Saline County Solid Waste Characterization Study 2004 Summary Report & Preliminary Recycling Evaluation
,\'
, ,,',
,: (
.', J'~:
['-
i ('
.). '"
-)
'[~
:f-
,. "
'.\'
.,. ~
f.
",
-',-"
'. .
n ~
l' .
"'L,':
" ,>
" -
H ,,[
- ,.
'.
.' ;:
;..~ J".
,-,
.J', '
", ~,
,', .
'.'- ''7
,< ~
.~
,'I' ,
',..:',
~, 1.__.
'"
- ~....
J':"
.. I . ~
" '
,
,; .
-<
'1.,
- --1,
" /'
'.~ ,.
".[~
~ :.
_ -f.'. ' ~ '.
.,'
C""
'" '~.,
,.,
. - ~-
, '
,~',C
,~
/1
. l ) ~.':,I..~ J' f~
. i' ': ~ - .'
,/ .
-'..-'
,'J.\.
. ,".",
,<,
~' (:
r,'
'.L- ,~'
,or,
~" - f
> '- ~ ,
.~
',"'.'C'"
~~. ....
.,'
or /,'
,-,','
. (
n~ilv'
J:IU.A,
'-',,~ . ,. "::
. ( ~ .
-~ '.' \
.r',"
~.,
,\ ':,
l -'1-
, "
_. r__/.
V.
;-.- .
,,'
.,'
,. ~'
",
j
.';
~
.~ '"
/.' ,.'
','
:1;.
,.','C' .
"
, ,
,J "
.,'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ,', .!
Appendix C '
Spring 2004 Sample Results
-
-
-
-
-
Sample Number
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
U nclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
COM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-I
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 1 of 8
Commereial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial
5/17/2004 5/17/2004 5/17/2004 5/17/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004
1 2 3 5 10 11 15 16
34.2 51.6 170.8 38.0 12.8 2.7 6.0 45.4
9.2 3.8 2.6 0.0 4.6 39.8 4.8 24.2
46:0 1.8 8.2 2.8 22.6 9.0 1.8 6.4
8.8 6.0 2.8 3.8 13.4 8.0 8.8 8.2
68.8 39.6 47.0 48.4 61.4 51.2 33.4 40.2
6.6 5.4 8.6 0.0 2.0 18.0 1.0 0.6
2.0 0.8 2.2 1.4 0.2 1.4 1.2 4.0
0.8 2.6 3.6 4.8 5.8 0.6 0.8 3.0
3.2 2.0 1.2 2.0 5.0 2.4 . 6.2 3.4
36.2 54.2 43.6 51.0 40.6 43.6 45.6 51.8
21.4 45.4 33.8 60.0 13.2 28.4 9.8 22.0
0.0 15.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.2 3.6 0.0 50.0 1.0 3.2 0.0 1.2
4.2 0.2 0.0 5.4 9.8 3.4 1.4 0.4
10.4 0.1 1.6 0.0 9.6 5.4 0.0 3.8
7.6 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.4 7.2 30.0 0.4
3.8 6.6 0.4 6.2 1.0 4.2 3.6 6.8
1.6 1.6 22 1.6 2.2 1.0 12.2 . 1.6
0,0 4.8 3.0 0.6 3.2 6.4 5.4 0.2
0.1 2.8 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2
1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
5.4 6.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.2 2.2 0.2
00 8.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.2
0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0:0
0.4 5.4 41.2 0.2 2.8 11.2 0.0 9.0
0.0 0.4 2.6 1.8 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.2
0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.0 4.8 6.4 3.8 2.2 7.0 3.6 7.4
0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0
2829 ,- -, '279.8 385.0 283.6 216.7 260.9 179.8 322.4
Source
Date
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-1 (I b)
-
-
-
-
Sample Number
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HOPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Unclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsu m Board and Plaster
TOTAL
CDM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-l
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 2 of 8
Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial
5/19/2004 5/19/2004 5/19/2004 5/19/2004 512012004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5120/2004
22 -23' 25 27 33' 34 35 36
34.2 96,0 13.4 17,8 76,6 17,6 14,6 7,2
3.4 3.4 4,2 2,8 6,0 4,2 6,8 7,6
3,6 43.4 39,6 8.2 11.6 0.4 10,0 1.2
2,0 38,6 11.0 5,6 4.2 2,6 2,0 5.4
18.4 40.4 12.4 10,8 22,2 19.4 18.2 33,2
0,0 2,0 0,0 7,8 1.0 22,6 1.0 0.2
0,0 0,2 1.0 0.4 0,6 0,1 0.4 1.4
0,1 0,0 2,2 0,1 2,0 0,0 1.4 1.0
0,8 3.4 0.4 1.6 4.4 1.4 2.4 2,8
13,2 34.4 19,2 9,0 8,8 17,8 15,0 24,0
5,8 13.4 44.4 17,0 5,0 2,6 24,2 51.6
0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0
]0.0 0.0 1.4 24.4 7,0 0.1 56,8 4.4
102.4 12,2 1.2 84,8 4,1 26.2 3.4 ]3,2
1.2 3,0 1.6 0,0 ' 0.0 0,0 2,0 3,6
1.0 23,0 2,0 2,2 1.0 3,0 2.4 1.4
0,6 0.4 4,2 1.4 0,6 4,6 3.4 4,8
0,2 2,6 0,7 1.0 0.4 0,1 2,0 3,6
0.4 3,0 0,0 1.0 0,2 2,6 0.4 1.8
0,2 0.4 08 1.8 0.0 0,1 0.4 0,2
0,0 0.4 00 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0
0,0 0,0 12 0,0 1.8 0,0 6,0 7,0
0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0,1 3,8 .' 4,0 .
0.4 0,0 12 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,2 0,0 0,2 1.2 2.4 . 10,0 2.0 38
0,0 0,2 1.6 1.4 0,2 0,0 1.2 0,6
0,0 3.2 36.2 0.0 0,0 1.8 8.4 0.4
0,0 0.4 0:0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0.2 1.0
1.2 1.6 4,0 2.6 1.8 6,8 3.0 4.4
0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0,0
0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 3.6 0,0
0,0 0,0 0,0 5.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 00
0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 14,8 0,0 0,0
199,3 325,6 204,1 208,2 161,3 158,9 195,2 189,8
So u rce
Date
Tables & Figures 2,xlsTable C-1(lb)
-
-
-
-
-
Sample Number
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Unclassifjable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & BimetaJ'Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Pou red Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
COM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-I
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 3 of 8
Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial
5/21/2004 5121 /2004 5/21/2004 5/21/2004 5/21l2004 Total Weight Mean Sample
Sampled Weight
48 _...._. (Ib) -(Ib)
46 47 51 52
41.2 14.0 39.0 60.4 14.8 8083 38.5
1.0 2.6 4.2 7.2 17.4 159.8 7.6
1.8 8.4 20.4 . 13.0 8.6 2688 12.8
0.2 51.4 62 3.8 12.0 ?04.8 9.8
1.4 50.4 41.4 35.6 21.6 715.4 34.1
57.6 4.2 3.8 2.4 0.8 145.6 6.9
0.0 3.2 0.8 1.0 1.2 22.9 1.1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 2.8 33.0 1.6
0.0 1.6 7.8 1.8 2.6 56.4 2.7
6.4 37.6 27.6 18.2 39.0 636.8 30.3
0.2 41.0 37.6 41.0 19.6 537.4 25.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.7
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 165.7 7.9
0.4 0.2 12.2 3.8 14.0 302.9 14.4
0.0 0.0 0.8 3.4 32.4 78.9 3.8
.0.4 0.2 5:2 13.8 25.0 129.4 6.2
0.0 4.8 0.1 1.2 7.0 65.7 3.1
0.1 0.4 2.4 1.0 1.2 39.7 1.9
0.4 0.0 18.0 8.0 3.2 62.6 3.0
0.2 0.2 0.2 2.2 0.8 12.6 0.6
0.2 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.4 0.2
0.0 0.0 08 3.6 1.6 40.0 1.9
0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 1.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.2
23.2 0.8 0.4 9.6 2.2 126.2 6.0
0.0 1.0 3.6 0.6 0.8 17.2 0.8
0.2 0.0 4.4 1.8 2.0 59.0 2.8
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.2 3.8 0.2
0.0 2.0 7.2 3.8 2.2 84.8 4.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
0.0 44.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.8 2.4
0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 86.6 4.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
299.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 318.2 15.2
434.3 270.4 244.7 238.6 234.6 5276.1 251.2
Source
Date
-
-
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-1(lb)
-
-
-
-
Sample Number
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Un classifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Matl'rial
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
COM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-l
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 4 of8
Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential
(Commercial)
5/17/2004 5/17/2004 5/17/2004 5/17/2004 5/17/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004
-
4 6 7 8 9 12 13 14
12.2 27.2 15.2 308 23.2 27 184 13.0
I 9.8 19.2 27.0 12.0 4.8 29.6 224 31.6
2.6 4.0 30 54 7.2 124 5.8 7.6
5.8 1.6 11.0 6.6 74 26.6 104 104
17.2 39.2 60.2 33.6 324 74.2 47.9 37.8
12.0 5.8 104 3.6 0.0 0.0 6.4 20.4
0.8 3.0 1.0 3.6 3.8 3.4 0.2 3.0
0.6 4.4 2.2 2.0 0.4 4.0 0.1 1.8
1.8 4.0 4.0 2.4 3.0 5.6 1.8 4.8
32.2 23.8 41.6 21.0 30.2 56.6 54.6 25.6
8.0 20.6 33.8 12.0 10.8 25.0 15.8 14.6
0.4 85.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0
37.8 4.0 47.6 8.2 5.4 103.0 75.4 116.6
21.2 . 6.0 16.4 4.2 2.2 17.8 7.8 7.8
2.0 3.0 2.2 25.8 0.0 13.4 3.0 2.4
6.8 5.6 3.8 7.6 0.8 2.1 9.2 16.4
3.4 4.8 4.4 4.4 1.8 7.0 6.0 5.2
0.4 5.0 5.4 3.2 1.4 4.0 3.8 2.6
15.6 16.0 0.6 10.2 0.6 7.0 8.2 1.2
1.6 1.6 0.4 0.8 2.0 0.4 1.7 0.4
0.2 0.6 0.8 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.2 5.8 2.2 1.2 1.4 4.4 0.8 4.4
1.4 2.2 3.6 0.0 2.4 3.4 0.1 0.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
5.8 1.2 8.0 0.8 0.4 1.8 3.5 8.0
0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.1 12.8 2.2
2.0 0.2 0.2 3.0 0.0 37.2 0.0 0.6
00 0.3 02 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2
0.4 36 3.4 1.4 6.0 5.0 6.2 11.8
00 00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 4.0
0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0
203.6 299.1 309.0 206.3 149.2 479.2 324.7 354.8
Source
Date
Tables & Figures 2.xls Table C-1 (Ib)
-
-
-
-
-
Sample Number
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HOPE Containers
Colored HOPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leatber
Diapers
Unclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
CDM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-!
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 5 of8
Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential
Residential Residential (Commercial) (Commercial) (Commercial)
5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/19/2004 5/19/2004 5/19/2004
17 18 19 20 :,. - 21 24 26 28
25.0 15.2 11.2 5.2 6.8 31.6 23.0 6.0
10.0 5.0 8.8 8.2 7.6 7.6 14.0 6.4
5.8 19.7 2.8 5.2 1.8 4.6 7.8 0.4
3.2 1.6 4.8 0.0 4.0 7.4 5.2 2.8
30.4 35.2 32.0 21.6 21.7 27.8 17.2 15.6
2.0 0.4 0.2 0.6 15.6 16.6 8.0 11.0
2.6 1.6 2.4 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.2 1.0
0.8 1.8 2.0 3.8 1.0 3.0 0.4 1.2
3.4 3.4 4.6 8.4 1.2 4.0 1.2 7.0
28.6 38.4 28.2 23.0 40.2 23.4 23.0 21.0
22.4 13.8 26.0 13.6 15.2 8.0 8.2 12.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 70.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 25.2 2.4 6.8 3.6 20.4 31.0 40.4
12.8 3.6 25.8 4.6 1.6 12.2 4.7 14.6
14.4 14.8 3.8 5.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 3.0
11.8 5.8 0.6 5.0 0.2 4.8 10.8 16.8
5.2 3.0 4.4 4.2 3.0 2.4 1.8 3.8
5.2 2.2 2.8 3.6 0.6 1.0 1.6 0.1'
0.2 0.1 0.0 2.0 1.8 6.8 . 4.4 0.2.
0.4 1.4 0.8 0.4 . 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.2
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 14.2 0.1
2.0 3.2 10.2 0.0 13.0 1.4 0.6 7.8
1.4 0.8 0.4 0.6 1.4 104 2.6 0.0
02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5.0 5.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.6
0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.4 0.0
14.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 21.0 0.0 2.0
0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2
8.0 9.0 6.0 2.0 2.8 8.6 12.4 4.0
30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 00 1.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 00
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
219.9 211.8 182.1 195.6 152.0 222.4 195.7 177.4
Source
Date
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-1(lb)
-
-
-
-
Sample Number
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HOPE Containers
Colored HOPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Un classifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other .Inorgan ics/Non-Co mbustib les
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Pou red Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
COM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-1
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight
Residential and Commercial
City or Salina MSWLF
Page 6 or8
Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residen tial
5/19/2004 5/19/2004 5/19/2004 5/19/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004
29 30 31 32 37 38 39 40
20.6 4.6 14 26.4 33.0 21.6 13.6 8.6
10.0 18.2 77.4 7.2 6.2 11.6 12.0 9.2
9.8 1.2 1.2 8.8 2.6 5.6 6.2 9.4
10.2 3.6 2.2 11.2 4.6 10.6 3.6 17.0
18.4 19.2 22.8 16.2 41.2 21.8 27.6 22.4
08 1.8 4.2 10.4 1.8 50.8 0.0 45.8
2.0 0.6 0.4 0.6 2.4 1.2 1.0 0.2
0.4 0.8 1.6 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.4 2.4
3.2 . 3.2 4.4 1.6 3.2 1.8 3.4 1.2
30.\ 14.0 29.8 18.2 30.8 15.4 28.2 24.4
16.8 9.2 11.0 11.8 22.6 7.0 14.0 5.6
3.0 12.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
23.2 20~8 34.0 1.4 8.0 64.2 11.6 70.2
11.6 8.0 18.4 6.4 23.0 14.6 12.0 64.0
11.0 12.0 3.4 3.8 15.4 1.8 1.2 0.6
23.0 0.4 12.8 28.0 34.0 65.8 2.4 6.0
1.8 3.6 3.6 1.6 2.2 2.2 3.4 1.2
3.4 2.6 2.0 1.2 2.4 0.6 0.8 0.8
0.2 0.0 7.2 4.4 18.0 24.6 17.0 11.6
0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.\ 0.2 0.4
0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.0
0.8 0.2 5.4 2.6 3.6 0.\ 1.8 0.2
0.2 0.6 . 2.5 1.2 1.4 0.4 .0.4 0.6
1.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
5.2 0.2 15.6 1.2 0.0 0.8 3.8 3.4
0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.6 5.2 1.6
3.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0
0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
4.0 0.0 3.6 0.8 4.2 1.2 11.2 4.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8
00 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
215.8 137.4 284.5 178.0 269.0 329.0 199.8 322.8
Source
Date
-
-
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-1(lb)
-
-
-
-
-
Sample Number
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Unclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plastcr
TOTAL
COM
-
-
-
_.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-!
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 7 of 8
Rcsidential Rcsidcntial Residential Residential Rcsidential Residential Residential
5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/21/2004 5/21/2004
41 "42 43 44 .- .45 "49' 50
9.6 4A 7.8 18.8 2A 11.2 22.0
8.6 14A 13.2 17.8 19.3 40.6 16.2
1.0 2A 1.2 llA 5.2 1A 19.0
3.6 2.6 11.6 19.0 8.8 9.0 5.8
24.8 16.0 28.2 27.6 16.6 48.2 26.6
1.8 2A 1.6 0.6 0.6 6.8 OA
2A 0.2 1.6 IA OA lA 1.2
1.4 0.4 0.4 2.6 0.2 0.8 0.6
3.4 2.8 2.2 3.8 2.2 7.2 6.2
21A 26.2 32.8 42.6 15.2 35.0 33.0
7.8 15.8 10.2 47.0 6.2 11.8 21A
0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.2 0.0 31A
no 2A 14.2 39A 74.2 15.0 19.6
4.2 1.0 3A 6.0 6.2 7.0 15A
32 . 10.8 3.6 14.0 6.4 4.8 48
11.0 .6.0 2.6 11.0 2.6 . OA 8.2
5.0 3.8 2.8 3.6 2.2 5.0 6.2
0.6 1A 3.2 1.2 1.0 1.6 4.2
0.2 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.0. OA 6.4
0.0 0.2 0.8 3.8 2.2 0.6 0.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0
0.6 7.0 1.8 8.0 6.0 3.6 2.4
1.8 2.6 1.8 i.4 2.2 1.2 3.2
0.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 9:2 . 0:0 0.0
0.0 1.0 4A 4.8 5.9 19.4 2.6
2.2 1A 0.2 0.6 0.8 2.2 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 9.6
0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2
0.0 4.0 4.2 3.6 0.0 3.2 3.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0
00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
188.8 129.4 154A 295.9 197.2 243.0 270.8
Source
Datc
-
-
-
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-1 (Ib)
-
-
-
-
Sample Number
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HOPE Containers
Colored HOPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Unclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
COM
-
-
-
-
-
'-
-
-
-
-
Table C-I
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 8 of8
Residential
Total Weight Mean Sample
Sampled Weight
(I b) (I b)
509.6 16.4
505.9 16.3
182.0 59
. 232.2 7.5
921.6 29.7
242.8 7.8
46.6 1.5
49.5 1.6
105.4 3.4
908.5 29.3
478.6 15.4
219.6 71
1000.0 32.3
364.5 11.8
198.6 .. . -- 6.4
322.3 10.4
113.0 3.6
69.9 2.3
166.9 5.4
23.5 0.8
22.8 - 0.7
103.7 3.3
'- 43.6 -- 1.4
16.2 0.5
113.0 3.6
40.4 1.3
116.4 3.8
5.3 0.2
138.4 4.5
9.4 OJ
5.4 0.2
0.0 0.0
15.6 0.5
7.4 0.2
7298.6 235.4
Combined Residential/Commercial
Total Weight Mean Sample-
Sampled Weight
(Ib) (Ib)
1317.9 25.3
665.7 12.8
450.8 8.7
437.0 8.4
1637.0 31.5
388.4 7.5
69.5 1.3
82.5 1.6
161.8 3.1
1545.3 29.7
1016.0 19.5
235.0 4.5
1165.7 . 22.4 -
667.4 12.8
277.5 5.3
451.7 .. 8.7
178.7 3.4
109.6 2.1
229.5 , - -. 4.4
36.1 0.7
26.2 0.5
- 143.7 2.8
64.3 1.2
.. 19.4 0.4
239.2 4.6
57.6 I.l
175.4 3.4
9.1 0.2
223.2 4.3
9.5 0.2
56.2 I.l
86.6 1.7
15.6 0.3
325.6 6.3
12574.7 241.8
Sou rce
Date
-
-
-
-
-
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-1 (I b)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-2
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight Percent
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 1 of 8
Commercial Commercial Commerchil Cominercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial
.. 5/17/2004-- 5/17/2004 5/1 7/2004;, . 5/17/2004 5/18/2004 . .. 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004
,
1 2 3 .5 .- ."10. . 11 15 16
12.1% 18.4% 44.4% 6.0% 13.4% 9.1% 4.9% 14.9%
33% 1.4% 0.7% 4.8% 0.0% 6.4% 8.7% 5.8%
16.3% 0.6% 2.]% 1.3% 1.0% 1.3% 1.0% 2.6%
3.1% 2.]% 0.7% 2.8% 1.3% 0.5% 3.6% 3.2%
24.3% 14.2% 12.2% 8.4% ]7.1% 13.]% ]9.5% ]6.3% .
1.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.9% 0.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2%
0.7% 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% ].0% 0.3% 1.7%
0.3% 0.9% 0.9% 0.3% 1.7% 1.5% 0.7% 1.0%
12.8% 19.4% 11.3% 15.8% 18.0% 8.0% 13.5% 10.2%
7.6% 16.2% 8.8% 3.9% 21.2% 6.9% 10.9% 5.8%
0.0% 5.4% 0.]% 0.2% 0.0% 28.7% 0.0% 0.0%
0.8% 1.3% 0.0% ]8.6% ]7.6% 1.3% 15.4% 4.0%
23% 1.9% 2.2% 5.9% 00% 1.9% 3.4% 1.7%
1.5% 0.1% 0.0% 10.4% 1.9% 2.0% 5.3% 2.0%
3.7% 0.0% 0.4% 1.0% . .0.0% 1.0% 0.7% 12.5%
3.2% 1.7% 1.7% 0.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.7%
2.7% 0:5% 0.3% 3.3% 0.3% 1.9% 1.2% 3.7%
1.3% 2.4% 0.1% 1.7% 2.2% 1.6% 1.4% 2.]%
0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 06% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6%
0.0% 1.7% 0.8% .. .. 7.7% 0.2% 5.3% 0.2% 4.9%
0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% . 0.2% 0.3% 1.0%
0.0%' 1.0% 0.]% .0.8% 0.4% ... " 0.5% 0.1% 0.4%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
1.9% 2.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 1.9% 0.7% 0.6%
0.0% 3.]% 0.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 1.2% 0.0%
0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.1% 1.9% 10.7% 2.8% 0.1% 0.4% 2.6% 0.4%
0.0% 0.1% . 0.7% 0.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%
0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 1.5%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% .0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%. 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% " 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source
Sample Number
Date
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Unclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
COM
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-2(%)
-
-
-
-
-
-
_.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_.-
-
-
-
Table C-2
Spring 2004Sample Results by Weight Percent
Residential and Commercial'
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 2 of 8
Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial
5/19/2004 5/19/2004 5/1912004 5/1912004 512012004 . 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004
22 23 25 27 33 34 35 36
155% 5.9% . 1.0% 5.6% .' 5.7% 3.7% . 3.3% 14.1%
3.2% 2.1% 15.3% 6.2% 6.9% 8.9% 2.7% 7.5%
4.8% 10.4% 3.4% 2.6% 1.8% 2.1% 1.0% 2.0%
5.0% 6.2% 3.1% 5.6% 3.2% 2.9% 4.9% 2.5%
21.7% 28.3% 19.6% 15.5% 14.8% 107% 18.6% 12.5%
20% 2.3% 0.9% 1.2% 0.6% 1.4% 3.4% 1.1%
25% 0.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 0.7% 1.2%
0.3% 2.7% 0.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.9%
202% 18.7% 16.7% 11.8% 16.8% 7.2% 25.4% 16.1%
7.2% 6.1% 10.9% 5.2% 4.9% 4.1% 5.5% 6.8%.
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3.6% 0.5% 1.2% 21.5% 23.2% 32.9% 0.0% 0.4%
00% 0.9% 6.9% 0.0% 2.0% 5.7% 0.6% 0.2%
1.5% 4.5% 1.3% 3.7% 2.4% 2.2% 0.8% 0.1%
0.0% 4.4% 2.1% 2.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.0% 1.2%
4.0% 1.0% 2.7% 1.0%. 1.9% 3.3% 2.0% 2.3%
05% 0.2% 2.8% 0.4% 2.8% 4.6% 16.7% 0.1%
1.2% 0.5% 1,6% 1.5% 1.8% 1.5% 2.0% 2.1%
0.9% 1.0% 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% 0.7% 6.8% 0.5%
0.4% 1.5% 2.5% 1.5% 2.5% 0.3% 3.0% 0.1%
0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
1.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
0.9% 1.2% 0.5% 09% 02% 1.2% 1.2% 0.1%
1.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.1%
0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.3% 1.3% 4.3% 0~4% 1.1% 2.3% 0.0% 2.8%
0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 3.9% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.3%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source
Sample Number
Date
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Uriclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Re.c)::c1ea~le M~tal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
COM
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-2(%)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-2
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight Percent
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 3 of 8
Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial commercial c::;ommercial
5/21/2004 5/21/2004 5/21/2004 5/21/2004 5/21/2004 Mean Standard 900;',
.. Percentage Deviation Confidence
46 47 .48 51 52 Interval
4.5% 7.2% 6.2% 2.7% 4.5% 9.7% 9.3% 3.3%
]14% 2.4% 4.8% 4.2% 5.0% 5.3% 3.7% 1.3%
2.6% 9.1% 1.5% 2.7% 1.2% 3.4% 3.9% 1.4%
1.5% 0.8% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6% 2.8% 1.7% 0.6%
13.8% 16.6% 17.6% 11.0% 14.3% 16.2% 4.7% 1.7%
0.9% 1.6% 2.5% 4.3% 0.8% 1.5% 1.0% 0.4%
1.2% 0.8% 1.3% 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2%
0.4% 0.8% 1.1% 19% 07% 0.9% 0.6% 0.2%
1.5% 18.1% 15.5% 11.8% 26.4% 15.0% 5.8% 2.]%
130% 6.5% 14.3% 7.0% 100% 8.7'/"0 4.4% 1.6%
10.2% 0.0% 0.0% 36.1% 0.0% 3.9% 9.8% 3.5%
0.0% 11.9% 1.3% 3.5% 2.4% 7.7% 9.8% 3.5%
0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 10.3% 2.2% 2.8% 1.0%
5.8% 1.7% 14.2% 2.4% 1.1% 3.1% 3.5% 1.3%
6.5% 7.0% 2.1% 2.6% 1.3% 2.4% 3.1% l.l%
5.4% 4.2% 3.3% 1.0% 1.8% 2.1% 1.3% 0.5%
2.4% 2.7% 0.3% 2.6% 0.1% 2.4% 3:6% 1.3%
2.4% 1.4% 2.4% 2.1% 2.0% 1.7% 0.6% 0.2%
0.1% 1.0% 1.5% 1.8% 0.4% 1.2% 1.4% 0.5%
0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.2% 1.7% 2.1% 0.7%
0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
0.9% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.1%
0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
0.1% 1.5% 5.6% 0.0% 8.6% 1.4% 2.1% 0.7%
2.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.8% 0.3%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
6.6% 2.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.6% 0.9%
0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.8% 0.3%
3.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 1.8% 0.7%
1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 5.5% 2.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.3% 0.8% 0.3%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% -
Source
Sample Number
Date
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HOPE Containers
Colored HOPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
U nclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Othel' Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
B,'own Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
COM
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-2(%)
-
-
-
-
-
Sample Numbe
. Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HOPE Containers
Colored HOPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Vnclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
COM
-
-
-
-.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tabl.e C-2
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight Percent
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 4 of 8 .
Sourc
e Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential . Residential
(Commerchil)
-
e 5/17/2004 5/17/2004 5/17/2004 5/17/2004 5/17/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/1812004
4 - 6 7 8 9 12 lr 14
r
6.0% 9.1% 4.9% 14.9% 15.5% 5.6% 5.7% 3.7%
4.8% 6.4% 8.7% 5.8% 3.2% 6.2% 6.9% 8.9%
1.3% 1.3% 1.0% 2.6% 4.8% 2.6% 1.8% 2.1%
2.8% 0.5% 3.6% 3.2% 5.0% 5.6% 3.2% 2.9%
8.4% 13.1% 19.5% 16.3% 21.7% 15.5% 14.8%' 10.7%
0.9% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 2.0% 1.2% 0.6% 1.4%
0.4% 1.0% 0.3% 1.7% 2.5% 0.7% 0.1% 0.8%
0.3% 1.5% 0.7% 1.0% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.5%
15.8% 8.0% 13.5% 10.2% 20.2% 11.8% 16.8% 7.2%
3.9% 6.9% 10.9% 5.8% 7.2% 5.2% 4.9% 4.1%.
0.2% 28.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0%
18.6% 1.3% 15.4% 4.0% 3.6% 21.5% 23.2% 32.9%
5.9% 1.9% 3.4% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 5.7%
10.4% 2.0% 5.3% 2.0% 1.5% 3.7% 2.4% 2.2%
1.0% 1.0% 0.7% 12.5% 0.0% 2.8% 0.9% 0.7%
0.2% 1.2% 1.1% 0.7% 4.0% 1.0% 1.9% 3.3%
3.3% 1.9% 1.2% 3.7% 0.5% 0.4% 2.8% 4.6%
1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 2.1% 1.2% 1.5% 1.8% 1.5%
0.2% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 0.9% 0.8% 1.2% 0.7%
7.7% 5.3% 0.2% 4.9% 0.4% 1.5% 2.5% 0.3%
0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.8% 0.5% 0.1% 0.4% 1.3% 0.1% .0.5% 0.1%
0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
0.6% 1.9% 0.7% 0.6% 0.9% 0.9% 0.2% 1.2%
0.7% 0.7% 1.2% 0.0% 1.6% 0.7% 0.0% 0.1%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2.8% 0.4% 2.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 1.1% 2.3%
0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 3.9% 0.6%
1.0% 0.1% 0.1% 1.5% 0.0% 7.8% 0.0% 0.2%
. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% .0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% .0.0% 0.0% : .0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%
100.0% 100.0% 1000% ]00.0% JOO.O% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Oat
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-2(%)
-
-
-
-
-
Sample Number
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
U nclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
COM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-2
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight Percent
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF'
Page 5 of 8
Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential
(Commercial) (Commercial) (Commercial)
5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 , 5/19/2004 5/19/2004 5/19/2004
"
l7 18 19 20 21 24 26 28
11.4% 7.2% 6.2% 2:7% 4:5'% 14.2% 11.8% ' 3.4%
4.5% 2.4% 4.8% 4.2% 5.0% . 3.4% 7.2% 3.6%
2.6% 9.1% 1.5% 2.7% 1.2% 2.1% 4.0% 0.2%
1.5% 0.8% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6% 3.3% 2.7% 1.6%
138% 16.6% 17.6% 11.0% 14.3% 12.5% 8.8% 8.8%
1.5% 1.6% 2.5% 4.3% 0.8% 1.8% 0.'6% 1.1%
1.2% 0.8% 1.3% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.6%
0.4% 0.8% 1.1% 1.9% 0.7% 1.3% 0.2% 0.7%
13.0% 18.1% 15.5% ' 11.8%- .. .. 26.4% 10.5% 11.8% 11.8%
102% 6.5% 14.3% 7.0% 10.0% 3.6% 4.2% 7.1%.
