Tampa+2017+WCS+Report_Final.pdf

printed on recycled paper

NOVEMBER 2017

Prepared for: The City of Tampa

Department of Solid Waste 4010 W. Spruce Street Tampa, Florida 33607

Submitted by: Kessler Consulting, Inc.

innovative waste solutions 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D Tampa, FL 33613

Kessler Consulting, Inc. is a member of, or was awarded, the following:

This report has been prepared for the use and benefit of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations, and recommendations contained herein attributed to Kessler Consulting, Inc. constitute the opinions of Kessler Consulting. The services provided by Kessler Consulting and this report are not intended for the benefit of any third party and shall not be relied upon by any third party. To the extent that statements, information, and opinions provided by other third parties have been used in the preparation of this report, Kessler Consulting has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. Kessler Consulting makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report.

Copyright 2017, Kessler Consulting, Inc.

All rights reserved.

i

Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\2017 Tampa WCS Report_Final

Table of Contents

Section 1 Introduction

Purpose Background Acknowledgements

Section 2 Methodology

Generator Sectors Material Categories Locations, Equipment and Labor Sampling and Sorting Procedures Analytical Procedures

Section 3 Results

Introduction to Results Single‐Family Residential MSW Multi‐Family Residential MSW Commercial MSW Aggregate MSW

Section 4 Summary and Diversion Opportunities

Tampa, Florida 2017 Waste Composition Study Table of Contents ii

Tables Table 2.1 WCS Sampling Schedule Table 3.1 Single‐Family Residential Results Table 3.2 Multi‐Family Residential Results Table 3.3 Commercial Results Table 3.4 Aggregate Results Table 4.1 Composition of MSW Disposed by All Sectors and Aggregate Waste Stream

Figures Figure 3.1: Composition of Single‐Family Residential Waste Disposed (% by weight) Figure 3.2: Composition of Multi‐Family Residential Waste Disposed (% by weight) Figure 3.3: Composition of Commercial Waste Disposed (% by weight) Figure 3.4: Composition of City’s Aggregate Waste Disposed (% by weight) Figure 4.1: Potentially Recyclable or Compostable Materials (% by weight)

Appendices Appendix A – Material Categories Appendix B – Single‐Family Residential – Individual Sample Results Appendix C – Multi‐Family Residential – Individual Sample Results Appendix D – Commercial Sector – Individual Sample Results

Section 1 Introduction

Purpose The City of Tampa (City) contracted Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) to conduct a Waste Composition Study (WCS) of Class I municipal solid waste (MSW) disposed by City residents and businesses. The purpose of the WCS is to provide reliable composition data to aid the City in identifying opportunities for increasing waste reduction and recycling. This information will assist in future solid waste management strategic planning.

Background The City’s Department of Solid Waste & Environmental Program Management provides collection, disposal, and recycling services for over 90,000 residential and commercial customers. The City provides all residential collection services and a majority of the commercial collection services. The City has contracted with Republic Services to service some of the commercial customers.

Residential collection service includes collection of garbage, yard waste, and recyclables. The City also operates two recycling drop‐off locations. The City’s single stream recycling program includes the following materials:

Containers & Non‐Fiber Fibers Aluminum foil & pie tins Aluminum cans & bottles Plastic bottles, containers and jugs Tin cans Food and beverage cartons

(e.g. milk, juice, soup broth, etc.)

Mixed paper Corrugated cardboard* Magazines/catalogs Newspapers (and inserts) Paperboard (e.g. cereal boxes and soda boxes) Phone books Junk mail

The City generates approximately 360,000 tons of solid waste annually, which is processed at the McKay Bay Refuse‐to‐Energy Facility where it is converted to electrical energy.

Acknowledgements KCI acknowledges and thanks the City staff members who assisted with the planning and logistics of this study. KCI specifically thanks Josh Ellis, Jonathan Kane, and Daniel Fahey as well as Jonathan Castro and the staff of the McKay Bay Transfer Station for their assistance and support throughout this project. The cooperation and positive attitudes of all team members were essential to the success of the study.

Section 1: Introduction

Page left intentionally blank

Section 2 Methodology

Generator Sectors The WCS focused on residential and commercial waste collected in the City and delivered to the McKay Bay Facility. The three main generator sectors evaluated during the WCS included:

Single‐family residential

Multi‐family residential

Commercial

Material Categories KCI worked with City staff to develop a list of 40 material categories into which the manually sorted waste was placed. To develop this list of material categories, KCI reviewed the materials accepted in the City’s recycling program and provided a list of suggested material categories to the City for review and approval. The final list of material categories and descriptions are provided in Appendix A.

Locations, Equipment and Labor The five‐day sorting event was conducted on June 17‐21, 2017. KCI provided a study supervisor, sorting supervisor, all sorting equipment, and safety gear. The City provided a loader and operator to gather samples at the direction of KCI’s study supervisor. The City also coordinated and provided contracted laborers to assist in the sorting of sampled waste.

KCI prepared and City staff reviewed and approved a site safety plan that was followed throughout the sorting event. KCI worked closely with City staff to coordinate and set up a sort location that would ensure worker safety. Each morning of the event, sorters were given thorough safety instructions by one of KCI’s Supervisors to ensure safety and proper sorting. No injuries or emergencies occurred during the sorting event.

Sampling and Sorting Procedures All sampling and sorting procedures were conducted in accordance with the Sampling and Sorting Protocol developed by KCI and approved by the City before the fieldwork was initiated.

Sample selection was organized by generator sector to ensure a sufficient number of samples would be sorted for each generator sector to achieve statistically valid results. KCI reviewed tonnage data and worked with the City to develop the sampling schedule. Table 2.1 provides the total number and geographic distribution of samples pulled and sorted for each generator. A total of 42 representative samples were sorted during the 5‐day study.

Section 2: Methodology

Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\2017 Tampa WCS Report_Final

Table 2.1 WCS Sampling Schedule Business Unit Tonnage Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Total

Single‐Family Residential 129,861 3 3 3 3 12

Multi‐Family Residential* 16,548 3 1 2 6

City Commercial FEL/Compactors 60,512 3 4 4 2 1 14

City Commercial Cart 4,071 1 1

Republic Commercial FEL 47,347 2 2 2 2 1 9

Totals 258,339 12 10 8 7 5 42

* For the multi‐family residential samples, KCI requested that the City identify roll‐off compactors from apartment and condominium complexes. This ensured that the multi‐family residential waste samples were from multi‐family waste, as opposed to commercial front‐end load routes that also serviced dumpsters from apartments and condominiums.

