest portion of the DLC waste in the region, averaging 57% of the total by weight. The second largest category is asphalt (9%) followed by miscellaneous building materials at (7%) rubble at (7%) and plastic (6%). The remaining material categories each account for 2% or less of the total DLC waste stream. As noted previously, the largest changes include the decrease and almost elimination of all concrete. The amount of rubble has also decreased by almost 50%. The largest overall increases are in the amount of wood, miscellaneous building materials, plastic and asphalt. The total DLC tonnages in the following table includes 70,474 tonnes of iii

6 material that is sent out-of-region for disposal. There is an assumption that this material has the same composition as the transfer station reload DLC waste material sampled at VLF and EcoWaste. Table A-3: Overall Regional DLC Waste Composition Material Category by Type 2015 % by 2011 % by 2015 (tonnes) 2011 (tonnes) Change in (tonnes) Wood 57% 54% 217, ,823 67,120 Asphalt 9% 8% 34,597 22,519 12,078 Misc. Building 7% 3% 28,441 9,488 18,953 Rubble 7% 19% 27,814 52,289-24,475 Plastic 6% 4% 24,380 10,871 13,509 Metal 2% 2% 7,785 4,377 3,408 Bulky 2% <1% 7, ,076 Textiles 2% <1% 7, ,429 Land-clearing 2% 2% 6,236 4,518 1,718 Miscellaneous 2% <1% 6,227 2,601 3,626 Paper 2% <1% 5, ,527 Household 1% <1% 5,419 1,438 3,981 Glass and Ceramics 1% <1% 2,601 2, Rubber 1% <1% 2, ,848 Masonry <1% 1% 1,052 3,081-2,029 Concrete <1% 5% ,906-12,420 Total 1,2 100% 100% 386, , ,000 1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision. iv

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... I 1.0 INTRODUCTION Background Scope of Work DLC WASTE AUDIT METHODOLOGY DLC Waste Audits Composition Auditing Data Analysis and Statistical Evaluation DLC WASTE AUDIT RESULTS Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition EcoWaste DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 Study Regional DLC Waste Composition Metro Vancouver Regional DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to CLOSURE LIST OF TABLES IN TEXT Table A-1: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition... ii Table A-2: EcoWaste DLC Waste Composition... iii Table A-3: Overall Regional DLC Waste Composition... iv Table 1: Sorting Locations and Dates... 2 Table 2: Total and Average of each Sample... 2 Table 3: Driver Reported DLC Load Source... 3 Table 4: Total DLC Waste Disposed... 4 Table 5: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Type... 4 Table 6: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Use... 6 Table 7: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to Table 8: EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Type... 9 Table 9: EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Use Table 10: EcoWaste DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to Table 11: Total Regional DLC Waste Composition by Material Type Table 12: Overall Regional DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to v

8 LIST OF FIGURES IN TEXT Figure 1: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition % Sorted by Material Type... 5 Figure 2: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition % Sorted by Material Use... 7 Figure 3: EcoWaste Landfill Composition by Figure 4: EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition % Sorted by Material Use Figure 5: Metro Vancouver Regional Composition by APPENDIX SECTIONS TABLES Table A Table B Secondary Category Garbage Data by Load Source Secondary Category Detailed Organics Data by Load Source APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Tetra Tech s General Conditions DLC Category Descriptions and Typical Density Conversion Factors Select Photos Vancouver Landfill Select Photos Ecowaste Landfill ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS Acronyms CCME DLC GVS&DD PPE VLF W40Ha Definition Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Demolition, Land-clearing, and Construction Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District Personal Protective Equipment Vancouver Landfill Western 40 Hectares Terminology Hauler Load Load Source Sample Material Categories Definition Vehicle delivering the waste Amount of waste contained in a hauler truck Origin of a specific sample Portion of the load that was weighed and sorted Types of materials groupings assessed for the waste characterization vi

9 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of the Metro Vancouver and their agents. Tetra Tech EBA Inc. (operating as Tetra Tech) does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than the Metro Vancouver, or for any Project other than the proposed development at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk of the user. Use of this report is subject to the terms and conditions stated in Tetra Tech EBA Inc. s Services Agreement. Tetra Tech s General Conditions are provided in Appendix A of this report. 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 characterization of waste and recyclables generated by the various sectors at any given time. Even with combined educational, regulatory, and financial initiatives the reader should not assume that it is necessarily easy, practical, or economical to recover a substantial portion of a disposed material from a mixed waste stream or at its source. vii

10 1.0 INTRODUCTION Tetra Tech EBA Inc. (Tetra Tech) was retained by both Metro Vancouver and the City of Vancouver to complete a joint-demolition, Land-clearing and Construction (DLC) Waste Composition Study. The objective of this joint study was to establish current data on the composition of DLC waste disposed of at the following locations: Western 40 Hectares (W40Ha) site at the Vancouver Landfill (VLF) located in Delta BC; EcoWaste Landfill in Richmond, BC; AND Out-of-region DLC waste facilities. The sampling work was conducted in September and October Metro Vancouver funded the sampling work at EcoWaste Landfill while the City of Vancouver covered the DLC sampling work at the VLF. The results for each facility, along with the estimate of out-of-region waste, were then combined to obtain an overall regional estimate of DLC waste composition. The City of Vancouver commissioned a separate waste composition report comprising both the results of the VLF DLC waste audit and an audit on their residential garbage and green waste streams. Metro Vancouver is commissioning this report as a part of its commitment to continually monitor the composition of the region s municipal solid waste stream over time, and track progress towards its reaching its waste diversion targets. 1.1 BACKGROUND The Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District (GVS&DD) is responsible for managing municipal solid waste for over 2 million residents in the lower mainland of British Columbia. To do this, the GVS&DD oversees a solid waste disposal system, which includes a mass-burn waste to energy facility, six transfer stations, and a long-haul landfill in Cache Creek, BC. Combined with a transfer station and local landfill owned and operated by the City of Vancouver, this public-sector system provides transfer and disposal services to the residents and businesses in the region. Waste from the DLC sector is managed primarily at the EcoWaste Industries Landfill and other privately-operated facilities and at the City of Vancouver Landfill. The objective of this waste monitoring program is to gain an up-to-date estimate of the composition of the DLC waste stream for the Metro Vancouver area in collaboration with the City of Vancouver. The Corporation has set a goal of increasing the regional waste diversion rate from 55% to 70% by 2015, and to 90% by Understanding the current composition of the waste stream enables the Corporation to continue to develop and implement new programs that will increase the diversion of targeted material streams into reuse, recycling or energy recovery opportunities and decrease the overall proportion of waste being sent to disposal. The last DLC waste composition monitoring program was performed at the Vancouver Landfill and EcoWaste Landfill facilities in SCOPE OF WORK The Tetra Tech project team prepared a sampling framework and protocol customized for this study, working from data completeness, scheduling, safety, and budgetary perspectives. The location and dates the study took place are summarized in Table 1. The total number of samples completed, along with the total and average weight of material sorted is summarized in Table 2. 1