00% 0.0% 0.0% 36.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.5% 11.9% 1.3% 3.5% 2.4% 9.2% '15.8% 22.8%
09% 0.2%' 0.1% 0.3% ::c- 10.3% 7:5% 4.1% 6.2%
5.8% 1.7% 14.2% 2.4% 1.1% 5.5% 2.4% 8.2%
65% 7.0% 2.10/0 2.6% 1.3% 2.7% 0.5% 1.7%
3.6% 4.2% . 3.3% 1.0% 1.8% 3.9% 6.3% 2.3%
5.4% 2.7% 0.3% 2.6% 0.1% 2.2% 5.5% 9.5%
2.4% 1.4% .. 2.4% 2.1% 2.0% 1.1% 0.9% 2.1%
2.4% 1.0% 1.5% 1.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8% 0.1%
0.1% 0.0% . 0.0% 1.0% 1.2% 3.1% 2.2% 0.1%
0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.3% 0.1%
0.2% 0.7% 0.4% . 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 00% 0.1%
0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
0.9% ].5% 5.6% 0.0% 8.6% 0.6% 03% 4.4%
0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% 0.6% 1.3% 0.0%
0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% .0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2.3% 2.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 1.5%
0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.7% 0.0%
6.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0:0% 0.1% 9.4% 0.0% 1.1%
1.4% 0.0% 0.0% . 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
,0.0%---, ,- 0.0% ' 0.0% .' ..0.0%" ',. 0.0%' 0.0% ,. 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%' 0.0% ,,, 0.0%- .0.0% . '0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%.
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00/0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% .. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source
Date
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-2(%)
-
-
-
!!!!!II
Sample Numbe
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
U nclassitiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles'
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
COM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-2
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight Percent
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 6 of 8
Sourc
e Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential
e 5/19/2004 5/19/2004 5/19/2004 5/19/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004
.. m
.o.
r 29 .. '. 30 31 . 32 .'3'7 38 39
9.5% 3.3% 4.9% 14.8% 12.3% 6.6% 6.8%
4.6% 13.2% 27.2% 4.0% 2.3% 3.5% 6.0%
4.5% 0.9% 0.4% 4.9% 1.0% 1.7% 3.1%
4.7% 2.6% 0.8% 6.3% 1.7% 3.2% 1.8%
8.5% 14.0% 8.0% 9.1% 15.3% 6.6% 13.8%
1.5% 2.3% 1.5% 0.9% 1.2% 0.5% 1.7%
0.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.5%
0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 1.1% 0.3% 1.7%
139% 10.2% 10.5% 10.2% 11.4% 4.7% 14.1%
7.8% 6.7% 3.9% 6.6% 8.4% 2.1% 7.0%
14% 8.7% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
10.8% 15.1% 12.0% 0.8% 3.0% 19.5% 5.8%
04% 1.3% 1:5% 5.8% 0.7% i5.4% 0.0%
54oio 5.8% 6.5% 3.6% 8.6% 4.4% 6.0%
5.1% 8.7% 1.2% 2.1% 5.7% 0.5% 0.6%
19"/0 0.0% 1.3 0/0 04% 1.6% 0.4% 5.6%
10.7% 0.3% 4.5% 15.7% 12.6% 20.0% ].2% .
0,8% 2.6% 1.3% 0.9% 08% 0.7% 1.7%
1.6% 1.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9% 0.2% 04%
0.1% 0.0% 2.5% 2.5% 6.7% 7,5% 8,5%
0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0,0%
0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%
00% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
04% 0.1% 1.9% 1.5% ].3% 0.0% 0.9%
0.1% 0.4% 0.9% 0.7% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2%
0.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%
24% 0.1% 5.5% 0.7% 0.0% 0.2% 1.9%
04% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.5% 2.6%
14% 0.0% 0.0% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%
0.0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0.0% 0,0% 7.8%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0%
100,0% 100,0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100,0%
Dat
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-2(%)
-
-
-
-
-
Sample Number
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Unclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
CDM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-2
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight Percent
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 7 of 8
Residential Residential Residential Residential ResidentiaL Residential Residential Residential
5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/1004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/21/2004 5/21/2004
40 4] 42 43 44 45 49 50
2.7% 5.1% 3.4% 5.1% 6.4% 1.2% 4.6% 8.1%
2.9% 4.6% 11.1% 8.5% 6.0% 9.8% 16.7% 6.0%
2.9% 0.5% 1.9% 0.8% 3.9% 2.6% 0.6% 7.0%
5.3% 1.9% 2.0% 7.5% 6.4% 4.5% 3.7% 2.1%
6.9% 13.1% 12.4% 18.3% 9.3% 8.4% 19.8% 9.8%
0.4% 1.8% 2.2% ].4% ].3% 1.1% 3.0% 2.3%
0.1% 1.3% 0.2% 1.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.6% 0.4%
0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2%
7.6% 11.3% 20.2% 21.2% 14.4% 7.7% 14.4% 12.2%
1.7% 4.1% 12.2% 6.6% 15.9% 3.1% 4.9% 7.9%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% 11.6%
21.7% 38.7% 1.9% 9:2% 13.3% 37.6% 6.2% 7.2%
14.2% 1.0% 1.9% 1.0% 0.2% 0.3% 2.8% 0.1%
19.8% 2.2% 0.8% 2.2% 2.0o/~ 3.1% 2.9% 5.7%
0.2% 1.7% 8.3% 2.3% 4.7% 3.2% 2.0% 1.8%
1.3% 0.0% 3.1% 2.7% 1.2% 0.0% 1.3% 1.3%
1.9% 5.8% 4.6% 1.7% 3.7% 1.3% 0.2% 3.0%
0.4% 2.6% 2.9% 1.8% l.2% 1.1% 2.1% 2.3%
0.2% 0.3% 1.1% 2.1% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 1.6%
3.6% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 2.4%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 1.3% 1.1% 0.2% 0,2%
0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
0.1% 0.3% 5.4% 1.2% 2.7% 3.0% 1.5% 0.9%
0.2% 1.0% Z:O% 1.2% 0.5% 1.1% 0.5% 1.2%
0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0%
1.1% 0.0% 0.8% 2.8% 1.6% 3.0% 8.0% 1.0%
0.5% 1.2% 1.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.9% 0.0%
3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 3.5%
0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source
Date
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTableC-2(%)
-
-
-
-
-
Sample Number
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Unclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
COM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-2
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Weight Percent
Residential and Commercial
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 8 of 8
Residential
Mean Standard 90'10
Percentage Deviation Confidence
Interval
7.1% 4.0% 1.2%
6.9% 5.0% 1.5%
.2.5% 2.0% 0.6%
3.1% 1.8% 0.5%
12.8% 4.1% 1.2%
1.5% 0.8% 0.2%
0.7% 0.5% 0.2%
0.7% 0.5% 0.1%
13.1% 4.6% 1.4%
6.8% 3.3% 1.0%
2.9% 8.3% 2.5%
12.6% 10.7% 3.2%
3.1% 4.1% 1.2%
4.8% 4.1% 1.2%
3.0% 3.0% 0.9%
2.0% 1.6% 0.5%
4.3% 4.7% 1.4%
1.6% 0.6% 0.2%
1.0% 0.6% 0.2%
2.J% 2.6% 0.8%
0.4% I. 1.3% 0.4%
0.3% 0.4% 0.1%
0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
1.6% 1.9% 0.6%
0.6% 0.5% 0.1%
0.2% 0.8% 0.3%
1.5% 1.7% 0.5%
0.5% 0.8% 0.2%
1.4% 2.6% 0.8%
0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
0.0% 0.0% -
0.3% 1.4% 0.4%
0.1% 0.6% 0.2%
100.0% 0.0% -
Source
Date
Combined Residen'tial/Commercial
Mean Standard 9.001t.
Percentage . Deviation Confidence
Interval
8.2% 6.7% 1.5%
62% 4.5% 1.0%
2.9% 2.9% 0.7%
3.0% 1.8% 0.4%
14.2% 4.6% 1.1%
1.5% 0.9% 0.2%
0.7% 0.6% 0.1%
0.7% 0.6% 0.1%
13.9% 5.2% 1.2%
7.6% 3.9% 0.9%
3.3% 8.9% 2.0%
10.6% 10.5% 2.4%
2.8% 3.6% 0.8%
4.1% 3.9% 0.9%
2.8% 3.0% 0.7%
2.1% 1.5% 0.3%
3.5% 4.4% .10%
1.7% 0.6% 0.1%
1.1% ].0% 0.2%
1.9% 2.4% 0.5%
0.3% 1.0% 0.2%
0.4% 0.4% 0.1%
0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
1.5% 2.0% 0.4%
0.6% 0.6% 0.1%
0.2% 0.7% 0.2%
1.7% 2.1% 0.5%
0.5% 0.8% 0.2%
1.1 aio 2.3% 0.5%
0.1% 0.4% 0.1%
0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
0.5% 3.5% 0.8%
0.2% 1.1% 0.2%
0.2% 0.7% 0.2%
100.0% 0.0% -
-
-
-
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-2(%)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-3
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Visual Inspection
Industrial and Construction/Demolition
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 1 of 4
( Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial
e 5/17/2004 5/17/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/19/2004
r I 2 4 5 8 9 11 12
4% 5% 35% 14% . 0% 15% 10% 35%
0% 0% 0% 0% . . 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 33% 38% 0% 20% 2% 4%
90.5% 0.0% 0% 0% 100% 2% 75% 1%
0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0.1% 0.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2% 30% 20% 9% 0% 15% 5% 20%
0% 65% 0% 34% 0% 45% 0% 40%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% . 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2% 0% 5% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0%
s 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0%
0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0%. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% .' 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
99.60% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Soure
Dat
Sample Numbe
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-grade palJer
Magazines
Other paper
Wood
Clear HD PE bottles
Colored HDPE bottles
PET bottles
Other plastic
Food waste
Grass
Leaves and other yard waste
Textiles, rubber, and leather
Diapers sanitary
Other organics/combustibles
Steel & bimetal food & beverage container
Aluminum food & beverage containers
Ferrous metal
Other recyclable metal
Nonrecycleable metal
Clear glass containers
Brown glass containers
Green/blue glass containers
Other inorganics/non-combustibles
HHW & special
Electronics
Batteries
Unclassifiable fines
Roofing material
Poured concrete'
Bricks
Blocks
GYIJsum board and IJlaster
TOTAL
CDM
-
-
-
-
-
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-3 2004visual - %
-
-
-
-
Dat
Sample Numbe
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-grade paper
Magazines
Other Ilaper
Wood
Clear HDPE bottles
Colored HDPE bottles
PET bottles
Other plastic
Food waste
Grass
Leaves and other yard waste
Textiles, rubber, and leather
Diapers sanitary
Other organics/combustibles
Steel & bimetal food & beverage container
Aluminum food & beverage containers
Ferrous metal
Other recyclable metal
Nonrecycleable metal.
Clear glass containers
Brown glass containers
Green/blue glass containers
Other inorganics/non-combustibles
HHW & special
Electronics
Batteries
Unclassifiable fines
Roofing material
Poured concrete
Brie ks
Blocks
Gypsum board and plaster
TOTAL
CDM
-
,.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~.
Table C-3
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Visual Inspection
Industrial and Construction/Demolition
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 2.of 4
Sourc
I Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial. Industrial . Industrial
e 5/] 9/2004 5/] 9/2004 5/]912004 5/20/2004 5/21/2004 5/21/2004 5/21/2004 Mean Percentage Standard 90% Confidence
Deviation Interval
r ]4 16 18 24 28 31 32
3% 75% 23% 10% 15% 5% 25% 19.5% 19.2% 8.1%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% -
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 95% 0% 0.2% 24.5% 10.4%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%
1% 3% 20% 10% 10% 0% 5% 12.8% 12.4% 5.3%
85% 3% 10% 0% 0% 0% 60% 15.4% 40.2% 17.1%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.5% 1.3% 0.5%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%
0% 0.5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
5% 8% 20% 15% 5% 0% 10% 14.1% 8.8% 3.7%
0% 0.5% 15% 63% 69% 0% 0% 33.7% 27.6% 11.7%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%
0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% .0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%
3% 1% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.2% 1.8% 0.8%
s 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0.4% 0.7% 0.3%
0% 0.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
0% 2% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1.0% 1.8% 0.8%
1% 1% 1%. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2%
0% } 0,10 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%
0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.3% 0.8% 0.3%
1% 0.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2%
1% 2% 0% 0% . 0% 0% 0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.2%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% -
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% -
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% -
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% -
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% -
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% .0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% -
Ollltl 0(% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% -
100.00% 10000% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.98% 0.10% 0.03%
J
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-3 2004visual - %
-
-
-
-
Dat
Sample Numbe
Corrugated & Kraft Paller
Newsprint
High-grade paper
Magazines
Other paper
Wood
Clear HDPE bottles
Colored HD PE bottles
PET bottles
Other plastic
Food waste
Grass
Leaves and other yard waste
Textiles, rubber, and leather
Diapers sanitary
Other organicslcombustibles
Steel & bimetal food & beverage container
Aluminum food & beverage containers
Ferrous metal
Other recyclable metal
Nonrecycleable metal
Clear glass. containers
Brown glass containers
Greenlblue glass containers
Other inorganics/non-combustibles
HHW & special
Electronics
Batteries
Unclassifiable fines
Roofing material
Poured concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum board and plaster
TOTAL
CDM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-3
Spring 2004 Sample Results by Visual Inspection
Industrial and Construction/Demolition
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 3 of 4
I C&D C&D C&D C&D 'C&D C&D C&D C&D C&D C&D C&D
e 5/17/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/19/2004 5/19/2004 5/1912004 5/19/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5120/2004
r 3 6 7 10 13 15 17 19 20 21 22
0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 10%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 8% 1% 0% 0% 30%
50% 10% 50% 0% 86% 99% 5% 7% 0% 80% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% 10/0 0% 0% 0%
0% 0010 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%. 1% 0%
0% 0% . 0% 0% 1% 0% . 0.1% 1% 0% 1% 0%
0% 0% 10% 0% 1% 0% 5% 1% 0% 3% 55%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% . 0% 5% 0%. 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
00/0 0% 0% 0% .0% 0% Oo/u 0% 0% 00/0 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 00/0 5%
s 50% 0% 0% 0% '0% 0% .. 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% . 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 5%' 1% J% .. 5% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0.5% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% .0% 0% . 0% 0%. .0% . ..0.1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% . 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% . . 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 98% 0% 0% 0% 85% 99% 0% 0%
0% 80% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 40% 0% 0% 0% 68% 1% 0% 2% 0%
100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Sourc
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-3 2004visual - %
-
-
-
-
Dat
Sample Numbe
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-grade paper
Magazines
Other paper
Wood
Clear HDPE bottles
Colored HOPE bottles
PET bottles
Other plastic
Food waste
Grass
Leaves and other yard waste
Textiles, rubber, and leather
Diapers sanitary
Other organics/combustibles
Steel & bimetal food & beverage container
Aluminum food & beverage containers
Ferrous metal
Other recyclable metal
Nonrecycleable metal
Clear glass containers
Brown glass containers
Green/blue glass containers
Other inorganics/non-combustibles
HHW & special
Electronics
Batteries
U nclassifiable fines
Roofing material
Poured concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum board and plaster
TOTAL
CDM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table C-3
Spring 2004 Sample Results. by Visual Inspection,
Industrial and Construction/Demolition
City of Salina MSWLF
Page 4 of 4
Sourc
,',
f C&D C&D C&D C&D C&D C&D C oilstruction/Demol ition
e 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/20/2004 5/21/2004 5/21/2004 Mean Percentage Standard 90%. Confidence
Deviation Interval
r 23 25 26 27 29 30
30% 0% 5% 20% 5% 6% 2.2% 8.3% 3.4%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 6% 0.4% 1.8% 0.8%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% -
0% 0% 3% 0% 5% 5% 3.2% 7.3% 3.0%
50% 18% 50% 30% 5% 30% 39.7% 32.4% 13.3%
0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2%
0% 0% 2% 5% 5% 5% 3.2% 13.1% 5.4%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% -
0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 6% 0.4% 1.8% 0.8%
0% 0% 0% 30% 5% 5% 2.0% 7.3% 3.0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 5% 0.6% 1.7% 0.7%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 5% 1.3% 6.1% 2.5%
s 0%, .0% , 0% 1% .. 0% , 0% , '1.4% 12.1% 5.0%
0% 0% 00/0 ' , 1% 0% 0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
15% 1% 2% 10% 15% 6% 3.2% 5.0% 2.1%
5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0.4% 1.4% 0.6%
0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0,3% , 0.3% 0.1%
, "
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ,,0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0% 0% .. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% " 0.0% -
0% 0% ' 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% -
0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 6% 0.6% 1.8% 0.8%
0% 0% " 0% 0% ,', , , ,,0% " 0% , 0.0% 0.0% -
0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 6% 0.6% 2.7% 1.1%
0% 0% 0% 0% , 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% -
0% 0% 0% 0% , 5% 6% 0.4% 1.8% 0.8%
0% 80% 0% 0% 0% 0% 19.1% 39.8% 16.4%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.0% 19.4% 8.0%
0% 0% 35% 0% 0% 0% 3.0% 8.5% 3.5%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ,0%, 0.0% 0.0% -
0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 16.8% 18.5% 7.6%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100.0% 100.00% 99.88% 0.00% -
-
-
Tables & Figures 2.xlsTable C-3 2004visual - %
>,~ \,
~ {),
~' /',
~ ~ -'
~ C" ,. )
,,,\,-
.1',
L
."
.t'
i..
.,..c'
. ~ "
. '" ,~
-r' '.~ : .'. ",'
, ".
~, '
.. - ,..,
"
,s.,'
.,
C ,.'
>< '
'-'..' '"
- ., " -
...' ,,', ,.I.-
. ~}r'
['"
"
, '
','-
':.).J< .
'<.d"c, "
" "', ..I..
.,'':;''
,~' c u,
.' ~A
.' u
" ',- -
,'l['
" '
.,
'-, "
J<;" -
~'-.C'
'.: '. I ~
:> .'- - -."
i:;'-
I , i ~
C' ;--
, '
:?
....~. -", -
,'""'.-
c'
, '
~ <'"
{.)-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
Appendix D
Comparison of Waste Composition Results
I
I
I
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
I
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
I
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
I
Clear HOPE Containers
Colored HOPE Containers
I
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
I
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
I
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Unclassifiable Fines
I
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
I
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
I
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
I
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
I
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
I
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
I
Bricks
Gypsum Board & Plaster
I
Blocks
TOTAL
I
COM
I
Table D-1
Residential Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 v.s 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
Soring/Summer 1997
" "
u
'0 "" g "
'" "
" .... .- -;;
'" ~ ""
[;J " "'CI .~ :i< "" ,
~ " > " "
" " &JO 0 0 11
:::E 0... '" u
9.5% 3.5% 1.1%
6.1% 2.7% 0.8%
0.3% 0.6% 0.2%
2.6% 2.3% 0.7%
12.4% 6.8% 2.2%
0.6% 0.3% 0.1%
0.8% 0.5% 0.2%
0.9% 0.7% 0.2%
7.9% 2.9% 0.9%
9.0% 5.1% 1.6%
4.9% 9.5% 3.0%
18.4% 10.1% 3.2%
2.5% 2.2% 0.7%
5.6% 5.6% 1.8%
3.2%1 3.3% 1.0%
2.7% 2.1% 0.7%
0.8% 0.8% 0.2%
1.8% 0.9% 0.3%
0.9% 0.5% 0.2%
1.3% 2.2% 0.7%
0.3% 0.7% 0.2%
0.2% 0.2% 0.1%
0.1% 0.2% 0.0%
1.7% 1.4% 0.4%
0.5% 1.0% 0.3%
0.2% 0.4% 0.1%
3.7% 2.3% 0.7%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% -
0.0% 0.0% -
0.9% 3.1% 1.0%
0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
0.0% 0.0%
0.2% 0.7% 0.2%
100.0%
'M. 7
" "
" u
'0 "2 "
'" 0 " -;;
" ca""::: "0
" " "'CI.~ "" ,
'" e " > ~ 5 "
" " ~Q 11
:::E 0... ~u
11.1% 5.9% 1.1%
6.8% 3.8% 0.7%
0.7% 1.3% 0.3%
2.6% 2.3% 0.4%
12.3% 5.6% 1.1%
0.6% 0.5% 0.1%
0.7% 0.5% 0.1%
0.7% 0.8% 0.2%
7.7% 3.6% 0.7%
12.2% 7.2% 1.3%
2.0% 6.1% 1.1%
13.9% 14.7% 2.7%
2.0% 3.5% 0.6%
5.0% 5.8% 1.1%
3.7% 3.7% 0.7%
3.3% 2.0% 0.4%
1.5% 1.6% 0.3%
2.3% 1.4% 0.3%
0.7% 0.5% 0.1%
1.0% 2.0% 0.4%
0.4% 0.8% 0.1%
0.3% 0.5% 0.1%
0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
1.9% 1.6% 0.3%
0.6% 1.0% 0.2%
0.2% 0.5% 0.1%
4.8% 2.5% 0.5%
0.0% 0.0% -
0.0% 0.0% -
0.4% 3.1% 0.6%
0.3% 1.9% 0.3%
0.0% 01% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% -
0.1% 0.5% 0.1%
100.0%
Soring 2004
" "
" '-'
00 "2 "
'" .s " -
" '" ;;j "" '"
" " "" ~ ~ ~
'" ~ " .;;:
" " '" " ~c33
:::E 0... ci5 Cl
7.1% 4.0% 1.2%
6.9% 5.0% 1.5%
2.5% 2.0% 0.6%
3.1% 1.8% 0.5%
12.8% 4.1% 1.2%
1.5% 0.8% 0.2%
0.7% 0.5% 0.2%
0.7% 0.5% 0.1%
13.1% 4.6% 1.4%
6.8% 3.3% 1.0%
2.9% 8.3% 2.5%
12.6% 10.7% 3.2%
3.1% 4.1% 1.2%
4.8% 4.1% 1.2%
3.0% 3.0% 0.9%
2.0% 1.6% 0.5%
4.3% 4.7% 1.4%
1.6% 0.6% 0.2%
1.0% 0.6% 0.2%
2.1% 2.6% 0.8%
0.4% 1.3% 0.4%
0.3% 0.4% 0.1%
0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
1.6% 1.9% 0.6%
0.6% 0.5% 0.1%
0.2% 0.8% 0.3%
1.5% 1.7% 0.5%
0.5% 0.8% 0.2%
1.4% 2.6% 0.8%
0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
0.0% 0.0% -
0.3% 1.4% 0:4%
0.1% 0;6% 0.2%
100.0% - -
Tables & Figures 2.xls Table 0-1
I
Table D-2
Commercial Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
I
I
0) 0)
" "
OJ) "E "
'" .S: 0) '"
c '" lij -0
" 0) -0 '-'= C
'" ~ " .;: ":!? " "
" " '" " ~8 .s
:2 0... Vi Cl
Corrugated & Kraft Paper 15.7% 7.5% 2.7%
Newsprint 2.2% 2.7% 1.0%
High-Grade Paper 1.2% 2.2% 0.8%
Magazines 2.1% 4.9% 1.8%
Other Paper 13.8% 12.3% 4.4%
PET Bottles 0.5% 0.4% 0.1%
Clear HOPE Containers 0.4% 0.4% 0.1%
Colored HOPE Containers 1.0% 1.5% 0.5%
Other Plastic 10.6% 6.7% 2.4%
Food Waste 14.5% 15.2% 5.5%
Grass 1.9% 6.2% 2.2%
Leaves and Other Yard Waste 3.4% 6.8% 2.4%
Wood 3.9% 4.0% 1.4%
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather. 4.2% 5.2% 1.9%
Diapers 1.3% 2.3% 0.8%
Unclassifiable Fines 2.7% 3.5% 1.2%
Other Organics/Combustibles 2.1% 3.3% 1.2%
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers 1.8% 2.1% 0.8%
Aluminum Food & 'Beverage Containers 0.8% 1.0% 0.4%
Ferrous Metal 1.3% 2.6% 0.9%
Non-Recycleable Metal 1.9% 6.0% 2.1%
Other Recyclable Metal 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%
Batteries 0.2% 1.1% 0.4%
Clear Glass Containers 1.0% 0.9% 0.3%
Brown Glass Containers 1.6% 4.9% 1.8%
Green/Blue Glass Containers 0.2% 0.5% 0.2%
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles 5.5% 5.6% 2.0%
HOW & Special 0.0% 0.0%
Electronics 0.0% 0.0%
Roofing Material 2.4% 10.7% 3.9%
Poured Concrete 1.2% 5.5% 2.0%
Bricks 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
Blocks 0.0% 0.0%
Gypsum Board & I'laster 0.2% 0.4% 0.1%
TOTAL 100.0%
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
I
I Annual 1996-97 I
" "
OJ) " "
"E "
'" .S: " '"
c '" lij -0
" " -0 '-'= C
'" ~ " S ;I:. 5 "
" " '" " .s
:2 0... Vi Cl gu
18.7% 10.7% 2.4%
2.8% 5.7% 1.3%
2.1% 3.4% 0.7%
1.2% 3.2% 0.7%
12.2% 9.1% 2.0%
0.4% 0.4% 0.1%
0.4% 0.4% 0.1%
0.7% 1.1% 0.2%
12.5% 9.6% 2.1%
14.0% 12.7% 2.8%
0.7% 3.9% 0.8%
2.1% 5.2% 1.1%
5.0% 6.6% 1.5%
4.6% 5.1% 1.1%
0.8% 1.7% 0.4%
2.8% 2.9% 0.6%
1.3% 2.4% 0.5%
1.7% 2.4% 0.5%
0.7% 0.8% 0.2%
2.7% 5.8% 1.3%
'1.3% 4.2% 0.9%
1.1% 6.8% 1.5%
0.3% 1.0% 0.2%
0.8% 1.2% 0.3%
1.0% 3.5% 0.8%
0.1% 0.3% 0:1%
4.4% 4.1% 0.9%
0.0% 0.0% -
0.0% 0.0% -
1.0% 6.6% 1.4%
0.4% 3.4% 0.7%
0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% -
1.9% 7.6% 1.7%
100.0% - -
I Spring 2004 I
0) "
" "
OJ) "E "
'" .S: " -
c '" lij -0 '"
" 0) -0 '-'= >
'" ~ " .;: '$. 5 2
" " '" 0)
:2 0... ell Cl gu..5
9.7% 9.3% 3.3%
5.3% 3.7% 1.3%
3.4% 3.9% 1.4%
2.8% 1.7% 0.6%
16.2% 4.7% 1.7%
1.5% 1.0% 0.4%
0.8% 0.6% 0.2%
0.9% 0.6% 0.2%
15.0% 5.8% 2.1%
8.7% 4.4% 1.6%
3.9% 9.8% 3.5%
7.7% 9.8% 3.5%
2.2% 2.8% 1.0%
3.1% 3.5% 1.3%
2.4% 3.1% 1.1%
2.1% 1.3% 0.5%
2.4% 3.6% 1.3%
1.7% 0.6% 0.2%
1.2% 1.4% 0.5%
1.7% 2.1% 0.7%
0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
0.4% 0.4% 0.1%
0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
1.4% 2.1% 0.7%
0.6% 0.8% 0.3%
0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
2.0% 2.6% 0.9%
0.4% 0.8% 0.3%
0.7% 1.8% 0.7%
0.1% 0.4% 0.1%
0.0% 0:2% 0.]%
1.2% 5.5% 2.0%
0.0% 0.0% -
0.3% 0.8% 0.3%
100.0%
Tables & Figures 2.xls Table 0-2
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Unclassifiable Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles
Table D-3
Combined Residential/Commercial Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
12.2%
13.0%
11.4%
11.8%
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containers
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
GreenIBlue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW &.Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blncks
Gypsum Board & Plaster
TOTAL
CDM
100.0%
..,
:;p
1:
~ ~
~ c.
4.4%
0.7%
2.4%
0.5%
0.6%
1.0%
9.0%
3.6%
3.1%
5.0%
2.4%
2.7%
1.4%
1.8%
0.8%
1.3%
1.0%
0.2%
0.2%
1.4%
1.0%
0.2%
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
] .3
"""
::: 'S:
ad
..,
<.>
ii-
"" "
o t;:: t::
~8~
6.4%
1.5%
3.3%
0.8%
1.6%
0.4%
3.60/0
0.9%
9.5%
2.3%
0.3%
0.1%
0.5%
0.1%
1.1%
0.3%
5.1%
1.2%
11.0%
2.6%
8.3%
2.0%
11.5%
2.7%
3.2%
0.8%
5.4%
1.3%
3.0%
0.7%'
2.7%
0.6%
I
0.5%
2.3%
1.6%
0.4%
0.7%
0.2%
2.3%
0.6%
4.0%
1.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.7%
0.2%
1.2%
0.3%
3.3%
0.8%
0.4%
0.1%
4.1%
1.0%
0;0%
0.0%
7.1%
1.7%
4.3%
1.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.51%
0.1%
Annual 1996-97
.., , ...
