Statewide_Waste_Characterization_Study_2020-2021.pdf

2020-2021 Wisconsin Statewide Waste Characterization Study

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 101 S Webster St.

Madison, Wisconsin 53707

(888) 936-7463

2830 Dairy Drive Madison, WI 53718

608-224-2830

25220139.00 | June 11, 2021

2020-2021 Wisconsin Statewide Waste Characterization Study www.scsengineers.com i

Table of Contents

Section Page

Acknowledgements 1 Executive Summary 2 Introduction 3 Background

Past Study Comparison Similarities Differences

4 Study Design Waste Generation and Disposal Waste Sectors

Targeted Sectors Transferred Waste

Host Facilities Material Categories and Components Timing and Schedule

5 Methods Sampling Plan Equipment Sample Selection and Sorting

Category 1 MSW Selection Sorting

Category 25 CDD Data Recording and Analysis

6 Results Overall Statewide Waste Composition

Category 1 MSW Overall Single Family Residential Multi-Family

ICI 51

Category 25 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) Northeast Region Waste Composition

Category 1 MSW Overall Single Family Residential Multi-Family

ICI 68

Category 25 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) Northern Region Waste Composition http://www.scsengineers.com/ ii

Category 1 MSW Overall Single Family Residential Multi-Family

ICI 89

Category 25 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) South Central Region Waste Composition

Category 1 MSW Overall Single Family Residential Multi-Family

ICI 105

Category 25 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) Southeast Region Waste Composition

Category 1 MSW Overall Single Family Residential Multi-Family

ICI 126

Category 25 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) West Central Region Waste Composition

Category 1 MSW Overall Single Family Residential Multi-Family

ICI 147

Category 25 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) Material Counts and OCCURRENCES Top Material Components Data Comparison to 2009 Study

7 Comparison to 2009 Study Single Family Residential Waste Institutional/Commercial/Industrial (ICI)

8 Comparison of Single Family Residential to ICI 9 Conclusions

Exhibits

Overall Category 1 MSW Statewide Waste Composition Overall Category 1 MSW Single Family Residential Statewide Waste Composition Overall Category 1 MSW Multi-Family Statewide Waste Composition Overall Category 1 MSW ICI Statewide Waste Composition Map of 2020-2021 Study Host Facilities iii

Overall Statewide Waste Composition Overall Statewide Single family residential Waste Composition Overall Statewide Multi-Family Waste Composition Overall ICI Statewide Waste Composition Overall CDD Statewide Waste Composition Overall Northeast Region Waste Composition Northeast Region Single family residential Waste Composition Northeast Region ICI Waste Composition Northeast Region CDD Statewide Waste Composition Overall Northern Region Waste Composition Northern Region Single Family Residential Waste Composition Northern Region Multi-Family Waste Composition Northern Region ICI Waste Composition Overall South Central Waste Composition South Central Single family residential Waste Composition South Central Multi-Family Waste Composition South Central ICI Waste Composition South Central Region CDD Waste Composition Overall Southeast Region Waste Composition Southeast Region Single family residential Waste Composition Southeast Region Multi-Family Waste Composition Southeast Region ICI Waste Composition Southeast Region CDD Waste Composition West Central Region Waste Composition West Central Region Single family residential Waste Composition West Central Region Multi-Family Waste Composition West Central Region ICI Waste Composition West Central Region CDD Waste Composition Comparison of Material Category Composition 2009 vs. 2020-2021 Comparison of Material Category Tonnage Disposed 2009 vs. 2020-2021

Comparison of Single Family Residential Material Category Composition 2009 vs.

2020-2021 172

Comparison of Multi-Family Residential Material Category Composition 2009 vs. 2020- 2021 173

Comparison of ICI Material Category Composition 2009 vs. 2020-2021 Comparison of Single Family Residential Major Material Categories 2009 vs 2020-

2021 175 Comparison of ICI Major Material Components 2009 vs 2020-2021 Comparison of Single Family Residential and ICI Major Material Categories iv

Tables

Table 1. Overall Category 1 MSW Statewide Waste Composition – Detailed Table 2. Comparison of the Top 10 Category 1 MSW Material Components from 2009 and 2020-2021 11 Table 3. Comparison of the Top 10 Category 25 CDD Material Components from 2009 and 2020-2021 12 Table 4. Comparison of Top 10 MSW Components by Generating Sector (2020-2021) Table 5. Category 1 MSW Disposed by Region Table 6. Category 25 CDD Disposed by Region Table 7. Host Facilities and Disposal Summary Table 8. Waste Material Category and Component List Table 9. Field Data Collection Schedule Table 10. Category 1 MSW Sample Distribution by Region Table 11. Category 25 CDD Sample Distribution by Region Table 12. Category 1 MSW Samples Sorted by Facility and Region Table 13. Category 25 CDD Samples Characterized by Facility and Region Table 14. Overall Statewide Waste Composition – Detailed Table 15. Overall Statewide Single Family Residential Waste Composition – Detailed Table 16. Overall Statewide Multi-Family Waste Composition – Detailed Table 17. Overall ICI Statewide Waste Composition – Detailed Table 18. Overall CDD Statewide Waste Composition – Detailed Table 19. Overall Northeast Region Waste Composition – Detailed Table 20. Northeast Region Single Family Residential Waste Composition – Detailed Table 21. Northeast Region ICI Waste Composition – Detailed Table 22. Northeast Region CDD Waste Composition – Detailed Table 23. Overall Northern Region Waste Composition – Detailed Table 24. Northern Region Single Family Residential Waste Composition – Detailed Table 25. Northern Region Multi-Family Waste Composition – Detailed Table 26. Northern Region ICI Waste Composition – Detailed Table 27. Overall South Central Waste Composition – Detailed Table 28. South Central Single Family Residential Waste Composition – Detailed Table 29. South Central Multi-Family Waste Composition – Detailed Table 30. South Central ICI Waste Composition – Detailed Table 31. South Central Region CDD Waste Composition – Detailed Table 32. Overall Southeast Region Waste Composition – Detailed Table 33. Southeast Region Single Family Residential Waste Composition – Detailed Table 34. Southeast Region Multi-Family Waste Composition – Detailed Table 35. Southeast Region ICI Waste Composition – Detailed Table 36. Southeast Region CDD Waste Composition – Detailed Table 37. West Central Region Waste Composition – Detailed Table 38. West Central Region Single Family Residential Waste Composition – Detailed Table 39. West Central Region Multi-Family Waste Composition – Detailed Table 40. West Central Region ICI Waste Composition – Detailed v