11 Table 1: Sorting Locations and Dates Location Load Source Date (2015) VLF DLC October 5 October 8 EcoWaste DLC October 13 October 16 At the VLF, a total of 50 samples weighing 772,706 kg were audited, with an average weight per load of 15,454 kg. A majority of the truck at VLF were from residential demolitions and the trucks were similar in size and composition. At EcoWaste, a total of 53 samples weighing 483,720 kg were audited, with an average weight per load of 9,127 kg. Trucks arriving at EcoWaste were variable is size and composition, ranging from small trucks and trailers to 40 yard trucks. DLC waste was visually estimated into 16 primary categories and a total of 44 subcategories. Table 2: Total and Average of each Sample Load Source Number of Samples Total Audited (kg) Average of Samples (kg) VLF - DLC ,706 15,454 EcoWaste - DLC ,720 9, DLC WASTE AUDIT METHODOLOGY This section reviews the components of the study, provides an overview of how waste was collected and sampled, and outlines other key factors and considerations for the study. Sampling and sorting was conducted in accordance with the methodology set out in the Recommended Waste Characterization Methodology for Direct Waste Analysis Studies in Canada (Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment [CCME] 1999). Detailed category descriptions are included in Appendix B. 2.1 DLC WASTE AUDITS At both the Vancouver and EcoWaste Landfills, trucks were selected on an as-available basis, meaning all demolition trucks would be sent to the audit area upon arrival if there was sufficient space. This process added inherent randomness, as selection was largely dictated by order of arrival, which varied daily. Trucks were sent directly to the audit area by the scale or landfill staff; therefore, no bias was introduced to the study by Tetra Tech audit staff. Twelve to eighteen samples were brought to the audit area each day. Upon arrival of demolition trucks, a Tetra Tech audit representative would approach each truck driver to obtain the license plate, truck size (yd³), load size (tonnes) (if applicable), percentage full (%) and load source (residential, construction, etc.). This information was recorded and used to correlate visual estimates with actual load weights as determined by the scale. Once information was obtained, the trucks were directed to dump their load in the audit area Composition Auditing Prior to visual auditing, the load was spread apart by an excavator to an approximate depth of 0.5 m to ensure that all material types were visible. Both the field supervisor and field assistant visually estimated the contents of the load by volume percentage. This was accomplished by first estimating the amount of material by primary categories, and then further estimating the amount of materials within the primary category. Estimates derived by each person were compared to determine acceptability and were adjusted until consensus is reached. Any items with known 2

12 volume or weight, such as pallets, were also counted to provide reference for quality checks. Items that had higher or lower than average compaction were noted so density conversion factors could be adjusted during analysis. Additionally, as necessary, unique material was weighed and measured (volumetrically) to determine item specific densities that were used to improve the accuracy on a case-by-case basis. At the end of each day, scale tickets were obtained from the scale house for weight comparison during data analysis Data Analysis and Statistical Evaluation All data from field sheets was entered into spreadsheets programmed with material density for each material type. Volume percentage was multiplied by material bulk densities, total truck volume, and percent full to determine weight estimates. The estimated weight was compared against net weight as determined by scale tickets. These densities were used to calculate approximate weights of each material type, and the sum of these weights was used to compare to the actual load weight to assess the accuracy of the visual estimation method. In cases where the density provided did not accurately represent material found in the field, the density was manually adjusted to reflect field conditions. The detailed list of all material densities is included in Appendix B. Percent difference between actual and estimated weight was calculated for each sample, and for the entire sample set as a whole. A 95% confidence interval was calculated for each material type. 3.0 DLC WASTE AUDIT RESULTS The results from the DLC waste audit are provided in the following sections. The average was determined by using a weighted mean which was calculated by volume percentage, by weighted percentage, and the total estimated annual weight. The confidence interval was calculated for primary categories using a 95% confidence level. Each driver that arrived and was selected for auditing was asked their load source. Table 3 summarizes the results from both the VLF and EcoWaste Landfill. At the VLF a vast majority of the loads arriving were from residential demolitions. There were only two (2) loads reported as construction, and two (2) hog fuel loads which were from a wood waste recycler. Table 3: Driver Reported DLC Load Source Waste Category Vancouver Landfill EcoWaste Landfill Total Net (tonnes) Transfer Station Reload Commercial Demolition Residential Demolition Residential Renovation Construction Land-clearing Manufacturing Roofing Hog Fuel Total ,256 The total quantities of waste that were disposed of at each location are summarized in Table 4. These quantities were provided by the City and Metro Vancouver and were used in calculating the weighted regional composition reported in Section

13 Table 4: Total DLC Waste Disposed Location Timeframe (tonnes) Vancouver Landfill 1 October 2014 September ,705 EcoWaste Landfill 2 January 2014 December ,477 Out-of-region Export 2 January 2014 December ,474 1 Values proved by City of Vancouver Staff, 2 Values provided by Metro Vancouver Staff The accuracy of each sample s bulk density conversion was calculated relative to the actual net weight of the load, as reported on the scale ticket. For example, if the bulk density conversion resulted in an estimated total weight of 5,000 kg for a particular sample, and the scale ticket indicated the load was 6,000 kg, then the accuracy for that sample was -20%. The aggregate bulk density accuracy of all loads for each landfill was also calculated, and was found to be within 1.8% for the EcoWaste Landfill, and 5.2% for the VLF. As necessary, density conversion factors were generally left the same as the 2011 study except for one change to the density of wood at each landfill, as the overall type of wood that arrives at each was different. For example, the density of wood (227 kg/yd 3 or 297 kg/m 3 ) provided from the 2011 Audit was found to be much higher than the type of wood that was commonly found at the VLF, which tended to be relatively dry, light, and splintered. An alternative value of 181 kg/yd 3 (237 kg/m 3 ) was obtained from CalRecycle online DLC audit resources. 1 The 227 kg/yd 3 (297 kg/m 3 ) was found to be more reflective of the intact dimensional lumber found at the EcoWaste Landfill. 3.1 VANCOUVER LANDFILL DLC WASTE COMPOSITION The weighted average DLC waste composition at the VLF is presented in Table 5, sorted in descending order by material type. The results are presented by percentage volume as visually estimated, and the percentage weight as calculated using the estimated material densities for each material category. The estimated annual weight is based on tonnages provided by the VLF for October 2014 to September At the end of this report, Table A includes detailed data for all material categories, and Appendix C includes select photographs of the loads that arrived at VLF. Table 5: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Type Material Category by Type Average % by Volume Average % by (tonnes) % by Volume 95% Confidence Interval Wood 88.3% 90.0% 112, % Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) 36.1% 28.7% 35, % Composite 17.9% 24.9% 31, % Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 23.6% 18.7% 23, % 7.2% 14.0% 17, % Wood Flooring e.g., Hardwood, Laminate 3.7% 3.7% 4, % Asphalt 1.5% 2.5% 3, % Plastic 1.6% 1.5% 1, % 1 CalRecycle Construction/Demolition and Inert Debris Tools and Resources. 4