<.>
ell ] .g c
" ... -
I "0 "
C "d .~ t;:: ;>
" c > ~ c 0;
~ ad ii: 0-
c. uE
14.3% 9.1% 1.3%
5.1% 5.1% 0.7%
1.3% 2.5% 0.4%
2.0% 2.8% 0.4%
12.3% 7.3% 1.0%
0.5% O.4lVo 0.1%
0.6% 0.5% 0.1%
0.7% 0.9% 0.1%
9.7% 7.2% 1.0%
13.0% 9.9% 1.4%
1.5% 5.3% 0.8%
8.9% 13.0% 1.9%
3.3% 5.2% 0.7%
4.8% 5.5% 0.8%
2.5% 3.3% 0.5%)
3.1% 2.4% 0.3%
1.4% 2.0% 0.3%
2.1% 1.9% 0.3%
0.7% 0.6% 0.1%
1.7% 4.1% 0.6%
0.8% 2.8% 0.4%
0.7% 4.4% 0.6%
0.2% 0.7% 0.1%
1.5% 1.6% 0.2%
0.8% 2.4% 03%;
0.2% 0.5% 0.1%
4.7% 3.3% 0.5%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.6% 4.8% 0.7%
0.4% 2.6% 0.4110
0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.9% 5.0% 0.7OA)
100.0%
13.9%
0.2%
0.2%
100.0%
Sorine 2004
...
:;p
~ ~
~ R
8.2%
6.2%
2.9%
3.0%
14.2%
1.5%
0.7%
0.7%
7.6%
3.3%
10.6%
2.8%
4.1%
2.8%
2.1%
3.5%
1.7%
1.1%
1.9%
0.3%
0.4%
0.1%
1.5%
0.6%
0.2%
1.7%
0.5%
1.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.5%
"0 g
~ .'"
-g .~
ad
..,
<.>
c
..,-
"" "
t;:: ;>
~8]
6.7%
1.5%
4.5%
1.0%
2.9%
0.7%
1.8%
0.4%
4.6%
1.1%
0.9%
0.2%
0.6%
0.1%
0.6%
0.1%
5.2%
1.2%
3.9%
0.9%
8.9%
2.0%
10.5%
2.4%
3.6%
0.8%
3.9%
0.9%
3.0%
0.7%
1.5%
0.3%
4.4%
1.0%
0.6%
0.1%
1.0%
0.2%
2.4%
0.5%
1.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
2.0%
0.4%
0.6%
0.1%
0.7%
0.2%
2.1%
0.5%
0.8%
0.2%
2.3%
0,5%
0.4%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
3.5%
0.8%
1.1%
0.2%
0.7%
0.2%
Tables & Figures 2.xls Table D-3
I
I
I
I,
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
. '
I
;I~
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
Wood
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
PET Bottles
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Textiles, Rubber, and,Leather
Diapers
Other Organics/Combustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Containe
Aluminum Food & Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Non Recycleable Metal
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
GreenIBlue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Batteries
Unclassifiable Fines
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
CDM
Table D-4
Industrial Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
26.2%
-0.0%
21.9%
100.0%
"
:;'
;; I
~"-
17.2%
21.9%
1.1%
0.1%
0.0%
5.2%
8.2%
6.8%
26.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.8%
13.8%
32.5%
0.0%
0.2%
2.0%
14.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.9%
11.9%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
32.8%
0.0%
0.0%,
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
"E .g
~ -
"'0 .~
" >
ao
"
u
5_
." <<
'" >
';J a ~
a::u.s
4.4%
15.4%
2.1%
0.4%
0.9%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
5.2%
0,0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
10.1%
6.4%
26.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.2%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.3%
2.7%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.5%
25.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
94.3%
Annual 1996-97
"
Oil
<<
e
a ~
~"-
20.6%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
5.6%
5.2%
24.4%
0.0%
0.0%
.0.0%
0.0%
13.2%
29.9%
0.0%
0.1%
1.4%
11.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%"
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.2%
9.5%
0.8%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.1%
0.0%
0.0%
O.OEYo
0;0%
0.0%
8.4%1
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
." 5
a ."
"g .~
ao
"
"
~
~";
~ g ~
~u]
2.8%
1.5%
0.2%
1.9%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
9.5%
1.3%
.3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.01%
1.80/0
4.1%
D.O%,.
0.0%
0.6%
0.1%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.6%
0.0%
0.0%,
0.0%
1.2%,
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
Spring 2004
" "
" u
:;' "
I "E .9: " -
~ - ." <<
~ ""O.;g '" >
'" " > ?f- g 2
~ "- 338 :3:u.:
19.5% 19.2% 8.1%
0.0% 0.0% -
0.2% 24.5% 10.4%
0.0% 0.0%
12.8% 12.4% 5.3%
15.4% 40.2% 17.1%
0.5% 1.3% 0.5%
0.0% 0.0%
0.1%1 0.3% 0.1%
14.1% 8.8% 3.7%
33.7% 27.6% 11.7%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.2% 0.4% 0.2%
0.0% 0.0%
1.2% 1.8% 0.8%
0.4% 0.7% 0.3%
0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
1.0% 1.8% 0.8%
0.2% 0.5% 0.2%
0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
0.0% 0.0% -
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.3% 0.8% 0.3%
0.1% 0.4% 0.2%
0.1% 0.6% 0.2%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% -
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
Tables & Figures 2.xls Table D-4
I
I
I
I
I'
I
'I
I
I
I'
I
I,
I
I'
I
I
,I
I
CDM
I
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
Wood
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
PET Bottles
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Other Organics/Combustihles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Cont
Aluminum Food & Beverage Container
Ferrous Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Non Recycleable Metal
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Batteries
Unclassifiable Fines
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board and Plaster
TOTAL
Table D-5
Construction/Demolition Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
I Spring/Summer 1997 I
<U " ~-
OJ) "'2
l:l .02
" oj 'iij "0 oj
" <U ;::! ~~b
oj ~ '" '>
<U <U o 0 ~
~ <U c/i
c.. a o\u.=
0.5% 5.9(% O.8cyo
0.0% O.51Yo 0.111::)
0.0% 0.111'0 O.O(Yo
0.0% 0.0%) 0.01%
O.DCX} 1.2(% 0.2%
8.7% 39.90/0 5 .4 'Yo
0.0% 0.0% 0.0'10
0.0% O.WYo 0.011'0
0.0% 0.01% 0.01%
0.0% 0.0(% 0.0%
0.0% O.4IYo 0.1 lYu
0.0% 0.0'% 0.0(%
67.9% 43.9% 6.1%
0.3% 17.3% 2.4':10
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0,0% 0.0% 0.0<%
:, 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.4% 11.0% 1.5%
0,5% 9.5(% 1.3<%
0.0% 0.01% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.00';;)
0.0% '0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%,
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% O.o<Yo
0.00/0 0.0% O.O(~{)
0.0% 0.0'% 0,01%
0.0% 0.0110 0.0%
5.5% 37.1% 5.11%
10.0% 14.3% 1.9(%
0.01% 0.01% 0.01%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
6.2% 18.6% 2.61%
100.0%
Annual 1996-97'
<U <U
OJ) "'0 g "
l:l iil_
... .- "0 oj
" oj -
'" <U "'d .~ \C >
~ " > "~ 5 2
<U <U 530
~ c.. O\u..s
4.2% 13.0% 13%
0.0% . 0.4% : 0.0%
0.0% 0,3% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.4% 1.9% 0.2%
35.4% 39.6% 3.9%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.8% 6.1% 0.6%
0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
13.8% 33.8% 3.3%
3.8% 16.1% 1.6%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2.3% 9.1% 0.9%
0.8% 7.0% 0.7%
0.5% 0.0% IINUM!
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.1% 0.7% 0.1%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.00/0 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.01% 0.01%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
27.0% 41.7% 8.0%
3.3% 12.5% : l.2%
0.0% 0.0% " 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
9.3% 24.1% 2.3%
101.8%
I Spring 2004 I
<U <U
OJ) "1:j g ;,!
~ iil_
... .- "0 oj
oj -
'" iil "'t:I .~ .~ ~ ~
~ " >
<U <U ~Q ~8.E
~ c..
2.2% 8.3%J 3.4%
O.OIYo 0.0110
0.4% 1.81% 0.8%
0.0% O.OIYo
3.21J:J 7.3~1r. 3.aoA)
39.7% 32.4%/ j 3.3'X,
0.1% O.3~, 0.1%
0.0% 0.2IX, 0.1%
0.1% 0.41% 0.2%
3.2% 13.1% 5.4%
0.0%, 0.0%,
0.4% 1.81Yo 0.8%
2.0% 7.31% 3.0%
0.6% 1.7'% 0.7%
0.0% D.OI/'(>
1.3% 6.)1:10 2.5%
1.4% 12.1{~ 5.0%
0.1 (Yo 0.2(10 0.1%
3.20;;, 5.01% 2.1%
O.4(Yu ] .41% 0.6%
0.3% O.YYo 0.1%
0.0% 0.0%, 0.0%
O.OIX, D.OIYo
0.0% 0.01%
0.6% 1.8IX) 0.8%
0.0% 0.011'"0
0.6(% 2.7(Yu I .1%
0.01% 0.0(%
0.4(% 1.81% 0.8%
19.1'XI 39.8% 16.4%
].0% J9.4% 8.0%
3.0(/;) 8.5110 3.50/0
0.0(% 0.01%
16.8(X) 18.5% 7.6%
97.7<'./0
Tables & Figures 2.xls Table 0-5
I
I.
I
I
II
I
I
I'
I,
I'
'I
I.
I
I
I
I
,I
I
COM
I
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-Grade Paper
Magazines
Other Paper
PET Bottles
Clear HDPE Containers
Colored HDPE Containers
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Grass
Leaves and Other Yard Waste
Wood
Textiles, Rubber, and Leather
Diapers
Unclassifiable Fines
Other OrganicslCombustibles
Steel & Bimetal Food & Beverage Cont
Aluminum Food & Beverage Container
Ferrous Metal
Non-Recycleable Metal
Other Recyclable Metal
Batteries
Clear Glass Containers
Brown Glass Containers
Green/Blue Glass Containers
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles
HHW & Special
Electronics
Roofing Material
Poured Concrete
Bricks
Blocks
Gypsum Board & Plaster
TOTAL
Table D-6
Total Landfilled Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
I Annual 1996-97 I
'" v
u
01) <=
oj v 0;;
t: "d
" '" t;:; i:
oj ~ ~ 15 v
'"
:2 '" a;u :g
c...
7.6% 1.3%
7.5% 0.7%
0.7% 0.4%
2.9% 0.4%
13.4% 1.0%
0.4% 0.]%
1.1% 0.]%
1.3% 0.]%
8.3% 1.0%
8.6% 1.4%
3.4% 0.8%
]4.7% 1.9%
1.9% 0.7%
5.0% 0.8%
3.5% 0.5%
3.6% 0.3%
1.5% 0.3%
2.4% 0.3%
1.2% 0.1%
1.4% 0.6%
0.5% 0.4%
0.3% 0.6%
0.]% 0.1%
1.5% 0.2%
0.5% 0.3%
0.4% 0.]%
5.2% 0.5%
0.0% -
0.0% -
0.4% 0.7%
0.4% 0.4(%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% -
0.3% 0.7%
100.0% -
Spring/Sum
v '"
u
01) "
oj '" 0;;
t: ."
" '" ;:( <.;:: i':
oj ~ " '"
v 0
:2 v 0 0 :g
c... a-, U
9.8% 1.5%
4.2% 1.0'Yo
2.1% 0.7%
2.0% 0.4 (yo
12.8O/', 1.1%
1.]% 0.2%
0.6% 0.1%
0.5% 0.1%
12.8% 1.1%
11.8% 0.9%
2.4% 2.0%
7.3% 2.4%
9.5% 0.8%
2.9% 0.9%
1.9% 0.7%
1.50,4, 0.3%
2.7% ].0%
1.4% 0.1%
0.8% 0.2%
1.9% 0.51}'O
0.2% 0.2%
0.3% 0.1%
0.0% 0.0%
1.]% 0.4%
0.4% 0.]%
0.1% 0.2%
1.3% 0.5%
0.3% 0.2%
0.8% 0.5%
2.3% 5.5%
0.2% 2.7%
0.7% 1.2%
0.1% 0.2%
2.1% 2.5%
100.0%
'" '"
01) u
"
oj v 0;;
C ."
" '" <.;:: i':
oj ~ ;:( <= v
'" ~8
:2 '" E-
c...
9.8% 1.5%
4.3% 1.0%
2.1 (Yo 0.7%
2.0% 0.4%
12.7% 1.1%
1.1% 0.2%
0.6% 0.1%
0.5% 0.1%
12.8% 1.1%
12.0% 0.9%
2.4% 2.0%
7.5% 2.4%
9.3% 0.8%
2.9% 0.9%
1.9% 0.7%
1.5% 0.3%
2.8% 1.0%
].4% 0.1%
0.8% 0.2%
1.9% 0.5%
0.2% 0.2%
0.3% 0.1%
0.0% 0.0%
1.1% 0.4%
0.4% 0.1%
0.1% 0.2%
1.3% 0.5%
0.3% 0.2%
0.8% 0.5%
2.2% 0.1%
0.1% 0.1%
0.7% 0.8%
0.]% 0.2%
2.0% 0.2%
100.0%
Section 1-4 Tables & Figures.xls Table D-6
~[
c
c
-_. . -.- ._. ~ -
c
c
[
O~
C
,[
C
:L
'e
,[
[
l
-.. c .~.;
[. .
"
"J' :
, ,,:,
'."-;
'.,-,',
;.>
J.
,[;
1\'
,'~ \' "
-,:..,
-'5
,''',."
.).'
. , .
[" ....
. ~ ,- -~
\ .. -
;-\..' ,
.e.
" .i:" >'"
'-
.".....
"
"
:-'.~', .
,,','
.:'<:,'
.' I
1",
f,.:
'C":.'
. .
~.
,'.-'
(',' '
.~
",.,',
-,,-,
[.
(.
" , ,-\
.> .
';.,"
,-;
\.
..:..L-.....
. .' .
.,
",-I,
. "
, t
.1' ,(
.."",i' ....'
:'>~
"',_".t;':
c".,
." _; ',f
I.
, .
",,',
:0.'.
;("
;"C',
..
. ~ '<..:-
-\ '-,
. .,
L
""- .
'I'
.~
.[
,"co .-~. <,'
, . ,/
,e
y c'~'-} <'
.-,
,"
-[
)
,-,.r}
,:,1
"
. ~ '1:.
.C':,
"
J .~'.
, .':..~.
)' ~; ,
~.~ .
. "
<.'
"
.'<-..
i[
'. -
<'C"
:- :
'J'
} ~..,
.]0t")h.'~~.e.........~. /t:.d
.'. :~Y.I.,'cll..I.J. V
.c,
~ ,;.
'r"
", ,~
" -'.:,
.i
: ~:
'f~'
L..<
;: ,
,.' .'
,.,
"..:,..-
".-r:.
,'.
l~
;,,-
'--j
.',( '.'-.
.--;
,.'-
',.,
~-'-- "
,f- ~\
;":>'
.--t;.'
/". '.
,.,
,:'"
;:~[''-;
l.r
-L .'
" ,
, \.'
. . '
'. .
",~ '
~. . ..
;..,","
J,':/,
), I >,-,"1
~\
......
'i"
"'.I
,;' ,
h'
<,.f
',;
~ .'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION.. ........... .... ............... ....... ............................. ...... .......... ..... .......... ....... ...... 1-1
1.1 Purpose of Report................. ~.......................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Scope of Work ..... .................. ......... ..... ...................... ........... ........... ..... ..... ......... ............. 1-1
1.3 Report Structure............................................................................................................... 1-2
2.0 WASTE GENERATION AND COLLECTION PRACTICES....................................... 2-1
2.1 Waste Generation Rates. .... ..... ................. ............. .... ........ ....... ....... ....... .............. ............ 2-1
2.2 Waste Collection Practices ........................ ........ ... ...... ........ ......... ............ ....... .......... ....... 2-1
2.3 Sources To Be Sampled ...... ..... ............... ........ .............. ....... ................... ..... .................... 2-3
3.0 COMPOSITION SAMPLING EVENTS ..... .......... ...... ........ ........... .......... ............ ............. 3-1
3.1 De~ign of Sampling Program .......... ...................... ..... ...... ........ ..... ................... ...... .... ...... 3-1
3.2 Sampling Method. .................... .............. ....... ...... .................. ...... ............... ..... ................. 3-1
3.3 Accepting/Rejecting Samples ....................... ........... ............ ......... ....... ... ..... ........ ... ......... 3-4
3 .4 Waste Category Definitions ............... ..... .............. ........... ............ ............. ..... ...... ...... ...... 3-4
3.5 Safety .............................................................................................................................. . 3-6
4.0 FINDINGS PRESENTATION ...........................................................................................4-1
4.1 Data Analysis................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Reporting....... .......... ....... ........ ....................... ......... ... .... ..... ....... ............ ..... ........ .............. 4-1
APPENDIX A - FIELD INFORMA nON FORMS
APPENDIX B - RELEASE FORMS
APPENDIX C - HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Section 1
Introduction
The City of Salina is in the process of implementing a pilot curbside recycling
program within the City of Salina. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and
quantify statistically significant changes, if any, in the waste stream due to the
implementation of the curbside recycling program. In order to determine significant
changes in the waste stream, it is important to first update the estimates of the
quantity and composition of wastes that are being currently disposed of at the City of
Salina Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility (Salina MSWLF). The waste
composition was previously determined in 1997 and documented in the City of Salina
Waste Characterization Study Final Report dated August 1997. To assess the effects of
the curbside recycling program, the City of Salina has contracted with Camp Dresser
& McKee Inc. (CDM) to conduct a characterization study of the waste stream prior to
implementation of the pilot recycling program and after implementation of the pilot
recycling program. This work plan is a description of CDM's approach to conducting
the study.
1.1 Purpose of Report
The purpose of this waste characterization study is to provide data to the City of
Salina for use in the determining the effectiveness of a pilot program for curbside
recycling. The following data are required to accomplish these ends:
. waste composition by weight percentages prior to implementation of the pilot
curbside recycling program;
. waste composition by weight percentages after implementation of the pilot
curbside recycling program.
Examples of the use of this data include: determining what types of materials will be
targeted for source reduction and recycling efforts; and determining what impacts
these efforts :will have on the total waste stream. The data could also be used in
determining facility sizes and specific facility equipment needs such as sizes of balers
for a recycling facility, and size and financial impacts on the landfill resulting from
waste reduction and recycling programs.
1.2 Scope of Work
The following tasks will be conducted to achieve the goals of the study:
. Design of waste characterization program including identification of waste
collection and hauling companies utilizing the Salina MSWLF;
. Performance of two sampling events over two seasons (sampling refers to the
selection of specific samples of waste from within vehicles selected for
sampling: sorting refers to the separation of waste samples obtained from the
selected vehicles);
1-1
P:\8558salina\waste study\Work Plan\Final\Section1.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 1
Introduction
. Visual characterization of bulky, landscape, construction/ demolition, and
industrial waste;
. Preparation of interim report of findings after the spring sampling event; and
. Preparation of final study report.
1.3 Report Structure
This document will discuss the following information:
.
Waste Generation and Collection Practices (Section 2)
.
Composition Sampling and Sorting Events (Section 3)
Findings Presentation (Section 4)
Field Information Forms (Appendix A)
Release Form (Appendix B)
.
.
.
.
Health & Safety Plan (Appendix C)
1-2
P:\8558salina\waste stooy\Work Plan\FinaI\Section1.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 2
Waste Generation and Collection Practices
2.1 Waste Generation Rates
Based on the information provided to CDM by the City, the quantity of waste from
Saline County being landfilled at the Salina MSWLF was determined. The Salina
MSWLF tipping records from Fiscal Year 2003 were used to develop this information.
A summary of Saline County waste quantities is provided in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1
Breakdown of Saline County LandfiIIed Waste Quantities by Material Type
January 1, 2003 through
Type of Waste December 31, 2003
Tons %
Residential 25,183.06 36.89%
Concrete 351.93 0.52%
Landscape 348.43 0.51%
Commercial 18,979.31 27.80%
Industrial 12,800.34 18.75%
Construction/ 6,966.32 10.21 %
Demolition
Medical 53.78 0.08%
Other Metal 139.70 0.20%
Agricultural 82.91 0.12%
Misc. Waste 3,354.86 4.91%
Total 68,260.64 100.00%
2.2 Waste Collection Practices
CDM's first task in determining the composition of Saline County waste landfilled at
the Salina MSWLF was determining the collection practices in the county. The
information collected included waste haulers, number of trucks, collection service
areas, and waste quantities landfilled per hauler. The list of haulers, routes, and
quantities landfilled were compiled from landfill records and CDM's discussion with
haulers (see Table 2-2).
2-1
P:\855Bsalina\waste study\Work Plan\Final\Section2.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
Section 2
Waste Generation and Collection Practices
Table 2-2
Saline County Hauling Companies
Phone Number of Landfilled
Hauler Number Trucks Collection Service Area Quantity
(Tons)
City of (785) 826-7395 10 Rear Residential - Salina 14,378
Salina Loaders (21.06% )
Salina 4 Rear Loaders Residential-Salina & Townships 36,026
Waste (785) 825-9155 3 Front Loaders Commercial-Salina & Townships (52.78)
Systems 3 Roll-Offs Industrial-Salina & Townships
Salina Iron (785) 826-9838 1 Front Loaders Commercial-Salina & Townships 3,479
& Metal 1 Roll-Offs Industrial-Salina & Townships (5.10% )
Peterson (785) 225-6704 1 Rear Loader Residential-Townships 343
Refuse Commercial-Salina (0.50% )
Gimenson 1 Rear Loaders Residential-Townships 389
------- Commercial-Townships (0.57% )
Harris & Residential-Salina & Townships
Son Trash 4,545
and (785) 823-3996 2 Rear Loader Commercial-Salina & Townships (6.66%)
Recycling 1 Roll-Off Industrial-Salina & Townships
The objective of the waste collection survey is to help assure CDM select samples that
represent the characteristics of the generators in the city and county. This is to assure
the waste chosen for sorting should not come from only one part of the county or
from only one waste stream. Therefore, the quantities of waste generated in the
county (residential, commercial etc.), and the collection routes of the haulers (both
public and private) must be established.
Based on discussions with the identified haulers, CDM determined the individual
companies' hauling routes and service areas as shown in Table 2-2 and depicted in
Figure 2-1. For the most part, Salina's residential waste is collected by the City of
Salina Department of Public Works (about 80%) and Salina Waste Systems (about
CDIII
2-2
P:\8558salina\waste study\Wort<. Plan\Final\Section2.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDtt
Section 2
Waste Generation and Collection Practices
20%), with a small percentage of the Salina residential waste collected by Harris &
Son Trash and Recycling. This is the extent of the City's waste hauling operations,
hauling only within Salina city limits and only from residential houses and apartment
buildings with 3 or fewer units.
The residential hauling routes for both the City's trucks and Salina Waste Systems are
the similar (as shown in Figure 2-1) in order to decrease confusion to customers with
separate pick up days.
Commercial and industrial waste collection throughout the county, as well as
residential waste outside the City of Salina, is performed solely by private hauling
companies. Salina Waste Systems and Salina Iron and Metal collect the majority of
the commercial stops in Salina, while Salina Waste Systems handles most of the
commercial and industrial collections throughout the county. Much of the waste
generated in the townships of Saline County (outside Salina) is collected by smaller
hauling companies.
Waste collected in the county is typically disposed at the Salina MSWLF. Any truck
that has mechanized tipping capabilities brings its waste directly to the active
disposal area at the landfill. Other trucks may dispose their refuse at one of four 30-
cubic yard containers in the convenience area located adjacent the scale house. This
area typically receives large quantities of landscaping and construction/ demolition
material.
2.3 Sources To Be Sampled
The source of the samples was determined based on the discussions with haulers and
the City of Salina. COM identified which collection routes will be sampled based on
the estimated waste quantities collected, type of waste collected (residential,
commercial, etc), and the collection route. However, we will maintain the flexibility
to adjust the sources based on field observations and discussions with haulers as the
material is delivered. As the trucks enter the city landfill, a solid waste professional
from COM will identify the trucks to be sampled as well as provide direction to the
scale operator. COM may interview the driver to confirm the source of the materials
in the truck. COM will then identify the sample within the delivered load and direct
staff to collect the material and initiate sampling: Each sample will be collected from
a randomly selected location in the load. The person who identifies the samples is
referred to in this protocol as the "sample collector."
The quantities and composition of other materials such as sludges and petroleum
products will be determined through interviews with haulers and generators. This
material cannot be sampled it is we assumed the material is delivered erratically, and
poses different health and safety issues.
Standard procedure for determining the number of samples to be collected during a
waste stream characterization study involves apportioning the total number of
2-3
P:\8558salina\waste study\Work Plan\FinaI\Section2.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDIII
Section 2
Waste Generation and Collection Practices
samples to be collected in the study to the waste stream portions by their respective
percentages of the whole. For example, if 100 samples were to be collected during a
study and the waste stream being sampled consisted of 70 percent residential waste
and 30 percent commercial and institutional waste, then 70 samples would be
collected from the residential waste stream and 30 samples would be collected from
the commercial and institutional portion. The number of samples required to provide
an accurate estimate for the study area is dependent on the size and characteristics of
the study area. For this study, 40 to 50 samples each are to be collected during each of
the two 5-day sorting events.
The annual weights of the various waste streams estimated in Section 2.1 from the
Salina MSWLF records were used to apportion the number of samples to be collected
in this study. Data showed approximately a 4 to 3 ratio (1.3:1) of residential to
commercial waste for Saline County. Therefore, CDM will sample 23 to 28 residential
and 17 to 22 commercial trucks during each of the sorting events. The city residential
samples will be taken primarily from City and Salina Waste trucks during all days of
the week so that all areas are sampled. Since there are small quantities of refuse being
generated in the townships, generally all township collection routes will be sampled.
Most of the commercial waste to be sampled will be from front and rear loading
collection vehicles which collect waste from multiple smaller commercial businesses.
The larger commercial customers using large capacity roll-off containers will typically
not be sampled so that the results will not be skewed from one load. However, these
loads will be visually examined during tipping on the landfill in order to determine
an approximate volume percentage of materials. This visual estimation procedure
will also be done for industrial and construction/ demolition (C/D) loads, which are
most commonly from Tony's Pizza (typically unmanageable food waste).
2-4
P:\8558salina\waste study\Work Plan\Final\Section2.doc
I
I
I
I
10
c
I~
I
Ii
.0
I
I~
v
;,j.
I~
o
"-
lfl
10
I~
<I:
Z
I~
1/
>-
Cl
~
I~
~
/
I~
Iii
I
-I
COM
-
-
Glendale
~
~ I,l
GLENOALE
l~ersan - Wednesday
I"
r ,
~I
~
~j
I ,
I ..,
'-' f
I--
lJ
r----
Spr.i.!l9 Cr eek
'\
)
J
L
~
(
BRO~ILL~ l
IPetersa1 t Thursday)
I ~
5V-.
,... -- - - - ~~.- - -.... ..... -
,
,
HE~ ,
,
, Resldentla, - Frlc y-..
JISallna Wast - Th rsday) ,
,
.
,
, JI
1
J
f
I Ohi
\
,.
~
Ir::~
I~~~RI
!Selina Wa,ste I-
I/V I~
r
\ Washill9'
-m)
n
=-- r I ;/
T \
-y
L
-
~ *~
ISall ' s e - Fr day)
Falun
"-
l I
u.. r
I I I ~
-
!
III es dentLaL =---Wed esd
eSlCle~ - ues a
hursda )
.. "",:",._~.
-
CIT'Y OF S~L1NA
LANDF~ Sr alan
~,Y ~prrN
$q~ISl-~~ an-=...f; Iday'
-
SmOky View
,
i EN 0
i IS, Ilna W ste I
, ~anda II
~
- _.. ~ ..
!
\ rBR)pGE~~
~t~I~;~~;:)t~ !
, I
r ,CambrIa
Sollna Wa~te - WednesClay)
-
~ -
r ~
1 ,-
i
I
I
Day tan j .
, (
I--
i,NEW tA BRIA ~ I I
-, allf'la ast!. i I
1- Monday)
--.:! (
I ~f- I -
.-
L
I Sola an
Residential Thursd y ,
'- esldentla - Man ay
II
Walnu
j
II I
I
, I
" '
l
l.ibe 1'1
I
- -
()rn y
~
~
GlmenS~ dneSdC1y)
I
Eure~..
I~
)
f-
-
L.
) ~eM I
ISoLlna Wa'te - F Iday)
-
\
~
!
( J
I
-
\ Gyps
~
-
-
-
-~
- I I -
I ,
\
"'
f-
r
~
~
LEGEND
~ MONDAY ROUTES
~ TUESDAY ROUTES
~ WEDNESDAY ROUTES
~ THURSDAY ROUTES
~ FRIDAY ROUTES
NOTE:
HAULING ROUTE AREAS
ARE APPROXIMATE
Rgure No. 2-1
RESIDENTIAl & COMMERCiAl COLLECTION ROUTES
SAliNE COUNTY HAULERS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
/
Section 3
Composition Sampling Events
3.1 Design of Sampling Program
Waste characterization field work will be performed over two periods: May 2004 and
November 2004, corresponding to prior to and after implementation of the city's pilot
recycling program. The length of each sort will be five days, Monday through Friday.
Field work will not be scheduled for any period that includes a day on which waste is
not collected because of a holiday or other special event.
Sampling and sorting, if possible, will be conducted in the maintenance building of
the Salina MSWLF, as it is preferable to have a paved or other controlled surface.
The selection of the specific solid waste samples is based on the random sampling of
pre-determined loads from selected collection routes (see Section 2.3 for a discussion
of vehicle route selection procedures). Although materials disposed of in the landfill's
convenience area will not be sorted, CDM will periodically monitor these containers
throughout the sampling events as part of the visual estimation of bulky materials.
All loads entering the Salina MSWLF will be surveyed by use of a standardized check
sheet (see "Gate Form" in Appendix A) ""hich is to be completed by the scale house
employee or CDM sample collector.