Table 41. West Central Region CDD Waste Composition – Detailed Table 42. Select Problem Material-Other Waste Occurrences – Overall Statewide Table 43. Select Problem Material-Other Waste Occurrences – Northeast Region Table 44. Select Problem Material-Other Waste Occurrences – Northern Region Table 45. Select Problem Material-Other Waste Occurrences – South Central Region Table 46. Select Problem Material-Other Waste Occurrences – Southeast Region Table 47. Select Problem Material-Other Waste Occurrences – West Central Region Table 48. Top 10 Category 1 MSW Overall Waste Components Table 49. Top 10 Category 25 CDD Overall Waste Components Table 50. Top 10 Category 1 MSW Material Components by Generating Sector Table 51. Top 10 Material Components by Region Table 52. Comparison of Top 10 Category 1 MSW Material Components from 2009 to 2020- 2021 168 Table 53. Comparison of the Top 10 Category 25 CDD Material Components from 2009 to 2020- 2021 169 Table 54. Comparison of Single Family Residential Material Component Proportions 2009 vs 2020-2021 176 Table 55. Comparison of ICI Material Component Proportions 2009 vs 2020-2021 Table 56. Comparison of Single Family Residential and ICI Material Component Proportions ... 184

Figures

Figure 1. Sample Containers and Staged Sample for Sorting Figure 2. Sort Table Figure 3. Waste Being Delivered for Sample Collection Figure 4. Manually Sorting MSW Sample Figure 5. Weighing Sorted MSW Sample Figure 6. CDD Being Tipped for Visual Characterization

Appendices

Appendix A Potential Host Facility Questionnaire Appendix B WDNR Material Category and Component Definitions Appendix C Example Data Collection Forms Appendix D Volume to Weight Conversion Factor Source Document Appendix E Material Category and Component List Acronyms

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The SCS Engineers project team would like to thank the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, including Ms. Casey Lamensky, for their support and guidance throughout the execution of the 2020-2021 Wisconsin Statewide Waste Characterization Study. Additionally, SCS Engineers could not have completed this Study without the staff support at the 15 host facilities that participated in this Study. Staff at these facilities provided detailed information on waste acceptance data, allowed access to their site and waste receipts, and made available equipment and staff resources to aid in obtaining and sorting samples. SCS Engineers acknowledges the support of the following sites and staff to help produce the results of this Study:

Northeast Region:

• GFL Hickory Meadows Landfill – Mr. Nate Schneider

• Brown County Transfer Station – Mr. Chad Doverspike

• Outagamie County Landfill – Mr. Gregory Parins

• Waste Management Ridgeview Landfill – Mr. Kurt Kietzer

Northern Region:

• City of Superior Moccasin Mike Landfill – Ms. Darienne McNamara

• Waste Management Timberline Trail Landfill – Ms. Tina Hultman

South Central Region:

• Dane County Landfill Site No. 2 (Rodefeld) – Ms. Roxanne Wienkes

• GFL Glacier Ridge Landfill – Mr. Jacob Margelofsky

• Waste Management Deer Track Park Landfill – Mr. Joe Hackbarth

Southeast Region:

• Waste Management Metro RDF – Mr. Travis Thorson

• GFL Emerald Park Landfill – Mr. Daniel Otzelberger

• Waste Management Orchard Ridge Landfill – Mr. Brett Coogan

West Central Region:

• Cranberry Creek Landfill – Ms. Melissa Brock

• GFL Seven Mike Creek Landfill – Mr. John Blackmon

• La Crosse County Landfill – Mr. Jadd Stilwell

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) contracted with SCS Engineers (SCS) in 2020 to update Wisconsin’s statewide waste characterization Study (2020-2021 Study or Study).

This Study continued WDNR’s long history of tracking the types and quantities of waste disposed in Wisconsin. The 2020-2021 Study was designed to conform to previous statewide waste characterization studies to facilitate the comparison and tracking of waste disposal trends. This Study provides meaningful data to help WDNR and local governments document the impact of existing diversion initiatives, make program and policy decisions to expand waste reduction and recycling goals, strengthen economic development efforts, understand where additional education may be needed, and improve overall quality of life in communities and throughout the state.

The 15 host facilities where waste sampling and sorting activities took place represent the diversity of solid waste facilities in the State of Wisconsin with respect to geography and size. Sampling and sorting activities took place at facilities that dispose of larger quantities of waste. This facilitated the collection of representative data as it provided a greater cross-section of waste to sample. Multiple facilities in each of WDNR’s five regions participated in the Study.

State law assesses fees on several types of solid waste disposed in Wisconsin landfills. The Study focused on two categories of waste:

• Category 1 - Municipal solid waste (MSW)

• Category 25 – Construction and demolition debris (CDD)

The overall objectives of the Study were as follows:

1. Use field collection methods that statistically measure waste composition data for WDNR Category 1 municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in Wisconsin and disposed at permitted solid waste facilities in the state. SCS used the methods in ASTM International Standard D 5231 – 92 (Revised 2016) Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste to complete this Study.

2. Develop statewide waste composition data by weight for MSW disposed by the Single family residential, multi-family, and institutional/commercial/industrial (ICI) generating sectors individually and overall for the State of Wisconsin and each region individually for 85 different material components.

3. Perform standard statistical analyses of the waste composition data by calculating standard deviations and the 90 percent confidence intervals for each material component.

