Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

 Project began in Summer of 2011  Sampled waste of 17 municipalities and regional transfer stations twice each  Looked at both composition of waste.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: " Project began in Summer of 2011  Sampled waste of 17 municipalities and regional transfer stations twice each  Looked at both composition of waste."— Presentation transcript:

1

2  Project began in Summer of 2011  Sampled waste of 17 municipalities and regional transfer stations twice each  Looked at both composition of waste along with method for recycling and waste stream  Only sampled residential “baggable” waste

3 Municipality/FacilityApproximate 2010 Service PopulationCounty Bath8,514Sagadahoc Boothbay3,120Lincoln Central Penobscot (Dexter area)6,531Penobscot Hatch Hill (Augusta region)41,326Kennebec Houlton6,123Aroostook Lincoln5,085Penobscot Lisbon Falls9,009Androscoggin Mid Maine (Corinth region)9,306Penobscot Ogunquit892York Old Town7,840Penobscot Orono10,362Penobscot Paris-Norway10,197Oxford Pittsfield4,215Somerset Pleasant River (Columbia Falls)1,072Washington Scarborough (Ecomaine)18,919Cumberland Skowhegan8,589Somerset St. George (Tenants Harbor)2,591Knox Total153,691

4  Improving waste management should be a targeted effort  20 years since its inception, the 50% recycling goal has not yet been reached (currently ~ 39%)  Knowing composition will help lead to the most efficient plan of attack  No study of Maine waste has been conducted since 1991/1992 and it is prudent to assume it has changed

5  Waste was broken into 9 major categories  Organic, Paper, Plastic, Other, Construction and Demolition, Metal, Glass, Household Hazardous, and Electronics  Over 60 subcategories were used

6

7  Collect sample of waste (no. of bags varied by location)  Broke open each bag and settled contents  Sorted into both final subcategories and several category groupings  Weighed bins, tallied results, and emptied contents as bins became full  Resorted bins with groupings as needed or at the end of the day

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 Major CategoryCategory % Organics 43.28% Paper 25.57% Plastic 13.44% Other Waste 5.77% Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D) 3.35% Metal 3.26% Glass 2.71% Household Hazardous Waste (HHZ) 1.72% Electronics 0.92%

19 Sub-Category% of Total Waste% of Organic WasteCumulative % Food 27.86%64.38% Remainder/ Composite Organic 10.97%25.35%89.73% Diapers 2.97%6.86%96.58% Leaves & Grass 1.16%2.68%99.26% Prunings & Trimmings 0.32%0.74%100.00%

20 Sub-Category% of Total Waste% of Paper WasteCumulative % Compostable 7.93%31.02% Other Recyclable 4.90%19.15%50.17% Remainder/ Composite Paper 4.08%15.95%66.12% Magazine/ Catalog 2.88%11.25%77.37% Newsprint 2.43%9.51%86.88% High Grade Office 1.64%6.41%93.29% Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard/ Kraft 1.61%6.29%99.58% Phone Books 0.11%0.42%100.00% Total 25.57%100.00%

21 Sub-Category% of Total Waste% of Plastic WasteCumulative % All Film 4.78%35.61% Remainder/Composite Plastic 1.68%12.50%48.12% Durable Plastic Items 1.41%10.48%58.59% #3 - #7 Plastics 1.38%10.25%68.85% HDPE Bottles 1.01%7.50%76.35% Grocery/Merchandise Bags 0.82%6.10%82.45% PET Containers-non bottles 0.71%5.31%87.76% All Styrofoam 0.67%4.99%92.75% PET Bottles/Jars 0.47%3.50%96.25% Plastic ME Deposit Beverage Containers 0.36%2.68%98.93% HDPE Containers-non bottles 0.14%1.07%100.00% Total 13.44%100.00%

22 Sub-Category% of Total Waste Tin/Steel Containers 1.45% Other Ferrous 0.93% Other Non-Ferrous 0.42% Remainder/ Composite Metal 0.28% Aluminum ME Deposit Containers 0.10% Appliances 0.04% Compressed Fuel Containers 0.03% Total 3.26% Sub-Category% of Total Waste Clear Glass Containers 1.96% Glass ME Deposit Beverage Containers 0.41% Green & Other Glass Containers 0.13% R/C Glass 0.11% Flat Glass 0.07% Amber Glass Containers 0.02% Total 2.71%