14 Material Category by Type Average % by Volume Average % by (tonnes) % by Volume 95% Confidence Interval Metal 1.6% 1.5% 1, % Misc. Building 3.1% 1.5% 1, % Land-clearing 2.3% 1.2% 1, % Rubble 0.2% 0.5% % Masonry 0.4% 0.4% % Concrete 0.2% 0.3% % Household 0.2% 0.2% % Textiles 0.2% 0.1% % Bulky 0.2% 0.1% % Rubber 0.0% 0.1% % Glass and Ceramics 0.0% 0.0% % Paper 0.1% 0.1% % Miscellaneous 0.0% 0.0% 0 -- Total 1,2 100% 100% 125,000 1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision. The calculated confidence intervals are presented in Table 5. All confidence intervals were low as all loads were from what looked like residential demolitions, other than the hog fuel/shredded wood loads. Therefore, the variation from load to load was low with the largest confidence interval calculated to be ± 4% at a 95% confidence level. Misc. Building 1.5% Landclearing 1.2% Metal 1.5% Asphalt 2.5% All Other Categories Plastic 1.5% 1.7% Wood Flooring e.g. Hardwood, Laminate 3.7% Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) 28.7% Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 14.0% Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) 18.7% Composite Wood 24.9% Figure 1: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition % Sorted by Material Type 5

15 Figure 1 shows the VLF DLC waste composition percentage weight sorted by material type. The largest portion of the DLC waste is wood from residential demolitions. This includes by percentage weight, unpainted dimensional lumber (29%), painted or treated dimensional lumber (19%), composite wood (25%), hog fuel/shredded wood (14%), and wood flooring (4%). The remaining portions of the DLC waste stream were small amounts of other materials that were mixed in during demolition such as asphalt, carpet, insulation, yard waste, masonry, and rubble. During the study, field staff took observations to allow for density adjustments from the standard reported values in the field. If a load was noted as wet, or damp, density conversion factors were increased based on the field observations. If material was highly compacted, the density was increased. It was noted that wood was a bit less shredded compared to observations from 2011, and the loads when they arrive were relatively bulky and not all 100% full and compacted compared to previous observations in Therefore, it was necessary to lower the overall density of wood that arrives at the VLF to take this into account. The density of wood (227 kg/yd³ or 297 kg/m³) provided from the 2011 Audit was found to be much higher than the type of wood that was commonly found at the VLF, which tended to be relatively dry, light, and splintered. An alternative value of 181 kg/yd³ (237 kg/m³) was obtained from CalRecycle online DLC audit resources as this value was used in the calculations. The overall confidence intervals are quite small as there was not much variability between samples noted. All inbound loads were from similar sized trucks hauling from residential demolition sites. The weighted average DLC waste composition at the VLF is presented in Table 6, sorted in descending order by material use. Figure 2 shows the VLF DLC waste composition percentage weight sorted by material use. The results are presented by percentage volume as visually estimated, and the percentage weight as calculated using the estimated material densities for each material category. The estimated annual weight is based on tonnages provided by the VLF for October 2014 to September Table B following the report includes detailed data for all material categories. Table 6: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Use Material Category by Use Average % by Volume Average % by (tonnes) Wood 84.8% 86.4% 107,723 Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) 36.1% 28.7% 35,743 Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) 23.6% 18.7% 23,365 Composite 17.9% 24.9% 31,095 Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 7.2% 14.0% 17,521 Flooring 4.9% 4.8% 5,951 Roofing 1.5% 2.5% 3,109 Plastics 1.6% 1.5% 1,892 Metals 1.6% 1.5% 1,855 Land-clearing 2.3% 1.2% 1,538 Rubble 0.2% 0.5% 565 Masonry/Brick 0.4% 0.4% 506 Wall Finishing 0.3% 0.3% 339 Concrete 0.2% 0.3% 332 Household Garbage 0.2% 0.2% 201 6

16 Material Category by Use Average % by Volume Average % by (tonnes) Textiles 0.2% 0.1% 173 Insulation (i.e. fiberglass, cellulose, foam) 1.6% 0.1% 119 Pavement 0.0% 0.1% 96 Glass and Ceramics 0.0% 0.0% 62 Paper 0.1% 0.0% 48 Bulky Items 0.0% 0.0% 0 Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0 Miscellaneous 0.0% 0.0% 0 1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision. Total 1,2 100% 100% 125,000 The largest portion of the DLC waste is wood from residential demolitions. This includes by percentage weight, wood (86 %), flooring (5%), and roofing (3 %). The remaining material uses are less than 2% and are a small portion of the waste stream. Plastic Metals 1.5% Roofing 2.5% Flooring 4.8% All Other Materials 2.1% Land-clearing 1.2% Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 14.0% Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) 28.7% Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) Composite Wood 18.7% 24.9% Figure 2: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition % Sorted by Material Use Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 Table 7 compares the VLF DLC waste composition by material use to the data obtained during the 2011 DLC waste composition study. 7

17 The percentage of wood in the VLF s DLC waste composition profile was significantly higher than it was in 2011, increasing 29 percentage points over the four years. However, the total weight of wood arriving is fairly comparable to 2011, as the total tonnage of DLC material received at the facility in 2015 dropped by 35 percentage points. It is important to note that at the VLF in 2011, the demolition loads were charged a fixed rate, whereas in 2015 they were charged per tonne. What was observed is that there is no longer a significant amount of rubble, concrete and masonry items within the DLC loads, whereas these materials used to account for 25% of the weight in Asphalt is the other major category that saw a significant drop in tonnage compared to These materials combined account for a majority of the decrease in the tonnage received at VLF between 2011 and Concrete and Asphalt are accepted at a lower tipping fee at the EcoWaste landfill as they have beneficial uses and can be recycled; also, there are other Concrete and Asphalt recyclers in the region where these materials are likely being diverted. Concrete and Asphalt that is received at the VLF is stockpiled on site and processed to create aggregate and other materials that can be used for operational or construction activities. It was noted that the wood is a bit less shredded, and the loads when they arrive are relatively bulky and not 100% full and compacted compared to Therefore, it was necessary to lower the overall density of wood that arrives at the VLF to take this into account. The overall confidence intervals are quite small as there was not much variability between samples noted. All loads coming in were from similar sized trucks hauling from residential demolition sites. Table 7: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 Material Category by Type 2015 % by Volume 2011 % by Volume 2015 % by 2011 % by 2015 (tonnes) 2011 (tonnes) Change in 1 (tonnes) Wood 88.3% 66% 90.0% 61% 112, ,915-5,623 Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) 36.1% 37% 28.7% 31% 35,743 60,430-24, % 9% 18.7% 7% 23,365 13,550 9,815 Composite 17.9% 20% 24.9% 22% 31,095 43,219-12,124 Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 7.2% % - 17,521-17,521 Asphalt 1.5% 5% 2.5% 6% 3,128 12,300-9,172 Plastic 1.6% 2% 1.5% 1% 1,892 2, Metal 1.6% 2% 1.5% 2% 1,855 3,268-1,413 Misc. Building 3.1% <1% 1.5% <1% 1,840 4,360-2,520 Land-clearing 2.3% 3% 1.2% 2% 1,538 3,567-2,029 Rubble 0.2% 11% 0.5% 18% ,921-34,356 Masonry 0.4% 2% 0.4% 2% 506 2,962-2,456 Concrete 0.2% 4% 0.3% 5% 332 9,147-8,815 Household 0.2% <1% 0.2% <1% Textiles 0.2% <1% 0.1% <1%