3.2 Sampling Method
This section describes the following steps required to characterize waste through
sampling and sorting:
. Selection of trucks to sample
. Collection of samples from the selected trucks
. Sorting the samples
. Weighing the sorted waste and recording the results
'1
3.2.1 Selection of Trucks to Sample
The field work will be performed from May 17 through May 21, 2004 and during one
week in November at the Salina MSWLF. Table 2-1 shows the ratio of residential and
commercial samples based on the Saline County landfilled quantities. Section 2.3
discussed the targeted ratio of sources to be sampled.
The CDM sampling coordinator will maintain communication with Salina MSWLF
personnel during the sorting event. Trucks carrying residential and commercial
waste (or a mixture) will be identified and, where possible, the area where the waste
was collected will be identified.
3-1
P:\8558salina\waste study\Work Plan\Final\Section3.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
mill
Section 3
Composition Sampling Events
3.2.2 Collection of Samples from the Selected Trucks
A single grab sample will be collected from a single location in each selected load of
waste, immediately after each selected truck dumps its load at the landfill tipping
area. A front-end loader will collect the samples from the landfill tipping area and
deposit them next to the sorting area. The CDM sampling coordinator will help the
front-end loader operator learn what a sample of approximately 200 pounds to 250
pounds looks like (approximately a 4-foot by4-foot by 2-foot load).
Samples collected by large front-end loaders tend to be too large. If a sample
deposited next to the sorting area appears excessively large, CDM personnel will
remove material from the far side of the sample until the remaining pile appears to
weigh approximately 250 pounds. The remaining pile will be the sample for purposes
of this study.
3.2.3 Sorting the Samples
Sorting will be conducted in the maintenance building of Salina MSWLF. The sorting
operation will proceed as follows:
. The CDM sampling coordinator/supervisor will fill out a data form which will
include the sample number, the date, the area where the sample was collected, the
time of arrival of the sampled truck, and whether the sampled load was residential
or commercial. The data form is shown in Appendix A.
. The sample will be unloaded from the front-end loader bucket onto the
maintenance building floor next to the sorting area.
. Prior to manually sorting waste or transferring waste to a sorting table, the waste
should be spread apart in the area it is deposited. Visual observation of the waste
prior to manually sorting is critical to worker safety. The potential for cuts, scrapes,
and puncture wounds exists if workers grab armloads of waste or stick hands
deeply into waste. All unopened bags of waste will be opened using care not to be
cut or scraped. Bags will be broken open using shovels or similar long handled
tools or by puncturing an area of the bag where waste is not located. The sample
should be transferred to the sorting table using a shovel and further spread out
using hand-held tools to allow a visual observation of its contents.
. Large items (e.g., corrugated cardboard, wood) and bags containing a single waste
category (most often yard waste) will be removed from the sample and set aside for
weighing, bypassing the sorting box.
. The remainder of the sample will be transferred by increments into the sorting box,
using broad-bladed shovels to transfer loose material.
. Each sample of waste will be sorted by hand into 34 categories (listed in Section
3.4)
3-2
P:\855Bsalina\waste study\Work Plan\Final\Section3.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 3
Composition Sampling Events
. The waste will be sorted into the containers surrounding the sorting box. The
sorting supervisor will check the containers periodically for accuracy of sorting.
. The containers should remain as free from extraneous debris such as mud, ice, and
snow as possible to avoid changes in the tare weight. It may be necessary to
periodically clean the containers.
. Regularly, the sort supervisors will check the containers into which waste is being
sorted to ensure that the sorting is being performed properly.
. Sorting will continue until only a few pounds of the smallest pieces from the
sample remain on the screen. Care will be taken to sort small pieces of broken glass
and ceramic into their appropriate categories.
. If a significant number of ferrous metal items such as bottle caps remain on the
screen, they will be removed by passing a large magnet back and forth just above
the screen~
. Because food waste is by far the messiest of the sample categories, the sorting team
will use the same container for food waste during the entire study. As food residue
builds upon these containers, the tare weight used in calculating the net weight of
the food waste will be adjusted.
3.2.4 Weighing the Sorted Waste and Recording the Results
After each sample is sorted, the sorted waste will be weighed and the results recorded
as follows.
. The containers will be brought to the scale, checked for accuracy of sorting, and
weighed.
. The weight of the waste in each container will be recorded in the appropriate space
on the data form.
. Comments on the characteristics of the material may need to be recorded following
visual analysis.
. The containers will be dumped back on the floor of the maintenance building for
disposal by the facility operator.
Six City of Salina workers will perform most of the sorting. Three CDM personnel
will work with the sorters to help improve the sorters' technique and understanding
of the waste categories.
When sorting and collection of the fines are complete, the sorters will bring the
containers to the weighing area. As each container is placed on the scale, the sort
supervisor will look into the container to see which category of waste is in the
3-3
P:\8558salina\waste study\WOrk Plan\FinaI\SectionJ.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDII
Section 3
Composition Sampling Events
container and to check for items that do not belong to that category. CDM will use
sorting containers with individual tare weights that vary no more than 2 percent from
their average tare weight. It will therefore be unnecessary to use the individual tare
weights. If the sorted waste in a container weighs very little in proportion to the
container, the waste will be removed from the container and weighed loose. If the
material in the container is satisfactory, the sort supervisor will read the gross weight
of the container and contents and record it in the appropriate spot on the "Data Form
for Waste Samples" (see Appendix A) supplied for that sample by the sample
collector.
At the end of each day of field work, CDM will remove the completed data forms
from the site and store them in a safe place. CDM will make copies of the data forms
as soon as possible. After completing the field work, CDM will transfer the
information from the data forms into computer spreadsheets (Microsoft Excel). The
original data forms will be retained as a permanent record of the field activity.
3.3 AcceptinglRejecting Samples
The supervisor will have the responsibility for accepting or rejecting loads for sorting.
Reasons for rejecting loads include, but are not limited to, the following:
. Unidentifiable contents,
. Hazardous waste or materials posing a safety hazard,
. Hospital waste, and
. Materials soaked in a liquid other than rain OTwater.
If such a load is identified, it will be reported to the facility manager for removal from
the sampling area.
3.4 Waste Category Definitions
This section defines the 34 waste categories to be used in the study. The results of the
study should not be interpreted without reference to these category definitions.
Definitions of the waste categories used in the current study follow.
3.4.1 Paper
Corrugated cardboard and kraft paper. Cardboard with a rippled inner layer that creates
small tube-like passages through the cardboard. Includes waxed corrugated
cardboard and corrugated cardboard with a glossy outer layer. Also includes kraft
paper, a heavy brown paper of the type used to construct corrugated cardboard
(primarily grocery bags).
Newsprint. Anything printed on the type of paper generally used for newspapers,
including advertising inserts printed on newsprint.
3-4
P:\855Bsalina\waste.study\WOrK Plan\FinaJ\Section3.doc
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Section 3
Composition Sampling Events
High Grade paper. White and colored uncoated bond paper and computer printout
paper including photocopy/printer paper and ledger paper. Includes canceled
checks. Does not include envelopes with plastic windows, carbon paper~ or paper
used in multi copy carbonless forms (sometimes called "NCR forms").
Magazines and other glossy paper. Magazines, catalogs and books with glossy pages
and soft covers, and similar high-grade glossy paper.
Other paper. All paper that does not fit any of the paper categories defined above.
3.4.2 Plastic
Clear HDPE (high density polyethylene) containers. Translucent plastic milk, water and
juice containers, and certain personal hygiene products.
Colored HDPE (high density polyethylene) containers. Pigmented (white or colored)
HDPE containers for beverages, cleaning products such as detergents, cleaning
products, and certain personal hygiene products. Does not include 5-gallon buckets.
PETE (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles and jars. Clear and green plastic carbonated
soft drink bottles, plus plastic bottles and jars identifiable as PETE based on labeling
or a mold-mark in the center of the bottom of the container. Does not include "beer
balls." Weight includes food residue on the surface of the containers (containers are
emptied prior to weighing, but not washed out).
Other plastic. All plastic other than PETE bottles and jars and HDPE bottles and jugs
as defined above. Includes plastic clothing such as unlined vinyl raincoats.
3.4.3 Yard Waste
Grass clippings. Clippings from mowing lawns and fields.
Leaves and other yard waste. Leaves, shrub and garden trimmings, uprooted plants and
shrubs, weeds, grasses pulled up with the roots, pine needles and cones, tree branches
and twigs, vegetative ground litter, and dirt that cannot readily be separated from the
plant material. Also includes indoor plants and cut flowers.
3.4.4 Other Combustible/Organic Materials
Wood. Most forms of wood not included in the definition of 11 other yard waste"
above. Includes wood that has been processed for use in a structure or manufactured
product, plus wood waste generated during wood processing or woodworking.
Includes both lumber and reconstituted wood such as plywood, particle board,
composition board, and chip board. Includes packing crates and pallets. Also
includes sawdust, wood shavings, cork and wicker.
Food waste. All items produced or gathered for use as food, including the inedible
portions. Includes bones and shells if interspersed with other food waste. In practice,
3-5
P:\8558salina\waste study\Work Plan\FinaI\Sedion3.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
mM
Section 3
Composition Sampling Events
some food waste becomes part of the fines category. Food waste includes coffee
grounds, but a substantial portion of coffee grounds are found in the fines category.
Does not include cooking oils when discarded separately.
Textiles, rubber and leather. All clothing and fabrics. Includes rugs and carpeting,
drapes, towels, and bedding. Natural and synthetic rubber and leather, plus some
materials that are technically plastics but are have rubber-like characteristics and are
commonly thought of as rubber, such as polyurethane foam. This category includes
most shoes.
Disposable diapers and sanitary products. Infant and adult disposable diapers, sanitary
absorbent pads, and tampons.
Other organics/combustibles. Organic/combustible materials not included in any other
category, including soap, ceiling tile, and charcoal. Includes animal feces not mixed
with cat litter. Also includes composite objects with substantial combustible/ organic
components, such as mattresses and box springs, roofing shingles, tar paper, vinyl
flooring, automotive air filters and filters used in heating and air-conditioning
systems.
3.4.5 Metal
Aluminum food and beverage containers. Food and beverage cans made entirely of
aluminum. Includes most soda and beer cans as well as aluminum pet food cans.
Does not include aluminum aerosol spray cans or bimetal (aluminum and steel) cans.
Steel and bimetal food and beverage containers. Food and beverage containers with steel
sides, including those commonly called"tin cans." Includes detached tops if made of
steel. Also includes cans with steel sides and attached aluminum tops, such as some
soda cans. Weight includes food residue on the surface of the cans (cans are emptied
prior to weighing, but not washed out).
Ferrous metal. All iron based objects other than tin-steel and bimetal cans as defined
above. Includes steel trash cans, steel furniture, wire hangers, the steel parts of
electrical and electronic devices, and a large number of other items. Includes paint
cans, steel aerosol spray cans, and the type of can in which paint thinner is typically
sold.
Other recyclable metal. Metal not included in the definitions of "aluminum food and
beverage containers" and "steel and bimetal food and beverage containers" above, or
the definition of "batteries" below, for which a substantial and reliable recycling
market exists. Generally includes any significant object consisting of aluminum,
brass, or copper, but usually not a mixture of these metals. Includes many steel and
aluminum cans not included in the metal container categories above or the
"household hazardous and special waste" category below. Includes metal most
P:\8558salina\waste study\Work Plan\Final\Section3.doc
3-6
I
I,
'I
I,
I
I
,I
I
I
I,
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
COM
Section 3
Composition Sampling Events
cookware, aluminum catering trays, clean aluminum foil, and clean aluminum oven
pans.
Nonrecyclable metal. All metal not included in the four metal categories above or in the
"batteries" or "household hazardous and special waste" below. Includes significantly
contaminated aluminum foil and oven pans. Includes many items that are composites
of different metals such as electric motors, lawn mowers, and bicycles.
3.4.6 Other Noncombustiblejlnorganic Materials
Clear glass containers. Glass containers with no color or tint in the glass. Includes caps
left on empty containers by the consumer. Weight includes food residue on the
surface of the glass (containers are emptied prior to weighing, but not washed out).
Does not include ceramics, drinking glasses, glass plates, cooking utensils, ash trays,
decorative glass containers, vases, perfume bottles, or containers for cosmetic
products.
Brown glass containers. Glass containers with brown or amber color or tint in the glass,
however faint. Includes caps left on empty containers by the consumer. Weight
. includes food residue on the surface of the glass (containers are emptied prior to
weighing, but not washed out). Does not include ceramics, drinking glasses, glass
plates, cooking utensils, ash trays, decorative glass containers, vases, perfume bottles,
or containers for cosmetic products.
Greenjblue glass containers. Glass containers with a blue, green or emerald color or tint
in the glass, however faint. Includes caps left on empty containers by the consumer.
Weight includes food residue on the surface of the glass. (containers are emptied prior
to weighing, but not washed out). Does not include ceramics, drinking glasses, glass
plates, cooking utensils, ash trays, decorative glass containers, vases, perfume bottles,
or containers for cosmetic products.
Other inorganicsjnoncombustibles. Inorganic/noncombustible materials not included in
any of the categories above, or in "batteries" or "household hazardous and special
waste" below. Includes fiberglass insulation, flat glass, cat litter and associated
materials, light bulbs, ceramics, dirt, ash, sand, stones, and gravel.
3.4.7 Miscellaneous
Household hazardous and special waste. Materials that are toxic and/ or require special
handling, and are not included in any other category such as "batteries" or
"electronics" below. InCludes toxic liquids and powders and their containers. Also
includes tires and asbestos shingles. Does not include metal objects containing lead,
which are included in "other recyclable metal" above. Materials in this category will
be catalogued by type (lubricating oils, pesticides, flammable aerosols, etc.).
Electronics. All objects containing a circuit board of significant size relative to the size
of the object.
P:\855Bsalina\waste study\Work Plan\Finaf\Section3.doc
3-7
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
,I:
'I
I
I,
I
I
I,
I
CDI
Section 3
Composition Sampling Events
Batteries. All batteries, catalogued by type (alkaline/carbon-zinc, nickel-cadmium,
sealed lead-acid, lead-acid vehicle, etc.).
Unclassifiable fines. Materials that pass through the half-inch mesh screen on the
bottom of the sorting box, plus items that do not pass through the screen but are too
small to sort efficiently. The largest components of the material that passes through
the screen are dust and dirt, small bits of food (including coffee grounds), and cat
litter. The principal components of the fine material that does not pass through the
screen are broken glass and small pieces of food and "other paper." When possible
based on examination of the fines, they are allocated among other categories such as
"other inorganics/noncombustibles," "food waste," and "other paper."
Roofing materials. All roof covering materials that do not fall within one of the other
categories. Includes asphalt roofing shingles and roofing felt (often called tar paper).
Also includes plywood and any kind of composition board if coated with tar for use
as a roof covering.
Poured concrete. All concrete except concrete blocks.
Bricks. Bricks and associated mortar.
Blocks. Concrete blocks, cinder blocks, cement blocks, and associated mortar.
Gypsum board and plaster. Includes loose plaster and gypsum based wallboard
commonly referred to by the trade names" sheetrock" or "drywall."
3.5 Safety
The approved CDM Solid Waste Characterization Health and Safety Plan (see
Appendix C) will be followed during the solid waste sampling and sorting event. A
copy of the plan should be carefully reviewed by all participants prior to beginning
any sampling and sorting activities. The plan should be reviewed with the landfill
supervisor for coordination of safety procedures on-site. All personnel not employed
by CDM will be sign the release form provided in Appendix B.
A training session will be conducted before initiating fieldwork. The session will
stress the procedures discussed in this report as well as the requirements set forth in
the Solid Waste Characterization Health and Safety Plan. The field staff will follow
the safety procedures during the waste composition sampling.
The sorting crew will, at a minimum, consist of a supervisor from CDM who is
experienced in sorting and two assistant sorters. The supervisor will record data,
instruct sorters on material identification, and discuss sample selection methods with
operators and haulers.
The supervisor will distribute gloves, safety goggles, and dust masks to each crew
member. Any other personal safety equipment will be supplied by others. The
3-8
P:\8558salina\waste study\Work Plan\Final\Section3.doc
I
~I
~I
I,
'I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
,I
I,
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 3
Composition Sampling Events
supervisor will be responsible for ensuring that all safety equipment as described in
the Solid Waste Characterization Health and Safety Plan is at the site and that the Plan
is followed.
3-9
P:\8558salina\waste study\Work Plan\FinaI\Section3.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
,I
I.
I
I
I
mil
Section 4
Findings Presentation
4.1 Data Analysis
The weight data collected for each material in each sample are used to calculate
percentages of the materials by weight in relation to the total weight of each sample.
The percentage data for each material in each sample will be used to calculate mean
material percentages in relation to the respective waste streams being sampled
For the spring sampling event composition data set the mean will be developed for
each material category. The standard deviation from the sample mean and 90-percent
confidence intervals will also be calculated for each material category. The standard
deviation from the sample mean for each material type will be calculated to assess the
variability of the samples. A higher standard deviation value indicates greater
variation in the data.
The 90-percent confidence interval for the percentage of each material in the waste
stream is calculated to provide a range of percentages for each material that could be
expected to contain the actual mean percentage of the material during the sampling
event with a 90-percent statistical probability. The confidence interval is assumed to
be accurate in the absence of sampling and sorting errors and with the assumption
. that the results for the individual samples are normally distributed. This assumption
of normal distribution is not completely accurate but is generally reasonable for most
waste categories.
It can be expected that material categories with the largest confidence intervals in
proportion to their percentage in the samples are categories such as high-grade paper
and other landscape waste, which are generally concentrated in a relatively small
number of samples. Conversely, waste categories with the smallest confidence
intervals in proportion to their percentage in the samples are categories such as other
paper and food waste, which are generally found in significant quantities in nearly all
samples.
The results of the spring sampling event will be compared to the results of the spring
sampling event conducted in 1997. This comparison will then be used to identify the
statistically significant differences in the waste streams of 1997 and 2004. A new
annual waste stream composition for the Salina MSWLF will be developed based on
the differences in the spring waste sampling events. In addition to the new annual
waste stream composition, the spring sampling results will be used to identify the
statistically significant effects of the pilot curbside recycling program.
4.2 Reporting
The results of the first sampling event will be presented in an Interim Solid Waste
Characterization Study Report which will be submitted after completion of the May
2004 field sampling event. A summary of both sampling events will be presented in
4-1
P:\8558salina\waste study\Work Plan\Finar\Section4.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I"
"
I,
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
Section 4
Findings Presentation
the Final Solid Waste Characterization Study Report which will be submitted
following completion of the November 2004 sampling event.
CDUI
4-2
P:\8558salina\waste study\Work Plan\FinaI\Section4.doc
I:
L~
-~[
C
G
L~
"
C'
[
. ,
'C.
0-'
''',!,'
'.o<~
[
[,
.c'
.c.
.C
.,<.'..
[~
r
L~
"
t",
['
<~ - ,;;
[
" '0..
.\-,
~.
,r'-
.~
- )
r
;i'
r
,',{
, I~ _~"
/
-,
~. "','
".
(
,_J,'
.i
'.7,:- ,
-{
," ,-;:.
,.
,-,
- ' ~.
:,1
.0
Append
c-
}:
~' ".
, .
'. ~)
.7 r.
'"f._.,
) \.
t.
,v;
. f~
.,
APPENDIX A - FIELD INFORMATION FORMS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Salina MSWLF Waste Composition Data Form
,
Sample #: Date: Time: I Weather:
Source: Hauler: Vehicle: Sector:
Corrug. & kraft Newsprint High-Grade paper Magazines Other paper Wood
Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total:
Clear HOPE Colored HOPE PETE bottles Other plastic Food waste Grass Leaves and other
bottles bottles yard waste
Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total:
Textiles, rubber & Diapers/sanitary Other organics/ Steel f&b Alum. f&b Ferrous metal Other recyclable
leather combustibles containers containers metal
Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total:
Nonrecyclable Clear Glass Brown Glass Grean/Blue Other inorganics/ HHW & special Electronics
metal containers containers Glass containers noncombustibles
Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total:
Batteries Unclassifiable Roofing Materials Poured Concrete Bricks Blocks Gypsum Board
Fines and Plaster
Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total:
Notes
Total weight
of sample
I Date:
I Hauler:
I o City of Salina
Type of Vehicle:
I o Rear Loader
Landfill Routing:
I Tonnage:
I Hauling Location:
o Salina (City)
I .~ ! ,1
GATE FORM
Time:
AM / PM
o Salina Waste
o Recycle It
o Refuse & Recycle 0 Other
o Front Loader
o Roll-Off
o Pick Up
o Semi
o Landfill
ODrop Off Boxes
tons
I 0 Assaria
o Hedville
o Township (Check all below)
o Out of County
o Bavaria
o Bridgeport
o Brookville
o Falun 0 Glendale
o Gypsum
o Kipp 0 Mentor
o New Cambria
o Smolan
o Other
I Type of Waste (Check all that apply):
o Residential
o Commercial
o Industrial
o Landscape
o Other
I 0 Construction/Demolition (Describe)
I Hauler:
I o City of Salina
Type of Vehicle:
I o Rear Loader
Landfill Routing:
I Tonnage:
I Hauling Location:
o Salina (City)
o Salina Waste
o Recycle It
o Refuse & Recycle 0 Other
o Front Loader
o Roll-Off
o Pick Up
o Semi
o Landfill
o Drop Off Boxes
tons
I 0 Assaria
o Hedville
o Township (Check all below)
o Out of County
o Bavaria
o Bridgeport
o Brookville
o Falun 0 Glendale
o Gypsum
o Kipp 0 Mentor
o New Cambria
o Smolan
o Other
I Type of Waste (Check all that apply):
o Residential
o Commercial
o Industrial
o Landscape
o Other
I 0 Construction/Demolition (Describe)
I
I GA TEFORMWPD
APPENDIX B - RELEASE FORMS
',~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RELEASE FORM
I, , hereby release and hold harmless Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
(CDM) and its officers, directors, employees, subcontractors, and consultants from any and all claims,
causes of action, or liability associated with the work that I am undertaking on behalf of the CITY OF
SALINA.
Print Name
Signature
Date
RELEASE.WPD
APPENDIX C - HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
; i
''''..'"
.l , ,.'~ ..','
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
FIELD SAMPLING
SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSIS
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
EMERGENCY CONTACT: Chris Marlowe
(732) 225-7042 ext 332
(732) 313-5593 (24 Hour)
Raritan Plaza One
Edison, NJ 08818
(732) 225-7000
1. A copy of this Health and Safety Plan must be kept on site during the entire sampling event.
2. All Field Sampling staff must complete two copies of the emergency contact form, Appendix A to
this Plan. One copy of the emergency contact form for each staff person must be attached to this Plan
and kept on site during the entire sampling event. The second copy of the form must be left with the
CDM emergency contact staff at the local CDM office.
3. The following information, for each sampling site, must be completed prior to beginning the
sampling event.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Name of Landfill or Sampling Site:
Dates at Site: 5/17/2004 to 5/21/2004; 1 week in 10/2004
Fire Phone Number:
Ambulance Phone Number:
Police Phone Number:
Salina Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
911 or 785-826-7340
785-452-7161 (TAC-EMS)
911 or 785-826-7210
Nearest Hospital with Emergency Facility
Name:
Hospital Phone:
Hospital Address:
Contact Name:
Directions from site to Hospital:
Salina Regional Health Center
785-452-7000
400 S. Santa Fe, Salina, Kansas
Diana Knudson
North on Burma Road to Crawford Street,
Go right (east) to Santa Fe Avenue,
Go left (north) to Hospital (on the left)
SEE ATTACHED MAP
CDM Field Supervisor:
Name ofCDM Emergency Contact
CDM Local Office Phone:
Salina MSWLF Contact Number:
CDM Employee Contact Numbers:
Chris Martel (773) 965-0620
Chris Marlowe (Phone numbers above)
(312) 346-5000
(785) 826-7395
Shawn Shiffer
ick Simons
Signature of Health & Satefy Coordinator:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I
2.0 OVERVIEW OF FIELD SAMPLING SAFETY
I
3.0 ELIMINATION OR REDUCTION OF POTENTIAL FOR BODY CONTACT
3.1 Clothing
3.2 Hand to Mouth Contact
3.3 Accidental Exposure to Waste
I
4.0 ANTICIPATION OF POTENTIAL THREATS
4.1 Weather Conditions
4.2 Crew Visibility
4.3 Crew Behavior
4.4 General Health of Crew Members
4.5 Rejecting a Sample
4.6 Evacuation
2
5.0 VISUAL OBSERVATION OF WASTE
3
6.0 STAFF TRAINING
6.1 Training Session
6.2 Responsible Individual/CDM Field Supervisor
4
7.0 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
7.1 Responsible Party
7.2 Safety Equipment on Site
7.3 On-Site Treatment
7.4 Off-Site and Professional Medical Treatment
5
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
Equipment for Solid Waste Characterization Sampling and Sorting
Emergency Contact Form
Map of Salina (Route to Hospital)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
FIELD SAMPLING
SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The health and safety of field workers in a primary concern of CDM. This document was
developed to present guideline for personal safety during solid waste characterization studies
(also known as "waste picks") at landfills. This document will be reviewed by CDM staff
responsible for the field sampling events and the Field Supervisor. The guidelines in this
document will be reviewed during the safety and training session required of all field staff.
This document is not intended for sites containing hazardous or toxic wastes regulated under
federal or state laws.
2.0 OVERVIEW OF FIELD SAMPLING SAFETY
Field worker safety includes using all reasonable precautions to:
· eliminate or reduce the potential for body contact from solid waste and airborne waste or
"flying waste;
· anticipate potential threats to field worker safety;
permit visual observation of the solid waste prior to handling or sorting;
provide adequate information and training to enable field workers and CDM supervisory
staff to perform the sampling in a safe and responsible manner; and,
provide procedures for responding to emergencies.
3.0 ELIMINATION OR REDUCTION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR BODY CONTACT
Due to the presence of bacteria, sharps, and other potentially dangerous materials in solid
waste, the following precautions and procedures will be followed by all field workers during
all solid waste sampling events. These are intended to minimize field workers coming in
contact with solid waste and airborne solids.
3.1 Clothing
Personal Clothing All field workers are to wear: ankle length pants; socks; sturdy boots or
shoes with reinforced toes, and long sleeved, loose fitting shirts. No sandals or canvas shoes
will be worn during the sampling.
2
I
I
I
I
Safety Clothing: CDM will supply the following safety equipment: respirators or dust masks, safety
glasses, disposable or other coveralls, disposable latex gloves, and puncture resistant outer gloves
such as Best's 65NFW or Ansell-Edmont's Orange Heavyweight. All field workers are required to
wear safety glasses, coveralls, and the puncture resistant gloves during sampling and sorting.
Disposable, latex inner gloves are not required but recommended to eliminate the hand from which
the first outer glove is removed from touching the remaining dirty outer glove. Respirators or dust
masks are not required but will be present for use in the event that waste materials becomes airborne.
The employees that are in the active area of the landfill will also be required to where hard hats and
safety vests.
I
I
3.2 Hand to Mouth Contact
I
I
No eating, smoking, drinking, or application of cosmetics will be permitted during the sampling. The
crew may perform these behaviors during breaks after washing their hands, and if required by the
field supervisor, their faces.
Fresh water for drinking and hand washing will be kept at the site at all times. Breaks will be taken
regularly as indicated by weather conditions. Gloves will be removed before pouring or drinking
water.
I
I
3.3 Accidental Exposure to Waste
No crew will handle any solid waste without gloves. Accidental skin contact with waste will require
cleansing with soap and water. A wash-up station will be available at the site.
I
All crew will have a tetanus shot within ten years of the sampling. If necessary, CDM will cover the
cost of the shot for all field workers prior to beginning the sampling.
I
I
I
CDM will offer Hepatitis B immunization to all CDM crew members.
4.0 ANTICIPATION OF POTENTIAL THREATS
Working in an active landfill presents a variety of potential dangers. The following procedures are
intended to improve field worker safety.
4.1 Weather Conditions
I
Sampling will not be done in adverse weather conditions such as heavy rains, snowstorms,
thunderstorms, or winds strong enough to lift sorting barrels.
I
Fresh water and cups for drinking will be available at all times. Chairs or some place to sit will be
available at the sorting site. If the sampling occurs during the warm months, an ice chest with cold,
wet towels will be available at the sorting site. Any field worker exhibiting signs of heat exhaustion
will be immediately required to take a break.
I
I
I
3
I
I
I
4.2 Crew Visibility
I
I
The sorting site will be located in an area out of the immediate waste hauling vehicle and landfill
equipment routes. The CDM field supervisor and the landfill supervisor will jointly agree on the
sorting site. All field workers that are working in the active areas of the landfill will wear hard hats
and safety vests for visibility.
4.3 Crew Behavior
No field workers may arrive at the site under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
I
All field workers will wear personal and safety clothing as described in 3.1 above.
I
No smoking will be permitted at any time on at the sorting site.
No throwing or tossing of waste at a person will be permitted during the sampling.
I
All field workers will complete the CDM Solid Waste Sampling and Safety Training.
4.4 General Health of Crew
I
All crew members should be in good physical health.
I
I
4.5 Rejecting a Sample
I
The field supervisor will be responsible for determining if a sample is potentially hazardous or
dangerous. The sample will be rejected if it: contains potentially infectious hospital or medical waste;
is soaked in a liquid other than water; contains unidentifiable contents; contains hazardous waste or
materials posing a safety hazard; or has an unusual odor not like other solid waste. If such a load is
identified, it will be reported to the landfill supervisor for removal from the sampling area.
4.6 Evacuation
I
I
The field supervisor will be responsible for determining if circumstances warrant evacuation for the
site.
5.0 VISUAL OBSERVATION OF WASTE
I
To reduce the potential for cuts or puncture wounds, all waste will be spread out and viewed prior to
handling or sorting. The waste sample will be selected from the site via a front end loader or similar
machine. It will be deposited on a separate tarp. Waste will be spread apart using a shovel or pitch
fork. Bags will be carefully lifted to the sorting table and broken open with a shovel. A shovel will
be used to put loose waste from the sample onto the sampling table. It will be further spread out with
hand tools such as gardening trowels so that contents can be visually examined prior to handling.