4. Visually estimate and calculate the composition of WDNR Category 25 construction and demolition debris (CDD) disposed at permitted solid waste facilities in each region.

5. Design the Study so that it can be compared to previous waste characterization studies to identify waste disposal changes and trends and for ease of replication in future studies that may be commissioned.

This Study provides waste composition data for each WDNR region and overall for the State of Wisconsin for the following waste generating sectors:

• Single Family Residential – Encompasses MSW generated from single family homes and multi-unit properties with no more than four units.

• Multi-Family – Includes MSW generated at properties with five or more Single family residential units.

• Institutional/Commercial/Industrial (ICI) – Includes MSW generated at commercial, institutional, and industrial facilities.

• Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) – Includes construction and demolition waste from home and/or commercial construction or demolition job sites.

Regional waste characterization data is an aggregation of the data collected from each host facility in each particular region. The overall statewide data is an aggregation of regional data collected.

The 2020-2021 Study was conducted over two time periods as follows:

• Season 1 – September – November 2020

• Season 2 – March – April 2021

Exhibit 1 summarizes the overall Category 1 MSW composition for waste materials disposed in Wisconsin. Table 1 provides a more detailed breakdown of the MSW characterization results for all material components measured. Appendix E includes acronyms for material abbreviations in the tables. The data presented is aggregated from the single family residential, multi-family, and ICI waste generating sectors and represents the overall MSW waste stream. Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4 summarize the overall MSW composition data for the Single family residential, multi-family, and ICI waste streams, respectively. Detailed waste composition profiles for these individual generating sectors are provided in the results section of this report.

Overall Category 1 MSW Statewide Waste Composition

Table 1. Overall Category 1 MSW Statewide Waste Composition – Detailed (refer to Appendices B and E for descriptions of waste types and acronyms)

Mean Standard 90% Confidence Limits Material Components Composition Deviation Lower Upper

PAPER

R 1 Newsprint (ONP) 39,200 0.9% 2.5% 0.7% 1.1%

2 High Grade Office Paper 61,800 1.4% 2.3% 1.2% 1.6% 3 Magazines/Catalogs 32,800 0.8% 1.3% 0.6% 0.9% 4 Uncoated OCC - Recyclable 138,700 3.2% 7.1% 2.6% 3.8% 5 Coated OCC 4,700 0.1% 0.6% <0.1% 0.2%

R 6 Boxboard 54,800 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% 1.4% R 7 Cartons - Aseptic/Gable Top Containers 16,900 0.4% 1.2% 0.3% 0.5%

8 Mixed Paper - Recyclable 223,300 5.1% 7.9% 4.5% 5.8% 9 Compostable Paper 232,000 5.3% 3.8% 5.0% 5.6%

R 10 Other Paper 120,700 2.8% 4.2% 2.4% 3.1%

Total Paper 924,900 21.3%

PLASTIC

R 11 67,500 1.6% 3.0% 1.3% 1.8% 12 12,300 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 13 18,600 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 14 800 <0.1% 0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 15 500 <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%

17,600

0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%

6,100

0.1% 0.5% <0.1% 0.2%

50,000

1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2%

R

12,200 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3%

23,200

0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6%

21 68,400 1.6% 2.3% 1.4% 1.8% 22 32,500 0.7% 1.9% 0.6% 0.9% 23 38,600 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 24 8,000 0.2% 0.7% 0.1% 0.2% 25 2,800 <0.1% 0.3% <0.1% <0.1% 26 311,200 7.2% 4.8% 6.8% 7.6% 27 34,100 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 28 1,200 <0.1% 0.3% <0.1% <0.1% 29 40,000 0.9% 1.7% 0.8% 1.1%

Total Plastic 745,600 17.1%

METAL

C 30 Aluminum Beverage Containers 29,100 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 31 Other Aluminum 19,700 0.5% 1.5% 0.3% 0.6% 32 Ferrous ("Tin") Cans 24,400 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 33 Other Ferrous Scrap 57,800 1.3% 3.2% 1.1% 1.6% 34 Other Non-Ferrous Scrap 3,000 <0.1% 0.4% <0.1% 0.1%

T 35 Other Metal 64,500 1.5% 3.3% 1.2% 1.8%

Total Metals 198,500 4.6%

Other Plastics

PE Recyclable Film Agricultural Film Pouches Other Flexible Films PS Foam (#6) Compostable Plastics

2020 Tons

Bulky Rigid Plastics

PET (#1) Bottles Natural HDPE (#2) Bottles Colored HDPE (#2) Bottles PP (#5) Bottles Other (#3, #4, #6, and #7) Bottles PET(#1) Non-Bottle Rigid Containers & Packaging HDPE (#2) Non-Bottle Rigid Containers & Packaging PP(#5) Non-Bottle Rigid Containers & Packaging PS(#6) Non-Foam, Bottle Rigid Containers & Packaging Other (#7)/Unidentifiable Non-Bottle Rigid Containers & Packaging Rigid Non-Packaging

Table 1. Overall Category 1 MSW Statewide Waste Composition – Detailed (continued)

GLASS

C 36 Clear Containers - Beverage 27,300 0.6% 1.5% 0.5% 0.8%

37 Colored Containers - Beverage 21,700 0.5% 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% 38 Glass Food Containers 16,900 0.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 39 Other Glass 31,700 0.7% 2.5% 0.5% 0.9%

Total Glass 97,600 2.2%

ORGANICS

R 40 Yard Materials - <6" 80,000 1.8% 4.5% 1.5% 2.2% 41 Yard Materials - >6" 8,400 0.2% 1.3% <0.1% 0.3% 42 Food Scraps (Not Traditionally Edible) 238,500 5.5% 5.5% 5.0% 5.9% 43 Wasted Food 615,500 14.1% 10.6% 13.3% 15.0% 44 Diapers 154,400 3.5% 3.7% 3.2% 3.9% 45 Animal Waste/Kitty Litter 103,400 2.4% 4.3% 2.0% 2.7% 46 Bottom Fines/Dirt 33,100 0.8% 2.8% 0.5% 1.0% 47 Other Organic Material 88,900 2.0% 3.0% 1.8% 2.3%