18 Material Category by Type 2015 % by Volume 2011 % by Volume 2015 % by 2011 % by 2015 (tonnes) 2011 (tonnes) Change in 1 (tonnes) Bulky 0.2% <1% 0.1% <1% Rubber 0.0% <1% 0.1% <1% Glass and Ceramics 0.0% <1% 0.0% <1% Paper 0.1% <1% 0.0% <1% Miscellaneous 0.0% <1% 0.0% <1% Total 2,3 100% 100% 100% 100% 125, ,000-67,000 1 In 2011 DLC loads at Vancouver Landfill were charged a flat rate per load, regardless of weight; in 2015 DLC loads are charged by weight. 2 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 3 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision. The difference between the quantity of unpainted and painted dimensional lumber could be dependent on the audit team. In 2015 our team identified any dimensional lumber with a treatment applied including a wood stain as painted or treated wood. The definition of painted or treated wood from 2011 is not available for comparison and this should be well defined to insure consistency for each audit. A majority of the painted lumber encountered during the 2015 study was lightly stained wood, and not heavily painted or treated such as outdoor deck boards or wood siding. There was an overall decrease in the amount of composite wood, and VLF in 2015 received hog fuel/shredded wood, which is expected to be wood waste from Urban Wood Waste that cannot be recycled or re-sold through their markets because it is too hard to sort, or is too contaminated with treated and painted wood. 3.2 ECOWASTE LANDFILL DLC WASTE COMPOSITION The weighted average DLC waste composition at the EcoWaste Landfill is presented in Table 8. The results are presented by percentage volume as visually estimated, and the percentage weight as calculated using the estimated material densities for each material category. The estimated annual weight is based on tonnages provided by Metro Vancouver for the 2014 calendar year. Table A following the report includes detailed data for all material categories, and Appendix H includes select photographs. Table 8: EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Type Material Category by Type % by Volume % by (tonnes) % by Volume 95% Confidence Interval Wood 33.9% 40.8% 77,726 7% Asphalt 9.4% 13.3% 25,319 8% Misc. Building 11.6% 9.8% 18,747 3% Rubble 2.8% 9.2% 17,510 8% Plastic 17.6% 8.6% 16,305 5% Bulky 2.9% 2.5% 4,684 2% Land-clearing 4.1% 2.4% 4,558 5% Paper 6.2% 2.3% 4,442 2% 9

19 Material Category by Type % by Volume % by (tonnes) % by Volume 95% Confidence Interval Metal 2.5% 2.2% 4,230 1% Miscellaneous 2.9% 2.2% 4,192 2% Textiles 2.4% 2.2% 4,129 1% Household 2.3% 1.9% 3,667 1% Glass and Ceramics 0.4% 1.3% 2,466 1% Rubber 0.6% 0.9% 1,803 1% Masonry 0.3% 0.3% 546 0% Concrete 0.1% 0.1% 155 0% Total 1,2 100% 100% 190,000 1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision. The calculated confidence intervals are presented in Table 8. The most commonly occurring categories had the highest confidence intervals, as some loads that arrive would be close to 100% one material type. Therefore, the variation from load to load is high; however, the overall dataset becomes fairly accurate with the largest confidence interval calculated to be ± 8% at a 95% confidence level. During the study, field staff took observations to allow for density adjustments from the standard reported values in the field. The noted density changes compared to the 2011 study included a number of small changes for specific samples based on these observations, and these changes are noted in the calculations spreadsheet. This included if a load was noted as wet, or damp, density conversion factors were increased based on the field observations. If material was highly compacted, the density was increased. Rubble, 9.2% Textiles, 2.2% Rubber, 0.9% All Other Materials, 1.7% Asphalt, 13.3% Wood, 40.8% Metals, 2.2% Miscellaneous, 2.2% Paper, 2.3% Bulky Items, 2.5% Household Garbage, 1.9% Landclearing, 2.4% Misc. Building Material, 9.8% Plastic, 8.6% Figure 3: EcoWaste Landfill Composition by 10

20 Figure 3 shows the EcoWaste DLC waste composition percentage weight sorted by material type. The largest portion of the DLC waste is wood from transfer station reloads, roofing projects, and construction sites. This includes, by volume, composite wood (13%), painted or treated dimensional lumber (9%), unpainted dimensional lumber (6%), and small amount of wood flooring, wood shingles, and pallets make up the remaining 6%. The second largest category by volume is plastic at (18%). This includes plastic film, Styrofoam, and miscellaneous plastic such as vinyl siding and plastic pipes. The third largest category by volume is miscellaneous building material including carpet, underlay, and fiberglass insulation. The fourth largest category by volume is asphalt, which consists of asphalt shingles. The weighted average DLC waste composition at Ecowaste is presented in Table 9, sorted in descending order by material use. Figure 4 shows the VLF DLC waste composition percentage weight sorted by material use. The results are presented by percentage volume as visually estimated, and the percentage weight as calculated using the estimated material densities for each material category. The estimated annual weight is based on tonnages provided by the EcoWaste in Table D following the report includes detailed data for all material categories. Table 9: EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Use Material Category by Use Average % by Volume Average % by (tonnes) Wood 29.8% 37.0% 70,483 Roofing 11.4% 15.1% 28,768 Flooring 12.2% 12.2% 23,138 Rubble 2.8% 9.2% 17,510 Plastics 17.6% 8.6% 16,305 Bulky Items 2.9% 2.5% 4,684 Land-clearing 4.1% 2.4% 4,558 Paper 6.2% 2.3% 4,442 Metals 2.5% 2.2% 4,230 Miscellaneous 2.9% 2.2% 4,192 Textiles 2.4% 2.2% 4,129 Household Garbage 2.3% 1.9% 3,667 Glass and Ceramics 0.3% 1.1% 2,130 Rubber 0.6% 0.6% 1,175 Masonry/Brick 0.3% 0.3% 546 Insulation (i.e. fiberglass, cellulose, foam) 1.6% 0.1% 243 Concrete 0.1% 0.1% 155 Wall Finishing 0.1% 0.1% 122 Pavement 0.0% 0.0% - 1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision. Total 1,2 100% 100% 190,000 11

21 The largest portion of the DLC waste is wood (37.0%), followed by roofing (15.1%) flooring (12.2%) rubble (9.2%) and plastic (8.6%). All other material uses categories were estimated to each be 3% or less or the total waste steam. Textiles 2.2% Household Garbage 1.9% Bulky Items 2.5% Other Materials 2.1% Rubble 9.2% Wood 37.0% Flooring 12.2% Insulation 0.1% Roofing 15.1% Black Bags 2.2% Metals 2.2% Plastic 8.6% Land-clearing 2.4% Paper 2.3% Figure 4: EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition % Sorted by Material Use EcoWaste DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 Study Table 10 compares the EcoWaste DLC waste composition by material use to the data obtained during the 2011 DLC waste composition study. Table 10: EcoWaste DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 Material Category by Type 2015 % by Volume 2011 % by Volume 2015 % by 2011 % by 2015 (tonnes) 2011 (tonnes) Change in (tonnes) Wood 34% 37% 41% 37% 77,726 32,038 45,688 Asphalt 9% 8% 13% 12% 25,319 10,423 14,896 Misc. Building 12% 13% 10% 6% 18,747 5,266 13,481 Rubble 3% 11% 9% 20% 17,510 17, Plastic 18% 16% 9% 10% 16,305 8,554 7,751 Bulky 3% <1% 2% <1% 4, ,359 12

