N E W Y O R K S T A T E A S S O C I A T I O N F O R R E D U C T I O N , R E U S E A N D R E C Y C L I N G

C O N F E R E N C E

N O V E M B E R 4 , 2 0 1 6

Waste CharacterizationUpdating New York Stakeholders on Current Data

and Trends

1

Introduction2

� Waste Characterization is a national line of business

� Waste/Recycling Industry Consulting Services

� Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Zero Waste Plans

� Recycling Technical Assistance

� Collection System Optimization

� Cost/Rate Studies

� Procurement Support/Contract Negotiations

www.mswconsultants.com

Objectives3

� Update NYSAR3

� Waste characterization analysis in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast region

� Identify notable trends

� Improve understanding of the meaning and use of material stream composition data

4

New York Waste Characterization Update

Regional Statewide Waste Characterization5

New York Studies6

� 2013, 2005, 1990 New York City� Residential refuse and recyclables (509

samples)� ~350 material categories

� 2012 Hamilton County� Residential refuse� Copy not available

� 2005, 1998 Onondaga County� Residential and Commercial refuse (49

samples)� Residential recyclables (42 samples)� 49 material categories

� 2009 Albany County (Capitol Region)� Residential and Commercial refuse (36

samples)� Residential recyclables (46 samples)

� 1993 (?) Town of Babylon� C&D debris� Copy not available

MSW CalculatorMSW Calculator C&D CalculatorC&D Calculator

� Sources:� NYC, Onondaga County

studies� Seattle, San Francisco� 2013 VT� 2010 OR� 2010 WI� 2007 MO (update in

progress)� 2007 DE (update in progress)� 2005 GA� 2004 OH

� Sources:

� NYC, Babylon

� Seattle

� Des Moines (IA)

� VT, WI, DE, MN, FL, CA

7

NY Composition Calculators

Waste Generation, LSWMPs (2010-15)8

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Chemung ChenangoCounty

CortlandCounty

DutchessCounty

MonroeCounty

OnondagaCounty

OntarioCounty

PutnamCounty

RocklandCounty

Paper

Plastic

Metal

Glass

Food

Wood

Textiles

Changes to Waste Composition9

Connecticut Statewide Waste Characterization, 2010 and 2015

25.9%

14.7%

4.5%

2.1%

13.5% 13.2%14.1%

0.5%2.1%

9.3%

23.1%

11.8%

3.5%2.5%

22.3%

11.1% 11.9%

0.7% 0.5%

12.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Pa

per

Pla

stic

Met

al

Gla

ss

Fo

od

Wa

ste

Oth

er O

rga

nic

s

C&

D D

eb

ris

HH

W

Ele

ctro

nic

s

Oth

er W

ast

es

2010 2015

Single Family Waste Composition Time Series

10

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

1995 1999 2002 2006 2010 2014

Paper

Plastic

Glass

Metal

Organics

C&D

Hazardous

Other

City of Seattle, Single Family Disposed Waste Stream, Percent Composition

Single Family Waste Disposal Time Series (tons)

11

City of Seattle, Single Family Disposed Waste Stream, Annual Tons Disposed

84,444 85,85289,502

77,617

64,31660,107

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1995 1999 2002 2006 2010 2014

An

nu

al

To

ns

Paper

Plastic

Glass

Metal

Organics

C&D

Other

Total

Waste Stream, circa 2008Waste Stream, circa 2008 Current Waste StreamCurrent Waste Stream

� OCC and Recyclable Paper (20%+)

� Food (12-15%)

� Bottles & Cans (6-7%)

� Yard Waste (2-10%)

� Food and Compostable Papers (25%)

� Hard-to-divert materials� Diapers/sanitary products

(3-5%)� Pet wastes (2-8%)� Mixed rigid and film plastics

(6-8%)� Mixed construction/

renovation debris (5-10%)� Painted/stained/treated

wood (3-8%)