During the week prior to the sorting event, KCI prepared and provided the City with placards for all vehicles selected for inclusion in the study. The City’s commercial and residential supervisors were instructed to distribute the placards to vehicles that represented a cross‐section of the day’s service areas. Drivers then placed the placards in their front windshields for identification by scale house staff. On arrival at the scale house, staff directed all selected vehicles to the sorting site at the Transfer Station, rather than the waste‐to‐energy tip floor.

KCI’s Study Supervisor interviewed incoming drivers to confirm the generator sector and origin of the waste. Once a load was confirmed for sampling, the study supervisor noted the following information on the data recording form: the recorder’s name, hauler name and area of City, date and time, type of vehicle, sample number, and any visual observations about the load. The vehicle driver was then directed to the sampling area to tip. The load was visually divided into six sections and, based on a die roll, the loader was directed to pull a sample from the pile. A representative sample of at least 200 pounds was pulled, placed on a tarp, labeled, and stored until being hand sorted.

Once ready for sorting, samples were transferred to KCI’s customized sorting table where sorters hand sorted the materials into the previously defined categories. After the entire sample was sorted, the sorting supervisor weighed and recorded the net weight of each material category on a data recording form.

Analytical Procedures After field work was completed, KCI calculated the weighted average of each material category for each generator sector. Data analysis followed industry‐accepted standards for statistical sampling, as outlined in the ASTM Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste (D5231‐92; reapproved 2008). Where appropriate, 90 percent confidence intervals were calculated, using a standard statistical t‐test, for each material category.

To obtain the combined composition of waste received at the McKay Bay Facility for disposal, the three waste generator sectors (single‐family residential, multi‐family residential, and commercial) were combined based on the amount of waste each generator sector contributes to the overall waste stream. To determine the percentage that each generator sector contributes to the overall waste stream, KCI utilzied tonnage data provided by the City.

Section 3 Results

Introduction to Results Unless otherwise stated, all results presented in this section are expressed in percentage by weight.

The percentages included in the tables and figures are the mean values for each material category.

Where appropriate, the tables also provide the 90 percent confidence intervals for each material category. The confidence interval indicates that, with a 90 percent level of confidence, the actual arithmetic mean is within the upper and lower limits shown.1 This provides an understanding of how much variation occurred in the quantity of that material category found in the samples sorted.

Generally, the more homogeneous the waste stream and the greater the number of samples sorted, the higher the level of accuracy achieved and the narrower the margin between the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval. Capitalized materials in the section refer to material categories as defined in Appendix A.

The percentages in the tables and figures are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent; therefore, when added together, they might not appear to total correctly.

For the purposes of discussion and analysis, materials were grouped into four broad categories based on diversion potential:

Program Recyclables: These are paper grades and plastic/metal/glass containers that are currently accepted in the City’s single stream recycling program.

Potential Compostables: These are materials that potentially could be composted if separated from other materials.

Other Potential Recoverables: These are materials that have the potential to be diverted or recycled, but are not part of the City’s single stream program. In fact, some of these materials would require specific programs to target their diversion from disposal.

Other materials: The remaining materials not typically targeted for diversion.

For the City’s convenience, all tables and figures are provided at the end of this section.

1 Because this is a statistical analysis, the lower end of the confidence interval may be a negative number.

Section 3: Results

Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\2017 Tampa WCS Report_Final

Single‐Family Residential MSW Figure 3.1 depicts the composition of waste disposed by single‐family residents and Table 3.1 provides a more detailed breakdown by material category and the 90 percent confidence intervals.

Individual sample data for the Single‐Family Residential sector can be found in Appendix B.

Key findings of the Single‐Family Residential sector are as follows:

Recyclable fiber represents 12.7 percent of single‐family residential waste disposed, with Mixed Paper contributing the greatest quantity (6.9 percent). Corrugated Cardboard was found to comprise just 3.8 percent of the single‐family waste stream.

Recyclable containers contribute 8.4 percent to the single‐family residential waste stream, with plastic and glass containers contributing the greatest percentage.

Yard waste comprises 17.0 percent of single‐family residential waste disposed. This is high for a city that provides segregated yard waste collection.

Food waste contributes 21.9 percent to the single‐family residential waste stream.

Multi‐Family Residential MSW Figure 3.2 depicts the composition of waste disposed of by multi‐family residents and Table 3.2 provides additional details and the 90 percent confidence intervals for each material category.

Individual sample data for the Multi‐Family Residential sector can be found in Appendix C.

As expected, multi‐family residential waste contained a larger percentage of recyclable materials than the single‐family waste stream. Establishing effective recycling programs at multi‐family complexes can be challenging; whereas, the City has a mature curbside single‐family recycling program.

Key findings of the Multi‐Family Residential sector are as follows:

Recyclable fiber makes up 25.5 percent of multi‐family waste that is disposed. Corrugated Cardboard comprises the largest percentage (16.0 percent), followed by Mixed Paper (8.2 percent).

Recyclable containers comprise 10.7 percent of multi‐family waste, with plastic and glass containers having the highest percentage.

Very little yard waste (1.5 percent) is disposed in multi‐family waste. Many complexes either generate very little yard waste or manage it through a landscape contractor.

Food waste comprises 24.2 percent of the multi‐family residential waste stream that is disposed.

Commercial MSW Figure 3.3 depicts the composition of commercial waste delivered to McKay Bay for disposal and Table 3.3 provides additional details and the 90 percent confidence intervals for each material category. Individual sample data for the Commercial sector can be found in Appendix D.

Section 3: Results

Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\2017 Tampa WCS Report_Final

Key findings for the Commercial sector are as follows:

Recyclable fiber comprises 28.0 percent of waste disposed by businesses and institutions.

Corrugated Cardboard comprises more than two‐thirds of the recyclable fiber (19.3 percent of commercial waste disposed), the majority of which is collected by frontend‐load vehicles.

Recyclable containers contribute an additional 9.6 percent to commercial waste.

Yard waste contributes only 2.3 percent to commercial waste, likely for the same reasons that it contributes a small amount to the multi‐family waste stream.

Food waste makes up 19.6 percent of the commercial waste that is disposed.

Aggregate MSW Data for the three waste generator sectors (single‐family residential, multi‐family residential, and commercial) were combined to calculate the combined composition of MSW delivered to McKay Bay. This is collectively referred to as the Aggregate Waste Stream.