22 Material Category by Type 2015 % by Volume 2011 % by Volume 2015 % by 2011 % by 2015 (tonnes) 2011 (tonnes) Change in (tonnes) Land-clearing 4% 2% 2% 1% 4, ,634 Paper 6% <1% 2% <1% 4, ,112 Metal 3% 2% 2% 1% 4,230 1,093 3,137 Miscellaneous 3% 3% 2% 3% 4,192 2,565 1,627 Textiles 2% <1% 2% <1% 4, ,568 Household 2% 2% 2% 2% 3,667 1,415 2,252 Glass and Ceramics <1% 1% 1% 1% 2,466 1,280 1,186 Rubber 1% <1% 1% <1% 1, ,512 Masonry <1% <1% <1% <1% Concrete <1% 4% <1% 4% 155 3,744-3,589 Total 1,2 100% 100% 100% 100% 190,000 86, ,000 1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision. The DLC waste composition is fairly similar to 2011 by overall percentage. The biggest changes are a decrease in the amount of rubble and concrete. There was very little concrete and rubble observed in any loads in 2015, compared to The overall tonnage of material arriving at EcoWaste Landfill has more than doubled since 2011, but as seen in Table 18, the overall composition is similar. As noted by Tom Land, President and CEO of EcoWaste Industries, the construction market in Metro Vancouver has remained strong, which includes the removal of existing Single Family and smaller Multi-Family housing to create higher density development. This creates a very active demolition waste market, as well as waste from new construction activities. Recycling activities for large, new construction activities appear to be effective, however Single Family housing demolition recycling activities tend to be more challenged due to space constraints for site source separation. 3.3 REGIONAL DLC WASTE COMPOSITION An assessment of the overall regional DLC waste composition is presented in Table 11 as based on the following three components: the results of the DLC waste composition analysis at EcoWaste Landfill; the City s DLC waste composition study at the VLF; and an estimation of the composition of private licensed DLC waste facilities residual loads delivered to other disposal facilities. Metro Vancouver provided the information on the quantity of these residuals disposed yearly, and it was assumed that the out-of-region material composition is similar to the composition of transfer station reloads delivered to EcoWaste Landfill and VLF. The overall regional DLC waste composition is based on an extrapolation of the sampling period s results over the course of a calendar year. Tetra Tech received and reviewed historical tonnage reports for each landfill representing several years. Anecdotal evidence given by staff at both landfills indicated that although there are general fluctuations in the number of loads disposed of over time, they did not suspect that there was much fluctuation in breakdowns of materials received throughout the year. Therefore, the effects of seasonality on the region s DLC waste composition profile were considered to be insignificant and did not warrant sampling outside of the fall timeline. All averages are calculated using a weighted average, taking into account how much material arrives at each facility, or the estimated out-ofregion export of DLC waste that occurs. 13

23 Table 11: Total Regional DLC Waste Composition by Material Type VLF EcoWaste Out-of-region Regional Average Material Category by Type % by (Tonnes) % by (Tonnes) % by (Tonnes) % by (Tonnes) Wood 90.0% 112, % 77, % 27, % 217,739 Composite 24.9% 31, % 34, % 12, % 77,916 Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 28.7% 35, % 13, % 5, % 54, % 23, % 19, % 7, % 50, % 17, % % 0 4.8% 18,509 Wood Flooring 3.7% 4, % 4, % 1, % 10,781 Wood Shakes and Shingles 0.0% 0 1.3% 2, % 0 0.6% 2,486 Pallets (Untreated) 0.0% 0 0.8% 1, % 0 0.4% 1,507 Pallets (Treated) 0.0% 0 0.5% % % 1,346 Sawdust 0.0% 0 0.0% % 0 0.0% 10 Asphalt 2.5% 3, % 25, % 5, % 34,314 Misc. Building Materials 1.5% 1, % 18, % 7, % 28,551 Rubble 0.5% % 17, % 9, % 27,947 Plastic 1.5% 1, % 16, % 6, % 24,465 Metal 1.5% 1, % 4, % 1, % 7,804 Bulky Items 0.1% % 4, % 2, % 7,518 Textiles 0.1% % 4, % 2, % 7,106 Miscellaneous/Black Garbage Bags 0.0% 0 2.2% 4, % 2, % 6,256 Land-clearing 1.2% 1, % 4, % % 6,226 Paper 0.0% % 4, % 1, % 5,888 Household Garbage 0.2% % 3, % 1, % 5,441 Glass and Ceramics 0.0% % 2, % % 2,602 Rubber 0.1% % 1, % % 2,261 Masonry/Brick 0.4% % % 0 0.3% 1,052 Concrete 0.3% % % 0 0.1% 486 Total 1,2 100% 125, % 190, % 70, % 386,000 1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision. 14

24 Wood continues to be the largest portion of the DLC waste, averaging 57% of the total. The second largest category is asphalt (9%) followed by miscellaneous building materials at (7%) rubble at (7%) and plastic (6%). The remaining material categories each account for 2% or less of the total DLC waste stream. Rubble, 7.2% Textiles, 1.8% All Other Materials, 1.7% Asphalt, 9.0% Metal, 2.0% Paper, 1.5% Miscellaneous, 1.6% Bulky Items, 1.9% Household, 1.4% Landclearing, 1.6% Wood, 56.5% Misc. Building, 7.4% Plastic, 6.3% Figure 5: Metro Vancouver Regional Composition by The VLF DLC waste composition was primarily wood waste, whereas loads that contain other materials or a mixture of materials arrive at the EcoWaste Landfill. The overall average presented in Figure 5 and Table 11 is a weighted average that takes into account how much material arrives at each facility over a one year period Metro Vancouver Regional DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 Table 12 compares the Metro Vancouver Regional waste composition by material use to the data obtained during the 2011 DLC waste composition study. Wood continues to be the largest overall portion of the regional DLC waste composition. The overall percentage has not changed significantly since 2011; however, the total tonnage increased by approximately 68,000 tonnes. The 2015 average includes the estimated DLC waste exported out-of-region, whereas this was not included in the 2011 study. Only three materials saw an overall decrease which included rubble, concrete, and masonry materials. Another notable increase was in the amount of miscellaneous building material. A number of the categories that do not occur as commonly all increased in 2015 by 1 to 2%. It should be noted that in 2015 the loads were spread out by an excavator operator so that all of the contents could be seen, whereas in 2011 the loads were estimated as dumped at the landfill, and there were sometimes large pockets of material that were not visible. 15