Total Organics 1,322,200 30.4%

CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION

R 48 Treated Wood 19,600 0.4% 1.6% 0.3% 0.6% 49 Untreated Clean Dimensional Lumber 58,200 1.3% 4.9% 0.9% 1.7% 50 Unpainted Engineered Wood 44,500 1.0% 4.7% 0.6% 1.4% 51 Painted/Stained Wood 43,600 1.0% 5.1% 0.6% 1.4% 52 Other Recyclable Wood 13,500 0.3% 3.7% <0.1% 0.6% 53 Rock, Concrete, Brick 6,300 0.1% 0.7% <0.1% 0.2% 54 Gypsum Wallboard - Demo 33,900 0.8% 4.2% 0.4% 1.1% 55 Gypsum Wallboard - Clean Scrap 8,000 0.2% 3.1% <0.1% 0.4% 56 Roofing Shingles 3,500 <0.1% 0.7% <0.1% 0.1%

57 PVC 2,600 <0.1% 0.3% <0.1% <0.1%

58 Ceramics/Porcelain Fixtures 6,800 0.2% 0.8% <0.1% 0.2% 59 Other CDD 56,100 1.3% 3.3% 1.0% 1.6%

Total Construction & Demolition 296,600 6.8%

2020 Tons

Table 1. Overall Category 1 MSW Statewide Waste Composition – Detailed (continued)

PROBLEM MATERIALS

C 60 Televisions - CRT 2,800 <0.1% 1.1% <0.1% 0.2%

61 Televisions - Non-CRT 500 <0.1% 0.2% <0.1% <0.1% 62 Other Banned Electronic Equipment 16,200 0.4% 1.4% 0.3% 0.5% 63 Non-Banned Electronic Equipment 14,800 0.3% 1.0% 0.3% 0.4% 64 Small Electrical Appliances 28,400 0.7% 1.9% 0.5% 0.8% 65 White Goods - Refridgerated 2,100 <0.1% 0.7% <0.1% 0.1% 66 White Goods - Non-Refridgerated 2,000 <0.1% 0.9% <0.1% 0.1% 67 Lead Acid Batteries 1,000 <0.1% 0.4% <0.1% <0.1% 68 Other Batteries 4,700 0.1% 0.2% <0.1% 0.1% 69 Fluorescent Light Tubes 100 <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 70 Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs 700 <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 71 Tires 8,200 0.2% 1.7% <0.1% 0.3% 72 Paint 7,100 0.2% 1.3% <0.1% 0.3% 73 Automotive Used Oil/Filters 2,000 <0.1% 0.3% <0.1% <0.1% 74 Household Hazardous Waste 2,100 <0.1% 0.4% <0.1% <0.1% 75 Sharps, Needles, Lancets 2,200 <0.1% 0.3% <0.1% <0.1% 76 Other Problem Materials 37,300 0.9% 3.4% 0.6% 1.1%

Total Problem Materials 132,200 3.0%

OTHER WASTE

R 77 Textiles 240,700 5.5% 6.4% 5.0% 6.1% 78 Carpet 44,300 1.0% 3.9% 0.7% 1.3% 79 Carpet Padding 5,800 0.1% 0.8% <0.1% 0.2% 80 Wood Pallets 8,900 0.2% 2.0% <0.1% 0.4% 81 Bulky Items 1,900 <0.1% 0.8% <0.1% 0.1% 82 Mattresses and Box Springs 100 <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 83 Wood Furniture 23,000 0.5% 2.9% 0.3% 0.8% 84 Aerosol Cans 7,900 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 85 Compressed Gas Containers 1,300 <0.1% 0.3% <0.1% <0.1%

Total Other Waste 333,900 7.7%

END OF SAMPLE FINES

R Other Paper 30,300 0.7% 1.1% 0.6% 0.8% Other Plastic 23,900 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.6% Other Glass 1,100 <0.1% 0.5% <0.1% <0.1% Bottom Fines/Dirt 122,900 2.8% 3.8% 2.5% 3.1% Food Scraps 23,600 0.5% 1.1% 0.5% 0.6% Wasted Food 16,600 0.4% 0.9% 0.3% 0.5% Other Organics 80,100 1.8% 2.6% 1.6% 2.1%, , 298,600 6.9%

TOTALS 4,350,100 100.0%

Note: Composition based on 398 samples

TOTALS

2020 Tons

Overall Category 1 MSW Single Family Residential Statewide Waste Composition

Overall Category 1 MSW Multi-Family Statewide Waste Composition

Overall Category 1 MSW ICI Statewide Waste Composition

Table 2 summarizes the top 10 materials components that comprise the largest portions of the overall Category 1 MSW waste stream along with the comparison to the top ten materials from the 2009 Study. Table 3 summarizes the top 10 materials components that comprise the largest portions of the overall Category 25 CDD waste stream along with the comparison to the top ten materials from the 2009 Study. Table 4 summarizes the top 10 materials components from each generating sector from the 2021 Study.

