1. Oral Presentation Of Results Of The 2005 Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Studies (FY 2003-2004 BCP #2 “Update Statewide Waste Characterization”) CIWMB Board Meeting June 13, 2006

2. What is Waste Characterization? Collect data on types and amounts of materials in the waste stream – how much paper, food, glass, metal, etc.

3. Why is it important? Waste stream information is needed to assess and plan diversion programs and waste management strategies Need to know not only WHAT is in the waste stream, but WHERE it came from

4. Some Uses of CIWMB Characterization Data Waste characterization database to model waste composition for businesses, schools, jurisdictions Past RPPC recycling rates Developing baseline E-waste data Details on film plastic types quantities Emerging technology feedstock Organics data for SCAQMD ruling

5. History of CIWMB Statewide Studies 1999 – First statewide study –data for residential and self-haul sectors –detailed data for commercial sector – updated CIWMB waste characterization database 2001 – Board’s Strategic Plan recognized need for periodic statewide studies 2003 – More general update of statewide characterization data

6. 2003 Study Results Statewide percent waste disposed from residential, commercial, and self-haul sectors Disposal composition profiles for: –Commercial sector –Residential sector - single family and multi-family sources –Self-haul sector – commercial sources and residential sources –Overall statewide waste stream

7. Waste Quantities, 2003 40.2 million tons were disposed 18.9 million 12.7 million 8.6 million CommercialResidentialSelf-hauled 47.0 % 31.6 % 21.3 % Tons Disposed in 2003 Disposal Reporting System provided total waste quantity data, and waste characterization study provided sector breakdown data.

8. Statewide Overall Disposed Waste Composition, 2003 The largest fraction of disposed waste consists of organic materials (30.2%), followed by construction & demolition materials (21.7%) and paper (21.0%).

9. Development of 2005 Study Design Funding approved shortly after 2003 study began Too soon for general statewide update Larger budget than 2003 study Surveyed Board, staff, local governments, and consultants for data needs Focus on important sectors of waste stream

10. Targeted Waste Studies

11. 2005 Studies Four Targeted Studies 1.Selected Industry Groups 2.Residuals from Materials Recovery Facilities 3.Construction & Demolition Waste Stream 4.Self-Haul and Drop-Box Waste Stream

12. Overall Design All four studies: Focused on major metropolitan areas Coordinated field work for all 4 parts Data collected for 2 seasons Field work conducted in 2005

13. Selected Industry Groups

14. Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups Method similar to one used in 1999 study New approach: –Target important commercial generators only –Collect disposal composition and diversion data –Design new generator groups Data will update and expand waste characterization web database

15. MRF Residuals

16. Characterization and Quantification of Residuals from Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) Data for 4 MRF types: –MRFs processing single-stream material –MRFs processing multi-stream material –MRFs processing mixed solid waste –MRFs processing C&D material Detailed composition profile for each MRF type as well as overall residuals stream Estimated tonnage produced by each MRF type statewide

17. C&D Study

18. Detailed Characterization of Construction & Demolition Waste Characterize sources of C&D waste –residential and non-residential sources –new construction, remodel, demolition, roofing, other Estimate amounts disposed from each source in 4 urban areas Develop visual characterization method for CIWMB and local government use

19. Visual Protocol

20. Self-Haul and Drop-Box

21. Detailed Characterization of Self-Haul and Drop-Box Waste Other commercial self-haul (non-C&D) Drop-box containers provided by haulers (non-C&D) Characterization of materials Estimate amounts disposed from each source in 4 urban areas

22. Introducing... Charlie Scott, Principal Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc.

23. Methodology, Selected Industry Groups Study Recruited 378 business in 14 commercial groups Conducted phone surveys and site visits Quantified diversion by material Sorted samples of disposed waste Calculated diversion and disposal on a per-employee basis Identified key diversion opportunities

24. Diverted & Disposed Waste and Percent Diverted for Selected Industry Groups (Ranked in order of disposal per employee) Tons per Employee per Year and % diverted

25. Three Industry Groups with High Diversion Potential in Terms of Tons per Employee per Year Food StoresFull-Service Restaurants Big-Box Building Material and Garden Stores Disposed, Easily Divertible Disposed, Potentially Divertible Already Diverted Other Disposed 3,341 tons 3,540 tons 3,813 tons

26. Major Conclusions from Selected Industry Groups Study Compostable organics are disposed in large amounts Food, compostable paper, and compostable yard waste represent the largest diversion opportunity. 75% of the disposed waste for some groups. Cardboard is the material that’s diverted in largest quantity There are still major opportunities to recycle more 5% to 10% of disposed waste for many groups. Recyclable paper 22% of disposed waste at office buildings = major opportunity High percent of disposed waste at hotels, retail settings, building material & garden stores

27. Methodology, Construction & Demolition (C&D) Waste Study Sampled in the four major metropolitan areas: San Diego, So. California/L.A. Basin, San Francisco Bay Area, and Central Valley Visually characterized 622 loads Developed composition estimates for new residential construction new non-residential construction residential remodel non-residential remodel demolition roofing other C&D