Figure 3.4 depicts the composition of the Aggregate Waste Stream and Table 3.4 presents the contribution of the three generator sectors to this composition.

Key findings of the Aggregate Waste Stream are as follows:

Recyclable fiber comprises 20.6 percent of the Aggregate Waste Stream, a substantial portion of which consists of Corrugated Cardboard (11.8 percent) and Mixed Paper (6.5percent).

Recyclable containers comprise 9.1 percent of the Aggregate Waste disposed, with various types of plastics containers and glass containers contributing the greatest quantities.

Yard waste comprises 9.2 percent of the Aggregate Waste Stream, the overwhelming majority coming from single‐family residences.

Food waste contributes 20.9 percent of the Aggregate Waste Stream.

Section 3: Results

Figure 3.1: Composition of Single‐Family Residential Waste Disposed (% by weight)

Note: For the purpose of this chart, the following material categories have been combined:

Other Recyclable Paper includes Office Paper, Mixed Paper, and Aseptic Containers.

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET #1) Containers include #1 PET Bottles and #1 Non‐Bottle PET.

Metal Cans include Tin/Steel Cans and Aluminum Cans.

Other Compostables includes Other Organics and Clean Wood.

Potentially Recoverable Plastics includes Expanded Polystyrene, Bulky Rigid Plastics, and Retail Bags.

Scrap Metal includes Other Ferrous, Other Non‐Ferrous, and White Goods/Small Appliances.

E‐Waste includes Electronics (computers, televisions, scanners, copiers, and printers) and Other E‐Waste.

Other Potentially Recoverable Materials include Carpet, Drywall, Tires, Rubber, and Household Hazardous Waste.

All C&D Debris includes Treated Wood and Other C&D Debris.

Other Garbage includes Other Glass, Other Bulky Waste, Other Inorganics, Fines, Liquids, and All Other Waste.

Newspaper, 0.8% Corrugated Cardboard, 3.8%

Other Recyclable Paper, 8.1%

#1 PET

Containers, …

#2 HDPE

Containers, 0.8%

#3‐#7 Containers, 1.0%

Glass Containers, 3.0%

Metal Cans, 1.0%

Yard Waste, 17.0%

Food Waste, 21.9%

Compostable Paper, 5.8%

Other Compostables, 5.5%

Potentially Recoverable Plastics, 3.8%

Scrap Metal, 1.3%

Textiles, 4.2%

E‐Waste, 1.3%

Other Potentially Recoverable

Materials, 0.2%

Film and Other Plastics, 7.0%

C&D and Treated Wood, 3.2%

Diapers, 3.3%

Other Garbage, 4.4%

Section 3: Results

Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\2017 Tampa WCS Report_Final

Table 3.1 Single‐Family Residential Results

Material Category Weighted Average

90% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 Newspaper 0.8% 0.5% 1.1%

2 Corrugated Cardboard 3.8% 2.0% 5.6%

3 Office Paper 1.0% 0.2% 1.8%

4 Aseptic Cartons 0.2% 0.0% 0.4%

5 Mixed Paper 6.9% 5.2% 8.5%

6 #1 PET Bottles 1.5% 0.7% 2.3%

6A #1 Non‐Bottle PET 1.0% 0.4% 1.5%

7 #2 HDPE Containers 0.8% 0.5% 1.1%

8 #3‐#7 Containers 1.0% 0.9% 1.2%

14 Glass Containers 3.0% 1.7% 4.4%

16 Steel Cans 0.5% 0.3% 0.8%

17 Aluminum Cans 0.5% 0.4% 0.7%

Program Recyclables 21.1%

21 Yard Waste 17.0% 9.0% 25.1%

22 Food Waste 21.9% 16.4% 27.3%

22A Liquids 0.9% 0.1% 1.7%

23 Compostable Paper 5.8% 4.4% 7.1%

24 Other Organics 2.4% 0.4% 4.4%

25 Clean Wood 3.1% ‐0.4% 6.6%

Potential Compostables 51.1%

9 Expanded Polystyrene 1.6% 0.9% 2.3%

11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.0% 0.6% 1.4%

12 Retail Bags 1.2% 1.0% 1.5%

18 Other Ferrous 0.7% 0.3% 1.1%

19 Other Non‐Ferrous 0.6% 0.2% 0.9%

20 White Goods 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

27 Carpet 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

28 Drywall 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%

31 Electronics 1.0% ‐0.6% 2.7%

32 Other E‐Waste 0.3% 0.0% 0.6%

33 Textiles 4.2% 2.4% 6.0%

34 Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

35 Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

36 Household Hazardous Waste 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%

Other Potential Recoverables 10.8%

10 All Other Plastics 1.7% 0.9% 2.5%

13 Film 5.3% 4.1% 6.5%

15 Other Glass 0.2% 0.0% 0.4%

26 Treated Wood 1.7% 0.6% 2.9%

29 Other C&D 1.5% 0.1% 2.9%

30 Other Bulky Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

37 Other Inorganics 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%

38 Fines 0.4% ‐0.1% 1.0%

40 Diapers 3.3% 1.2% 5.4%

39 All Other Garbage 2.8% 1.9% 3.7%

All Other Materials 17.0%

Total 100.0%

Section 3: Results

Figure 3.2: Composition of Multi‐Family Residential Waste Disposed (% by weight)

#1 PET Containers include #1 PET Bottles and #1 Non‐Bottle PET.

Metal Cans include Tin/Steel Cans and Aluminum Cans.

Other Compostables include Other Organics and Clean Wood.

Potentially Recoverable Plastics includes Expanded Polystyrene, Bulky Rigid Plastics, and Retail Bags.

Scrap Metal includes Other Ferrous, Other Non‐Ferrous, and White Goods/Small Appliances.

E‐Waste includes Electronics (computers, televisions, scanners, copiers, and printers) and Other E‐Waste.

Other Potentially Recoverable Materials include Carpet, Drywall, Tires, Rubber, and Household Hazardous Waste.

All C&D Debris includes Treated Wood and Other C&D Debris.