I
I
No field staff will pick UP an armload of waste. No field staff will grasp or "hug" an unopened bag of
I
4
I
I
I
I
waste.
6.0 STAFF TRAINING
I
I
Understanding the procedures necessary to promote safety and knowing how to respond to an
emergency before it happens, are essential to ensuring worker safety. All field staff will participate in
a waste characterization training prior to beginning the sampling. The training will be held as close
as possible to the actual sampling and may take place during the first part of the day the sampling and
sorting begins. The training session will require no more than one to one and one-half hours.
I
6.1 Training Session
I
I
The field worker training will include:
Introduction
I
- purpose for waste characterization study
- intended use
- method of compensation (if using outside help)
- dates of sorting and rain dates
- supervisory responsibility at site
I
Sampling and Sort Procedures
- procedures described in the accompanying sorting procedure document
I
Health and Safety Plan
I
- specifics described in this plan
6.2 Responsible Individual / CDM Field Supervisor
I
I
Safety during the field work is the responsibility of the CDM Field Supervisor. The supervisor must
have previous solid waste sampling and sorting experience. The Supervisor will make project level
decisions regarding compliance with this Health and Safety Plan during field operations. The
Supervisor may temporarily suspend work if there appears to be a threat to health and safety. The
Supervisor, or one crew member, will have a current, Red Cross First Aide Training Certification.
The individual with the First Aide Certification will be considered the project Safety Coordinator.
I
The Field Supervisor will:
I
. Ensure that appropriate personal protective equipment is available and properly utilized by all field
staff during the sampling activities;
I
· Ensure that field staff are familiar with the Health and Safety Plan and trained in the work practices
necessary for safe and efficient data collection;
I
5
I
I
I
I
· Ensure that field staff are aware of potential hazards associated with site operations, such as broken
glass, heavy equipment, etc.; and,
I
. Be responsible for correcting any work practices or conditions that may result in injury to personnel
or exposure to hazardous substances.
,I
7.0 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
I
Most landfills and waste collection facilities have safety plans and procedures for the site. Prior to
beginning the sampling event, the facility supervisor will be contacted to receive site specific safety
procedures. COM staff will follow the existing procedure for handing an emergency on site. In
addition, the following COM emergency procedures will be followed.
I
For the purpose of this plan, an emergency is a situation or condition which could require temporary
suspension of sampling or field work. This includes but is not limited to: adverse weather conditions,
fires, accidents or injuries to field staff, and discovery of waste samples that contain materials which
are potentially hazardous.
I'
I
In the event of a site emergency, such as a fire or release of hazardous chemicals, the landfill's safety
coordinator or the field supervisor will instruct the crew to leave the area by the pre-planned
evacuation route. In general, COM personnel will not participate in efforts to control facility
emergenCIes.
I
7.1 Responsible Party
I
The Field Supervisor is responsible for deciding whether a situation or condition is an emergency.
The Supervisor is responsible for deciding whether the situation requires evacuation, on site medical
attention, adjustments in procedures, or off site medical attention.
I
7.2 Safety Equipment on Site
I
I
A variety of safety equipment will be kept on site throughout the sampling. Table 7 - 1 lists the
necessary safety equipment.
7.3 On Site Treatment
I
I
Minor injuries such as cuts, scrapes, and the initial stages of heat exposure, will be treated on site by
the Safety Coordinator or Field Supervisor who is trained in First Aide.
7.4 Off-site and Professional Medical Treatment
Unless the injury definitely requires first-aid only, the Field Supervisor will seek professional medical
assistance. If such an injury occurs the following procedure will be followed.
I
I
. Immediate emergency first aid treatment will be given at the site.
6
I
I
I
I
-The injured party will be transported immediately to the nearest emergency facility as identified on
the front cover of this Plan.
I
. -
-The supervisor or a member of the sort crew as designated by the Field Supervisor will call the
emergency facility to inform them of the injury and that personnel are approaching for
treatment.
I
-The CDM staff emergency contact will be called and asked to contact the person, on the emergency
contact form (A TT ACHMENT A), identified by the injured party, to be called in case of an
emergency. The CDM emergency contact is a designated individual or individuals at the local
CDM office who is available during the sampling event to receive and make emergency phone
calls for the sorting crew.
I.
I
- If the supervisor must leave the site, all field staff will stop work until a responsible CDM substitute
can arrive to supervise the sampling.
I
- If the injury was the result of a cut or puncture from a sharp or needle, the item will be retrieved and
placed in a zip-lock plastic bag for further examination or testing.
I'
- A report explaining the incident will be submitted to all interested parties including but not limited
to: CDM client officer, CDM health and safety group, CDM client contracting for the sampling,
landfill owner, and the injured party. Accident reports will be filled out where necessary.
I
I
I
I
I
1\
I.
I
I
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT A
Equipment for Solid Waste Characterization Sampling and Sorting
Personal Safety Equipment:
Dust masks
Hard hats (where required)
Safety glasses
Disposable coveralls
Disposable under-gloves (up to 5 pairs I day I worker, so workers will not touch bare hand to outer glove
after first glove is removed)
Over-gloves, puncture resistant such as Best's 65NFW or Ansell-Edmont's Orange
Safety vests (where required)
Site Safety Equipment:
Copy of Health and Safety Plan with cover sheet completed
Copy of Emergency Contact forms for each field worker
First Aid Kit containing at a minimum:
eye wash, compresses, antiseptic wipes and spray, band-aides, gauze, first aid tape, aspirin;
Vehicle to permit immediate site evacuation
Clean water and cups for drinking
Clean water and soap for washing
Ice chest with ice and wet towels (for hot weather)
Chairs or place to sit
Zip-lock plastic bags
Paper towels, rags, and tissues
Light colored tarp for shade
Portable phone
Sorting Equipment:
Copy of sampling procedure
Copy of selected trucks or routes to sample
Sampling sheet, clip board, pencil, waterproof pens
Front end loader and driver
Heavy duty cloth tarp, approximately 25' x 50'
Sand bags to hold down tarp
Sorting table (4 sawhorses and 3 sheets Yz" plywood)
Plastic sheeting
Staple gun (wi stapl~s)
Five gallon plastic buckets (20)
Shovels, pitch fork, rake, gardening hand tools
Push broom
Sorting barrels (40 residential waste polycarts)
Duct tape for labeling barrels
3' x 3' digital scale with 20-hour rechargeable battery
Camera and film
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT B
CDM Employee Emergency Contact Form
NOTE: Two copies of this form are to be completed by every field sampling worker. One copy is to be
kept at the site during the sampling event. One copy is to be left with the CDM emergency contact
person at the local CDM office.
Name:
Home Phone:
Blood Type:
Date of Last Tetanus Shot:
Date of HB-Ig Shot:
Medications Currently Taking:
Allergies to Medication:
If an emergency occurs during sampling, please contact
Name:
Phone:
Date Completed:
Signature:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT C
Map of Salina (Route to Hospital)
I ,.
,.. u
U lit
l~
," j:
'f'
I
I
I
1
I
I"
I
lilU
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
,\\ f"l'/iI.'.(:I[-ITl~/[lEl\l'\I' t:
rVIL:~ I!] 'iDll" Ssnili:l1l'~ lJRmute \lql l[-li{~SIIJJlllI:;,nn
- .-....-- ....c
o
-.
~
~,
'?
'v
:; ()~
<'~~~c:\~
u ~~w -.(-
;:. 'l
i
m.'''" I ~
'-<J_~-'-'l
'URCH'/N~.~ ~
IJJ I .,J
~ -~---i ~
1---' u
~r---=f~~~-~-
, 1'110
'" :;~ 1
~ ._HAVtlrfl \
ml Il
I -
: I, f
D~CHCnAI-~' nil. !
W[Ll~ ilDr~
Ill! ..:~ oli.n0ssv no
=..~\
:~l
'"'o:'"~...:..-
~
00 t;
~
f~ SAl.uNA LANOFllL
\11 "~~"+ ~"'- ~ SM~'~,
" \ ",
:: (~~) '0 ,)
I " JI
. G> ~=_~:r,'~YNDLD~~ 1fT.:,!
I"
MCR.EYJY()~DS. ._
:m
"
1>>
C
[)
'E
"
"
I"
I
i
.1
dJd
. tJ I~--'~ ! A u\' l I @
Vil -' II f'P, 1- . " I'"
- ..... .' h I i
c",~=\\==d =i}f1,-=.~-
I
I
ATTACHMENT D
Health and Safety Plan Signature Form
I
CDM Health and Safety Program
I
I
INSTRUCTIONS: All field personnel must sign this form indicating their receipt of this health and
safety plan. Keep this original on site. It becomes part of the permanent project files.
Send a copy to the health and safety manager.
I
SITE NAME I NUMBER:
City of Salina Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility
I
Salina, Kansas
DIVISION I LOCATION:
I
I understand, and agree to comply with, the provisions of the above-referenced
HSP for work activities on this project. I agree to report any injuries to the site
health and safety coordinator (SHSC). I agree to inform the SHSC about any drugs
(legal or illegal) that I take within three days of site work.
I
Print Name Signature Date
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT D
Health and Safety Plan Signature Form
CDM Health and Safety Program
I
I
INSTRUCTIONS: All field personnel must sign this form indicating their receipt of this health and
safety plan. Keep this original on site. It becomes part of the permanent project files.
Send a copy to the health and safety manager.
SITE NAME I NUMBER:
City of Salina Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility
I
I
Salina, Kansas
DIVISION I LOCATION:
I understand, and agree to comply with, the provisions of the above-referenced
HSPfor work activities on this project. I agree to report any injuries to the site
health and safety coordinator (SHSC). I agree to inform the SHSC about any drugs
(legal or illegal) that I take within three days of site work.
I
Print Name
Signature
Date
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT D
Health and Safety Plan Signature Form
CDM Health and Safety Program
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INSTRUCTIONS: All field personnel must sign this form indicating their receipt of this health and
safety plan. Keep this original on site. It becomes part of the permanent project files.
Send a copy to the health and safety manager.
SITE NAME! NUMBER:
City of Salina Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility
Salina, Kansas
DIVISION I LOCATION:
I understand, and agree to comply with, the provisions of the above-referenced
HSP for work activities on this project. I agree to report any ~uries to the site
health and safety ~oordinator (SHSC). I agree to inform the SHSC about any drugs
(legal or illegal) that I take within three days of site work.
I
I
I
Print Name Signature Date
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,/ -<'
J J:'
", "-
," ;""
.....
_1 . ,<cA,'
~[":,
, ,
<. ~~'.- :',
,r;,
'~ /
;,,'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contents
Section 1 - Introduction
1.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. .1-1
1.2 Purpose of Study ......................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Scope of Work......................................................................................................... ..1-2
1.3 Report Structure...................... ................................................................................ ..1-2
Section 2 - Spring Sampling Event
2.1 Field Sampling Activities........................................................................................ 2-1
Section 3 - Spring 2004 Waste Composition Results
3.1 Residential................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Commercial....................................... ........................................................................3-1
3.3 Combined Residential/Commercial Waste Stream ............................................3-2
3.4 IndustriaL.............................................................................. ............... ......................3-3
3.5 Construction and Demolition.................................................................. ............... 3-3
3.6 Total Landfilled Waste Composition.......... ........................................ ....... ............3-3
Section 4 - Comparison of Waste Composition Results
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Waste Categories............................................... ....................................................... 4-1
4.3 Landfilled Waste Composition Comparison ........................................................ 4-2
4.3.1 Residential Waste Stream......................................................................... 4-2
4.3.2 Commercial Waste Stream....................................................................... 4-3
4.3.3 Combined Residential/ Commercial Waste Stream............................ .4-4
4.3.4 Industrial Waste Stream........... ....... .........................................................4-5
4.3.5 Construction/ Demolition Waste Stream........ .................. ........ ........... ..4-5
4.3.6 Total Landfilled Waste Stream ................................................................4-6
4.4 Spring 2004 Waste Characterization Conclusions ...............................................4-7
Section 5 - Annual 2004 Waste Composition Results
5.1 Introduction...................... ..... .................. ...................................................................5-1
5.2 Residential................. ..... ...................... ................................................. ....................5-1
5.3 Commercial ...............................................................................................................5-2
5 .4 Industrial.................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.5 Construction and Demolition ............................................................................ ..... 5-3
5.6 Total Landfilled Waste Composition ...................................... .......................... ..... 5-4
5.7 Annual 2004 Waste Characterization Conclusions..............................................5-5
CONI
P:\8558sallna\waste study\Phase 2\Table of Contents.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
Section 6 - Recyclable Materials
6.1 Recyclable Material Summary ................................................................................6-1
6.2 Recycling Trends and Market ................................................................................. 6-1
6.2.1 Recycling Markets............................................................. ........................6-1
6.2.2 Recycling Trends............................................:.......................................... 6-3
6.3 Recycling Alternatives............................................................................................. 6-6
Section 7 - Pilot Curbside Recycling Program Evaluation
7.1 Introduction..................................................................................... .......................... 7-1
7.2 Curbside Recycling Recovery Rates....................................................................... 7-1
Section 8 - Future Recycling Programs
8.1 Curbside Residential Recycling Program ............................................................. 8-1
8.1.1 Typical Residential Recovery Rates ........................................................8-1
8.1.2 Implementation of Residential Recycling Program.............................. 8-1
8.1.3 Education ......... .............. .... ......................... ................................................8-2
8.2 Other Waste Reduction Alternatives .....................................................................8-2
8.2.1 Material Recycling Facility (MRF) ..........................................................8-2
8.2.2 Tony's Pizza Recycling Program............................................................. 8-3
8.2.3 Waste Composting Facility ..................... ........... ............. .................... ..... 8-3
8.2.4 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling ...................................8-4
8.2.5 Industrial and Commercial Recycling Program ...................................8-4
8.2.6 Miscellaneous Waste Reduction Alternatives .......................................8-4
8.3 Conclusions.................................................................................................. ............. 8-5
Section 9 - Recommendations ............................................................................................... 9-1
Section 10 - References .........................................................................................................10-1
Appendices
Appendix A - Photographic Log
Appendix B - Solid Waste Characterization Study - Sampling Event Work Plan
Appendix C - Spring 2004 Sample Results
Appendix D - Comparison of Waste Composition Results
COM
ii
P:\B558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Table of Contents.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figures
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
COM
Table of Contents
Residential Waste Composition by Weight (Spring 2004)..................................3-5
Commercial Waste Composition by Weight (Spring 2004) ................................3-6
Combined Residential/Commercial Waste Composition by Weight
(Spring 2004)............................... ............................ ............. ................... ...................3-7
Industrial Waste Composition by Weight (Spring 2004) ....................................3-8
Construction/Demolition Waste Composition by Weight (Spring 2004) ........3-9
Total Landfilled Waste Composition by Weight (Spring 2004) .......................3-10
Residential Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs. 2004) ..........................4-9
Commercial Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs. 2004) ......................4-10
Combined Residential/Commercial Waste Composition by Weight
(1996-97 vs. 2004) ........ ............................................................................................ 4-11
Industrial Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs. 2004)...........................4-12
Construction/Demolition Waste Composition by Weight
(1996-97 vs. 2004) .................................................................................................... 4-13
Total Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs. 2004) ...................................4-14
Residential Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs. 2004) ..........................5-6
Commercial Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs. 2004) ........................5-7
Industrial Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs. 2004).............................5-8
Construction/Demolition Waste Composition by Weight
(1996-97 vs. 2004) ................ ............................................................. .........................5-9
Total Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs. 2004) ...................................5-10
2004 total Waste Composition by Weight...........................................................5-11
Hi
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Table of Contents.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
7-1
Table of Contents
Composite Market Value - Metal........................................................................... 6-8
Composite Market Value - Plastic Baled ................................................................ 6-9
Composite Market Value - Post Consumer Paper ............................................. 6-10
Composite Market Value - Glass .......................................................................... 6-11
Pilot Curb-Side Recycling Program Recovery Rates ...........................................7-4
COM
iv
P:\855Bsalina\waste study\Phase 2\Table of Contents.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tables
3-1
3-2
4-1
5-1
6-1
7-1
8-1
8-2
COM
Table of Contents
Breakdown of Saline County Landfilled Waste Quantities
by Waste Stream ....................................................................................................... 3-4
Composition of Landfilled Waste Streams by Weight (Spring 204)................3-11
1996-97 to 2004 Waste Category Conversion Table .............................................4-1
Composition of 2004 Landfilled Waste Streams by Weight.............................5-12
Potential Recyclable Materials by Weight.... ......... ................ .................. ..... .........6-7
Pilot Curb-Side Recycling Program - Recovery Rates ........................................ 7-5
Summary of Recovery of Recyclable Materials ....................................................8-7
Evaluation of Recycling Alternatives Materials ................................................... 8-8
v
P:\B558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Table of Contents.doc
<:-.....
s.".
y,. ,
[':.
.\ < '-..
'r ~,
i, ~_
" -",-
,[ ':' ....
, ";,., \',:".
i "
I
I '";., ~ . [ , " ,,~.!. -"~.
~,[~
'..-r ~ _ , ' ~.
r'."
I ,t~~<'
I ~",; , "
:':':.-[ ,~""
, ~.
~, .'
'-'["
I, .... ...,
I ,,' :' .
, .", ~ ::-
" ~.
, ,
I
1
i
I
I.
.[;'.
..,
':.,
:[,'
',;"'..-""p
<, "
I::.
,.[
;'.1 __
'\"
~ . ~ )..
",
"'['"
, _',,1 ~__'
.< '
,',-.-
,.
;,
',".
-',
.: .':-.
....:,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
The City of Salina is conducting a pilot curbside recycling program within the city.
To assess the effects of the pilot recycling activities, the City of Salina contracted with
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) to characterize the waste stream prior to
implementation of the pilot recycling program, develop an updated annual waste
composition, evaluate the pilot recycling program and recommend additional
recycling/ diversion techniques. This report summarizes the waste characterization
study and recycling program evaluations and recommendations.
1.2 Purpose of Study
The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of the spring 2004 sampling
event, update the annual waste composition data, evaluate the curbside recycling
program, project the impacts of a full-scale residential recycling program, and identify
and briefly evaluate alternative diversion techniques. To determine the impacts of the
recycling program, it is important to first update the estimates of the quantity and
composition of wastes that are currently disposed of at the City of Salina Municipal
Solid Waste Landfill Facility (Salina MSWLF). An annual waste composition was
previously estimated in 1997 and documented in the City of Salina Waste
Characterization Study Final Report dated August 1997. The spring waste composition
was estimated in May 2004 and documented in the June 2004 Cihj of Salina, Kansas
Solid Waste Characterization Study Spring Summanj Report. The annual waste
compositions previously estimated in 1997 and the spring 2004 waste composition
will be used to estimate the annual 2004 waste composition data.
The following data are required to accomplish the goals of this report:
. Annual composition by weight of landfilled waste;
. Weight of landfilled waste;
. Weight of materials collected via the recycling program.
Examples of the use of this data include estimating the recovery rates in the curbside
recycling program, determining what types of materials will be further targeted for
source reduction and recycling efforts, projecting what impacts these efforts will have
on the total waste stream, and developing additional recycling/ diversion techniques.
The data may also be used in selecting facility size and specifying waste handling
equipment (e.g. balers for a recycling facility). Other uses could include evaluation of
operation and financial impacts on the landfill resulting from waste diversion
programs.
1-1
P:\855Bsallna\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2.Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 1
Introduction
1.3 Scope of Work
The following tasks have been completed to achieve the goals of the study:
. Design of waste characterization sampling plan including identification
of waste collection and hauling companies utilizing the Salina MSWLF;
. Performance of one sampling event (sampling refers to the selection of
specific samples of waste from within vehicles selected for sampling:
sorting refers to the separation of waste samples obtained from the
selected vehicles);
. Visual characterization of bulky, landscape, construction/ demolition,
and industrial waste;
. Preparation of interim report of findings after the spring sampling
event;
. Estimation of the annual waste composition based on the spring 2004
waste composition results and the annual 1997 waste composition
results;
. Estimation of the weight of recyclable materials currently landfilled;
. Estimation of the recovery rates of the pilot curbside recycling program
using the annual waste composition;
. Assessment of the impacts of a full-scale residential curbside recycling
program; and
. Preparation of study report.
1.4 Report Structure
This document is the 2004 Waste Characterization Final Report. This report discusses
the results of the spring 2004 sampling event, estimates the annual waste composition,
and provides conclusions and recommendations based on the findings of this waste
characterization study. This report includes the following sections:
. Spring Sampling Event Activities (Section 2)
. Spring 2004 Waste Composition Results (Section 3)
. Comparison of Waste Composition Results (Section 4)
. Annual 2004 Waste Composition (Section 5)
. Recyclable Materials (Section 6)
CONI 1-2
P:\8558saIina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 1
Introduction
. Pilot Curbside Recycling Program Results (Section 7)
. Future Recycling Programs (Section 8)
. Recommendations (Section 9)
COM
1-3
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
! ";..'
..:,:.r::...~"
L' .'
'. ,
?: ,) .,'-
l~ ",' "
"', .( - \,. I ,.;.:~_
..[, '
"Tf'
:>:'.: ' ,":
,,:.
,[,
... \..
, '
I'
i
i
I.',
~. ~, ' .
,
,'.
:..'
c
,[" "
. r'" :f.~ ,
v
,,'. "
:.
. .
'"
, ,\ ~ ~-
J:. (
: ;'[', :',.':,
I" ' ' .
,',
~ -,.
. " ~"
. ',.C:,
! ' ~ ..
,
i
i'
,
,
!
':,
-"~... ;"
;, -J"
,; . ".
t ,t,.,
,"I .t,
, ,
. .
':,1.,
, , ,:, ~ j ',.
" .j
. -:-,..~
. .,-'
.,,',.-
_r,""
:,'-'
r . '"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDIVI
Section 2
Spring Sampling Event
2.1 Field Sampling Activities
The spring 2004 waste composition was estimated by conducting a waste sampling
event from May 17 through May 21, 2004. Three CDM employees and a total of eight
City of Salina and Salina MSWLF employees participated in the sampling activities.
Pictures of the field activities are provided in Appendix A.
The waste sampling event was conducted as described in the Solid Waste
Characterization Study Sampling Event Work Plan, Cittj of Salina, Kansas (Work Plan)
dated May 10, 2004, provided in Appendix B. The City of Salina and Salina MSWLF
employees were trained in the waste sorting procedures, health and safety
requirements, and the waste categories prior to beginning the sorting activities on
May 17, 2004. Thirty-one residential waste samples and twenty-one commercial
waste samples were sorted for a total of 52 waste samples. A total of 12,575 pounds of
residential and commercial waste was sorted, an average of 242 pounds per sample.
The samples were selected based on the area the material was collected from and the
type of generator. This information was used to distribute the samples evenly
throughout the county and proportionately between commercial and residential
generators. Samples were collected from the active face of the landfill and brought to
the Salina MSWLF maintenance building and placed on a tarp. Each sample was then
taken to one of two sorting boxes and separated into the 34 waste categories described
in the Work Plan (Appendix B). After sample sorting was complete, each waste
category was weighed and recorded. The samples were then placed in either a packer
truck or a front end loader and taken back to the active face of the landfill for
disposal.
The industrial and construction and demolition loads are typically bulky and consist
of only a few categories; therefore they were visually inspected for composition.
Visual characterization of 15 industrial loads and 17 construction and demolition
loads was conducted at the active face of the landfill by a CDM solid waste engineer.
2-1
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDIVI
Section 3
Spring 2004 Waste Composition Results
The Saline County landfilled waste stream is comprised of materials generated by
residential, commercial, industrial, and construction/ demolition sources. The largest
percentage of material by weight that enters the City of Salina MSWLF is generated
by the residential sector (36.7%), followed by the commercial (32.4 %), industrial
(19.7%), and construction/ demolition (11.2%) sectors.
3.1 Residential
For the purposes of this report, the residential waste stream is defined as solid waste
collected by City and private haulers from residential units and multi-family
residential buildings with up to 3 units within Saline County and disposed at the
Salina MSWLF. Samples were obtained from vehicles serving residential and
residentialj commercial routes in the City of Salina and the townships of Saline
County.
Data from the spring sampling event indicated that approximately 60 percent of the
waste was comprised of the following waste categories as defined in Appendix B:
. Other Plastic (13.1 %);
. Other Paper (12.8 %);
. Leaves and Other Yard Waste (12.6%);
. Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper (7.1 %);
. Newsprint (6.9%); and
. Food Waste (6.8%).
The results of the spring 2004 sampling event are provided in Appendix C. The most
abundant material (by weight) was Other Plastic; however, Other Paper and Leaves
and Other Yard Waste are within the sampling error. A detailed residential waste
composition by weight is shown in Figure 3-1.
3.2 Commercial
For the purposes of this report, commercial waste is defined as solid waste generated
by commercial businesses and multi-family residential buildings with more than 3
units within Saline County and brought to the MSWLF. Samples were obtained from
vehicles serving commercial routes in the City of Salina and the townships of Saline
County .
Data from the spring sampling event indicated approximately 60 percent of the
commercial waste was comprised of the following waste categories as defined in
Appendix B:
3-1
P:\6558salina\wasta study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 3
Spring 2004 Waste Composition Results
. Other Paper (16.2%);
. Other Plastic (15.0%);
. Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper (9.7%);
. Food Waste (8.7%); and
. Leaves and Other Yard Waste (7.7%).
The results of the spring 2004 sampling event are provided in Appendix C. The most
abundant material by weight was Other Paper; however, Other Plastic is within the
sampling error. A detailed material distribution of this waste stream is provided in
Figure 3-2.
3.3 Combined ResidentiaVCommercial Waste Stream
In order to evaluate statistical changes in the landfilled materials, sampling results for
the residential and commercial waste streams were combined. These waste streams
are the largest by weight of the waste streams landfilled at the Salina M5WLF. In
addition, these streams were manually sorted during the sampling events. As such,
combining the waste streams allows an evaluation of the majority of the waste with a
more realistic statistical evaluation than the total waste stream.
Data from the spring sampling event indicated approximately 60 percent of the
combined residentialj commercial waste was comprised of the following waste
categories as defined in Appendix B:
. Other Paper (14.2%);
. Other Plastic (13.9%);
. Leaves and Other Yard Waste (10.6%)
. Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper (8.2%);
. Food vyaste (7.6%); and
. Newsprint (6.2%).
The results of the spring 2004 sampling event are provided in Appendix C. The most
abundant material by weight was Other Paper; however, Other Plastic is within the
sampling error. A detailed material distribution of this waste stream is provided in
Figure 3-3.
3-2
P:\6558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Section 3
Spring 2004 Waste Composition Results
3.4 Industrial
Waste included in this waste stream is generated hy industries and manufacturing
companies within Saline County and brought to the MSWLF. Samples deposited at
the active face, by vehicles serving industrial routes in the City of Salina and the
townships of Saline County, were visually inspected and the percent (by weight)
estimated for each category.
Based on the 2003-2004Iandfilled quantities, approximately 71 % of the industrial
waste stream originates from Tony's Pizza. Tony's Pizza waste contains mostly Food
Waste, Corrugated Cardboard, Other Paper, and Other Plastic. One additional
significant category identified in the industrial waste stream was Wood. The results
of the spring 2004 sampling event are provided in Appendix C. The most abundant
material by weight was Food Waste (33.7%). A detailed waste composition by weight
for the industrial waste stream is provided in Figure 3-4. Due to the nature of the
waste, this material was not manually separated during the sampling event. This
data was obtained from visual characterizations of industrial waste loads, and tipping
records for the week of the sampling event.
3.5 Construction and Demolition
For the purposes of this report, the construction/ demolition waste stream is defined
as waste generated from construction/ demolition activities within Saline County and
brought to the MSWLF.
Due to the bulky nature of the waste, this material was not manually separated
during the sampling event. Data was obtained from visual characterizations of the
waste, and tipping records for the week of the sampling event. Data from the spring
sampling event indicated that approximately three-quarters of the
construction/ demolition waste was comprised of Wood, Roofing Material, and
Gypsum Board and Plaster. The results of the spring 2004 sampling event are
provided in Appendix C. The most abundant material by weight was Wood. A
detailed material distribution of this waste stream is shown in Figure 3-5.
3.6 Total Landfilled Waste Composition
The material percentage compositions from the four landfilled waste streams were
combined in order to estimate the composition of waste currently being landfilled in
the City of Salina MSWLF. The weight percentages of the various waste streams are
based on Salina landfill tipping records for 2004. These reports provided tonnages on
the landfilled waste streams as shown in Table 3-1. The spring sampling event
composition results were weighted based on the 2003 landfilled quantities and total
landfill quantities were adjusted using the 2004 landfilled quantities. This provides
an approximate landfilled waste composition.
3-3
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report reV.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONI
Section 3
Spring 2004 Waste Composition Results
Table 3-1
Breakdown of Saline County Landfilled Waste Quantities by Waste Stream
January 1, 2004 through
Type of Waste December 31, 2004
Tons %
Residential 25,686 36.4%
Commercial 23,017 32.6%
Industrial 13,487 19.1 %
Construction! 8,322 11.8%
Demolition
The combined data provided in Table 3-2 show the most abundant materials by
weight are:
. Other Plastic (12.8 % )
. Other Paper (12.8 %)
. Food Waste (11.8%)
. Corrugated Cardboard & Kraft Paper (9.8%)
. Wood (9.5%)
. Leaves and Other Yard Waste (7.3%)
Figure 3-6 provides a more detailed breakdown of the combined waste stream by
material type and complete results are provided in Appendix C.