25 Table 12: Overall Regional DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 Material Category by Type 2015 % by Volume 2011 % by Volume 2015 % by 2011 % by 2015 (tonnes) 2011 (tonnes) Change in (tonnes) Wood 51% 57% 57% 54% 217, ,823 67,120 Asphalt 6% 6% 9% 8% 34,597 22,519 12,078 Misc. Building 10% 7% 7% 3% 28,441 9,488 18,953 Rubble 2% 11% 7% 19% 27,814 52,289-24,475 Plastic 13% 6% 6% 4% 24,380 10,871 13,509 Metal 2% 2% 2% 2% 7,785 4,377 3,408 Bulky 2% <1% 2% <1% 7, ,076 Textiles 2% <1% 2% <1% 7, ,429 Land-clearing 3% 2% 2% 2% 6,236 4,518 1,718 Miscellaneous 2% 1% 2% <1% 6,227 2,601 3,626 Paper 4% <1% 2% <1% 5, ,527 Household 2% <1% 1% <1% 5,419 1,438 3,981 Glass and Ceramics <1% <1% 1% <1% 2,601 2, Rubber <1% <1% 1% <1% 2, ,848 Masonry <1% 1% <1% 1% 1,052 3,081-2,029 Concrete <1% 4% <1% 5% ,906-12,420 Total 1,2 386, , ,000 1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision. 16

26

27 TABLES Table A Table B Secondary Category Garbage Data by Load Source Secondary Category Detailed Organics Data by Load Source

28 FILE: ENVSWM JANUARY 11, 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Table A: DLC Waste Composition - All Categories Sorted by Material Type Material Category by Type % by Volume % by Vancouver Landfill EcoWaste Landfill Out of Region Regional Average (Tonnes) % by Volume % by (Tonnes) % by Volume % by (Tonnes) Total Volume % Wood 88.3% 90.0% 112, % 40.8% 77, % 39.3% 27, % 56.5% 217,739 Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) 36.1% 28.7% 35, % 7.2% 13, % 7.6% 5, % 14.2% 54,773 Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) 23.6% 18.7% 23, % 10.1% 19, % 11.1% 7, % 13.1% 50,411 Pallets (Untreated) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.9% 0.8% 1, % 0.0% 0 0.5% 0.4% 1,507 Pallets (Treated) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.5% 0.5% % 0.5% % 0.3% 1,346 Wood Flooring (e.g. Hardwood, Laminate) 3.7% 3.7% 4, % 2.5% 4, % 2.1% 1, % 2.8% 10,781 Wood Shakes and Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 0 1.8% 1.3% 2, % 0.0% 0 0.9% 0.6% 2,486 Composite 17.9% 24.9% 31, % 17.9% 34, % 18.1% 12, % 20.2% 77,916 Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 7.2% 14.0% 17, % 0.5% % 0.0% 0 2.5% 4.8% 18,509 Sawdust 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 10 Plastic 1.6% 1.5% 1, % 8.6% 16, % 8.9% 6, % 6.3% 24,465 Sheet or film plastic 0.7% 0.0% % 2.0% 3, % 0.8% % 1.1% 4,420 Styrofoam packaging 0.0% 0.0% 2 1.3% 0.1% % 0.1% % 0.1% 230 Miscellaneous plastic (rigid plastics, pipes, vinyl siding) 0.9% 1.5% 1, % 6.5% 12, % 8.0% 5, % 5.1% 19,815 Misc. Building Materials 3.1% 1.5% 1, % 9.8% 18, % 11.3% 7, % 7.4% 28,551 Carpet 0.8% 0.6% % 5.7% 10, % 6.4% 4, % 4.2% 16,181 Underlay 0.3% 0.2% % 3.9% 7, % 4.7% 3, % 2.9% 11,070 Linoleum Flooring 0.1% 0.2% % 0.0% % 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 341 Drywall 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 44 Lath and Plaster 0.0% 0.0% 6 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 6 Stucco wall finishing 0.3% 0.3% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 334 Ceiling tiles 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 78 Insulation (i.e. fiberglass, cellulose, foam) 1.6% 0.1% % 0.1% % 0.2% % 0.1% 498 Landclearing 2.3% 1.2% 1, % 2.4% 4, % 0.2% % 1.6% 6,226 Large yard waste (branches > 15 cm diam. Or 1m long 0.6% 0.6% % 0.8% 1, % 0.1% % 0.6% 2,366 Small yard waste, green waste 1.7% 0.7% % 1.6% 2, % 0.1% % 1.0% 3,861 Concrete 0.2% 0.3% % 0.1% % 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 486 Poured with rebar 0.0% 0.0% 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 4 Poured without rebar 0.1% 0.2% % 0.1% % 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 365 Preformed blocks 0.1% 0.1% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 117 Masonry/Brick 0.4% 0.4% % 0.3% % 0.0% 0 0.3% 0.3% 1,052 Glass and Ceramics 0.0% 0.0% % 1.3% 2, % 0.1% % 0.7% 2,602 Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% % 0.0% % 0.0% 72 Porcelain (i.e., bathroom fixtures) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.3% % 0.1% % 0.1% 543 Indoor tile (i.e., wall finishing, flooring) 0.0% 0.0% % 0.8% 1, % 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.4% 1,652 Outdoor tile (i.e., roofing) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.2% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.1% 336 Household Garbage 0.2% 0.2% % 1.9% 3, % 2.2% 1, % 1.4% 5,441 Bulky Items 0.2% 0.1% % 2.5% 4, % 3.8% 2, % 1.9% 7,518 Miscellaneous/Black Garbage Bags 0.0% 0.0% 0 2.9% 2.2% 4, % 2.9% 2, % 1.6% 6,256 Paper 0.1% 0.0% % 2.3% 4, % 2.0% 1, % 1.5% 5,888 Cardboard 0.0% 0.0% 6 4.7% 1.2% 2, % 1.0% % 0.8% 2,944 Miscellaneous paper (office, kraft, etc.) 0.0% 0.0% % 1.2% 2, % 0.9% % 0.8% 2,944 Total % (Tonnes) 2015 COV and EcoWaste DLC Data 1 of 2