Table 2. Comparison of the Top 10 Category 1 MSW Material Components from 2009 and 2020-2021

Material Component Percent Composition Material Component Percent

Composition

Wasted Food (typically edible or spoiled food that was wasted because of spoilage or discarded before being eaten;

not a result of food preparation or scraps)

14.5%

Food Scraps 2

(typically edible or spoiled food that was wasted because of spoilage or discarded before being eaten, including food waste resulting of food preparation and food scraps)

10.6%

Other Flexible Films (non-PE film and non-film flexibles)

7.2% Roofing Shingles (asphalt shingles tarpaper; also tarpaper from built-up roofing)

5.8%

Food Scraps (not traditionally edible)

6.0%

Compostable Paper (tissues and paper including OCC that are soiled with food, such as paper plates, paper cups, pizza boxes, popcorn bags and paper towels)

5.0%

Textiles (clothing, bedding, curtains, blankets, stuffed animals, cotton diapers, other cloth material and leather goods)

5.5%

Painted/Stained Wood (wood that has had an external coating applied, such as paint or varnish)

4.4%

Compostable Paper (plastic lined paper products meeting ASTM D-6868, food contaminated paper (including OCC) and low-grade paper that does not fit into the Mixed Paper- Recyclable category)

5.3%

Other Plastic Film (flexible plastic film regardless of resin type, not including plastic film shopping bags or plastic film industrial packaging)

4.3%

Mixed Paper - Recyclable (paper that would be included in residential "mixed mail" or commercial "office pack" recycling programs, not including newsprint, high grade office paper, magazines/catalogs, uncoated and coated OCC, boxboard or cartons)

5.1%

Uncoated OCC - Recyclable (uncoated cardboard with a wavy core and not contaminated with other materials such as wax or plastic coating)

3.9%

Bottom Fines/Dirt (small fragments, typically less than 2 inches, and miscellaneous fines and dirt)

3.6%

Yard Materials - <6" (leaves, grass clippings, yard and garden debris and brush, including clean woody vegetative material no greater than 6 inches in diameter)

3.8%

Diapers (infant and adult disposable diapers)

3.5% Composite/Other Plastic (all items that were plastic but combined with metal, wood or glass)

3.6%

Other Paper (all paper that doesn't fit in the other paper categories and items that are primarily paper but include other materials such as plastic or metal)

3.5%

Bottom Fines/Dirt (small fragments that pass through the 1/4" sort screen, and miscellaneous fines and dirt)

3.6%

Uncoated OCC - Recyclable (uncoated cardboard with a wavy core and not contaminated with other materials such as wax or plastic coating)

3.2%

Other Paper (all paper that doesn't fit in the other paper categories and items that are primarily paper but include other materials such as plastic or metal)

3.5%

TOTAL 57.5% TOTAL 48.5%

2020-2021 Study Results 2009 Study Results 1

Table 3. Comparison of the Top 10 Category 25 CDD Material Components from 2009 and 2020-2021

Material Component Percent Composition Material Component Percent

Composition Other C&D (any other material used in home construction, not including wood, rock, brick , concrete, gypsum wallboard, shingles, PVC or ceramics/porcelain fixtures)

25.0% Roofing Shingles (asphalt shingles tarpaper; also tarpaper from built-up roofing)

29.5%

Untreated Clean Dimensional Lumber (unpainted, untreated new or demolition dimensional lumber such as 2x4s, 2x6s, etc.; may contain nails or other trace contaminants)

11.5%

Rock, Concrete, Bricks (rock gravel, Portland cement mixtures (set or unset), fire-clay bricks, asphalt pavement)

13.2%

Roofing Shingles (asphalt shingles tarpaper; also tarpaper from built-up roofing)

10.0%

Painted/Stained Wood (wood that has had an external coating applied, such as paint or varnish in more than small amounts)

10.1%

Untreated Clean Dimensional Lumber (unpainted, untreated new or demolition dimensional lumber such as 2x4s, 2x6s, etc.; may contain nails or other trace contaminants)

8.7%

Clean Dimensional Lumber (unpainted, untreated new or demolition dimensional lumber such as 2x4s, 2x6s, etc.; may contain nails or other trace contaminants)

8.8%

Gypsum Wallboard - Demo (used gypsum drywall typically with paint, wallpaper or other finish coating)

6.5%

Other C & D (any other material used in home construction, not including wood, rock, brick , concrete, gypsum wallboard, shingles, PVC or ceramics/porcelain fixtures)

5.8%

Wood Pallets (wood pallets and crating materials commonly used for industrial and commercial packaging and shipping)

5.3%

Other Ferrous Scrap (ferrous and alloyed ferrous metal scrap to which a magnet is attached, includes household, commercial and industrial materials)

4.8%

Boxboard (chipboard boxes not coated with wax, plastic or metal)

4.9%

Clean Engineered Wood (unpainted new or demolition scrap from sheet goods such as plywood, particle board, wafer board, oriented strand board and other residual materials used for sheathing and related construction uses; may contain nails or other trace contaminants)

4.7%

Rock, Concrete, Brick (rock gravel, Portland cement mixtures (set or unset), fire-clay bricks, asphalt pavement)

4.3% Drywall - Clean Scraps (unpainted gypsum drywall construction cutoffs and scrap)

3.5%

Painted/Stained Wood (wood that has had an external coating applied, such as paint or varnish in more than small amounts)

3.5%

Bottom Fines/Dirt (small fragments that pass through the 1/4" sort screen, and miscellaneous fines and dirt)

3.0%

Uncoated OCC - Recyclable (uncoated cardboard with a wavy core and not contaminated with other materials such as wax or plastic coating)

3.4% Treated Wood (lumber that is either green or brown treated)

1.9%

TOTAL 83.1% TOTAL 85.3%

1 2009 Wisconsin Statewide Waste Characterization Study, Table 3-12, Page 3-21, June 30, 2010

2020-2021 Study Results 2009 Study Results¹

Table 4. Comparison of Top 10 MSW Components by Generating Sector (2020-2021)

Material % Composition Material % Composition Material % Composition Wasted Food (typically edible or spoiled food that was wasted because of spoilage or discarded before being eaten; not a result of food preparation or scraps)

14.8%

Wasted Food (typically edible or spoiled food that was wasted because of spoilage or discarded before being eaten; not a result of food preparation or scraps)

13.5%

Wasted Food (typically edible or spoiled food that was wasted because of spoilage or discarded before being eaten; not a result of food preparation or scraps)

14.6%

Food Scraps (not traditionally edible)

7.1%

Mixed Paper - Recyclable (paper that would be included in residential "mixed mail" or commercial "office pack" recycling programs, not including newsprint, high grade office paper, magazines/catalogs, uncoated and coated OCC, boxboard or cartons)

6.5%

Other Flexible Films (non-PE film and non-film flexibles)