3-4
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
i 0
~
0
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-grade paper
Magazines
Other paper
PETE bottles
Clear HDPE bottles
Colored HDPE bottles
Other plastic
Food waste
Grass
Leaves and other yard waste
Wood
Textiles, rubber, and leather
Diapers sanitary
Unclassifiable fines
Other organics/combustibles
Steel food & beverage containers
Aluminum food & beverage containers
Ferrous metal
Nonrecycleable metal
Other recyclable metal
Batteries
Clear glass containers
Brown glass containers
Green/blue glass containers
(f)
CD Other inorganics/non-combustibles
S4.
0"
:J HHW & special
.....
./:.
~ Electronics
0-
m
en Roofing material
SlO
""Tl
cO" Poured concrete
c
Cil
en Bricks
x
Vi
""Tl Blocks
cO"
~ Gypsum board and plaster
Percentage (by Weight)
N
'#.
.j:>.
~
o
->.
o
'#.
->.
N
~
o
(j) CXl
'#. '#.
->.
.j:>.
~
o
;:0
CD
tJI
a:
CD
:3
....
D)'
:e
$I)
tJI
oct
;:;:0
'< 0
o 3
....'t:J
C/)o
!. ~.
-, ....
~ 0'
3::3
C/)O"
:e'<
r-~
"T1 _.
(Q
:r
....
en
't:J
::!.
:3
(Q
N
o
o
,I:l.
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"T1
cO'
t:
..,
CD
W
.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i 0
eft.
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-grade paper
Magazines
Other paper
PETE bottles
Clear HOPE bottles
Colored HOPE bottles
Other plastic
Food waste
Grass
Leaves and other yard waste
Wood
Textiles, rubber, and leather
Diapers sanitary
Unclassifiable fines
Other organics/combustibles
Steel food & beverage containers
Aluminum food & beverage containers
Ferrous metal
Nonrecycleable metal
Other recyclable metal
Batteries
Clear glass containers
Brown glass containers
Green/blue glass containers
(f)
CD Other inorganics/non-combustibles
s:l.
o.
:J
~ HHW & special
J,.
-I Electronics
Q)
0-
m
CJl Roofing material
SlO
TI
cO. Poured concrete
~
CD
CJl
x Bricks
Vi
TI Blocks
cO.
w
~ Gypsum board and plaster
Percentage (by Weight)
I\J
eft.
......
o
~
o
en
eft.
......
I\J
~
o
~
~
o
~
~
o
en
~
o
(Xl
eft.
......
(Xl
eft.
o
o
3
3
CD
..,
o
~
:E
III
Ul
-
OCD
;::;:0
'< 0
S,3
(/)'0
~~
5" a:
III 0
:s::J
CJ)O"
:E'<
.-:E
"TlCD
ce'
::r
-
en
'0
::::!.
:J
CC
I\)
o
o
.a::..
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"Tl
ce'
I:
..,
CD
W
I
I\)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i 0 N ~
'::R. '::R. '::R.
0 0 0
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-grade paper
Magazines
Other paper
PETE bottles
Clear HOPE bottles
Colored HOPE bottles
Other plastic
Food waste
Grass
Leaves and other yard waste
Wood
Textiles, rubber, and leather
Diapers sanitary
Unc1assifiable fines
Other organics/combustibles
Steel food & beverage containers
Aluminum food & beverage containers
Ferrous metal
Nonrecyc1eable metal
Other recyclable metal
Batteries
Clear glass containers
Brown glass containers
Green/blue glass containers
en
<l> Other inorganics/non-combustibles
s:l.
0'
::J
.... HHW & special
.;,..
-l Electronics
n>
0-
m
CJl Roofing material
!<O
."
<0' Poured concrete
c
m
CJl
x Bricks
(j)
." Blocks
<0'
w
W Gypsum board and plaster
Percentage (by Weight)
Q)
(f.
......
o
~
o
......
N
'::R.
o
......
~
'::R.
o
(Xl
'::R.
o
I
......
Q)
(f.
I
I
I
o
o
3
C"
:J
CD
C.
:;;a
CD
~,
C.
CD
:J
-
Cj'
:::::
o
o
3
oi
;::;:-,
'< 0
o Cj'
....<"T1
~ ~ce'
:: (JI ~
:J S" CD
ClOW
Sow
~~
.0
"T1(J1
;:;:
o'
:J
C"
'<
:E
CD
ce'
::r
-
en
'tJ
::::!.
:J
(Q
N
o
o
~
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ 0
~
0
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-grade paper
Magazines
Other paper
Wood
Clear HOPE bottles
Colored HOPE bottles
PETE bottles
Other plastic
Food waste
Grass
Leaves and other yard waste
Textiles, rubber, and leather
Diapers sanitary
Other organics/combustibles
Steel food & beverage containers
Aluminum food & beverage containers
Ferrous metal
Other recyclable metal
Nonrecycleable metal
Clear glass containers
Brown glass containers
Green/blue glass containers
Other inorganics/non-combustibles
HHW & special
(fl
CD Electronics
s:l.
o.
::J
..... Batteries
l..
-l Unclassifiable fines
OJ
e-
m
en Roofing material
\10
TI
cO. Poured concrete
c:
CD
en
x Bricks
Ul
TI
cO. Blocks
VJ
l.. Gypsum board and plaster
Percentage (by Weight)
0'1
~
o
->.
o
"eft
->. I\.)
0'1 0
"eft "eft
w
o
~
o
I\.)
0'1
~
o
W
0'1
~
o
:E
l>>
f/l
....
CD
90
""0
'< 3
0-0
....0
(f)f/l
!or;:
:;' o'
l>> ::s
sO"
(f)'<
:E:E
j"CD
"T1 cO'
::T
....
en
-0
~.
::s
(Q
N
o
o
~
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
::s
C.
r::
f/l
....
..,
iir
I
I
I
"T1
(Q
r::
..,
CD
to)
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-grade paper
Magazines
Other paper
Clear HDPE bottles
Colored HDPE bottles
PETE bottles
Other plastic
Food waste
Leaves and other yard waste
Textiles, rubber, and leather
Diapers sanitary
Other organics/combustibles
Steel food & beverage containers
Aluminum food & beverage containers
Ferrous metal
Other recyclable metal
Nonrecycleable metal
Clear glass containers
Brown glass containers
Green/blue glass containers
Other inorganics/non-combustibles
HHW & special
(J)
CD
~
o'
~
Electronics
Batteries
~
1.
-I
OJ
0-
m
CIl
SlO
"
cO'
c
m
CIl
x
(jj
"
cO'
w
&.
Unclassifiable fines
Roofing material
Poured concrete
Blocks
Gypsum board and plaster
I
c:..v .j::>. .j::>. I
01 0 01
:::R. :::R. :::R.
0 0 0
I
I
I
(') I
0
::s
C1I
-
..,
l: I
0
-
O'
::s
-
C I
C1l
3
0
;::;:
o' I
(') ::s
;::;: :E
'< Dl
o C1I
-t,-" I
en C1l -.
Dl (') (Q
== 0 ~
::s 3 C1l
Dl "0 W
is: 0 I I
C1I UI
en _.
:EQ:
.-0
,,::S
C" I
'<
:E
C1l
cQ'
::T I
-
-
en
"0
~.
::s I
(Q
N
0
0
~
- I
I
I
I
I
o
:::R.
o
....>.
o
~
Percentage (by Weight)
N
01
:::R.
o
N
o
~
c:..v
o
:::R.
o
01
~
....>.
01
:::R.
o
Wood
Grass
Bricks
i 0
~
Corrugated & Kraft Paper
Newsprint
High-grade paper
Magazines
Other paper
PETE bottles
Clear HOPE bottles
Colored HOPE bottles
Other plastic
Food waste
Grass
Leaves and other yard waste
Wood
Textiles, rubber, and leather
Diapers sanitary
Unclassifiable fines
Other organics/combustibles
Steel food & beverage containers
Aluminum food & beverage containers
Ferrous metal
Nonrecycleable metal
Other recyclable metal
Batteries
Clear glass containers
Brown glass containers
Green/blue glass containers
C/l
<1l Other inorganics/non-combustibles
n-
o-
:J
...... HHW & special
l..
-i Electronics
III
e-
m
(Jl Roofing material
110
"TI
to- Poured concrete
c
CD
(Jl
x Bricks
en
"TI Blocks
to-
w
m Gypsum board and plaster
Percentage (by Weight)
N
~
->.
N
~
~
~
o
())
~
o
o
~
o
0)
~
o
->.
~
~
o
-t
o
-
~
r-
~
:J
Co
::!l
(1)
Co
:E
~
(")1Il
~<D
'<
o (")
.....0
cn3
~'C
:::0
:J III
~ a:
3:0
cn:J
~~
":E
CD
cQ'
:r
-
en
'C
:!.
:J
(Q
t\)
o
o
.a:.
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
(Q
C
..,
CD
W
I
C)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-2
Composition of Landfilled Waste Streams by Weight (Spring 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
Total Weighted
Industrial CID Commercial Residential Composition
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Waste Category Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Mean Percentage
Corrugated & Kraft Paper . 19.54% 2.18% 9.67% 7.1% 9.76%
Newsprint 0.00% 0.00% 5.31% 6.9% 4.23%
High-grade paper 0.18% 0.40% 3.41% 2.5% 2.10%
Magazines 0.00% 0.00% 2.78% 3.1% 2.04%
Other paper 12.76% 3.17% 16.19% 12.8% 12.76%
PETE bottles 0.13% 0.11% 1.45% 1.5% 1.07%
Clear HDPE bottles 0.54% 0.07% 0.79% 0.7% 0.62%
Colored HDPE bottles 0.00% 0.02% 0.86% 0.7% 0.53%
Other plastic 14.13% 3.16% 15.01% 13.1% 12.75%
Food waste 33.71% 0.00% 8.70% 6.8% 11.77%
Grass 0.00% 0.40% 3.92% 2.9% 2.40%
Leaves and other yard waste 0.00% 1.99% 7.68% 12.6% 7.33%
Wood 15.42% 39.70% 2.24% 3.1% 9.50%
Textiles, rubber, and leather 0.20% 0.61% 3.09% 4.8% 2.88%
Diapers sanitary 0.00% 0.00% 2.42% 3.0% 1.88%
Unclassifiable fines 0.00% 0.40% 2.15% 2.0% 1.48%
Other organics/combustibles 1.17% 1.30% 2.39% 4.3% 2.73%
Steel food & beverage containers 0.38% 1.40% 1.68% 1.6% 1.38%
Aluminum food & beverage containers 0.03% 0.09% 1.18% 1.0% 0.76%
Ferrous metal 0.96% 3.20% 1.67% 2.1% 1.88%
Nonrecycleable metal 0.06% 0.28% 0.12% 0.4% 0.21%
Other recyclable metal 0.24% 0.35% 0.40% 0.3% 0.34%
Batteries 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.1% 0.05%
Clear glass containers 0.00% 0.02% 1.43% 1.6% 1.06%
Brown glass containers 0.00% 0.00% 0.64% 0.6% 0.44%
Green/blue glass containers 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.2% 0.10%
Other inorganics/non-combustibles 0.28% 0.64% 1.97% 1.5% 1.32%
HHW & special 0.10% 0.00% 0.39% 0.5% 0.34%
Electronics 0.14% 0.61% 0.71% 1.4% 0.83%
Roofing material 0.00% 19.07% 0.12% 0.1% 2.33%
Poured concrete 0.00% 0.97% 0.04% 0.1% 0.16%
Bricks 0.00% 2.97% 1.21% 0.0% 0.74%
Blocks 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.3% 0.09%
Gypsum board and plaster 0.00% 16.76% 0.26% 0.1% 2.11%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
COM
Section 1-4 Tables & Figures.xls Table 3-2 Totals Spring 2004
"";.
n
.{~. : :....
. ,- . ~
~ ~. ,.;
\;~"",:-., :
~T'
, .
i'
i
,
I . ""t,
:~[,
"",. :
~?,
- '.'~ / ~:~. '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Section 4
Comparison of Waste Composition Results
4.1 Introduction
One of the objectives of the waste characterization study is to determine statistically
significant changes in the City of Salina MSWLF waste composition between
1996/1997 and 2004. This section compares the waste composition results from the
Cihj of Salina Waste Characterization Study Final Report dated August 1997 to the spring
2004 waste composition results presented in Section 3.
4.2 Waste Categories
The 34 waste categories for the spring 2004 sampling event are described in the Work
Plan provided in Appendix B. The 2004 categories vary from the categories used in
the 1996-97 waste characterization study. The categories were changed to better
represent solid waste categories that are typically recycled, may require future
tracking, or are otherwise important to evaluate. Two new categories added in 2004
are Household Hazardous and Special Wastes and Electronics, which have recently
been targeted for recycling throughout the nation. The 1996-97 waste categories were
converted to the 2004 waste categories as shown in Table 4-1. For example, in order
to determine the quantity of Other Plastic in 1996-97, the 1996-97 results from the
Other Plastic Containers, Polyethylene Film, Polystyrene Foam, and Other Plastic
categories were combined.
Table 4-1
1996-97 to 2004 Waste Category Conversion Table
2004 Waste Category 1996-97 Waste Category Conversion
Other Plastic Other Plastic Containers + Polyethylene
Film + Polystyrene Foam + Other Plastic
Wood Clean Wood + Treated Lumber
Unclassifiable Fines V2 Fines
Other Organics/Combustibles V2 Other
Non-Recyclable Metal Other Nonferrous Metal + V2 Metal
Other Recyclable Metal Aluminum Scrap + V2 Metal
Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles Other Glass + V2 Fines + V2 Other
Roofing Materials Roofing Materials + Asphalt (only in
C/D Samples)
4-1
P:\8558satina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 4
Comparison of Waste Composition Results
4.3 Landfilled Waste Composition Comparison
The waste stream results from spring 2004 were compared to the spring/ summer
1997 and annual 1996-97 results. This comparison was used to determine statistically
significant differences in the waste streams. To determine if the waste composition
differences are significantly different, the upper and lower 90 percent confidence
limits were determined. This confidence interval takes into account the variability of
the waste categories. For example, in one residential waste sample there may be
various types of construction debris, but this material is not in all residential samples
and therefore has a large confidence interval. A difference in the waste stream was
only considered statistically significant if the 90 percent confidence intervals did not
overlap.
4.3.1 Residential Waste Stream
The residential waste stream results from spring/ summer 1997, annual 1996-97, and
spring 2004 were compared to determine if there were any statistically significant
differences in the residential waste stream.
Data indicated that the following categories had statistically significant differences:
. Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper;
. High-Grade Paper;
. PET Bottles;
. Other Plastic;
. Food Waste;
. Unclassifiable Fines,
. Other Organics/Combustibles; and
. Other Inorganics / Non-Combustibles.
Results of the residential waste steam comparisons are provided in Appendix D. A
detailed residential waste composition by weight is shown in Figure 4-1.
The most significant difference in the spring 2004 residential waste composition was
an increase in Other Plastic. This increase may be due to an increased use of Other
Plastic in packaging. PET Bottles also increased significantly,which again may be
attributed to changes in packaging between 1996-97 and 2004 or to the increased use
of bottled water. High-Grade Paper increased significantly in spring 2004.
Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper decreased in the spring 2004 waste stream. It
4-2
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDNI
Section 4
Comparison of Waste Composition Results
was only slightly below the lower limit of the 90 percent confidence interval for the
spring/ summer 1997 composition, but significantly below the annual 1996-97
composition. Food Waste decreased in the spring 2004 waste stream, but the
percentage was still within the 90 percent confidence interval of the spring/ summer
1997 waste composition. The differences in Unclassifiable Fines, Other
Organics/Combustibles; and Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles were likely due to
the change in the categories used in the spring 2004 sampling event.
4.3.2 Commercial Waste Stream
The commercial waste stream results from spring/ summer 1997, annual 1996-97, and
spring 2004 were compared to determine if there were any statistically significant
differences in the commercial waste stream. Data indicated that the following
categories had statistically significant differences:
. Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper;
. Newsprint;
. Magazines;
. Other Paper;
. PET Bottles;
. Food Waste;
. Leaves and Other Yard Waste;
. Wood;
. Non-Recyclable Metals; and
. Other Inorganics / Non-Combustibles.
Results of the commercial waste steam comparisons are provided in Appendix D. A
detailed commercial waste composition by weight is shown in Figure 4-2.
Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper decreased in the spring 2004 waste stream. It
was only slightly below the lower limit of the 90 percent confidence interval for the
spring/ summer 1997 composition, but significantly below the annual 1996-97
composition, so the change may be due to seasonal variations. Newsprint increased
significantly in spring 2004; however, the waste composition was only slightly higher
than the upper limit of the 90 percent confidence interval for the 1996-97 annual waste
composition. Other Paper and Magazines increased in the spring 2004 waste stream,
but the percentages were still within the 90 percent confidence interval of the
spring/ summer 1997 results, so the difference may due to seasonal variations. PET
4-3
P:\8558saUna\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rav.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Section 4
Comparison of Waste Composition Results
Bottles increased significantly, which may be attributed to changes in packaging and
the increase of bottled water consumption between 1996-97 and 2004. Food waste
decreased in the spring 2004 waste stream, but the percentage is still within the 90
percent confidence interval of the spring/ summer 1997 result, so the difference may
be due to seasonal variations. The difference in Leaves and Other Yard Waste is likely
due to seasonal variations rather than a change in the waste stream. Wood decreased
in the spring 2004 waste stream, but the percentage was still within the 90 percent
confidence interval of the spring/summer 1997 result, so the difference may be due to
seasonal variations. The differences in Non-Recyclable Metals and Other
Inorganics/Non-Combustibles are likely due to the change in the categories used in
the spring 2004 sampling event.
4.3.3 Combined ResidentiaVCommercial Waste Stream
The combined residentialj commercial waste stream results from spring/ summer
1997, annual 1996-97, and spring 2004 were compared to determine if there were any
statistically significant differences in the combined residentialj commercial waste
stream. Data indicated that the following categories had statistically significant
differences:
. Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper;
. High-Grade Paper;
. Magazines;
. PET Bottles;
. Other Plastic;
. Food Waste;
. Unclassifiable Fines;
. Other Organics/Combustibles; and
. Other Inorganics / Non-Combustibles.
Results of the combined residentialj commercial waste steam comparisons are
provided in Appendix D. A detailed residentialj commercial waste composition by
weight is shown in Figure 4-3.
The most significant difference in the spring 2004 combined residentialj commercial
waste composition was an increase in Other Plastic. This increase may be due to an
increased use of Other Plastic in packaging. PET Bottles also increased significantly,
which again may be attributed to changes in packaging between 1996-97 and 2004 or
the increased use of bottled water. High-Grade Paper also increased significantly in
4-4
P:\8558sallna\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 4
Comparison of Waste Composition Results
spring 2004. Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper decreased in the spring 2004
waste stream. The change may be due to some Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft
Paper recycling being conducted in the area. Magazines increased in the spring 2004
waste stream, but the percentage is still within the 90 percent confidence interval of
the spring/ summer 1997 result, so the difference may due to seasonal variations.
Food waste decreased in the spring 2004 waste stream, but the percentage was only
slightly lower than the lower limit of the 90 percent confidence interval of the
spring/ summer 1997 result, so the difference may be due to seasonal variations. The
differences in Unclassifiable Fines, Other Organics/Combustibles; and Other
Inorganics/Non-Combustibles were likely due to the change in the categories used in
the spring 2004 sampling event.
4.3.4 Industrial Waste Stream
The industrial waste stream results from spring/ summer 1997, annual 1996-97, and
spring 2004 were compared to determine if there were any statistically significant
differences in the industrial waste stream. Data indicated that the following
categories had statistically significant differences:
. Other Paper;
. Ferrous Metal; and
. Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles.
, Results of the industrial waste steam comparisons are provided in Appendix D. A
detailed industrial waste composition by weight is shown in Figure 4-4.
The most significant difference in the spring 2004 industrial waste composition was a
decrease in Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles. This decrease is likely due to the
fact that Phillips Lighting is no longer disposing of their glass waste at the landfill.
Other Paper and Ferrous Metal increased in spring 2004.
4.3.5 ConstructionfDemolition Waste Stream
The construction/ demolition waste stream results from spring/ summer 1997, annual
1996-97, and spring 2004 were compared to determine if there were any statistically
significant differences in the construction/ demolition waste stream. Data indicated
that the following categories had statistically significant differences:
. Wood;
. Leaves and Other Yard Waste; and
. Textiles, Rubber, and Leather.
CDNI 4-5
P:\8558saJina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 4
Comparison of Waste Composition Results
Results of the construction/ demolition waste steam comparisons are provided in
Appendix D. A detailed construction/ demolition waste composition by weight is
shown in Figure 4-5.
The most significant difference in the spring 2004 construction/ demolition waste
composition was a decrease in Leaves and Other Yard Waste. This decrease may
have been caused by the current yard waste collection program in the City of Salina.
Wood increased in the spring 2004 sample, but the value is still within the 90 percent
confidence interval of the annual 1996-97 waste composition. Textiles, Rubber and
Leather decreased in spring 2004, but the value is still within the 90 percent
confidence interval of the spring/ summer 1997 waste composition.
4.3.6 Total Landfilled Waste Stream
The totallandfilled waste stream results from spring/ summer 1997, annual 1996-97,
and spring 2004 were compared to determine if there were any statistically significant
differences in the totallandfilled waste stream. Data indicated that the following
categories had statistically significant differences:
. Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper;
. Newsprint;
. High-Grade Paper;
. PET Bottles;
. Clear HDPE Containers;
. Colored HDPE Containers;
. Other Plastic;
. Food Waste;
. Leaves and Other Yard Waste;
. Wood;
. Textiles, Rubber, and Leather;
. Diapers;
. Unclassifiable Fines;
. Steel and Bimetal Food and Beverage Containers; and
. Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles.
CONI 4-6
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDNI
Section 4
Comparison of Waste Composition Results
Results of the totallandfilled waste steam comparisons are provided in Appendix D.
A detailed totallandfilled waste composition by weight is shown in Figure 4-6.
There were several significant differences in the spring 2004 totallandfilled waste
composition. Other Plastic increased significantly in spring 2004. This increase may
be due to an increased use of Other Plastic in packaging. Other Inorganics/Non-
Combustibles decreased significantly in spring 2004. This decrease may be due to
both the change in categories and the fact that Phillips Lighting no longer disposes of
glass waste at the landfill. Wood increased significantly in spring 2004. Newsprint
decreased significantly in spring 2004. PET Bottles increased significantly, which may
be attributed to changes in packaging or increase in bottled water use between 1996-
97 and 2004.
Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper increased slightly in the spring 2004 waste
stream, but the composition is still within the 90 percent confidence interval of the
annual 1996-97 waste composition. High-Grade Paper increased in spring 2004. Clear
and Colored HDPE Containers and Steel and Bimetal Food and Beverage Containers
decreased in spring 2004. This decrease may be due to changes in packaging. Food
Waste increased in the spring 2004 waste stream, but the percentage was still within
the 90 percent confidence interval of the spring/ summer 1997 result, so the difference
may due to seasonal variations. Leaves and Other Yard Waste decreased slightly in
2004. This difference may be due to the yard waste collection program. The
difference in Unclassifiable Fines was likely due to the change in the categories used
in the spring 2004 sampling event. The differences in Roofing Material and Gypsum
Board and Plaster are likely due to the high variability of these materials throughout
all waste loads.
4.4 Spring 2004 Waste Characterization Conclusions
The landfilled waste streams in spring 2004 have severa.l significant variations from
the 1996/1997 waste streams, which result in significant changes in the totallandfilled
waste composition. The 1996-97 annual compositions were included in the discussion
in Section 4; however, the spring/ summer 1997 to spring 2004 comparison appears to
be the most relevant due to the seasonal differences in the waste streams. Based on
the results provided in Section 3 and Section 4, the following changes to the
landfilled waste composition were found:
. An increase in High-Grade Paper, PET Bottles, and Other Plastic in the
residential waste stream;
. An increase in Newsprint and PET Bottles in the commercial waste
stream;
. A decrease in Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper and Food Waste in
the combined residential/ commercial waste stream;
4-7
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
Section 4
Comparison of Waste Composition Results
I
. An increase in High-Grade Paper, PET Bottles, and Other Plastic in the
combined residentialj commercial waste stream;
. An increase in Other Paper in the industrial waste stream;
I
. A decrease in Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles in the industrial
waste stream;
I
. An increase in Wood in the construction/ demolition waste stream;
I
. A decrease in Leaves and Other Yard Waste in the
construction/ demolition waste stream;
I
I
. An increase in Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper, High-Grade
Paper, PET Bottles, Other Plastic, and Wood in the totallandfilled waste
stream;
I
. A decrease in Newsprint, Clear HDPE Containers, Colored HDPE
Containers, Leaves and Other Yard Waste, Steel and Bimetal Food and
Beverage Containers, and Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles in the
totallandfilled waste stream.
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
CONI
4-8
I
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
Figure 4-1
Residential Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
I
25%
I
I
o Spring 1997
.96-97 Annual Data
OSpring 2004
I
200/0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........................................................................................................................
I
I
15%
I
-
-
J:
Cl
'Qj
3:
>-
.c
-
CI)
Cl
CI:l
-
c:::
CI)
~
CI)
0.
10%
I
I
I
5%
I
0%
Qj "E Qj f/l Qj f/l f/l f/l ,2 Q) f/l Q) "0 Qj f!! f/l f/l f/l Q)
Q) ~ Qj Qj iil Ol iil 0 Q) Q) Qj
0. .~ 0. c: 0. iil c: 0 .c Q) c: :c Ol
III III 'N III '0 c: c: III ~ '0. III ~ iiI 0. u:: c: III
a.. f/l a.. a.. 'iij 'iij il: ~ III ~ 'iij Qj
;: III al ,9- Q) is
-= Q) Ol Qj "E "E ....I Q) ::l "E >
III Q) "0 III I- 0 0 Qj "0 (3 'E :c .c 0 Q)
Z .c 0 o/l Q) .c f!!
~ ~ :::2: <5 w u U .c 0 f/l III :c III E 0
a.. <5 >- l;::: 0 o/l Q)
q> w U. f/l Qj III 'iij Q)
o/l W ~ Qj f/l ~ Ol "0,5
.c a.. a.. .c 0 f/l ,2 III o III
"0 ,2' Cl Cl c.9 .c .c 0. III Qj .g'E
Q) <5 ::l U c:
iiI J: J: J: c::: f/l III > 0
is c: ~ Q) E 0
Ol m "0 <Ii ::l .c
2 l!! f/l 0 ::l
Q) Q) ~ o/l ,5
0 (3 0 Qj
'0 > X "0 E
u III .c
U Q) Q) <5 0 ::l
....I I- .E <C
Qj
Q)
CI.i
I
I
iii iii iii f/l f!! f!! f!! f/l iii f/l l/l 2 f/l Qj f/l
Q) Q) 0 ]2 ..>c: ..>c:
Qi Qi Qi "&i Q) Q) Q) ;Q '0 'c l!! 0 iil 0
:::2: E E c: c: c: Q) e Qj 0 'i: III 0
== 'iij 'iij 'iij iil 0. iiI c: al il: 10
f/l Q) Q) III "E "E "E ::l en '0 0
::l :c :c al 0 0 0 .c "0 Q) :::2: u o/l
e III III U U U E c: W Ol 'E
Qj u U f/l f/l f/l 0 III c: III
1;- >- 'f ~ l;:::
u. 0 f/l f/l l/l 0 0
ll! l!! ..!!! ..!!! ..!!! c: al
0 J: 0
... c.9 c.9 c.9 c: J: c::: E
c: Q) m c: -.
0 c: f/l ::l
Z .c ;: Q) 0 f/l
<5 Q) 0 l!! 'c 0.
(3 00 c.9 III >-
~ c.9
0
,5
I
I
I
Notes:
1. Data from 1996-97 Adjusted to Correlate to 2004 Categories. Error Bars Indicate Upper and Lower 90% Confidence Interval.
2. Spring 1997 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by COM from May 12 to May 16, 1997, provided in City of Salina Solid Waste Characterization Study Final Report, August 1997.
3. Spring 2004 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by COM from May 17 to May 21, 2004, provided in City of Salina, Kansas Solid Waste Characterization Study Spring Summary Report, June 24, 2004. Draft.
Qj
.c
<5
I
COM
Section 1-4 Tables & Figures.xls Fig 4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I_~ COM
Figure 4-2
Commercial Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
25%
o Spring 1997
.96-97 Annual Data
o Spring 2004
200/0 - - - - - - - - . - . . . . - - . - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . - . . . . . - - - - . - . - - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - . - . . . . . . . . - . . . - . - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - . . - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . - . _ _ _ _ . - - -
-
....
'E, 15%
'Q)
3:
>-
e
CI)
Cl
~
....
s:::
CI)
(J
~ 10%
c..
5%
0%
L. C :v l/l :v l/l ~ ~ () Q) l/l Q) ""C :v ~ l/l l/l ~
Q) Q) Q) ~ tl Ol tl 0 Q) Q)
0- .~ 0- C 0- E Q) Q) c 0 .c Q) c :0 Q)
ro ro 'N ro c c ro ~ '0. ~ S ro 0- iL c
ll... l/l ll... ll... 0 '(ij '(ij a:: ro ti ~
:i: ro co .9- Q) 0
.t:: Q) Ol :v c c ...J Q) :J C
Q) f- :v ""C u "E :0 ..c
~ Z ""C ro .c 0 0 0 ~ Q) 0
~ ~ :2: 6 w u U .c 0 l/l ro :0 ro E ()
ll... 6 u.. l/l >- :v "" 0 Q)
~ w w ro '00
~ ~ :v l/l () Ol
.c ll... ll... ..c 0 l/l "0 ~
""C Ol 0 0 " .c ..c 0- ro 'c
Q) 6 :J "0 Q)
ro I J: J: n:: l/l ro >
0 c ~ Q)
Ol ro ""C en ::::J ..c
2 Q) Q) l/l ~ 0
5 U 5 Q) L. ~
"'5 > ~ Q) ""C
U ro .c 0
U Q) Q) 6
...J f- .E
Qi
Q)
if)
~ ~ l/l ~ l/l ~ l/l tii l/l l/l Q) l/l l/l L.