28. 3.1 million tons of C&D waste were disposed in California’s four urban areas in 2005 Note: Numbers are in thousands of tons C&D Waste Quantities by Activity New res New non-res Res remodel Non-res remodel Demolition Roofing Other C&D 312 10% 254 8% 605 19% 341 11% 633 20% 452 14% 534 17%

29. Disposed C&D Waste in Urban Areas

30. Conclusions, C&D Waste About ¾ of C&D waste is potentially recoverable The most prevalent recoverable materials are composition roofing, large asphalt pavement, dirt & sand, other aggregates, and clean dimensional lumber

31. Methodology, Commercial Self-haul and Loose Drop-box Waste Study Sampled 321 loads Sampled in the four major metropolitan areas: San Diego, So. California/L.A. Basin, San Francisco Bay Area, and Central Valley

32. Approximately 3 million tons of self-haul and loose drop-box waste were disposed in California’s four urban areas in 2005 Self-haul and Drop-box Waste Quantities Commercial Self-haul Drop-box 1.7 million tons 1.4 million tons

33. Self-haul Waste in Urban Areas

34. Conclusions, Self-haul Waste About ¾ of self-haul waste is potentially recoverable The most prevalent recoverable materials in the self-haul waste stream are lumber; leaves & grass; rock, soil, & fines; prunings & trimmings; and concrete

35. Drop-box Waste in Urban Areas

36. Conclusions, Drop-box Waste About 2/3 of loose drop-box waste is potentially recoverable The most prevalent recoverable materials in the loose drop-box waste stream are lumber; prunings & trimmings; uncoated corrugated cardboard; leaves & grass; and food

37. Introducing... Paul T. Johnson, P.E. R.W. Beck, Inc.

38. Quantification and Classification of MRF Residuals Screened and Surveyed Potential MRFs Performed Field Sampling and Sorting Activities Analyzed Data and Provided Results

39. Screened and Surveyed Potential MRFs 46% 18% 24% 12% Single-StreamMulti-Stream Mixed Waste C&D Distribution of MRFs by Type

40. Special Waste 0.9% Construction & Demolition 9.1% Paper 35.5% Glass 7.3% Electronics 2.1% Plastic 23.0% Metal 6.9% Mixed Residue 0.4% Organic 14.5% Household Hazardous Waste 0.2% Residuals From MRFs Receiving Single-Stream Recyclables

41. Residuals From MRFs Receiving Multi-Stream Recyclables Special Waste 0.1% Construction & Demolition 2.7% Paper 34.6% Glass 22.1% Electronics 1.4% Plastic 27.3% Metal 6.1% Mixed Residue 0.0% Organic 5.5% Household Hazardous Waste 0.2%

42. Special Waste 0.5% Construction & Demolition 12.6% Household Hazardous Waste 0.4% Paper 33.1% Glass 1.9% Organic 27.3% Metal 5.6% Electronics 1.1% Plastic 16.9% Mixed Residue 0.5% Residuals From MRFs Processing Mixed Waste

43. Residuals From MRFs Processing C&D Material Organic 18.2% Mixed Residue 1.7% Construction & Demolition 54.5% Special Waste 1.3% Paper 7.7% Glass 0.7% Metal 5.0% Electronics 0.4% Plastic 10.5% Household Hazardous Waste 0.0%

44. Single-Stream Multi-StreamMixed Waste 6.7% 0.5% 90.6% C&D 2.2% 7,373,000 tons 497,000 tons 36,000 tons6,678,000 tons162,000 tons Total Statewide MRF Residuals

45. Overall MRF Residual Composition Special Waste 0.6% Construction & Demolition 13.4% Paper 32.6% Glass 2.3% Electronics 1.1% Plastic 17.2% Metal 5.7% Mixed Residue 0.4% Organic 26.1% Household Hazardous Waste 0.4%

46. Summary New information on the waste stream: – Not only disposal, but diversion, and generation information for business groups Identified businesses with significant recycling activities, and those who can improve – MRF residual data for the first time – Detailed data on waste specifically from various C&D sources and why more recycling isn’t taking place – Detailed data on other self-haul and drop box waste

47. Summary (cont.) Identified significant potential areas to increase diversion of materials and conservation of resources New tools for local jurisdictions –C&D visual method –New data for waste characterization database Substantially increased our body of characterization data for further analysis

48. Major steps forward in understanding our waste stream! Valuable data for local governments Valuable input for Board policy decisions

49. Final Reports Available at Board’s Publication Web Site –www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/ –Category: Local Assistance Titles –Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups – publication #341-06-006

50. Final Reports cont’d –Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Characterization and Quantification of Residuals from Materials Recovery Facilities –publication #341-06-005 –Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Detailed Characterization of Construction and Demolition Waste – publication #341-06-007

51. Final Reports cont’d. –Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Detailed Characterization of Commercial Self-Haul and Drop-Box Waste –publication #341-06-003

52. Questions?