Other Garbage includes Other Glass, Other Bulky Waste, Other Inorganics, Fines, Liquids, and All Other

Newspaper, 0.6%

Corrugated Cardboard, 16.0%

Other Recyclable Paper, 8.9%

#1 PET

Containers, 2.6%

#2 HDPE

Containers, 1.3%

#3‐#7 Containers, 1.2%

Glass Containers, 4.1%

Metal Cans, 1.5%

Yard Waste, 1.5%

Food Waste, 24.2%

Compostable Paper, 4.5%

Other Compostables, 4.2%

Potentially Recoverable Plastics, 4.1%

Scrap Metal, 0.9%

Textiles, 3.7%

E‐Waste, 1.3%

Other Potentially Recoverable

Materials, 2.7%

Film and Other Plastics, 5.8%

C&D and Treated Wood, 0.5% Diapers, 2.4%

Other Garbage, 7.9%

Section 3: Results

Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\2017 Tampa WCS Report_Final

Table 3.2 Multi‐Family Residential Results

Material Category

Weighted Average

90% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 Newspaper 0.6% 0.1% 1.0%

2 Corrugated Cardboard 16.0% ‐3.0% 34.9%

3 Office Paper 0.5% 0.1% 0.9%

4 Aseptic Cartons 0.2% 0.1% 0.4%

5 Mixed Paper 8.2% 6.7% 9.7%

6 #1 PET Bottles 2.3% 1.4% 3.2%

6A #1 Non‐Bottle PET 0.3% 0.1% 0.5%

7 #2 HDPE Containers 1.3% 0.7% 1.9%

8 #3‐#7 Containers 1.2% 0.5% 1.8%

14 Glass Containers 4.1% 1.3% 6.8%

16 Steel Cans 0.9% 0.4% 1.4%

17 Aluminum Cans 0.7% 0.4% 1.0%

Program Recyclables 36.2%

21 Yard Waste 1.5% ‐1.5% 4.5%

22 Food Waste 24.2% 13.3% 35.2%

22A Liquids 2.0% 0.8% 3.2%

23 Compostable Paper 4.5% 2.6% 6.5%

24 Other Organics 3.7% ‐2.1% 9.4%

25 Clean Wood 0.5% ‐0.5% 1.5%

Potential Compostables 36.4%

9 Expanded Polystyrene 1.8% 0.6% 3.0%

11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.2% ‐0.5% 3.0%

12 Retail Bags 1.1% 0.4% 1.8%

18 Other Ferrous 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%

19 Other Non‐Ferrous 0.7% 0.2% 1.3%

20 White Goods 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

27 Carpet 2.7% ‐2.9% 8.3%

28 Drywall 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

31 Electronics 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

32 Other E‐Waste 1.3% ‐0.4% 2.9%

33 Textiles 3.7% ‐0.2% 7.7%

34 Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

35 Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

36 Household Hazardous Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other Potential Recoverables 12.7%

10 All Other Plastics 0.8% 0.4% 1.2%

13 Film 5.0% 3.4% 6.7%

15 Other Glass 1.5% ‐0.9% 4.0%

26 Treated Wood 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

29 Other C&D 0.5% ‐0.3% 1.4%

30 Other Bulky Waste 2.2% ‐2.5% 6.8%

37 Other Inorganics 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

38 Fines 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

40 Diapers 2.4% 0.9% 3.9%

39 All Other Garbage 2.2% 0.8% 3.7%

All Other Materials 14.7%

Total 100.0%

Section 3: Results

Figure 3.3: Composition of Commercial Waste Disposed (% by weight)

#1 PET Containers include #1 PET Bottles and #1 Non‐Bottle PET.

Metal Cans include Tin/Steel Cans and Aluminum Cans.

Other Compostables include Other Organics and Clean Wood.

Potentially Recoverable Plastics includes Expanded Polystyrene, Bulky Rigid Plastics, and Retail Bags.

Scrap Metal includes Other Ferrous, Other Non‐Ferrous, and White Goods/Small Appliances.

E‐Waste includes Electronics (computers, televisions, scanners, copiers, and printers) and Other E‐Waste.

Other Potentially Recoverable Materials include Carpet, Drywall, Tires, Rubber, and Household Hazardous Waste.

All C&D Debris includes Treated Wood and Other C&D Debris.

Other Garbage includes Other Glass, Other Bulky Waste, Other Inorganics, Fines, Liquids, and All Other

Newspaper, 0.8%

Corrugated Cardboard, 19.3%

Other Recyclable Paper, 7.8%

#1 PET

Containers, 1.7%

#2 HDPE

Containers, 1.0%

#3‐#7 Containers, 1.3%

Glass Containers, 4.0%

Metal Cans, 1.7%

Yard Waste, 2.3% Food Waste, 19.6%

Compostable Paper, 8.4%

Other Compostables, 1.7%

Potentially Recoverable Plastics, 2.7%

Scrap Metal, 0.9%

Textiles, 2.0%

E‐Waste, 1.8%

Other Potentially Recoverable

Materials, 0.9%

Film and Other Plastics, 8.4%

C&D and Treated Wood, 4.9%

Diapers, 2.1%

Other Garbage, 6.8%

Section 3: Results

Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\2017 Tampa WCS Report_Final

Table 3.3 Commercial Results

Material Category

Weighted Average

90% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 Newspaper 0.8% 0.3% 1.4%