Q) :v Q) () tii Q) -'G -'G 2
Q) Q) "1:5 () ()
Q) Q) .~ c :0 'c .~ t; l/l
E E c c Q) 'c 0 ro
~ ~ s '(ij ~ 0- e ro c CO 10 a::
Q) Q) ro c c C :J en tl 0
:0 :0 CO 0 0 0 ..c ""C Q) :2: U ~
ro ro U U U E c UJ Ol "E
"0 "0 l/l l/l l/l 0 ro c
>. is l/l l/l l/l () S ~ ro
() c': 0
* ~ ro ro ro J: 0 CO
<5 <5 <5 0
c :v -E J: n:: E
0 L. C C l/l :J
Z .c ro :i: Q) () l/l
6 Q) 0 Q) 'c 0-
U 00 <'5 ro >.
Ol "
5
.!:
:v
.c
6
~
Q)
c
'(ij
C
o
()
Q)
Ol
~
Q)
>
Q)
..c
~
""C
o
.E
E
:J
c
'E
Notes: ~
1. Data from 1996-97 Adjusted to Correlate to 2004 Categories. Error Bars Indicate Upper and Lower 90% Confidence Interval.
2. Spring 1997 data based on results of the Waste characterization study conducted by CDM from May 12 to May 16, 1997, provided in City of Salina Solid Waste Characterization Study Final Report, August 1997.
3. Spring 2004 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by CDM from May 17 to May 21, 2004, provided in City of Salina, Kansas Solid Waste Characterization Study Spring Summary Report, June 24, 2004 - Draft.
tii
Q)
:2:
l/l
:J
e
:v
u..
Section 1-4 Tables & Figures.xls Fig 4-2
I
I
Figure 4-3
Combined Residential/Commercial Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
I
20%
I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
o Spring 1997
.96-97 Annual Data
OSpring 2004
I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
150/0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ................................................................................................... - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
I
-
....
.c
C)
'Qj
3:
>-
.c
-; 10%
C)
C1l
....
C
Q)
U
...
Q)
c..
................ .................................................................................................................... --.......................... --........ --.......... --..........................................................
I
I
I
5%
I
I
I
I
Notes:
1. Data from 1996.97 Adjusted to Correlate to 2004 Categories. Error Bars Indicate Upper and Lower 90% Confidence Interval.
2. Spring 1997 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by COM from May 12 to May 16, 1997, provided in City of Salina Solid Waste Characterization Study Final Report, August 1997.
3. Spring 2004 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by COM from May 17 to May 21, 2004, provided in City of Salina, Kansas Solid Waste Characterization Study Spring Summary Report, June 24, 2004 - Draft.
Q)
Q)
ii5
Iii Iii Iii t/l l!! t/l t/l t/l Iii t/l t/l $ t/l t/l Q;
,!!! Q; Q; Q) 0 ~ ..><: ..><:
Qj Qj Qj Q) ;g '0 'c:; ~ ,!:! 0 'lii
Q; c: c: c: Q) Q; 0
:::i: E E 'iij 'iij 'iij 'lii e 0 OJ (ll
=:: 0- m c: iii a::
t/l Q) Q) (ll c c c => (/) 13 0
=> :c :c co 0 0 0 .c '0 Q) :::i: () oll
e (ll (ll () () () E c: jjj C) 'E
Q; "0 "0 t/l 0 (ll c:
>- >- t/l t/l 't s: l;::: (ll
u. 0 0 t/l t/l t/l 0 0
ll! ~ III J!! J!! c: co
Ci 0 :c 0
c: Q; (!) (!) .!:: :c a:: E
0 ro c: c: t/l =>
Z .c ;: Q) 0 t/l
(5 Q) 0 ~ 'c:; 0-
U OJ (!) (ll >-
e> (!)
0
,5
I
I
I
Q;
.c
(5
I
CONI
Section 1-4 Tables & Figures.xls Fig 4-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
50%
45%
40%
35%
-
...
J::
C)
'ii)
3:
>.
.c
-
Q)
C)
cu
...
c
Q)
~
Q)
ll.
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
Figure 4-4
Industrial Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................................................................................................................... ..........................................................................................................................................................
OSpring 1997
.96-97 Annual Data
o Spring 2004
................................................................................................................. .............. --..................................................................................................................................................................... --..............................................................
.............................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
-------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5%
0%
1Il
Q)
+=
(5
.0
W
c..
o
:c
ro
Q)
u
o
~
III
C.
Qj
.c
o
1Il
1Il
!!!
Cl
Q)
iii
III
;:
-c
ro
>-
Qj
.c
(5
-c
c:
III
1Il
Q)
>
III
Q)
...J
Qj
.c
iii
.!!!
-c
c:
III
ai
.0
.0
2
ul
.!!!
~
Q)
~
~
~
'c
III
1Il
1Il
Qj
a.
III
is
1Il
Q)
:c
~
::>
.0
E
o
~
1Il
o
'c
III
e>
o
Qj
.c
o
1Il
Qj
c:
'iij
"E
o
o
Q)
0>
III
Qj
>
Q)
.0
c6
-c
o
.E
Qi
Q)
ii5
Iii
Qj
E
1Il
::>
e
Qj
u.
Iii
Qj
E
Q)
:c
III
Q)
"0
~
~
c:
o
Z
1Il
Qj
c:
'iij
"E
o
o
1Il
1Il
III
0,
ro
.!!!
u
1Il
Qj
c:
'iij
"E
o
o
1Il
1Il
III
0,
c:
;:
o
m
1Il
Qj
c:
'iij
"E
o
o
1Il
1Il
III
0,
Q)
::>
;e
c:
Q)
~
Cl
1Il
Q)
;Q
iii
::>
.0
E
o
'f
c:
o
-E
1Il
o
'c
III
0>
o
,5
Qj
.c
o
Iii
'0
Q)
a.
1Il
c6
3:
:c
:c
1Il
o
'c
e
"0
Q)
W
~
Qj
iii
E
0>
c:
l;:::
o
o
0::
Qj
iii
III
C.
-c
c:
III
"E
III
o
.0
E
::>
1Il
a.
>-
Cl
Qj
a.
III
c..
~
III
~
c6
-c
Q)
iii
0>
::>
:::
o
u
"E
.~
1Il
;:
Q)
z
Qj
a.
III
a.
Q)
-c
III
9>
.c
,2>
:c
1Il
Q)
c:
'N
III
0>
III
:::E
Qj
a.
III
a.
Qj
.c
o
-c
o
o
3:
Q)
iii
III
;:
-c
o
o
u.
1Il
Q)
+=
(5
.0
W
c..
o
:c
-c
~
o
"0
u
1Il
Q)
+=
(5
.0
W
~
W
c..
Iii
Qj
E
Q)
:c
III
"0
>-
o
~
Qj
.c
o
Q)
0>
III
Qj
>
Q)
.0 1Il
c6 Qj
c:
"8 'iij
~g
E 0
::>
,5
E
::>
<(
Q)
Qj
t5
c:
o
o
-c
~
::>
o
c..
1Il
Q)
~
iii
co
1Il
Q)
c:
l;:::
Q)
:c
III
l;:::
'iij
1Il
III
"0
c:
::::l
1Il
-'"
o
~
1Il
-'"
o
o
CD
Notes:
1. Data from 1996-97 Adjusted to Correlate to 2004 Categories. Error Bars Indicate Upper and Lower 90% Confidence Interval.
2. Spring 1997 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by CDM from May 12 to May 16, 1997, provided in City of Salina Solid Waste Characterization Study Final Report, August 1997.
3. Spring 2004 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by CDM from May 17 to May 21, 2004, provided in City of Salina, Kansas Solid Waste Characterization Study Spring Summary Report, June 24, 2004 - Draft.
Section 1-4 Tables & Figures.xls Fig 4-4
I
I
Figure 4-5
Construction/Demolition Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
E
:J
c
'E
:J
<(
Data from 1996-97 Adjusted to Correlate to 2004 Categories. Error Bars Indicate Upper and Lower 90% Confidence Interval.
2. Spring 1997 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by CDM from May 12 to May 16, 1997, provided in City of Salina Solid Waste Characterization Study Final Report, August 1997.
3. Spring 2004 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by CDM from May 17 to May 21, 2004, provided in City of Salina, Kansas Solid Waste Characterization Study Spring Summary Report, June 24, 2004 - Draft.
I
75%
I
70%
:1
I
I
65%
60%
55%
I
50% . - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - -
I
-
...
.c
Cl 45%
'0)
3:
~ 40%
-
I
CIl
Cl
co
...
c:
CIl
~
CIl
0.
30%
35%
I
25% - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . - - - - - - - - - . - - .
I
20% - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - -
I
15% . - . . . . . . . . . - - - - . . . . . - . . . . . - -
10% .. - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . . - - - - - - - - -
I
5%
I
0%
c
.~
III
~
Z
...
CIl
0-
co
0-
~
.c
(5
~
0-
co
ll...
~
~
Y:
O/l
"0
CIl
ro
Cl
2
o
()
~
0-
co
0-
CIl
"0
co
9>
.c
Cl
I
III
CIl
c
'N
co
Cl
co
~
t)
~
co
C.
~
.c
(5
CIl
1il
co
~
"0
o
o
u..
III
4l
(5
.c
UJ
ll...
Cl
:r:
ro
CIl
t5
I
III
CIl
E
.c
UJ
ll...
Cl
:r:
"0
CIl
o
-0
()
III
III
~
<9
"0
o
o
:s:
III
CIl
E
o
.c
UJ
I-
UJ
ll...
I
I
Notes:
1.
I
~
COM
.J!l
III
co
~
"E
co
>-
~
.c
(5
"0
C
co
III
CIl
>
co
CIl
--l
~
.c
ro
..92
"0
c
co
~
~
'c
co
III
III
~
0-
co
o
~
.c
.c
2
ui
..92
~
CIl
I-
III
CIl
:c
~
:J
.c
E
o
~
III
t)
'c
co
~
o
~
.c
(5
~
CIl
c
'm
C
o
t)
CIl
Cl
~
CIl
>
CIl
.c
O/l
"0
o
.E
~
CIl
E
CIl
:c
co
CIl
U
~
~
c
o
Z
~
CIl
c
~
c
o
t)
III
III
co
01
ro
CIl
t5
III
~
c
'm
c
o
t)
III
III
co
01
c
~
o
cO
Qi
CIl
U)
III
~
c
S
c
o
t)
CIl
Cl
~
CIl
>
CIl
.c
O/l
"0
o
.E
ro
Q)
E
III
:J
e
~
u..
~
CIl
E
CIl
:c
co
u
>-
t)
~
~
.c
(5
o Spring 1997
11I96-97 Annual Data
OSpring 2004
~
CIl
c
'm
C
o
t)
III
III
co
01
CIl
:J
;e
C
CIl
CIl
C>
III
CIl
:c
~
:J
.c
E
o
t)
C
o
c
0;
t)
'c
co
Cl
o
.5
~
'c
e
t5
CIl
iIi
~
1il
co
C.
"0
c
co
"E
co
o
.c
E
:J
III
0-
>-
<9
CIl
Q)
t3
c
o
t)
"0
~
:J
o
ll...
III
CIl
.~
::::
co
00
III
CIl
c
<;::
CIl
:c
co
<;::
'00
III
co
U
c
:J
III
-'"
t)
~
III
-'"
t)
o
iii
ro
'u
CIl
0-
III
O/l
:s:
:r:
:r:
ro
"5i
ro
E
Cl
c
<;::
o
o
a:::
~
.c
(5
Section 1-4 Tables & Figures.xls Fig 4-5
I
I
Figure 4-6
Total Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
I
20%
I
I
o Spring 1997
.96-97 Annual Data
o Spring 2004
I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
150/0 - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... - - - - - - - - - . - . - . - . . . - - - - - . . - - . . . . . . - - . . - - . - - - - - - . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - . . - - - . . - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - . . . - . - - . . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . - . - . .
I
I
-
...
.c
Cl
'g;
~
>.
.Q
-; 100/0
Cl
C'Cl
...
I:
4)
~
Ql
a..
I
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ..
Notes:
1. Data from 1996-97 Adjusted to Correlate to 2004 Categories. Error Bars Indicate Upper and Lower 90% Confidence Interval.
2. Spring 1997 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by CDM from May 12 to May 16, 1997, provided in City of Salina Solid Waste Characterization Study Final Report, August 1997.
3. Spring 2004 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by CDM from May 17 to May 21,2004, provided in City of Salina, Kansas Solid Waste Characterization Study Spring Summary Report, June 24, 2004 - Draft.
I
I I
5%
I
I
I
0%
Qj c Qj (/) Qj (/) (/) (/) .s.! Q) (/) Q) "C Qj ~ (/) (/)
Q) Q) ~ 1ii (/) 1ii 0 Q) Q)
a. .~ a. c: a. ~ E 1ii ~ 0 .c S c: ;g
1lI 1lI "N 1lI 0 1lI 1lI 1lI :5: ro 'c t;:
c.. (/) a. a. 0 0 c. ;: Cl ;: 1ii
;: 1lI .c .c ~ 1lI Q)
= Q) OJ Qj .c Qj "C "E (/) :c ::3
1lI Q) "C 1lI W W W 0 "C .c
~ Z 1lI ::l: .c c.. c.. .c 0 1lI c: (/) 1lI E
9> 0 I- 0 0 0 u. >. 1lI Qj t;:
w "in 0
~ c.. J: J: Qj Qj a. (/) ~
.c 1lI
"C OJ ro "C .c .c Ci 1lI (/)
Ql J: ~ 0 .c U 0
ro Ql 2 c: "c
U 0 "C :::> 1lI
OJ (5 c:
2 1lI vi e>
(; () (/) ~ 0
Ql ~ Qj
() >
1lI Ql .c
Ql I- 0
..J
I
(/) Ql
Qj OJ
c: 1lI
"iij Qj
c >
0 Ql
0 .c l!!
Ql ~ Ql
OJ "C .5
1lI oS
Qj .E c:
> 0
Ql E 0
.c ::3
~ "5
"C E
0 ::3
.E <(
I
I
Qj
Ql
Ci5
I
I
COM
Iii Iii Iii (/) (/) l!! l!! (/) Iii (/) ~ Ql (/) (/) Qj
Ql Qj Ql 0 ~ -'" -'"
Q) Q) Q) Q) Ql ;g '0 'c Qj 0 0 1ii
E E E .~ c: c: c: Ql 0 ~ .Q 1lI
== 'iij S "iij 1ii a. e ro c: CD C.
(/) Ql Ql 1lI C c: C ::3 (/) '0 E 0
::3 :c :c CD .c ~ 0 "C
e 0 0 0 ~ OJ c:
1lI 1lI 0 0 0 E :5: w c: "C 1lI
Qj Ql U (/) (/) (/) 0 <;::: ~
u. U >. (/) (/) (/) '? J: 0 ::3 "E
() 0 1lI 1lI 1lI c: J: 0 0 1lI
~ ~ 0, 0, en 0 0:: c.. 0
Qj ro c: Ql .E .c
c: ;: ::3 (/) E
0 .c Ql e 0
z 0 U 0 "c ::3
m (/)
c: 1lI a.
Ql e> >.
Ql Cl
(5 0
"5
Qj
.c
o
Section 1-4 Tables & Figures.xls Fig 4-6
'..:-. :,
.~- -(
" c
"- '-I .:~\,
~. ,:,
.... ....\
,-
, ',"
':',,'-,.-'
"
,!,,' '"
" ',n
" .
; ~ - .
. c, -'"
" ....'"
j'
',[", ,c
".
,~'>
',"'.c;;;'
r- .....\
',"
., '
-'c.
'('-',-,'.
~'; '.
,"
.'
,;..-;
-"'.
,'>
r>l-' .,'- ,
. , .r'
, "
,',
':' ;-
,,',~ [: ~
. .
, :>
'.:','
'{ .
. ~.
,',
~ \' .
":',,
>' ,
'>.-.;-'
'\" ;
, ~...,-- ,.
, 'r
,. ,I.'
"
~" , '""-
....';
~..". c"
I." r
" "
,
':
-~(:
'>-.';" ~
."'r
',,'(
. ',.,'
',...,'
"
"C' ..
.,' " ,~, > ~;~ .
. , '~.',' .
'-' . ,-'
. ~,.
~: <,
.-:'
"-I' <:, .
O !~',' :( :',<~
", ~.
, '.'
'>'" "
" ..
')
.0...."
. .r ,.
,:.' l"~
-",. r-
;'1,-
~ ,
'(
c:,
>0..':'"
" ~,
.: ~ ~ -:.
':'C'.
,
"
6~:t" : :.I,'()\'.:'tri~:,.
'G v'. ~'.' ~. ~ ~ -'I J'~'I'~,-"
. ';~E:: ,;)'i,~
.~J\l.e..
" ,.
.~. " ,C
," "
',,',.
c....
,).. ,
"'" ,I ~
I ~"j
'['"
-,
.;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 5
Annual 2004 Waste Composition Results
5.1 Introduction
One of the objectives of this waste characterization study is to determine the annual
2004 waste composition. This section develops the annual 2004 waste composition
while considering the results of the Comparison of Waste Composition Results
presented in Section 4. The annual waste composition was cakulated by using a
weighted waste composition, which was cakulated using the following formula:
Weighted Waste Composition (%) = Spring 2004 (%) * 1/3 + Annual 1997 (%) * 2/3
CDM assigned an equal weight to each season (spring, fall and winter) to determine
the Annual 2004 Waste Composition. The weighted composition assumes that the
Spring 2004 composition accounts for approximately 1/3 of the yearly composition
and the Annual 1997 composition is used to estimate the composition for the fall and
winter seasons. The above weighted waste composition was used unless the waste
category was statistically different between the 2004 and 1997, such as with
Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper in the residential stream. If a statistical
difference was found or if a change in the waste category definition was found to
impact the Spring 2004 value for that waste category then the annual waste
composition was assumed to be the same as the Spring 2004 composition. After the
percent waste composition for each waste category was cakulated the Annual 2004
waste composition results were normalized so that the total percentages added up to
100 percent. The Annual 2004 waste composition was determined for each waste
stream and then combined to provide the Annual 2004 Total Landfilled Waste
Composition.
5.2 Residential
As stated in Section 3, for the purposes of this report the residential waste stream is
defined as solid waste collected by City and private haulers from residential units and
multi-family residential buildings with up to 3 units within Saline County and
disposed at the Salina MSWLF. Due to significant changes in the following categories
the Spring 2004 data was relied upon for the Annual 2004 composition as described in
Section 5.1:
. Corrugated & Kraft Paper - Below 90% confidence interval;
. High-Grade Paper - Above 90% confidence interval;
. PET Bottles - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Other Plastic - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Unc1assifiable Fines - Change in category definition;
. Other Organics/Combustibles - Change in category definition;
COM 5-1
P:\8558salina\waste stlJdy\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ClIVI
Section 5
Annual 2004 Waste Composition Results
. Other Inorganic/Non-Combustibles- Change in category definition;
. HHW and Special- New category; and
. Electronics - New category.
Based on the calculated Annual 2004 Residential Waste Composition, the majority of
the waste was comprised of Leaves and Other Yard Waste; Other Plastic; Other Paper;
Food Waste; Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper; and Newsprint. The most
abundant material (by weight) was Leaves.and Other Yard Waste. A detailed
residential waste composition by weight is. shown in Figure 5-1.
I
5.3 Commercial
As stated in Section 3, for the purposes of this report commercial waste is defined as
solid waste generated by commercial businesses and multi-family residential
buildings with more than 3 units within Saline County and brought to the MSWLF.
Due to significant changes in the following categories the Spring 2004 data was relied
upon for the Annual 2004 composition as described in Section 5.1:
. Corrugated & Kraft Paper - Below 90% confidence interval;
. Newsprint - Above 90% confidence interval;
. PET Bottles - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Other Plastic - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Unclassifiable Fines - Change in category definition;
. Other Organics/Combustibles - Change in category definition;
. Non-Recyclable Metal- Below 90% confidence interval;
. Other Recyclable Metal - Change in category definition;
. Other Inorganic/Non-Combustibles - Change in category definition;
. HHW and Special - New category; and
. Electronics - New category.
Based on the calculated Annual 2004 Commercial Waste Composition, the majority of
the commercial waste was comprised of Other Plastic; Other Paper; Food Waste;
Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper; and Newsprint. The most abundant material
by weight was Other Plastic. A detailed material distribution of this waste stream is
provided in Figure 5-2.
5-2
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 5
Annual 2004 Waste Composition Results
5.4 Industrial
Waste included in this waste stream is generated by industries and manufacturing
companies within Saline County and brought to the MSWLF. Due to significant
changes in the following categories the Spring 2004 data was relied upon for the
Annual 2004 composition as described in Section 5.1:
. Other Paper - Above 90% confidence interval;
. PET Bottles - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Clear HDPE - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Unclassifiable Fines - Change in category definition;
. Other Organics/Combustibles - Change in category definition;
. Steel Food and Beverage Containers - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Aluminum Food and Beverage Containers - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Non-Recyclable Metal- Above 90% confidence interval;
. Other Inorganic/Non-Combustibles - Below 90% confidence interval;
. HHW and Special- New category; and
. Electronics - New category.
Based on the 2003-2004Iandfilled quantities, approximately 71 % of the industrial
waste stream originates from Tony's Pizza. Tony's Pizza waste contains mostly Food
Waste, Corrugated & Kraft Paper, Other Paper, and Other Plastic. One additional
significant category identified in the industrial waste stream was Wood. The most
abundant material by weight was Food Waste. A detailed waste composition by
weight for the industrial waste stream is provided in Figure 5-3.
5.5 Construction and Demolition
As stated in Section 3, the construction/ demolition waste stream is defined as waste
generated from construction/ demolition activities within Saline County and brought
to the MSWLF for the purposes of this report. Due to significant changes in the
following categories the Spring 2004 data was relied upon for the Annual 2004
composition as described in Section 5.1:
. PET Bottles - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Clear HDPE - Above 90% confidence interval;
COM 5-3
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev,doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 5
Annual 2004 Waste Composition Results
. Colored HDPE - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Grass - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Unclassifiable Fines - Change in category definition;
. Other Organics/Combustibles - Change in category definition;
. Steel Food and Beverage Containers - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Aluminum Food and Beverage Containers - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Non-Recyclable Metal- Above 90% confidence interval;
. Clear Glass Containers - Above 90% confidence interval;
. Other Inorganic/Non-Combustibles - Change in category definition;
. HHW and Special - New category; and
. Electronics - New category.
Based on the calculated Annual 2004 Construction and Demolition Waste
Composition, the majority of the construction/ demolition waste was comprised of
Wood; Roofing Material; Gypsum Board and Plaster; and Leaves and Other Yard
Waste. The most abundant material by weight was Wood. A detailed material
distribution of this waste stream is shown in Figure 5-4.
5.6 Total Landfilled Waste Composition
The Annual 2004 material compositions from the four landfilled waste streams were
combined in order to estimate the composition of waste currently being landfilled. As
stated in Section 3, the weight percentages of the various waste streams are based on
Salina landfill tipping records for 2003 and 2004. The total stream is a weighted
average of the four waste streams. Each landfilled waste stream was weighted based
on the tonnages in Table 3-1 to provide the Annual 2004 Total Landfilled Waste
Composition shown in Table 5-1, and Figures 5-5 and 5-6.
The Annual 2004 Total Landfilled Waste Composition data shows that the most
abundant materials by weight percentage are:
. Food Waste (14.3%);
. Other Plastic (12.5%);
. Other Paper (12.0%);
. Corrugated Cardboard & Kraft Paper (9.9%);
CDM 54
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase .2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONI
Section 5
Annual 2004 Waste Composition Results
. Wood (8.3%); and
. Leaves and Other Yard Waste (7.2%).
Figure 5-5 provides a more detailed breakdown of the combined waste stream by
material type.
5.7 Annual 2004 Waste Characterization Conclusions
The landfilled waste streams in 2004 have several significant variations from the
1996/1997 waste streams, which result in significant changes in the totallandfilled
waste composition. The differences noted in the individual waste streams were
discussed in Section 4. Based on the results provided in Section 3 and Section 4, the
following changes to the Annual 2004 landfilled waste composition were found:
. An increase in High-Grade Paper, PET Bottles, and Other Plastic in the
residential waste stream;
. An increase in Newsprint and PET Bottles in the commercial waste
stream;
. An increase in Other-Paper in the industrial waste stream;
. A decrease in Other Inorganics/Non-Combustibles in the industrial
waste stream and the totallandfilled waste stream, which can be
attributed to the removal of Phillips's Lighting glass debris from the
waste stream;
. An increase in High-Grade Paper, Food Waste and Wood in the total
landfilled waste stream;
. An increase in PET Bottles in the totallandfilled waste stream, which is
likely due to the a national trend toward increased consumption of
bottled water and increased use of single serving containers;
. An increase in Other Plastic in the totallandfilled waste stream, which is
likely due to a national trend towards increased use of plastics in
packaging;
. A decrease in Newsprint, Clear HDPE Containers, Colored HDPE
Containers and Steel and Bimetal Food and Beverage Containers in the
totallandfilled waste stream.
. A decrease in Leaves and Other Yard Waste in the totallandfilled waste
stream. This is likely related to the Yard waste Composting Facility.
5-5
P:\B558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 12%
...
J:
Cl
OQj
3:
>. 10%
e
ell
Cl
III
...
c 8%
ell
()
"-
ell
Il.
6%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Figure 5-1
Residential Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
20%
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 S ri 1 99 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p n 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . - - . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - . . - - . - - . . - . . . . - . 9 6-9 7 A I 0 ata . - - - . - - . - . - . - - - - . - . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n n u a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 S ri 2 0 0 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p n 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II A I 2 0 04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n n u a - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
20%
18%
16%
14%
-
-
.r::
Cl
'(jj
s:
>-
.Q
-
12%
10%
Gl
Cl
CI:l
-
c:
Gl
U
...
Gl
D-
Figure 5-2
Commercial Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
rJ)
<Il
:0
:;::l
rJ)
:3
.0
E
o
u
U
'r:
co
Ol
o
Q;
.I::
6
~
<Il
c:
'm
"E
o
U
<Il
Ol
~
<Il
>
<Il
.0
~
"0
o
.E
Qi
<Il
(j)
E
:3
,!::
E
:3
<i:
o Spring 1997
.96-97 Annual Data
OSpring 2004
I!!I Annual 2004
rJ)
<Il
:0
ti
:3
.0
E
o
y
c:
o
.!::
rJ)
u
'r:
co
e>
o
,!::
Q;
.I::
6
rJ)
~
Q;
ro
:2
Ol
c:
""
o
o
0::
rJ)
~
u
o
ii'i
.....
.2l
rJ)
co
0:::
~
"0
ro
o
a:l
E
:3
rJ)
C.
>.
(9
Q;
c.
co
ll...
.:l:
co
~
~
"0
<Il
ro
Ol
2
o
o
"E
.~
rJ)
~
z
rJ)
<Il
c:
iI
<Il
:0
co
""
'Vi
rJ)
co
(3
c:
:::>
rJ)
Q;
c:
~
c:
o
o
rJ)
rJ)
co
Ci
ro
<Il
(3
~
<Il
c:
'm
"E
o
o
rJ)
rJ)
co
Ci
c:
=:
e
a:l
~
<Il
c:
~
c:
o
U
<Il
Ol
~
<Il
>
<Il
.0
~
"0
o
.E
:s
<Il
:2
rJ)
:3
e
Q;
L1.
~
<Il
c:
'm
"E
o
o
rJ)
rJ)
co
Ci
c:
<Il
~
(9
<Il
-m
5
c:
o
o
rJ)
~
u
~
ro
'0
<Il
c.
U)
"0
c:
co
~
J:
J:
13
'r:
e
o
<Il
UJ
Q;
c.
co
ll...
<Il
"0
~
<;>
.I::
Ol
I
rJ)
<Il
c:
'N
co
Ol
co
:2
Q;
c.
co
ll...
Q;
.I::
6
Q;
.I::
ro
<Il
...J
~
~
.0
.0
:3
0::
vi
~
~
<Il
I-
u
~
co
0:::
Q;
.I::
6
rJ)
<Il
E
o
a:l
I-
W
ll...
~
<Il
c:
'm
"E
o
o
W
ll...
o
J:
ro
<Il
(3
rJ)
Q;
c:
'm
"E
o
o
W
ll...
o
J:
"0
<Il
o
(5
o
rJ)
Ol
c:
'0.
,9-
(3
rJ)
rJ)
co
Ci
<Il
1;)
~
"0
ro
>-
Q;
.I::
6
.2l
rJ)
~
"0
o
o
L1.
~
<Il
c.
co
Ci
<Il
:0
co
rJ)
o
c.
rJ)
Ci
"0
o
~
rJ)
<Il
>
co
<Il
...J
:s
<Il
E
<Il
:0
co
(3
>.
u
~
c:
o
Z
ro
-m
E
<Il
:0
co
(3
~
~
Q;
.I::
6
rJ)
<Il
.~
15
a:l
Notes:
1. Data from 1996-97 Adjusted to Correlate to 2004 Categories. Error Bars Indicate Upper and Lower 90% Confidence Interval.
2. Spring 1997 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by CDM from May 12 to May 16, 1997, provided in City of Salina Solid Waste Characterization Study Final Report, August 1997.
3. Spring 2004 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by CDM from May 17 to May 21, 2004, provided in City of Salina, Kansas Solid Waste Characterization Study Spring Summary Report, June 24, 2004 - Draft.
4. Annual 2004 data calculated based on formula provided in Section 5.1.
Sections 5-10 Tables & Figures.xls Fig 5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 25%
-
.c
Cl
'OJ
3:
>-
.c
- 20%
Q)
Cl
III
-
l:
Q)
~
Q)
c.. 15%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Figure 5-3
Industrial Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
40%
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 S p ri n 9 1 99 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 9 6 -9 7 A n n u a I D a ta - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 S ri 2 0 04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
p n 9
I
I
I
75%
I
70%
I
65%
60%
I
55%
I
50%
I
-
....