29 FILE: ENVSWM JANUARY 11, 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Table A: DLC Waste Composition - All Categories Sorted by Material Type Material Category by Type % by Volume % by Vancouver Landfill EcoWaste Landfill Out of Region Regional Average (Tonnes) % by Volume % by (Tonnes) % by Volume % by Metal 1.6% 1.5% 1, % 2.2% 4, % 2.4% 1, % 2.0% 7,804 Ferrous 0.1% 0.2% % 0.2% % 0.3% % 0.2% 736 Non-Ferrous 0.3% 0.5% % 0.3% % 0.3% % 0.4% 1,403 Mixed metals (plumbing, electrical, flashing, siding, furniture) 1.2% 0.8% 1, % 1.7% 3, % 1.9% 1, % 1.5% 5,664 Asphalt 1.5% 2.5% 3, % 13.3% 25, % 8.3% 5, % 8.9% 34,314 Pavement 0.0% 0.1% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 96 Asphalt shingles and tarpaper 1.4% 2.2% 2, % 8.7% 16, % 8.3% 5, % 6.5% 25,209 Tar and gravel roofing 0.1% 0.2% % 4.6% 8, % 0.0% 0 1.9% 2.3% 9,008 Rubble 0.2% 0.5% % 9.2% 17, % 14.0% 9, % 7.2% 27,947 Textiles 0.2% 0.1% % 2.2% 4, % 4.0% 2, % 1.8% 7,106 Rubber 0.0% 0.1% % 0.9% 1, % 0.5% % 0.6% 2,261 Tires, tubing 0.0% 0.0% % 0.1% % 0.1% % 0.1% 337 Rubber roofing 0.0% 0.1% % 0.3% % 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.2% 706 Other Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.5% 0.5% % 0.4% % 0.3% 1,219 Total 100% 100% 124, % 100.0% 190, % 100.0% 70, % 100.0% 385,656 (Tonnes) Total Volume % Total % (Tonnes) 2015 COV and EcoWaste DLC Data 2 of 2

30 Table B: DLC Waste Composition - All Categories Sorted by Material Use Material Category by Use % by Volume % by (Tonnes) % by Volume % by (Tonnes) % by Volume % by (Tonnes) 2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY FILE: ENVSWM JANUARY 11, 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Vancouver Landfill EcoWaste Landfill Out of Region Regional Average Total Volume % Wood 84.8% 86.4% 107, % 37.0% 70, % 37.3% 26, % 53.0% 204,472 Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) 36.1% 28.7% 35, % 7.2% 13, % 7.6% 5, % 14.2% 54,773 Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) 23.6% 18.7% 23, % 10.1% 19, % 11.1% 7, % 13.1% 50,411 Pallets (Untreated) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.9% 0.8% 1, % 0.0% 0 0.5% 0.4% 1,507 Pallets (Treated) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.5% 0.5% % 0.5% % 0.3% 1,346 Composite 17.9% 24.9% 31, % 17.9% 34, % 18.1% 12, % 20.2% 77,916 Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 7.2% 14.0% 17, % 0.5% % 0.0% 0 2.5% 4.8% 18,509 Sawdust 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 10 Landclearing 2.3% 1.2% 1, % 2.4% 4, % 0.2% % 1.6% 6,226 Large yard waste (branches > 15 cm diam. Or 1m long 0.6% 0.6% % 0.8% 1, % 0.1% % 0.6% 2,366 Small yard waste, green waste 1.7% 0.7% % 1.6% 2, % 0.1% % 1.0% 3,861 Paper 0.1% 0.0% % 2.3% 4, % 2.0% 1, % 1.5% 5,888 Cardboard 0.0% 0.0% 6 4.7% 1.2% 2, % 1.0% % 0.8% 2,944 Miscellaneous paper (office, kraft, etc.) 0.0% 0.0% % 1.2% 2, % 0.9% % 0.8% 2,944 Plastics 1.6% 1.5% 1, % 8.6% 16, % 8.9% 6, % 6.3% 24,465 Sheet or film plastic 0.7% 0.0% % 2.0% 3, % 0.8% % 1.1% 4,420 Styrofoam packaging 0.0% 0.0% 2 1.3% 0.1% % 0.1% % 0.1% 230 Miscellaneous plastic (rigid plastics, pipes, vinyl siding) 0.9% 1.5% 1, % 6.5% 12, % 8.0% 5, % 5.1% 19,815 Concrete 0.2% 0.3% % 0.1% % 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 486 Poured with rebar 0.0% 0.0% 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 4 Poured without rebar 0.1% 0.2% % 0.1% % 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 365 Preformed blocks 0.1% 0.1% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 117 Metals 1.6% 1.5% 1, % 2.2% 4, % 2.4% 1, % 2.0% 7,804 Ferrous 0.1% 0.2% % 0.2% % 0.3% % 0.2% 736 Non-Ferrous 0.3% 0.5% % 0.3% % 0.3% % 0.4% 1,403 Mixed metals (plumbing, electrical, flashing, siding, furniture) 1.2% 0.8% 1, % 1.7% 3, % 1.9% 1, % 1.5% 5,664 Roofing 1.5% 2.5% 3, % 15.1% 28, % 8.3% 5, % 9.8% 37,745 Asphalt shingles and tarpaper 1.4% 2.2% 2, % 8.7% 16, % 8.3% 5, % 6.5% 25,209 Tar and gravel roofing 0.1% 0.2% % 4.6% 8, % 0.0% 0 1.9% 2.3% 9,008 Wood Shakes and Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 0 1.8% 1.3% 2, % 0.0% 0 0.9% 0.6% 2,486 Rubber roofing 0.0% 0.1% % 0.3% % 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.2% 706 Outdoor tile (i.e., roofing) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.2% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.1% 336 Wall Finishing 0.3% 0.3% % 0.1% % 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 461 Drywall 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 44 Lath and Plaster 0.0% 0.0% 6 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 6 Stucco wall finishing 0.3% 0.3% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 334 Ceiling tiles 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 78 Insulation (i.e. fiberglass, cellulose, foam) 1.6% 0.1% % 0.1% % 0.2% % 0.1% 498 Flooring 4.9% 4.8% 5, % 12.2% 23, % 13.2% 9, % 10.0% 38,373 Carpet 0.8% 0.6% % 5.7% 10, % 6.4% 4, % 4.2% 16,181 Underlay 0.3% 0.2% % 3.9% 7, % 4.7% 3, % 2.9% 11,070 Linoleum Flooring 0.1% 0.2% % 0.0% % 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 341 Wood Flooring (e.g. Hardwood, Laminate) 3.7% 3.7% 4, % 2.5% 4, % 2.1% 1, % 2.8% 10,781 Total % (Tonnes) 2015 COV and EcoWaste DLC Data 1 of 2

31 Table B: DLC Waste Composition - All Categories Sorted by Material Use Material Category by Use % by Volume % by (Tonnes) % by Volume % by (Tonnes) % by Volume % by (Tonnes) Total Volume % 2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY FILE: ENVSWM JANUARY 11, 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Vancouver Landfill EcoWaste Landfill Out of Region Regional Average Masonry/Brick 0.4% 0.4% % 0.3% % 0.0% 0 0.3% 0.3% 1,052 Pavement 0.0% 0.1% % 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 96 Glass and Ceramics 0.0% 0.0% % 1.1% 2, % 0.1% % 0.6% 2,266 Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% % 0.0% % 0.0% 72 Porcelain (i.e., bathroom fixtures) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.3% % 0.1% % 0.1% 543 Indoor tile (i.e., wall finishing, flooring) 0.0% 0.0% % 0.8% 1, % 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.4% 1,652 Rubble 0.2% 0.5% % 9.2% 17, % 14.0% 9, % 7.2% 27,947 Household Garbage 0.2% 0.2% % 1.9% 3, % 2.2% 1, % 1.4% 5,441 Textiles 0.2% 0.1% % 2.2% 4, % 4.0% 2, % 1.8% 7,106 Bulky Items 0.2% 0.1% % 2.5% 4, % 3.8% 2, % 1.9% 7,518 Rubber 0.0% 0.0% % 0.6% 1, % 0.5% % 0.4% 1,556 Miscellanous 0.0% 0.0% 0 2.9% 2.2% 4, % 2.9% 2, % 1.6% 6,256 Total 124, ,477 70, ,656 Total % (Tonnes) 2015 COV and EcoWaste DLC Data 2 of 2