23 Major CategorySubcategory% of Major Category% of Subcategory Organics43.28% Food27.86% Remainder/Composite Organic10.97% Diapers2.97% Yard Waste1.48% Paper25.57% Compostable Paper7.93% Other Recyclable Paper4.90% Remainder/Composite Paper4.08% Magainze/Catalogs2.88% Newsprint2.43% High Grade Office Paper1.64% Occ/Kraft1.61% Plastic13.44% All Film4.78% All Other Plastic3.76% #3 - #7 Plastics1.38% PET (#1)1.18% HDPE (#2)1.15% Grocery/Merch Bags0.82% Plastic ME Dep. BevCont.0.36% Other Waste5.77% Textiles (non-carpet)4.26% C&D3.35% Metal3.26% Other Metal1.71% Tin/Steel Cont.1.45% Aluminum ME Dep. Beverage Cont.0.10% Glass2.71% Clear Glass Cont.1.96% Glass ME Dep. Bev Cont.0.41%

24  Paper percentage of total waste stream decreased by 23%  Significant decreases in Cardboard and High Grade Office Paper  Substantial decrease (75%) in Newsprint Type of Paper 91/92 % of Total Waste Stream 2011 % of Total Waste Steam Corrugated cardboard High grade office Magazines/ catalogs Newsprint Telephone books Total of all paper

25  Plastics bag waste cut in half  Rigid plastics has increased by 160%  Plastic percentage of total waste stream has doubled  Plastic Film waste much of increase Type of Plastic 91/92 % of Total Waste Stream 2011 % of Total Waste Stream Plastic bags All HDPE Rigid plastics Total of all plastic

26 Metal stays consistent while individual categories have varied from1992 Glass has decreased by a third with Clear Glass Containers decreasing by 30% from 1992 Type of Metal 91/92 % of Total Waste Stream 2011 % of Total Waste Stream Tin/steel containers Ferrous Non-ferrous Aluminum Total of all metal Type of Glass 91/92 % of Total Waste Stream 2011 % of Total Waste Stream Clear Glass Containers Green/Amber Containers All other Glass Total of all Glass

27  Broken down by town sampled, variations are apparent  Distribution skewed to the right  Some towns have much better recovery rates

28  Distribution is tighter for clear glass containers and near normal  Standard deviation is less than half of newsprint

29

30  Classification is by:  What is widely recycled around the state  Compostable without significant effort  What is currently not diverted in a significant amount of locations around the state  Not a perfect analysis due to fungible nature between categories of many items.

31 Waste Category% of Total WasteCumulative % of Total Waste Food Waste 27.86% R/C Organic 10.97%38.83% Compostable Paper 7.93%46.76% Other Recyclable Paper 4.90%51.66% All Film 4.78%56.44% Textiles (non-carpet) 4.26%60.70% R/C Paper 4.08%64.78% Diapers 2.97%67.75% Magainze/Catalogs 2.88%70.62% Newsprint 2.43%73.05%

32  Where can the next advances in recycling come?  What can be improved?  Methods, actions, enforcement, technology.  What can be added and/or promoted everywhere?  Textiles, film, grocery bags, hard plastics not #1-7, composites, etc.

33  How can we better utilize compositing to decrease the waste stream  Regional composting?  Is it feasible? Cost-effective? What process should be used? Can we control the smell?  Backyard composting  Public perception, animal issues, individual responsibility.

34  What are best practices in Waste Management?  Pay-as-you-throw, Single-Stream, curbside collection, drop-off, mandatory recycling, HHW collection, citizen education, etc.

35  State is still not near 50% recycling goal  Waste composition has transformed with time  Plastic waste on rise as paper and glass decline  Recyclables in waste stream is over 20% and compostable material is nearly 40%  Top 10 waste subcategories account for 73.05% of the waste  There are widespread variations by town and by subcategory that are observed


Download ppt " Project began in Summer of 2011  Sampled waste of 17 municipalities and regional transfer stations twice each  Looked at both composition of waste."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google