12

Disposed Waste Stream Summary

13

Single Stream Recyclables

Composition of Single Stream14

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

OCC Newspaper Mixed

Paper

Aseptic Glass Rigid

Plastics

Plastic

Bottles

Metal Cans

2003 2015

2003 PA Statewide Recyclables Characterization; 2015 City of Philadelphia study

2003

(SS MRF Study, Pittsburgh)

2003

(SS MRF Study, Pittsburgh)

2016

(SS MRF Audit, Phila)

2016

(SS MRF Audit, Phila)

4% 22%

15

Contamination

Average Material Value (AMV)16

Materials Index Description

Market Value$/Ton %

Wtd. Value $/Ton

Paper Mixed Paper PS 1 baled, F.O.B. seller’s dock $57.50 37.4% $21.51

Corrugated Cardboard PS 11 baled, F.O.B. seller’s dock $90.00 18.3% $16.47

Aseptic/Cartons PS baled, F.O.B. seller's dock $10.00 0.5% $0.05

Sub-Total Paper 56.2% $38.03

Containers Glass (3 mix) $/Ton, delivered -$17.50 17.5% -$3.06

PET Cents/lb., baled $180.00 3.4% $6.12

HDPE Natural Cents/lb., baled $580.00 1.1% $6.38

HDPE Pigmented Cents/lb., baled $450.00 1.1% $4.95

PP Post Consumer Cents/lb., baled $200.00 0.6% $1.20

Mixed Bulky Rigid Cents/lb., baled $90.00 0.9% $0.81

Other Plastics Comingled #3-7, cents/lb., baled $30.00 0.2% $0.06

Aluminum Cans Cents/lb., sorted, baled $1,200.00 0.7% $8.40

Steel Cans $/Ton, sorted, baled $112.50 1.8% $2.03

Sub-Total Containers 27.3% $26.88

Contamination -$50.00 16.5% -$8.25

Total 100.0% $56.66

Low ContaminationLow Contamination High ContaminationHigh Contamination

9%

=

$66/ton

24%

=

$47/ton

17

Impact of Contamination on Material Value

18

Focus on Materials

Film Plastic19

� Connecticut Disposed Waste

� 0.7% Grocery/Retail Bags

� 0.2% Flexible Pouches

� 3.7% Other Film Bags/Pkg

� 0.8% Non-bag Film Plastics

� 5.4% Total

� Massachusetts Disposed Waste

� 1.3% Clean Com’l Film

� 0.6% Grocery/Retail Bags

� 4.7% Other Films

� 6.7% Total

Film Plastic - The most highly contaminated material in the waste stream (20% to 60%)

Circa 2005: 5.0% Film Plastics

Film Plastics20

Replacing rigid plastics, paper and other packing materials

Flexible Film Packaging21

Theme – Thermoforms22

#1 PET – Recyclable* #6 PS – Not Recyclable

Food waste in recycling streams is on the rise

Keurig Cups23

Plastic?

Aluminum?

Food Waste?

All of the Above!

Non-Recoverable Paper24

Paper Barrel, Metal Ends Plastic Film/Sheet Windows

Plastic Film Coating

• Adhesives and adhesive backing• Padded envelopes• Thermal papers (receipts)

Glass25

In 2003, mixed cullet entering the MRF was 30% of all inbound glass.

In 2016, mixed cullet in a single stream MRF recently audited by MSW Consultants was at 50% of all inbound glass

26

Closing Remarks

Conclusions27

� Waste streams are changing faster than ever

� Recycling professionals and municipalities ignore these dynamics at their own risk

� When used properly, these data are invaluable to the development of realistic LSWMPs

� Although data are available in surrounding states, New York would benefit from more updated disposed waste characterization and single stream recycling characterization data from individual Planning Units

C A R L H U R S H , S E N I O R C O N S U L T A N T

C H U R S H @ M S W C O N S U L T A N T S . C O M

28

Questions