Presentation On Waste Characterization Data And Its Potential For Identifying Opportunities For Additional Diversion

1. Presentation On Waste Characterization Data And Its Potential For Identifying Opportunities For Additional Diversion CIWMB Board Meeting Tuesday, February 15, 2005 Agenda Item 15

2. Brief Recap of Characterization Studies in California • 1990 – AB 939 required local governments to do base year studies • 1995 – Board developed uniform characterization method as required by AB 2494, which included Waste Characterization Database • 1999 – First statewide study, focused on generator sampling of commercial sector and update for database • 2001 – Board’s Strategic Plan includes statewide study every 4 years • 2003 – More general update of statewide characterization data

3. Context – Other States • Oregon - statewide characterization of disposed waste every 2 years, as required by state law • Minnesota – 1992 and 1999 studies • Missouri – 1987 and 1997 studies • Pennsylvania – First statewide study in 2001 • Florida – Developed model for county level composition data in 2001 • Washington – Statewide studies in 1987, 1992, cooperative study with counties in 2002 • Many other states have done studies (GA, WI, IA, VT, others)

4. Unique to California • Waste Characterization Database developed in 1995 • Unique in the nation • Updated in 1999 using data from statewide characterization study • Easy access on website • Tool for local governments in CA, businesses, others • Used by other states and other countries

5. Database Demonstration The demonstration will be live using the Internet. The following slides are screen shots of what will be presented. The database can be found at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/jurissel.asp

15. 2003-2004 Study Objectives • Quantify types and amounts of materials disposed in California: • Commercial • Residential • Single-family • Multifamily • Self-hauled • Commercial self-hauled • Residential self-hauled • Examine additional material types not previously quantified: • Electronic items • Certain plastic films • CRV containers • Determine amount of RPPCs disposed

16. Overview • Collected data in all regions of the state, during four seasons • Sampled at disposal facilities only • Surveyed 4,693 vehicles at 22 facilities throughout the state • Sampled 550 loads/sites • 200 commercial loads • 110 single-family loads & 40 multifamily sites • 200 self-hauled loads • Sorted waste samples into 98 materials • Quantified the waste and calculated average composition for each sector

17. 18.9 million 12.7 million 8.6 million 47.0% 31.6% 21.3% Commercial Residential Self-hauled Waste Quantities • 40.2 million tons of MSW were disposed in 2003. Tons Disposed in 2003

18. Waste Composition Highlights • The largest fraction of disposed waste consists of organic materials (30.2%), followed by construction & demolition materials (21.7%) and paper (21.0%). • 20.1% of California’s disposed waste is recyclable. • 24.4% of the waste is compostable. • An additional 16.1% is recoverable C&D materials. • 0.87% of disposed waste is RPPCs; 1.17% is CRV containers.

19. What Materials Are Recyclable? Cardboard & kraft paper 6.7% Other recyclable papers 5.2% Recyclable glass 1.6% Recyclable metals 5.2% HDPE & PETE & some film 1.4% Total recyclable 20.1%

20. What Materials Are Compostable? Food 14.6% Leaves & grass 4.2% Other kinds of yard waste 2.6% A portion of non-recyclable paper ~ 3.0% Total compostable ~ 24.4%

21. How much of disposed waste is recoverable C&D material? Concrete 2.4% Lumber 9.6% Gypsum board 1.7% Rock, soil & fines 2.4% Total recoverable C&D 16.1%

22. Composition by Sector Commercial Residential Self-hauled

23. = recyclable materials = compostable materials = recoverable C&D materials Recoverability by Sector Residential Commercial 20.5% 23.8% 34.4% 26.4% 11.2% 8.8% Self-hauled 10.7% 6.8% 38.0%

24. Other Ways to Use Characterization Data • Provide proxy waste stream data to newly incorporated cities • Provided basis for waste stream data on Schools Profiles page • Estimate county-wide and region-wide composition estimates (SCAQMD ruling, conversion technology report)

25. New Targeted Studies • Detailed study on construction and demolition as its own waste stream • Detailed study on non-C&D self-hauled and drop-box waste stream • Ten major commercial generator groups – disposal and diversion characterization • Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) residuals

26. Construction and Demolition • What is C&D? • Targeting and Trends of Major C&D components for program priorities • Sectors • Categories • Markets • Verify effectiveness of national Carpet MOU

27. Construction and Demolition • (Cont’d) • Feedback on effectiveness of local C&D diversion ordinances • Effectiveness of new Green Building Executive Order (S-20-04) and CIWMB programs • Materials Flow and Economics

28. Plastics • Three V’s of Plastics • Current diversion about 5% • Trends and general diversion rate • Formerly, RPPC recycling rates • Plastic film categories for MOUs • Basis for measuring success of MOUs • Material Flows and seasonal studies of specialty items like Ag film

29. Organics • Organics in Wastestream • Data helped shape Organics Program focus • Data has assisted in multiple program activities: • PR1133 • SODs • CT work

30. Organics (continued) • Data has helped in further understanding Organics material flows/infrastructure • Data is an important tool for future trends: • Biosolids, manure • MRF residuals and feedstock composition for CT development • Data is a tool for program’s future focus

31. Paper • Paper overview • Data help identify industry sectors that were large generators • Industry states paper recycling at 50% • CT may be a viable option for low grade or contaminated paper

32. Questions?