32 APPENDIX A TETRA TECH S GENERAL CONDITIONS

33 GENERAL CONDITIONS GEOENVIRONMENTAL REPORT This report incorporates and is subject to these General Conditions. 1.1 USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP This report pertains to a specific site, a specific development, and a specific scope of work. It is not applicable to any other sites, nor should it be relied upon for types of development other than those to which it refers. Any variation from the site or proposed development would necessitate a supplementary investigation and assessment. This report and the assessments and recommendations contained in it are intended for the sole use of TETRA TECH s client. TETRA TECH does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any party other than TETRA TECH s Client unless otherwise authorized in writing by TETRA TECH. Any unauthorized use of the report is at the sole risk of the user. 1.3 NOTIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES In certain instances, the discovery of hazardous substances or conditions and materials may require that regulatory agencies and other persons be informed and the client agrees that notification to such bodies or persons as required may be done by TETRA TECH in its reasonably exercised discretion. 1.4 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO TETRA TECH BY OTHERS During the performance of the work and the preparation of the report, TETRA TECH may rely on information provided by persons other than the Client. While TETRA TECH endeavours to verify the accuracy of such information when instructed to do so by the Client, TETRA TECH accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or the reliability of such information which may affect the report. This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced either wholly or in part without the prior, written permission of TETRA TECH. Additional copies of the report, if required, may be obtained upon request. 1.2 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT Where TETRA TECH submits both electronic file and hard copy versions of reports, drawings and other project-related documents and deliverables (collectively termed TETRA TECH s instruments of professional service); only the signed and/or sealed versions shall be considered final and legally binding. The original signed and/or sealed version archived by TETRA TECH shall be deemed to be the original for the Project. Both electronic file and hard copy versions of TETRA TECH s instruments of professional service shall not, under any circumstances, no matter who owns or uses them, be altered by any party except TETRA TECH. The Client warrants that TETRA TECH s instruments of professional service will be used only and exactly as submitted by TETRA TECH. Electronic files submitted by TETRA TECH have been prepared and submitted using specific software and hardware systems. TETRA TECH makes no representation about the compatibility of these files with the Client s current or future software and hardware systems. 1

34 APPENDIX B DLC CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS AND TYPICAL DENSITY CONVERSION FACTORS

35 FILE: ENVSWM JANUARY 11, 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Appendix B: DLC Category Descriptions and Density Conversion Factors Primary Secondary Standard Density (kg/yd³) 1 Wood Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) Pallets (Untreated) Pallets (Treated) Wood Flooring (e.g. Hardwood, Laminate) Wood Shakes and Shingles Composite Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood Plastic Sheet or film plastic Styrofoam packaging Miscellaneous plastic (rigid plastics, pipes, vinyl siding) Misc. Building Carpet Underlay Linoleum Flooring Drywall Lath and Plaster Stucco wall finishing Ceiling tiles Insulation (i.e. fiberglass, cellulose, foam) Landclearing Large yard waste (branches > 15 cm diam. Or 1m long Small yard waste, green waste Concrete Poured with rebar Poured without rebar Preformed blocks Masonry Masonry/Brick Glass and Ceramics Glass Porcelain (i.e., bathroom fixtures) Indoor tile (i.e., wall finishing, flooring) Outdoor tile (i.e., roofing) Household Household Garbage Bulky Bulky Items Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Paper Cardboard Miscellaneous paper (office, kraft, etc.) Metal Ferrous Non-Ferrous Mixed metals (plumbing, electrical, flashing, siding, furniture) Asphalt Pavement Asphalt shingles and tarpaper Tar and gravel roofing Rubble Rubble Textiles Textiles Rubber Tires, tubing Rubber roofing 454 Sources for Material Densities DLC Waste Composition Study of the Ecowaste and Vancouver Landfills, 2005, Gartner Lee 2011 Demolition, Land-clearing, and Construction Waste Composition Monitoring, 2011, AET Consultants (porcelain) COV and EcoWaste DLC Data1 1

36 APPENDIX C SELECT PHOTOS VANCOUVER LANDFILL

37 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 1: Landfill Overview Photo 2: Truck Unloading 1

38 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 3: Demolition, Land-clearing, and Construction (DLC) Samples Photo 4: DLC-1 consisting mostly of dimensional lumber (clean wood) 2

39 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 5: DLC-15 consisting of clean wood and land clearing (tree branches). Photo 6: DLC-16 consisting of clean wood, insulation, and mixed metals. 3

40 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 7: DLC-17 contained propane tanks. Photo 8: DLC 43 sample interspersed with bits of insulation. 4

41 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 9: DLC 47 consisted of metal, clean wood, as well as bulky objects (shopping cart). Photo 10: DLC-50 consisting mostly of hog fuel. 5

42 APPENDIX D SELECT PHOTOS ECOWASTE LANDFILL

43 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 1: Landfill Overview Photo 2: Typical 90 yard truck unloading> 1

44 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 3: Typical 30 yard truck unloading. Photo 4: Typical 40 yard truck unloading. 2

45 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 5: Typical 25 yard truck preparing to unload adjacent to another load. Photo 6: Typical 40 yard truck unloading adjacent to sample DLC-EW17 3

46 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 7: Typical 6 yard truck unloading? Photo 8: Typical DLC-EW03 consisting of wood, plastic, misc. building material, paper, metals, and black bags. Commercial Demolition. 4

47 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 9: DLC-EW04 containing tires along with other materials. Source: Transfer Station. Photo 10: Typical appearance of a load from a Transfer Station source. 5

48 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 11: DLC EW10 consisting of roofing material. Roofing material was 2/3 Styrofoam, 1/6 composite wood, and 1/6 tar and gravel. Source: Roofing Project. Photo 12: DLC-EW08 consisting of misc. building material, wood, metals and bulky items, including mattresses (without springs) and couches. Source: Residential Demolition. 6

49 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 13: DLC EW22 consisting primarily of rubble. Source: Metal Recycling Facility. Photo 14: DLC-EW09 consisting mostly of land-clearing material. Source: Land-clearing. 7

50 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 15: DLC EW15 consisting entirely of thick plastic sheeting. Source: Construction. Photo 16: DLC-EW24 consisting of wood and bulky items including a hot tub and couch. Source: Residential Demolition. 8

51 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 17: DLC EW16 containing five (5) mattresses along with a variety of other materials. Source: Transfer Station. Photo 18: DLC-EW42 consisting of wood and asphalt shingles. Source: Residential Roofing. 9

52 FILE: SWM.SWOP JANUARY 2016 ISSUED FOR USE Photo 19: DLC-EW49 consisting entirely of particle board (wood). Source: Furniture Manufacturer. Photo 20: DLC-EW51 containing fiberglass. Source: Hot Tub Manufacturer. 10