2 Corrugated Cardboard 19.3% 14.4% 24.3%

3 Office Paper 1.8% 1.0% 2.6%

4 Aseptic Cartons 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%

5 Mixed Paper 5.8% 4.7% 6.9%

6 #1 PET Bottles 1.4% 1.1% 1.7%

6A #1 Non‐Bottle PET 0.3% 0.2% 0.5%

7 #2 HDPE Containers 1.0% 0.7% 1.3%

8 #3‐#7 Containers 1.3% 0.8% 1.7%

14 Glass Containers 4.0% 1.9% 6.1%

16 Steel Cans 1.0% 0.6% 1.4%

17 Aluminum Cans 0.7% 0.4% 0.9%

Program Recyclables 37.5%

21 Yard Waste 2.3% 0.6% 4.0%

22 Food Waste 19.6% 14.4% 24.7%

22A Liquids 1.2% 0.7% 1.7%

23 Compostable Paper 8.4% 6.8% 10.1%

24 Other Organics 0.4% 0.1% 0.7%

25 Clean Wood 1.3% 0.1% 2.5%

Potential Compostables 33.2%

9 Expanded Polystyrene 0.9% 0.7% 1.2%

11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.4% 0.6% 2.1%

12 Retail Bags 0.4% 0.3% 0.6%

18 Other Ferrous 0.4% 0.1% 0.8%

19 Other Non‐Ferrous 0.5% 0.2% 0.7%

20 White Goods 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

27 Carpet 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

28 Drywall 0.3% ‐0.2% 0.8%

31 Electronics 1.1% ‐0.1% 2.3%

32 Other E‐Waste 0.7% 0.0% 1.4%

33 Textiles 2.0% 0.7% 3.3%

34 Tires 0.3% ‐0.3% 0.9%

35 Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

36 Household Hazardous Waste 0.2% ‐0.1% 0.5%

Other Potential Recoverables 8.3%

10 All Other Plastics 1.9% 1.0% 2.9%

13 Film 6.5% 5.5% 7.4%

15 Other Glass 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

26 Treated Wood 3.2% 0.9% 5.5%

29 Other C&D 1.7% 0.6% 2.8%

30 Other Bulky Waste 0.8% ‐0.2% 1.8%

37 Other Inorganics 1.1% ‐0.8% 2.9%

38 Fines 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

40 Diapers 2.1% ‐0.1% 4.3%

39 All Other Garbage 3.6% 2.4% 4.8%

All Other Materials 21.0%

Total 100.0%

Section 3: Results

Figure 3.4: Composition of City’s Aggregate Waste Disposed (% by weight)

#1 PET Containers include #1 PET Bottles and #1 Non‐Bottle PET.

Metal Cans include Tin/Steel Cans and Aluminum Cans.

Other Compostables include Other Organics and Clean Wood.

Potentially Recoverable Plastics includes Expanded Polystyrene, Bulky Rigid Plastics, and Retail Bags.

Scrap Metal includes Other Ferrous, Other Non‐Ferrous, and White Goods/Small Appliances.

E‐Waste includes Electronics (computers, televisions, scanners, copiers, and printers) and Other E‐Waste.

Other Potentially Recoverable Materials include Carpet, Drywall, Tires, Rubber, and Household Hazardous Waste.

All C&D Debris includes Treated Wood and Other C&D Debris.

Other Garbage includes Other Glass, Other Bulky Waste, Other Inorganics, Fines, Liquids, and All Other

Newspaper 0.8%

Corrugated Cardboard 11.6%

Other Recyclable Paper 8.1%

#1 PET Containers 2.1%

#2 HDPE Containers 0.9%

#3‐#7 Containers 1.2%

Glass Containers 3.5%

Metal Cans 1.4%

Yard Waste 9.2%

Food Waste 21.0%

Compostable Paper 6.9%

Other Compostables 3.6%

Potentially Recoverable Plastics

3.3%

Scrap Metal 1.1%

Textiles 3.2%

E‐Waste 1.6%

Other Potentially Recoverable Materials

0.6%

Film and Other Plastics 7.6%

C&D and Treated Wood 3.8% Diapers

2.7%

Other Garbage 5.9%

Section 3: Results

Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\2017 Tampa WCS Report_Final

Table 3.4 Aggregate Results

Material Category

Single‐Family Residential

Multi‐Family Residential

Commercial Institutional

Citywide Aggregate

1 Newspaper 0.8% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8%

2 Corrugated Cardboard 3.8% 16.0% 19.3% 11.8%

3 Office Paper 1.0% 0.5% 1.8% 1.3%

4 Aseptic Cartons 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

5 Mixed Paper 6.9% 8.2% 5.8% 6.5%

6 #1 PET Bottles 1.5% 2.3% 1.4% 1.5%

6A #1 Non‐Bottle PET 1.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6%

7 #2 HDPE Containers 0.8% 1.3% 1.0% 0.9%

8 #3‐#7 Containers 1.0% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2%

14 Glass Containers 3.0% 4.1% 4.0% 3.6%

16 Steel Cans 0.5% 0.9% 1.0% 0.8%

17 Aluminum Cans 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6%

Program Recyclables 21.1% 36.2% 37.5% 29.7%

21 Yard Waste 17.0% 1.5% 2.3% 9.2%

22 Food Waste 21.9% 24.2% 19.6% 20.9%

22A Liquids 0.9% 2.0% 1.2% 1.1%

23 Compostable Paper 5.8% 4.5% 8.4% 6.9%

24 Other Organics 2.4% 3.7% 0.4% 1.5%

25 Clean Wood 3.1% 0.5% 1.3% 2.1%

Potential Compostables 51.1% 36.4% 33.2% 41.8%

9 Expanded Polystyrene 1.6% 1.8% 0.9% 1.3%

11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.2%

12 Retail Bags 1.2% 1.1% 0.4% 0.8%

18 Other Ferrous 0.7% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5%

19 Other Non‐Ferrous 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5%

20 White Goods 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

27 Carpet 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.2%

28 Drywall 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2%

31 Electronics 1.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.0%

32 Other E‐Waste 0.3% 1.3% 0.7% 0.6%

33 Textiles 4.2% 3.7% 2.0% 3.2%

34 Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2%

35 Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

36 Household Hazardous Waste 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%

Other Potential Recoverables 10.8% 12.7% 8.3% 9.7%

10 All Other Plastics 1.7% 0.8% 1.9% 1.8%

13 Film 5.3% 5.0% 6.5% 5.8%

15 Other Glass 0.2% 1.5% 0.1% 0.2%

26 Treated Wood 1.7% 0.0% 3.2% 2.3%

29 Other C&D 1.5% 0.5% 1.7% 1.5%

30 Other Bulky Waste 0.0% 2.2% 0.8% 0.5%

37 Other Inorganics 0.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.5%

38 Fines 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

40 Diapers 3.3% 2.4% 2.1% 2.7%

39 All Other Garbage 2.8% 2.2% 3.6% 3.1%

All Other Materials 17.0% 14.7% 21.0% 18.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Section 3: Results

The results of this WCS offer insight into the potential for additional waste diversion. Figure 4.1 and Table

4.1 identify the materials found in MSW collected by the City and its franchisee, by generator sector and aggregated, that offer the greatest potential for recycling or composting.

Figure 4.1: Potentially Recyclable or Compostable Materials (% by weight)

Note: Please see Table 4.1 for details on the categories combined to determine percentages used in these graphs.