8.3%

Other Flexible Films (non-PE film and non-film flexibles)

6.4%

Food Scraps (not traditionally edible)

5.9%

Mixed Paper - Recyclable (paper that would be included in residential "mixed mail" or commercial "office pack" recycling programs, not including newsprint, high grade office paper, magazines/catalogs, uncoated and coated OCC, boxboard or cartons)

6.6%

Textiles (clothing, bedding, curtains, blankets, stuffed animals, cotton diapers, other cloth material and leather goods)

6.3% Gypsum Wallboard - Demo (used gypsum drywall typically with paint, wallpaper or other finish coating)

5.6%

Compostable Paper (plastic lined paper products meeting ASTM D-6868, food contaminated paper (including OCC) and low-grade paper that does not fit into the Mixed Paper-Recyclable category)

5.1%

Compostable Paper (plastic lined paper products meeting ASTM D-6868, food contaminated paper (including OCC) and low-grade paper that does not fit into the Mixed Paper-Recyclable category)

5.6%

Other Flexible Films (non-PE film and non-film flexibles)

5.0%

Uncoated OCC - Recyclable (uncoated cardboard with a wavy core and not contaminated with other materials such as wax or plastic coating)

4.9%

Mixed Paper - Recyclable (paper that would be included in residential "mixed mail" or commercial "office pack" recycling programs, not including newsprint, high grade office paper, magazines/catalogs, uncoated and coated OCC, boxboard or cartons)

5.2%

Compostable Paper (plastic lined paper products meeting ASTM D-6868, food contaminated paper (including OCC) and low-grade paper that does not fit into the Mixed Paper-Recyclable category)

4.6%

Food Scraps (not traditionally edible)

4.8%

Diapers (infant and adult disposable diapers)

4.2% Animal Waste/Kitty Litter (self defined)

4.3%

Textiles (clothing, bedding, curtains, blankets, stuffed animals, cotton diapers, other cloth material and leather goods)

4.5%

Animal Waste/Kitty Litter (self defined)

2.9% Diapers (infant and adult disposable diapers)

4.1%

Other Paper (all paper that doesn't fit in the other paper categories and items that are primarily paper but include other materials such as plastic or metal)

2.9%

Other Paper (all paper that doesn't fit in the other paper categories and items that are primarily paper but include other materials such as plastic or metal)

2.7% Textiles (clothing, bedding, curtains, blankets, stuffed animals, cotton diapers, other cloth material and leather goods)

3.7% Diapers (infant and adult disposable diapers)

2.5%

Yard Materials - <6" (leaves, grass clippings, yard and garden debris and brush, including clean woody vegetative material no greater than 6 inches in diameter)

2.7%

Uncoated OCC - Recyclable (uncoated cardboard with a wavy core and not contaminated with other materials such as wax or plastic coating)

3.0%

Untreated Clean Dimensional Lumber (unpainted, untreated new or demolition lumber such as 2x4s, 2x5s, etc.; may contain nails or other trace contaminants)

2.3%

Total 57.9% Total 56.22% Total 56.45%

Residential Multi-Family ICI

2 INTRODUCTION

This report provides the results of the 2020-2021 Study as well as the methods used to obtain the data contained in this report. The report is organized in the following sections:

• Background – The background section of the report includes Wisconsin waste generating and disposal, recycling, and other data used to extrapolate the results of this Study to develop a waste composition profile for the entire state.

• Study Design – This section describes the design aspects of the waste characterization Study including material categories and components and, location of host facilities by region, and timing and schedule for the Study.

• Methods – This section discusses the methods and protocols used to select and sort samples of waste for this Study. It also includes details on how sampling plans were designed and the number of samples obtained by facility and region from each demographic and generating sector.

• Results – This section provides detailed results on the composition of waste disposed in the State of Wisconsin overall and by region. Results are presented graphically as well as in tables for a more detailed presentation of the data. The top 10 material components from the 2020-2021 Study are compared to the top 10 materials from 2009. Additionally, the top ten material components are compared for each region.

• Comparison of Single Family Residential to ICI - This section provides a comparison of major material categories between the single family residential and ICI sectors.

• Conclusions - This section provides conclusions on how the 2020-2021 Study achieved the desired objectives.

3 BACKGROUND

The WDNR has a long history of tracking the amount and components of municipal solid waste and construction and demolition debris disposed at facilities across the State of Wisconsin. These efforts have helped the State of Wisconsin develop policies and programs that reduce waste, encourage recycling, and facilitate sustainable materials management. While a significant portion of waste generated in the state is diverted from disposal, the WDNR recognizes there are additional opportunities for continued waste reduction and recycling. Over the last two decades, the WDNR has commissioned three waste characterization studies (2002, 2009, 2020-2021) to quantitatively and qualitatively measure waste disposal. The 2020-2021 Study aimed to mirror previous studies completed in 2002 and 2009 to document material disposal across the state in all five WDNR regions. The following are the guiding principles for planning and executing the Study:

1. Develop a 2020-2021 statewide waste characterization profile by weight for materials currently disposed at Wisconsin disposal facilities, including obtaining information on the Single family residential, multi-family, and ICI waste streams and how they differ;

2. Selection of waste samples that are statistically representative of the MSW and CDD disposed in Wisconsin;

3. Estimate the types and quantities of materials currently disposed of in Wisconsin that could be reused, recycled, or recovered;

4. Provide data that the WDNR and local governments can use to make decisions on expanding existing and implementing new programs and policies for diverting waste materials.

5. Mirror previous waste characterization studies to facilitate ease of comparison and duplication in the future.

The results of this Study can be used by the WDNR and local governments to document the impact of existing waste diversion activities and to make decisions on waste diversion programs that can be expanded and implemented to further divert material from disposal. This Study was completed by SCS with the assistance of WDNR and the staff at each of the host facilities.