Potential Compostables, 36.4%

Other Potential

Recoverables, 12.7%

All Other Materials, 14.7%

Program Recyclables, 36.2%

Multi‐Family Residential

Potential Compostables, 51.1%

Other Potential

Recoverables, 10.8%

All Other Materials, 17.0%

Program Recyclables, 21.1%

Single‐Family Residential

Potential Compostables, 41.8%

Other Potential

Recoverables, 9.9%

All Other Materials, 18.7%

Program Recyclables, 29.7%

Aggregate

Potential Compostables, 33.2%

Other Potential Recoverabl es, 8.3%

All Other Materials, 21.0%

Program Recyclables, 37.5%

Commercial

Section 4: Summary and Diversion Opportunities

Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\2017 Tampa WCS Report_Final

Table 4.1 Composition of MSW Disposed by All Sectors and Aggregate Waste Stream

Material Category

Single‐Family Residential

Multi‐Family Residential

Commercial Institutional

Citywide Aggregate

1 Newspaper 0.8% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8%

2 Corrugated Cardboard 3.8% 16.0% 19.3% 11.8%

3 Office Paper 1.0% 0.5% 1.8% 1.3%

4 Aseptic Cartons 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

5 Mixed Paper 6.9% 8.2% 5.8% 6.5%

6 #1 PET Bottles 1.5% 2.3% 1.4% 1.5%

6A #1 Non‐Bottle PET 1.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6%

7 #2 HDPE Containers 0.8% 1.3% 1.0% 0.9%

8 #3‐#7 Containers 1.0% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2%

14 Glass Containers 3.0% 4.1% 4.0% 3.6%

16 Steel Cans 0.5% 0.9% 1.0% 0.8%

17 Aluminum Cans 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6%

Program Recyclables 21.1% 36.2% 37.5% 29.7%

21 Yard Waste 17.0% 1.5% 2.3% 9.2%

22 Food Waste 21.9% 24.2% 19.6% 20.9%

22A Liquids 0.9% 2.0% 1.2% 1.1%

23 Compostable Paper 5.8% 4.5% 8.4% 6.9%

24 Other Organics 2.4% 3.7% 0.4% 1.5%

25 Clean Wood 3.1% 0.5% 1.3% 2.1%

Potential Compostables 51.1% 36.4% 33.2% 41.8%

9 Expanded Polystyrene 1.6% 1.8% 0.9% 1.3%

11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.2%

12 Retail Bags 1.2% 1.1% 0.4% 0.8%

18 Other Ferrous 0.7% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5%

19 Other Non‐Ferrous 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5%

20 White Goods 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

27 Carpet 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.2%

28 Drywall 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2%

31 Electronics 1.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.0%

32 Other E‐Waste 0.3% 1.3% 0.7% 0.6%

33 Textiles 4.2% 3.7% 2.0% 3.2%

34 Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2%

35 Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

36 Household Hazardous Waste 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%

Other Potential Recoverables 10.8% 12.7% 8.3% 9.7%

10 All Other Plastics 1.7% 0.8% 1.9% 1.8%

13 Film 5.3% 5.0% 6.5% 5.8%

15 Other Glass 0.2% 1.5% 0.1% 0.2%

26 Treated Wood 1.7% 0.0% 3.2% 2.3%

29 Other C&D 1.5% 0.5% 1.7% 1.5%

30 Other Bulky Waste 0.0% 2.2% 0.8% 0.5%

37 Other Inorganics 0.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.5%

38 Fines 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

40 Diapers 3.3% 2.4% 2.1% 2.7%

39 All Other Garbage 2.8% 2.2% 3.6% 3.1%

All Other Materials 17.0% 14.7% 21.0% 18.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Section 4: Summary and Diversion Opportunities

Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\2017 Tampa WCS Report_Final

Based on the WCS results, key opportunities to increase waste reduction and recycling were identified and are summarized below. For each of these opportunities, a range of strategies or approaches are also provided that could be used to recycle or divert additional materials from disposal. The applicability and feasibility of each of these various approaches to the City would need to be considered as part of a broader, comprehensive strategic planning process.

Program Recyclables: Nearly 30 percent of the Aggregate Waste Stream is comprised of Program Recyclables that are currently accepted in the City’s recycling program. The commercial and multi‐ family residential sectors had the highest percentages of Program Recyclables (37.5 and 36.2 percent, respectively) and, therefore, offer a substantial opportunity to increase recycling. Although the single‐family residential sector had the lowest percentage of Program Recyclables (21.1 percent), it still provides an opportunity to increase recycling, especially because the City already has programs in place to capture recyclables from this sector. Approaches to increase diversion of program recyclables can take the form of efforts to encourage voluntary participation to economic incentives to mandates, and include the following:

o Education and Outreach for Single Stream Recycling: More than 20 percent of the single‐ family waste stream is comprised of recyclables that could be recovered in the single stream program. A comprehensive and ongoing education and outreach campaign that focuses messaging on the target audience and uses a variety of media, including social media, generally increases awareness and participation.

o Multi‐Family and Commercial Technical Assistance: Both multi‐family and commercial waste streams had a higher concentration of recyclable materials than single‐family residential. Recycling service is not automatically provided to multi‐family complexes or commercial businesses; property owners or managers are responsible for contracting for this service. Challenges, whether perceived or actual, expressed when encouraging multi‐ family complexes or commercial businesses to establish recycling programs include the additional cost of recycling and space limitation. Providing technical assistance to property owners/managers on the benefits of a recycling program, right‐sizing solid waste service, and how to set up an effective recycling program could address these issues and provide more direct aid in establishing recycling programs.

o Pay‐As‐You‐Throw (PAYT): PAYT creates an incentive for residents to recycle by charging them for solid waste service based on the volume of waste collected. It is more common with carted solid waste collection where different rates are charged based on the size of the cart selected. Although PAYT programs are not common in Florida, the effectiveness in encouraging waste reduction and recycling has been demonstrated in other communities throughout the United States.

o Reward programs: Some communities have used reward programs to incentivize residents to recycle. These can be developed by the local government or purchased from a private vendor, such as Recycle Bank or Recycle Perks. The reported effectiveness of such programs varies.

o Disposal bans or recycling mandates: Most local governments choose to exhaust voluntary mechanisms before resorting to bans or mandates; however, programs in the Unites States reporting the highest recycling rates generally have some form of disposal ban and/or recycling mandate in place.

Section 4: Summary and Diversion Opportunities

Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\2017 Tampa WCS Report_Final

Yard Waste: Yard Waste contributes more than 9.0 percent to the Aggregate Waste Stream. It represents relatively small percentages of the multi‐family and commercial waste stream, but comprises 17.0 percent of the single‐family residential waste stream. This high percentage of yard waste in the single‐family waste stream is atypical for a city that currently offers weekly segregated yard waste collection to all households with curbside service. This indicates that additional education and outreach is needed to encourage residents to separate yard waste from other garbage. Possible approaches to increase diversion of yard waste include the following:

o Education and Outreach: If the City wishes to divert more yard waste, additional education and outreach is needed to educate residents about the benefits of participating in the weekly yard waste collection program. The City should also ensure that residents know the collection schedule and how to properly prepare yard waste for collection.

o Disposal bans or recycling mandates: Some communities have opted to mandate the separation of yard waste from the waste stream and ban yard waste disposal.

Food Waste: Food Waste was the single largest material category, comprising nearly 21 percent of the Aggregate Waste Stream. It represented the largest material category in all sectors, ranging from 19.6 percent of the commercial waste stream to 24.2 percent of the multi‐family waste stream. Because of its moisture content, food waste is generally not high in heat content and is, therefore, not very beneficial to a waste‐to‐energy facility. Recovery of residential food waste is not common in Florida, but commercial food waste collection has been expanding in the state. This expansion has primarily been driven by the private sector’s interest in diverting food waste from disposal, especially if it can be done at a cost savings. Programs for separating and processing food waste, both residential and commercial, have been increasing nationally. Any food waste diversion in the City would need to be implemented hand‐in‐hand with developing the infrastructure to process this material, such as compost facilities or anaerobic digesters. As with recycling, possible approaches range from voluntary efforts to mandates or bans. Given the current status of organics collection and processing in the Tampa Bay area, the following approaches might first be considered:

o Commercial Food Waste Collection and Composting Pilot: A first step in food waste diversion would be to target commercial generators with a high percentage of food waste in their waste streams, such as grocery stores, institutions, and restaurants. The City could possibly work with an existing organics processor or conduct its own composting pilot program. The pilot would help the City understand the benefits and obstacles of establishing a full‐scale commercial food waste collection and processing program.

o Residential Food Waste Pilot: Residential food waste collection is generally more challenging than commercial food waste. It requires changing behavior habits of residents and dealing with the “ick” factor of food waste. Some communities incorporate food waste and compostable paper into their yard waste collection system, while others develop a separate collection program.

Compostable Paper: Depending on the type of processing that is used, some programs in the United States that collect food waste also collect low‐grade compostable paper along with the food waste. Compostable Paper represents nearly 7 percent of the City’s Aggregate Waste Stream.

Other Potential Recoverables: While each of the material categories included in this broad category comprised relatively small percentages of MSW, together they represented 9.7 percent of the Aggregate Waste Stream. Some of these materials, such as Bulky Rigid Plastics, could

Section 4: Summary and Diversion Opportunities

Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\2017 Tampa WCS Report_Final potentially be added to the list of Program Recyclables if the City’s processor will accept them.

Other materials, such as Electronics, Household Hazardous Waste, and Textiles, could potentially be reduced by promoting existing programs operated by Hillsborough County, nonprofit organizations, or businesses.

Further exploration of these and other opportunities is warranted as the City proceeds with its strategic solid waste management planning. These opportunities will need to be balanced with maintaining the operational efficiency and financial viability of the City’s McKay Bay Facility and other programs. The WCS results provide a solid foundation on which to base future planning efforts, and also benchmark current practices for future comparisons.

Section 4: Summary and Diversion Opportunities

City of Tampa\2017 WCS\Report\Appendices

Material Categories

City of Tampa

Appendix A

MATERIAL CATEGORIES

# Material Categories DEFINITIONS

1 Newspaper Printed and unprinted ground wood newsprint. This category includes glossy paper inserts included with the newspaper at the time of distribution.

2 Corrugated Cardboard Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) and Kraft Paper - Kraft linerboard and containerboard cartons and shipping boxes with corrugated paper medium (excludes wax or plastic coated boxes). Includes Kraft paper bags.

3 Office High-grade paper. Bond, rag-content, manila, or stationery grade paper with or without color. Includes ledger, photocopy paper, computer printouts, manila folders, index cards, and envelopes (with and without windows or gummed labels).

4 Polycoated/Aseptic Containers

Polycoated gable top beverage cartons (such as milk and orange juice cartons) and aseptic drink boxes. Excludes non-beverage polycoated paperboard boxes.

5 Mixed (Other Recyclable) Low-grade recyclable paper. Includes paperboard, magazines, phone books, text books, other books and catalogs with groundwood paper; construction paper, junk mail, blue prints, and glossy, coated paper.

6 #1 PET Bottles Blow molded plastic bottles and screw top jars labeled #1 PET.

7 #2 HDPE Containers Blow molded plastic containers (both natural and pigmented) labeled #2 HDPE. Includes non-bottle #2 HDPE

8 #3-#7 Containers Blow molded plastic containers and jars labeled #3, #4, #5 #6 or #7.

9 Expanded Polystyrene Food service polystyrene, polystyrene protective packaging, foam egg cartons, and "peanuts". Any expanded foam product labeled #6.

10 Other Rigid Plastic Packaging & Containers

Includes other thermoformed or injection-molded tubs, trays, plastic cutlery, and drink cups.

Includes non-bottle PET #1 containers and clamshell packaging.

11 Other Rigid Plastic Includes all non-container rigid plastics such as plastic pipe, electrical components, automotive components, toys, and plant pots.

12 Retail Carryout Bags Includes plastic grocery, retail shopping bags, and other bags provided at retail (of any color) used for carrying items home.

13 Film Plastic Any film plastic including garbage bags, cereal box liners, sheet plastic, shrink wrap, tarping, and other non-rigid plastic.

14 Glass Containers Recyclable beverage and food bottles and jars of any color.

15 Other Glass Flat, pressed and blown glass products such as light bulbs, mirrors, decorative items and fixtures, windows, safety glass, and cooking ware.

16 Steel Cans All coated and tin-free ferrous food and beverage cans, steel paint cans, steel aerosol cans. Includes bi-metal cans.

17 Aluminum Cans All aluminum food and beverage containers and aluminum aerosol cans.

18 Other Ferrous Ferrous and alloyed ferrous scrap metals, including cast iron, from any source except intact white goods, brown goods, and composite bulky goods defined below.

19 Other Non-Ferrous Metals derived from materials other than iron such as aluminum (e.g., foils, trays, siding, sheet), copper, brass, bronze, lead, zinc, and other metals to which a magnet will not adhere. Stainless steel is also included in this category.

20 White Goods Large household appliances such as refrigerators, stoves, air conditioners, microwave ovens, and washing machines.