Data provided by the WDNR’s 2018 landfill tonnage report shows that 28 unique landfills accepted nearly 4.3 million tons of Category 1 MSW for disposal. Similarly, 25 unique landfills accepted over 367,000 tons of Category 25 construction and demolition waste. The WDNR oversees each of these facilitates to confirm waste is managed in a way that protects the environment and public health.

PAST STUDY COMPARISON

A guiding principle for the 2020-2021 Study was to complete it using a similar protocol and approach to the 2002 and 2009 studies to facilitate comparison. Two key challenges complicated the execution of this Study, including:

• COVID-19 Pandemic - The COVID-19 global pandemic significantly changed the way society operated beginning in March 2020 and continued throughout the Study. The State of Wisconsin implemented stay at home orders and many commercial establishments, including restaurants, had to close for a period of time, which was followed by reduced operating capacity restrictions. These actions resulted in an increase in generation and disposal of Single family residential waste and a corresponding decrease in the amount of commercial waste generated.

• Acquisition of Advanced Disposal Services by Waste Management, Inc. – When the 2020- 2021 Study began, both Advanced Disposal and Waste Management operated major hauling operations and disposal facilities in Wisconsin. The acquisition of Advanced Disposal Services by Waste Management resulted in ownership changes for five of the host facilities in late October 2020. One host facility transitioned to Waste Management and four were divested to GFL Environmental. Ownership changes also affected collection and transfer operations. As a result of the changes in facility ownership, waste disposal tonnages shifted across facilities.

Given these major events that impacted the 2020-2021 Study, the following provides a summary of the similarities and differences between this Study and the Study completed in 2009.

Similarities

• Sampling and Sorting Protocols and Procedures – The Category 1 MSW waste sampling and sorting protocols, including using ASTM International Standard D 5231 – 92 (Revised 2016) Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste to complete this Study, were the same for the both the 2020-2021 and 2009 studies. Similarly, both studies used a visual characterization method for the CDD waste samples.

• Generating Sectors – The 2020-2021 Study collected and analyzed data from the Single family residential, multi-family, ICI, and CDD waste generating sectors similar to the 2009 Study.

• Target Wisconsin Generated Waste Only – This Study only targeted the sampling and sorting of waste generated in Wisconsin. Waste samples were screened at each host facility and waste originating from out-of-state locations were excluded from the Study.

• Confidentiality – For the 2020-2021 Study, detailed waste sampling data obtained from individual host facilities was kept confidential and not shared with the WDNR. Results from individual facilities were aggregated to develop waste profiles for each WDNR region and overall statewide.

Differences

• Material Categories and Components – Most waste categories and components measured for the 2020-2021 Study where the same as the materials measured in 2009. However there were some differences in the individual material components measured between the two studies. The 2020-2021 Study included the addition of nine new plastic materials and the delineation of wasted food from food scraps. The complete list of material differences is discussed later in this report. The WDNR provided the material category and component list for this Study.

• Transferred Waste – SCS’s protocol called for avoiding and minimizing the number of samples obtained from mixed waste transfer trailers. However, 18 mixed samples of transferred waste were sampled and sorted as part of this Study when pure loads of Single family residential or ICI were unavailable. Data from those samples were only incorporated into the overall regional and statewide results, not individual generating sector results (i.e.

Single family residential, multi-family, or ICI).

• Seasonal Field Data Collection – Seasonal sampling and sorting occurred from mid-

September through mid-November and again from mid-March to mid-April. This contrasts with the timeframe of the 2009 Study of August-September and November-December. The schedule was impacted by contracting delays and the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Host Facilities – Twelve of the 15 host facilities for the 2020-2021 Study participated in the

2009 Study. The additional three 2020-2021 Study host facilities that did not participate in 2009 included the City of Superior Moccasin Mike Landfill (Northern region), Brown County Transfer Station (Northeast region), and the La Crosse County Landfill (West Central region).

Facilities that participated in the 2009 Study, but not in 2020-2021 Studay included BFI Waste Systems North America, Inc. (Sarona); Valley Trail RDF (Berlin); City of Milwaukee Northwest Transfer Station; and City of Milwaukee Lincoln Transfer Station.

• Sampling Targets – The 2020-2021 Study sampled and sorted more waste than the 2009

Study. The 2020-2021 Study sorted 398 Category 1 MSW samples (40 samples more than 2009) and visually characterized 659 CDD samples (57 samples more than 2009), for a total sample tally of 1,057. The higher number of samples characterized provides for narrower confidence intervals and more representative data and results.

4 STUDY DESIGN

Developing a sound approach to complete this Study was critical for laying the foundation for a successful project that yielded reliable and statistically valid data. Careful planning went into selecting host facilities, identifying and screening waste streams, completing field activities, and analyzing data. This section describes how SCS designed the 2020-2021 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. The Study design elements included in this section reflect feedback and modifications by WDNR during the planning and execution stages of this Study.

It is important to note that the 2020-2021 Statewide Waste Characterization Study is not part of WDNR’s compliance program. The results of this Study for individual host facilities are not included in this report nor shared with WDNR. Data from individual host facilities is aggregated into the regional and overall waste profiles provided in this report.

WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL

WDNR compiles waste disposal tonnage reports on an annual basis. Data included in the report is provided by all licensed MSW landfills in Wisconsin. The report includes waste disposal data by facility and waste type, including Category 1 MSW and Category 25 CDD, which were the waste streams characterized for this Study. According to WDNR, Category 1 MSW includes all Single family residential, multi-family, institutional, commercial, and industrial (when no other classification for the waste exists) wastes. Unmixed CDD waste is classified as Category 25; however, when CDD waste is mixed with Category 1 MSW on trucks or in transfer trailers this material is classified as MSW.

SCS used the WDNR tonnage report from 2018 to develop the sampling plan for this Study. Table 5 and Table 6 include a summary of the MSW and CDD disposed in the State of Wisconsin from the 2018 tonnage report by WDNR region. The WDNR annual waste tonnage report are available on the WDNR’s website at https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Landfills.

Table 5. Category 1 MSW Disposed by Region

WDNR Region Cat. 1 MSW

Disposed 2018 (Tons)

% of Total MSW Disposed

Northeast 865,866 20%

Northern 359,337 8%

South Central 901,018 21%

Southeast 1,440,484 34%

West Central 719,438 17%

TOTAL 4,286,143 100%

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Landfills

Table 6. Category 25 CDD Disposed by Region

WASTE SECTORS

Targeted Sectors Consistent with previous WDNR statewide waste characterization studies, waste from the following generating sectors was sampled and characterized for this Study:

• Single Family Residential – Waste generated in single-family and multi-family households with four or fewer dwelling units; this waste material is typically collected by public or private haulers in compacting collection trucks that are either semi- or fully-automated.

• Multi-Family residential – Waste generated from multi-family properties with five or more dwelling units is collected by compacting collection vehicles using either dumpsters or carts as collection containers. Although waste from the multi-family sector is typically mixed with waste from the institutional, commercial, and industrial sector due to collection practices and routing, SCS worked with haulers to arrange for a small number of separate loads containing only multi-family waste for sampling and sorting. Evaluating multi-family waste separately from other single family residential waste is advantageous as waste diversion activities are unique due to reliance on property owners for education, space constraints, and the transient nature of tenants living at these properties.

• Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) – Waste disposed by businesses, institutions, industrial facilities, and other non-Single family residential sources (with the exception of specially classified industrial or hazardous wastes) is typically collected by private haulers in commercial containers using front- or rear-load compacting trucks.

• Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) – Waste generated during construction and/or demolition activities. This waste is typically collected in open-top roll-off boxes and containers that have been stationed at construction sites.

Waste characterization results are presented separately for each of these generating sectors by region and overall for the State of Wisconsin.

WDNR Region Cat. 25 CDD

Disposed 2018 (Tons)

% of Total CDD Disposed

Northeast 50,776 14% Northern 7,868 2% South Central 89,848 24% Southeast 135,982 37% West Central 82,945 23%

TOTAL 367,419 100%

Transferred Waste Many solid waste facilities in the State of Wisconsin report that a portion of waste disposed is delivered via large transfer trailers capable of transporting 100 cubic yards of waste or more. This waste is often material from all generating sectors (i.e. Single family residential, ICI, etc.) that is mixed together prior to transfer, making it impossible to accurately characterize. Sampling and sorting this waste is challenging for the following reasons:

• Compaction and Processing – Waste transferred for disposal typically has been processed in some way to facilitate loading into the transfer trailer. This processing alters the composition of the waste and it is no longer in an “as-disposed” condition, which is an important criterion for completing a waste characterization Study.

• Physical Separation Challenges – The processing of waste that occurs before and during loading into transfer trailers compacts waste significantly, making the physical separation and sorting extremely difficult and challenging. It also poses safety issues for sorting personnel that have to apply force to pull materials apart, increasing the potential for injury.

SCS’s approach to mixed transferred waste was to avoid sampling and sorting it if possible. However, when waste receipts at a host facility indicated a significant portion (> 20 percent) of waste disposed originated from one particular transfer station, the owner/operator of that transfer station was contacted to explore one of two options for sampling and sorting of waste from the facility, including:

1. On-site Sorting – Arrange with the transfer station owner and/or operator to sample and sort waste at their facility. This allowed for direct sampling of waste from haulers delivering materials in as-disposed conditions that could be verified as either Single family residential, multi-family, ICI, or CDD. This approach resulted in the most accurate data as SCS staff employed our stringent screening process (described below) to confirm waste generator source. Staff at the Brown County Transfer Station allowed our SCS team to sample and sort waste at their facility using this protocol.

2. Segregated Material Loads – If a transfer station was unable to accommodate on-site sampling and sorting, SCS requested that transfer station operators segregate as best they can loads of Single family residential, multi-family, ICI, and CDD waste and transfer only full or partial loads of waste from one particular generating sector to the host facility for sorting. This approach puts more onus on transfer station personnel and SCS did not follow this protocol for sampling and sorting of waste from a transfer facility.

A limited number of transfer trailer waste samples were obtained and sorted when no pure loads of Single family residential, multi-family, and ICI waste were available for sorting. Given the limited time for fieldwork at each host facility, it was important that the sort crew make the most of their time at each facility even if it meant sorting samples of transferred waste. Data from sorted transferred waste was aggregated into the overall statewide waste characterization Study results, but was not included in the results for the Single family residential, multi-family, or ICI generating sectors.

HOST FACILITIES

SCS sampled and sorted waste at 15 different host facilities across all WDNR regions. To identify and prioritize host facility selection, SCS used the following criteria:

• Past Study Participant – Facilities serving as host sites for the 2002 and 2009 waste characterization studies provided a reasonably representative cross-section of disposed waste generated in Wisconsin. Additionally, host facilities for the 2002 and 2009 studies were the same and all sites were licensed municipal solid waste disposal facilities. These characteristics coupled with their familiarity with Study protocols and requirements made these sites ideal targets again for the 2020-2021 Study.

• Expressed Interest in Participating – Staff from four facilities expressed interest in participating in the 2020-2021 Study to the WDNR. Two of these facilities were previous Study participants.

• WDNR Regions – Multiple disposal facilities in each WDNR region were targeted to host field activities to account for different waste generation and disposal practices in all parts of the state. Targeting facilities in each WDNR region also allowed for sampling and sorting of waste materials generated from urban, suburban, and rural areas of the state.

• Larger Facilities – Facilities that receive larger quantities of waste from targeted generating sectors were prioritized to maximize the number of samples obtained and sorted. Larger facilities provide greater representation of waste disposed in Wisconsin and thus made the best use of the limited time available for sorting at each facility.

• Waste Generating Sectors – To facilitate efficiency, disposal facilities that receive and dispose of waste from all targeted generating sectors (Single family residential, multi-family, ICI, and CDD) were prioritized.

• Publicly and Privately Owned Facilities – SCS sought to select a mix of…