21 Yard Waste Yard waste including grass clippings, leaves, garden trimmings, and brush.

22 Food Waste Putrescible food waste. Includes beverages in sealed containers.

23 Compostable Paper Generally, low-grade non-recyclable, coated paper, and contaminated paper. Includes facial and toilet tissue paper, napkins, paper towels, paper plates, and other paper with significant moisture or food contamination. Would also include newspaper used for pet litter (to line birdcages), and waxed cardboard produce boxes. Does not include paper covered with paint or oil.

Appendix A

MATERIAL CATEGORIES (cont.)

# Material Categories DEFINITIONS

24 Other Organics Organic materials not otherwise categorized, such as natural fibers, manure/feces, cork, hemp rope, wicker products, sawdust, and lint.

20 White Goods Large household appliances such as refrigerators, stoves, air conditioners, microwave ovens, and washing machines.

21 Yard Waste Yard waste including grass clippings, leaves, garden trimmings, and brush.

25 Wood-Untreated Wood and dimensional lumber construction materials from new construction, remodeling, or demolition, including plywood and shingles if uncontaminated by paint, stain or preservative treatment. Includes easily separable wood from furniture, tools, and other durable products. Includes untreated wood crates and pallets. Excludes preservative treated wood, particleboard, or chipboard.

26 Wood-Treated Any wood with paint, stain or preservative treatment. Also includes particleboard, chipboard, and Masonite due to their resin content.

27 Carpet Includes carpets made from natural and man-made materials such as wool, nylon and plastics. Also includes the padding used under carpets.

28 Drywall Gypsum-based wallboard, including blueboard for use in the drywall or plaster trades

29 Other C&D C&D material not otherwise classified such as concrete, brick, asphalt, roofing materials, fiberglass insulation, etc.

30 Other Bulky Waste Large items made of several material types and not easily separated by material, couches, mattresses, etc.

31 Electronics Computers, televisions, scanners, copiers, and printers.

32 Other Electrical and Electronic Goods / Small Appliances

Other Small Consumer Electronics such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), cell phones, phone systems, phone answering machines, computer games and other electronic toys, portable CD players, camcorders, and digital cameras. Also includes electrically powered household products fabricated from metals and plastics not easily separable into individual materials. Examples include hair dryers, toasters, coffee makers, etc.

33 Textiles Fabric materials including natural and man-made textile materials made from cottons, wools, silks, nylon, rayon, polyesters, and other materials. This category includes clothing, rags, curtains, and other fabric materials. Leather and leather goods are also included such as belts and wallets. Includes all shoes.

34 Tires Pneumatic tires from vehicles, including bicycles.

35 Rubber Products made from natural or artificial rubber such as latex gloves, mats, automotive belts/hoses, etc.

36 HHW Wastes resulting from products purchased by the general public for household use or similar commercial use which, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infections characteristics, may pose a hazard to human health. Examples include paints, solvents, flammable liquids, toxics, corrosives, pesticides and herbicides, batteries, syringes, reactives and explosives. Empty HHW containers are not considered

HHW.

37 Other Inorganics Inorganic material not otherwise classified, such as rock, dirt, sand, and certain manufactured products composed of entirely inorganic materials.

38 Fines Remnants left after sorting is complete, typically consists of dirt, sawdust, small food scrap, small pieces of paper, etc.

39 Other (Non- recyclable) Paper not included in the above categories. Includes paper with heavy plastic or metal coatings, multi-material, multi-layer paper packaging, cigarette packages, and photographs.

40 Diapers Diapers and adult sanitary products.

Appendix B

SINGLE‐FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SAMPLE RESULTS

Load information Si n gl e ‐F am ily

M o n d ay

R u te

A

Si gl e ‐F n u te gl e ‐F n u te gl e ‐F

Th u rs u te gl e ‐F rs u te gl e ‐F rs u te n d ay Th u rs ve ra ge

Material Categories sample # 7 8 9 34 35 37

1 Newspaper 1.0% 0.8% 1.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.9% 0.7%

2 Corrugated Cardboard 0.3% 0.0% 6.4% 8.4% 3.7% 2.1% 3.4%

3 Office Paper 2.4% 4.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

4 Aseptic Containers 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 1.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3%

5 Mixed Recyclable Paper 3.3% 1.8% 4.0% 7.0% 6.7% 7.9% 5.3%

6 #1 PET Bottles 0.6% 0.0% 3.5% 3.0% 1.9% 0.8% 1.6%

6A Non‐Bottle PET 0.3% 0.1% 1.0% 0.4% 0.3% 4.2% 1.1%

7 #2 HDPE Bottles 0.0% 0.5% 0.8% 1.4% 0.3% 1.3% 0.7%

8 #3‐#7 Bottles 1.1% 0.3% 0.9% 0.8% 1.1% 1.1% 0.9%

9 Styrofoam 1.0% 0.5% 4.4% 1.8% 0.8% 3.6% 2.0%

10 Other Plastic Packaging 1.1% 0.7% 0.8% 3.3% 1.4% 3.5% 1.8%

11 All Other Plastics 0.5% 0.5% 2.8% 1.3% 0.5% 1.2% 1.1%

12 Retail Bags 1.4% 0.4% 1.9% 0.8% 1.2% 0.8% 1.1%

13 Film 4.5% 3.4% 8.2% 5.9% 2.3% 5.7% 4.8%

14 Glass Containers 4.6% 0.7% 0.9% 4.0% 1.9% 0.1% 2.0%

15 Other Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%

16 Steel Cans 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4%

17 Aluminum Cans 0.3% 0.9% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4%

18 Other Ferrous 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 1.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.4%

19 Other Non‐Ferrous 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 0.1% 2.5% 0.6%

20 White Goods 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

21 Yard Waste 14.7% 23.5% 16.6% 0.8% 34.4% 11.0% 17.8%

22 Food Waste 10.4% 46.0% 26.3% 23.3% 16.3% 23.9% 24.0%

22A Liquids 0.7% 1.3% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.8%

23 Compostable Paper 3.8% 1.9% 5.9% 4.1% 3.6% 8.1% 4.6%

24 Other Organics 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

25 Wood‐Untreated 23.8% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 4.7%

26 Wood‐Treated 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 1.4%

27 Carpet 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

28 Drywall 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.1%

29 Other C&D 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 9.8% 0.0% 2.3%

30 Other Bulky Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

31 Electronics 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 2.0%

32 Other Electrical 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.2%

33 Textiles 8.5% 10.0% 4.8% 7.2% 0.4% 0.0% 4.7%

34 Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

35 Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

36 HHW 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

37 Other Inorganics 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

38 Fines 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.8%

39 Other (Non‐ recyclable) 6.4% 1.1% 3.2%…