.g, 45%
'ii)
3:
~ 40%
-
CI)
~ 35%
....
c
CI)
~
CI) 30%
Il.
I
I
25%
I
20%
I
15%
10%
I
5%
I
0%
I
I
I
Figure 5-4
Construction/Demolition Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
o Spring 1997
.96-97 Annual Data
o Spring 2004
iii Annual 2004
................................................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
tv
0-
ro
ll.
.t::
~
~
o1l
-0
Q)
ro
Cl
2
5
()
~
c.
00
~
Q)
z
~
0-
ro
0-
Q)
-0
ro
rn
1=
Cl
I
tv
0-
ro
0-
tv
.I::
o
00
Q)
c:
ON
ro
Cl
ro
::2:
-0
o
~
00
Q)
';:l
"0
.0
W
ll.
o
I
@
Q)
C3
(,)
ti
ro
0.
tv
.I::
o
00
00
ro
~
Q)
1ii
CIl
~
"E
ro
>.
tv
.I::
"0
-0
c:
ro
00
Q)
>
ro
Q)
..J
tv
.I::
ro
~
-0
c:
ro
..:
Q)
.0
.0
2
ui
~
~
Q)
I-
~
.19
.c
CIl
00
~
Q)
0-
CIl
is
00
Q)
:0
ti
:::J
.0
E
o
.!::
00
(,)
.c
CIl
~
o
tv
.I::
o
~
Q)
c:
O(ii
'E
o
(,)
Q)
Cl
~
Q)
>
Q)
.0
o1l
-0
o
.E
Qi
Q)
U)
~
Q)
c:
O(ii
'E
o
(,)
Q)
Cl
~
Q)
>
Q)
.0
o1l
-0
o
.E
E
:::J
c:
oE
:::J
<i:
ro
Q)
E
00
:::J
e
~
u..
ro
Q)
E
Q)
:0
CIl
<3
>.
(,)
~
tv
.I::
o
ro
Q)
E
Q)
:0
CIl
Q)
<3
>.
(,)
~
c:
o
Z
~
Q)
c:
.(ii
'E
o
(,)
00
00
CIl
0>
@
Q)
C3
~
Q)
c:
O(ii
'E
o
(,)
00
00
ro
0>
c:
3:
e
III
~
Q)
c:
O(ii
'E
o
(,)
00
00
CIl
0>
Q)
:::J
;e
c:
Q)
Q)
~
00
Q)
:0
t1
:::J
.0
E
o
y
c:
o
~
00
(,)
Oc
ro
~
o
.s
tv
.I::
o
ro
00
Q)
0-
00
o1l
S
I
I
00
(,)
.c
e
tl
Q)
[jJ
00
Q)
c:
t;::
Q)
:0
ro
t;::
000
00
ro
<3
c:
=>
ro
"53
ro
E
Cl
c:
t;::
o
o
0::
2
~
(,)
c:
o
(,)
-0
~
:::J
o
ll.
00
..><:
(,)
o
1i5
'-
2
00
CIl
0.
-0
c:
CIl
"E
CIl
o
.0
E
:::J
00
0-
>.
<9
I
Notes:
1. Data from 1996-97 Adjusted to Correlate to 2004 Categories. Error Bars Indicate Upper and Lower 90% Confidence Interval.
2. Spring 1997 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by COM from May 12 to May 16, 1997, provided in City of Salina Solid Waste Characterization Study Final Report, August 1997.
3. Spring 2004 data based on results ofthe waste characterization study conducted by COM from May 17 to May 21, 2004, provided in City of Salina, Kansas Solid Waste Characterization Study Spring Summary Report, June 24, 2004 - Draft.
4. Annual 2004 data calculated based on formula provided in Section 5.1.
I
COM
00
Q)
E
o
.0
W
ll.
o
I
-0
~
o
"0
()
2
00
CIl
~
-0
o
o
u..
00
4l
"0
.0
W
I-
W
ll.
00
Q)
j
ro
III
00
..><:
(,)
&5
Sections 5-10 Tables & Figures.xls Fig 5-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Figure 5-5
Total Waste Composition by Weight (1996-97 vs 2004)
City of Salina MSWLF
20%
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 Spri ng 1 997
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 96-97 Annual Data - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 S pri ng 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . Annual 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - JI T11- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l-~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
rI 11 -. rIh. rTII ~ r-.. nil rJ rI rd n. n.
15%
-
....
J:
Cl
'Qj
s:
>-
.c
-
Q)
Cl
co
....
c:
Q)
~
Q)
ll.
10%
5%
0%
:;; E :;; "' :;; "' "' "' ~ CD "' * "C :;; ~ "' "' "'
a. .~ a. CD a. " " CD 0; "' 0 ~ J'l " " ~
" .. E '" " ~
'" '" "N '" E 0 0 '" '" C5 '" ~ 10 "c '"
"- ~ a. '" a. 0 .0 .0 Q. ;;0 ;;0 .!!! :Jl " "iij
'" CD '" .0 "C " E
'" " "C '" CD W W W " 0 "E "C :;; .0 0
'"' z f! :E ~ .... "- "- ~ 0 '" " f! '" E "
0 >- '" '"
'" w 0 0 0 lL CD ":1 0 "
.. 1= "- I I :;; ..: a. ~ '"
" '"
"C '" ;;; "C ~ .0 is '" f!
CD I ~ 0 .0 g " "
10 " "C 2 "c >
U 0 '" 1l, "
'" 0 " .0
2 u '" .; 5 ..
5 "' ~
" :;; "C
U > X
'" CD ~ 0
" .... 0 .E
--' Q;
"
iii
f! 0; 0; 0; "'
" ... ... ... CD
" "C
E E E CD
S '"
" "' " CD '"
0 " :;; :;; m
" g '" '"
CD CD CD 1)
1) 1;-
'" lL 1;-
f! " E
CD ~
> CD
CD 0 ~
.0 Z 0
..
"C
0
.E
f! "' f! "' 0; lj 0; S "' "' ~
~ CD -'" -'"
" ~ ~ "0 "c "C E " "
C " 0 " g ~ 0 '"
"iij "iij "iij g. ti 10 a; Q.
E E E " E 0
0 0 0 .0 .. CD '" " "C
U " " E ill "C C
:;: " '"
"' "' "' 0 '" ~
"' "' "' u I 0 " "E
'" '" '" C I 0 0 '"
c;, c;, c;, 0 '" "- 0
'" ~ " ii .0
" E
CD ~ "
u e "c ;;:
III CD '" a.
'" ,.,
~ 5 (!)
(!) "5
:;;
~
0
E
"
"
"e
"
Notes: :;:
1. Data from 1996.97 Adjusted to Correlate to 2004 Categories. Error Bars Indicate Upper and Lower 90% Confidence Interval.
2. Spring 1997 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by CDM from May 12 to May 16,1997, provided in City of Salina Solid Waste Characterization Study Final Report, August 1997.
3. Spring 2004 data based on results of the waste characterization study conducted by CDM from May 17 to May 21, 2004, provided in City of Salina, Kansas Solid Waste Characterization Study Spring Summary Report, June 24, 2004 - Draft.
4. Annual 2004 data calculated based on formula provided in Section 5.1.
Sections 5-10 Tables & Figures"xls Fig 5-5
I
I Percentage (by Weight) I
..... ..... N
0 CJ1 0 CJ1 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
0 0 0 0 0
Food waste
Other plastic I
Other paper
Corrugated & Kraft Paper I
z Wood
0
r+ Leaves and other yard waste
CD
)> Newsprint I
::J
::J
r::
!!!. Textiles, rubber, and leather
N I
0 Roofing material
0
01:>-
0- Other organics/combustibles
III
r+ N
III Ferrous metal 0 I
0 0
III ,I::l.
0" High-grade paper -4
c
iii 0
r+ Gypsum board and plaster -
CD e!. I
0- n
r:T Diapers sanitary ~ :E
III
f/l ~
CD Magazines 0 Ul
0- -
"""'CD" I
0 en -.
::J Steel food & beverage containers ~ n (Q
0' -oS::
-. ..,
.., Unclassifiable fines :J 3 CD
3 ~ "C 01 I
r:: :s: 0 ·
iii Grass Ul en
" en -.
.., Other inorganics/non-combustibles :E!:!:
0 .0
<
is: PETE bottles ,,:J I
CD , C"
0- , '<
,
::J Clear glass containers , :E
,
C/) , CD I
CD Electronics , (Q
g. ,
, ::r
o. Aluminum food & beverage containers , -
::J ,
~ ,
Clear HOPE bottles ,
~ " I
,
Poured concrete
Brown glass containers I
Colored HOPE bottles
Other recyclable metal I
(f)
CD HHW & special
~
0'
1i1
~ Bricks
0 I
a;t Nonrecycleable metal
r:r
m
"" Green/blue glass containers
"Tl
<ii'
c I
CD Batteries
'"
x
in
"Tl
<ii' Blocks
0>
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5-1
Composition of 2004 Landfilled Waste Streams (by Weight)
City of Salina MSWLF
Construction/ Total Weighted
Industrial Demolition Commercial Residential Composition
Waste Category Mean Percentage Mean Percentage Mean Percentage Mean Percentage Mean Percentage
Food waste 33.71% 0.01% 12.75% 10.1% 14.29%
Other plastic 13.30% 1.54% 15.61% 12.7% 12.46%
Other paper 14.83% 1.27% 14.09% 12.1% 12.00%
"orru!!ated & Kraft Paper 19.47% 3.41% 10.06% 6.9% 9.94%
Wood 9.97% 35.32% 4.24% 2.3% 8.31%
Leaves and other vard waste 0.05% 9.45% 4.14% 13.1% 7.24%
Newsprint 0.00% 0.03% 5.53% 6.6% 4.22%
Textiles. rubber and leather 1.13% 2.64% 4.26% 4.8% 3.66%
Roofin!! material 0.00% 23.33% 0.71% 0.3% 3.09%
Other organics/combustibles 1.36% 1.24% 2.48% 4.2% 2.75%
Ferrous metal 2.85% 2.47% 2.44% 1.3% 2.12%
Hi!!h-!!rade paper 0.27% 0.14% 2.65% 2.4% 1.82%
Gvpsum board and plaster 0.00% ]1.28% 1.44% 0.1% 1.85%
Diapers sanitary 0.00% 0.00% 1.42% 3.3% 1.68%
Magazines 0.00% 0.00% 1.82% 2.7% 1.57%
Steel food & beverage containers 0.44% 1.35% 1.79% 2.0% 1.56%
Unclassifiable fines 0.00% 0.39% 2.24% 1.9% 1.48%
Grass 0.00% 0.39% 1.86% 2.3% 1.47%
Other inorganics/non-combustibles 0.33% 0.62% 2.05% 1.5% 1.34%
PETE bottles 0.15% 0.10% 1.51% 1.5% 1.07%
Clear !!Iass containers 0.00% 0.02% 1.07% 1.8% 1.00%
Electronics 0.16% 0.58% 0.74% 1.3% 0.83%
IAlu~inum food & bevera!!e containers 0.03% 0.09% 0.92% 0.8% 0.61%
Clear HDPE bottles 0.63% 0.07% 0.56% 0.7% 0.57%
Poured concrete 0.45% 2.39% 0.32% 0.2% 0.56%
Brown !!Iass containers 0.00% 0.00% 0.89% 0.6% 0.51%
Colored HDPE bottles 0.00% 0.01% 0.75% 0.7% 0.50%
Other recvclable metal 0.69% 0.63% 0.42% 0.3% 0.46%
HHW & special 0.11% 0.00% 0.41% 0.5% 0.34%
Bricks 0.00% 0.95% 0.43% 0.0% 0.26%
N onrecvcleable metal 0.07% 0.27% 0.12% 0.4% 0.21%
Green/blue !!Iass containers 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.2% 0.11%
Batteries 0.00% 0.00% 0.21% 0.1% 0.10%
Blocks 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.1% 0.03%
IrOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100% 100% 100%
CDM
5-1 Totals Annual 2004 Sections 5-10 Tables & Figures.xls
r
'C_
7-ir-"-
'L
,['
[,
[.
[
C'.,
, . ,
\
o
,,'+ ,.l. ,
'0
;'",
o.
r"I,
l'
.e
'0
,[
'["
' ,
'~[,
~r-.
-l'.
Y--',
l_
\
",
[-
, .'
I'_
'.
" ;'
.,
;'."
. . 1_'
~ :'. ,~
" '
.,'
")
t" /..~ ,
"'",'-\'
., ,
I,
,I'
<..,
, ,.
",:
,.':
I. , ~
',.
,J :)'
~', ,
"
'I )'
'~, I
.~
'....'
'I'
ctioO'
.:J'
':8"'.""
,IuI'X
, .'
;.,
--\.
~ '''-'.
) ,..,', "
'\'
<r"
, -'~'
. "
" .1
, '
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONI
Section 6
Recyclable Materials
6.1 Recyclable Material Summary
One of the objectives of this study was to determine additional recycling
opportunities beyond implementing a full-scale residential curbside recycling
program. In order to determine what recycling is feasible for the City of Salina, CDM
evaluated the materials available for recycling and current recycling trends and
markets. Table 6-1 summarizes the recyclable materials available in the Saline
County Waste Stream. The most abundant materials by weight are:
. Food Waste (14.3%) - approximately half is from Tony's Pizza;
. Mixed Paper (12 %) - includes High-Grade Paper and 85 % of the Other Paper
category distributed between industrial, commercial and residential waste;
. Corrugated Cardboard & Kraft Paper (9.9%) -distributed evenly between
industrial, commercial and residential waste;
. Wood (8.3%) - industrial and construction/ demolition waste; and
. Leaves and Other Yard Waste (7.2 %) - predominantly from residential waste.
Approximately 9,569 Tons (13.6% residential waste) from the Saline County
residential waste stream including 8,155 Tons (11.6% residential waste) from the City
of Salina residential waste stream consists of materials currently being collected in the
pilotresidential curbside recycling program. A total of approximately 23.7 percent or
16,730 tons of the totallandfilled waste stream consists of the same recyclable
materials with the majority present in the commercial and residential waste streams.
6.2 Recycling Trends and Market
In order to evaluate recycling options, it is necessary to look at what recycling efforts
have worked at the municipal level nationally and what markets are available for
recycled materials.
6.2.1 Recycling Markets
As part of an evaluation of recyclable materials, it is important to determine what is
marketable in a geographic area. If a material is collected as part of a recycling
program, but the recycler is unable to find a market, the material will likely be
disposed at the landfill. This discourages people from participating in the recycling
program and could reduce collection of another marketable material. Figures 6-1
through 6-4 show composite values of recyclable material. These values are an
average of several major cities throughout the United States; however, not all
materials are marketable in all areas. In addition to the materials shown in the
figures, there may be a local market for textiles if there are facilities that recycle the
material into items such as filters, carpeting, rags and absorbent cleaning materials.
6-1
P:\65S8salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONI
Section 6
Recyclable Materials
Historical market values can be volatile and appropriate consideration should be
given when deciding whether to include a material in a recycling program. If a
material does not have a sustainable market, then it is likely it should not be included
in a recycling program.
6.2.1.1
Metal Markets
Metals are collected for recycling from the industrial, commercial and residential
waste streams. Values for Used Steel Cans and Aluminum Used Beverage Containers,
which are currently collected as part of the pilot recycling program, are shown in
Figure 6-1. Aluminum cans have been consistently at the same level for the past four
years with only small spikes in value; however, the value of steel cans has been
steadily increasing due to a recent shortage of steel. These materials are typically
collected in residential recycling programs and based on the results of the current
recycling program and market there is no reason to eliminate these items. While there
are additional markets for metals (beyond steel and aluminum) they are typically
more volatile and depend more on what direct buyers are available in the area or
buyers a broker can find for the material. Other metals not appropriate for residential
recycling may be appropriate for select individual commercial! industrial facilities.
6.2.1.2 Plastics Markets
Typically plastics containers are collected in residential recycling programs. While
plastics containers are typically only collected for the residential waste stream, it may
be appropriate to collect plastics from select commercial! industrial facilities. Figure
6-2 provides typical values for baled plastics. Plastics collected from curbside
residential recycling programs is typically baled. These plastics are then sold to
facilities that recycle them into many items such as plastic lumber, furniture,
geotextile fabrics, construction material, fiberfill insulation, filter media, carpeting and
many other materials.
Values for plastics increase with the amount of separation that has occurred prior to
the sale of the material. Typically plastics will be sorted again when several material
types are combined. For example, the plastics currently collected in the pilot
recycling program are baled together and sold to a facility that segregates them into
different categories. While the value of the mixed plastic bale is less, if the cost to
separate the material into the different plastic types is more than the resulting
increase in revenue there is no reason to separate the plastics. The margin between
mixed and separated streams may not be enough to make a significant difference in
the net cost of a recycling program and the additional labor, equipment, maintenance,
and facility requirements may be better used for other recyclable materials. Typically
the more volume received the more economical increased segregation.
6.2.1.3 Paper Markets
Paper products are typically a significant portion of a curbside residential and a
commercial recycling program. Paper products can be recycled into many items such
as building materials, insulation, absorbent cleaning products, paperboard and carpet
6-2
P:\855Bsalina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 6
Recyclable Materials
padding in addition to the standard recycled paper products such as newsprint, paper
towels, toilet paper and corrugated cardboard. Therefore, there is usually a local
market for paper products. Based on discussions with Images Recycling, there are at
least two direct buyers in the area, one uses paper products for paper board and the
other uses paper products for asphalt products. Brokers are also an option if there is
not a significant local market for the paper products collected.
Figure 6-4 shows values for corrugated cardboard, newspaper and high-grade office
paper. Corrugated cardboard and newsprint are currently being collected in the pilot
recycling program, although high-grade office paper is typically harder to segregate
from the residential waste stream. High-grade office paper is often recycled at select
locations such as state and local government buildings, universities, etc which
produce large volumes of documents and paper waste. Typically it is easier to collect
a combined recyclable paper stream (Mishmash) as it is being collected in the pilot
recycling program. The value is less, but the percentage of the stream that is high-
grade office paper is too small to make separation feasible.
6.2.1.4 Glass Markets
Glass bottles are also a typical recyclable material collected in a residential recycling
program. Figure 6-5 shows market values for clear, brown and green glass. As
shown in the figure, the market value changes significantly between the different
types of glass. If the glass is mixed the value will be significantly impacted, if there is
a market at all. Due to collection practices, separation and recovery of glass is a
challenge and this can make finding a market difficult. Mixed glass can be recycled
into insulation, and other construction materials, therefore if there are local producers
of these products, there will likely be a local mixed glass market.
6.2.2 Recycling Trends
There are many different types of recycling activities that work on the municipal
level. A typical municipal recycling program consists of a curbside recycling program
for single-family residences and commercial properties. The additional components
of municipal recycling programs can vary significantly from city to city. This section
will discuss some of the more common trends in municipal recycling programs.
There are several different types of curbside collection practices, single-stream
collection, two-stream collection and source-sorted collection. Both single-stream and
two-stream collection are considered commingled collection because the materials are
not sorted prior to collection. Single-stream collection consists of collecting all
recyclable materials in one compartment and separating the materials at a recycling
facility. Two-stream collection typically consists of the collection of paper products
in one compartment and containers in another compartment. The two streams are
further separated at the recycling facility. Some advantages of a commingled
recycling program are:
. Improves collection efficiency;
ClIVI 6-3
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 6
Recyclable Materials
. Increases flexibility to add or delete materials based on markets;
. Minimizes sorting costs away from typically higher-cost collection labor, and
. Decreases capital investment, as standard waste hauling vehicles often can be
used for recyclable material collection.
Some disadvantages of the commingled collection practice are:
. Reduces the value of collected materials;
. Requires a facility that can separate a commingled stream;
. Typically results in higher residue levels;
. Adversely affects materi(ll quality; and
. Limits inspection of materials prior to collection.
A source-sorted program is where the recyclables are typically commingled at the
curb and collection crews sort the materials and place them in several compartments
of a specialized collection vehicle. Advantages of this type of collection include:
. Minimal additional sorting at the recycling facility;
. Produces a more valuable product;
. Reduces need for specialized sorting equipment; and
. Allows for rejection of materials prior to entering the recycling facility.
Disadvantages of this type of collection include:
. Limits the number and types of recyclable material that are collected;
. Additional materials may not be collected because collection is limited by the
number of compartments on the collection vehicle and often one bin fills faster
than others; and
. Increases collection time and costs.
Another variation of a source-sorted program is when a commercial or an industrial
facility has a large volume of a particular material such as high-grade paper or
cardboard. This material is placed in separate containers at the source and collected
individually. Advantages of this type of collection include:
6-4
P:\855Bsalina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONI
Section 6
Recyclable Materials
. A larger volume of one material is collected at one time which can reduce
collection costs; and
. Produces a more valuable product.
Disadvantages of this type of collection include:
. Additional containers are needed for collection; and
. Relying on the generator to sort material correctly.
Another factor to consider when comparing commingled or curb sorted recycling
programs are the capabilities of the available material recycling facility (MRF). A
MRF facility is very dependent on markets in the area; however, the most important
factor in a profitable MRF is a sufficient volume of well separated material. If the
material is separated at the curb, the MRF is only required to do minor contamination
control and package the material for shipment. If a commingled collection method is
used, then all the waste must be separated in some way. The technology to sort the
materials is available, such as trommel screens, eddy current separators and air
separators; however, there must be a sufficient volume of material to be cost effective.
Once it is decided whether recyclables will be commingled or sorted into categories at
the curb, collection methods must be selected. For single-stream recycling, recyclable
materials can be collected in a standard compactor truck. For two-stream recycling,
recyclable materials can be collected in either two standard compactor trucks
following the same route or in a two-compartment truck designed for two-stream
collection. If the materials are sorted at the curb then typically a multiple
compartment truck is used for collection.
There are several ways to make a curbside recycling program more efficient.
Recyclables do not need to be collected every time waste is collected. In a two-stream
recycling program the pick-ups could be alternated instead of both streams collected
on the same day. When considering these options, population density and storage
space are important factors. In a highly populated area with a significant number of
multi-family housing units, recycling participation may be reduced if longer storage
of recyclables is required. Once the recycling container is full, people typically begin
placing recyclables in the trash. In a municipality with more single family homes
with garages or other storage areas for recyclables, the recycling program can use
larger containers and pick-up less frequently. Studies have also shown that larger
collection containers with lids (approximately 50-gallons) encourage recycling and
prevent exposure to the elements when compared to the typical 18-gallon open top
recycling bin.
6-5
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
Section 6
Recyclable Materials
Many municipalities also encourage recycling by not charging for curbside residential
recycling because collection costs can be partially off-set by recycling revenue. In
addition, some municipalities also go to a volume-based charge for residential waste
disposal. This encourages recycling because recycling reduces the amount of material
residents pay to dispose of. In addition to curbside recycling, many municipalities
require that commercial buildings and multi-family residence have some form of
recycling available to the tenants.
Many municipalities also compost yard waste and food waste composting is being
implemented more frequently. For residential collection, yard waste is typically
placed in brown paper bags, which do not need to be removed for the composting
facility. The material is then collected regularly during times of production such as
spring, summer and fall or after large storm events. For the commercial and
industrial waste streams, there can be designated drop-off areas. Portland, Oregon
recently implemented a composting program for restaurants, large grocery stores,
cafeterias, and food processing companies that together generate 75 percent of the
food waste. The businesses separate the food into specific containers that are then
transferred to a composting facility. The cost for disposing of food waste at a
composting facility is less than landfill disposal costs for the businesses so they are
more likely to participate in the program. Recycling of construction debris such as
wood and concrete is also a common recycling alternative.
6.3 Recycling Alternatives
Determining what recycling activities will be feasible for a community depend on
many factors. As you can see from the discussion of the markets and recycling trends
in Section 6.2 there are many variables involved in a viable municipal recycling
program. There are many factors which impact the value of recyclable materials and
this in turn impacts which options are feasible for a municipal recycling program.
CDM recommends the following recycling activities be considered:
. A full-scale residential curbside recycling program;
. A city ordinance requiring recycling at industrial, commercial and multi-
family residences;
. A County Material Recycling Facility;
. Composting of yard and food waste; and
. Recycling or reuse of construction/ demolition materials.
COM 6-6
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table 6-1
Potential Recyclable Materials (by Weight)
City of Salina MSWLF
Industrial Construction! Demolition Commercial Residential Total Saline County CompositiOl
Mean Mean Mean Mean County** Tons/ Salina Tons/
Waste Category Percentage Tons/ Year Percentage Tons/ Year Percentage Tons/ Year Percentage Year Year Mean Percentage Tons/ Year
Food waste 33.71% 4,550 0.01% 1 12.75% 2,935 10.10% 2,595 2,211 14.29% 10,080
Mixed Paper* 12.61% 1,702 1.08% 90 11.98% 2,757 10.30% 2,646 2,255 10.20% 7,195
Corru"ated & Kraft Paper 19.47% 2.628 3.41% 284 10.06% 2,315 6.94% 1,783 1,519 9.94% 7,010
Wood 9.97% 1,346 35.32% 2,940 4.24% 976 2.32% 597 509 8.31"1.. 5,858
Leaves and other yard waste 0.05% 7 9.45% 786 4.14% 952 13.08% 3,360 2,863 7.24'Y" 5,105
Newsprint 0.00% 0 0.03% 2 5.53% 1,272 6.62% 1,700 1,449 4.22'Yo. 2974
Textiles rubber, and leather 1.13% 152 2.64% 219 4.26% 981 4.79% 1,229 1,048 3.66% 2,582
Ferrous metal 2.85% 385 2.47% 206 2.44% 562 1.33% 342 291 2.12% 1,494
Hi"h-"rade paper 0.27% 37 0.14% 12 2.65% 610 2.43% 625 533 1.82% 1,284
Maaazines 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 1.82% 419 2.67% 687 585 1.57%, 1,106
Steel food & bevera"e containers 0.44% 59 1.35% 112 1.79% 411 2.01% 516 440 1.56 % 1,098
Grass 0.00% 0 0.39% 32 1.86% 429 2.25% 578 493 1.47% 1,040
PETE bottles 0.15% 20 0.10% 9 1.51% 347 1.48% 380 324 1.07% 756
Clear "lass containers 0.00% 0 0.02% 2 1.07% 247 1.77% 454 387 1.00% 703
Electronics 0.16% 22 0.58% 49 0.74% 170 1.34% 343 293 0.83% 584
Aluminum food & bevera"e containers 0.03% 5 0.09% 7 0.92% 211 0.80% 205 175 0.61% 428
Clear HDPE bottles 0.63% 85 0.07% 6 0.56% 128 0.70% 180 154 0.57% 399
Poured concrete 0.45% 61 2.39% 199 0.32% 75 0.24% 61 52 0.56% 395
Brown "lass containers 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.89% 204 0.60% 154 131 0.51% 358
Colored HDPE bottles 0.00% 0 0.01% 1 0.75% 173 0.69% 177 151 0.50% 352
Other recyclable metal 0.69% 93 0.63% 53 0.42% 97 0.32% 82 70 0.46% 325
HHW & special 0.11% 15 0.00% 0 0.41% 94 0.52% 132 113 0.34% 242
Greenlb1ue "lass containers 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.07% 15 0.24% 62 53 0.11% 77
Batteries 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.21% 49 0.09% 23 20 0.10% 72
TOTAL LANDFILLED
RECYCLABLES 83% 11,165 60% 5,009 71% 16,430 74% 18,911 16,117 73% 51,515
Note: 'Mixed Paper is assumed to be 85% of the Other Paper category as detined in this waste characterization study.
** Combined value for City of Salina and Saline County Townships
CDM
6-1 Tons Recyclable Material Sections 5-10 Tables & Figures.xls
-
-
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
c 2200
0
-
...
Q) 2000
Q.
~ 1800
~
0 1600
C
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Figure 6-1
Composite Market Value - Metal
- - - - - - -I-+- Used steel cans - Aluminum USCs 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
C?
C
ell
.,
;:;
~
:2:
~
9
"5
.,
~i:r;::
;:;
6.
Ql
en
N
9
c
ro
....,
N
o
~
:2:
.--. . .. . . . . .__ . .. . .-. . . . . L-~--~-~--~-~--~-~-~--~
N
o
>.
ell
:2:
N
o
>-
o
Z
(")
o
~
:2:
(")
o
>-
o
Z
'<t
o
C
ell
.,
'<t
o
~
ell
:2:
'<t
o
>.
ell
:2:
'<t
o
6.
Ql
en
'<t
o
>-
o
Z
;:;
>.
ell
:2:
~
o
>-
o
Z
'<t
9
>.
=;
(")
o
>.
ell
:2:
(")
9
"5
.,
(")
9
c.
Ql
en
N
9
"5
.,
N
o
6.
Ql
en
(")
o
C
ell
....,
. Note: Composite value for the following cities: Atlanta. Boston. Chicago. Cleveland. Dallas/Huston. Denver. Detroit. Los Angles. Miami. Minneapolis. New York. Philadelphia. San Francisco. Seattle/Portland. Washington. D.C.
Source: Recycling Manager Archives. www.amm.com/recman/archives.CahnersBusinesslnformation.AmericanMetaIMarketLLC.adivision of Metal Bulletin PLC.
COM
Markets.xls Fig 6-1
-
-
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
r:::
0 225
-
~
CI)
Q. 200
~
~
(5 175
c
150
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Figure 6-2
Composite Market Value - Plastic Baled
_ _ _ _ _ _ _I-+- Clear PET - Green PET -+- Natural HOPE -+- Mixed HOPE - Mixed PET - Mixed HOPE & PET ~ - - - - - - -
125
100
75
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-_._~_.__._~-~-~-~-_._~_.-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
25
o
.....
o
I
c:
I1l
.....,
N
9
c:
(II
...,
N
o
I
>.
I1l
:::iE
C'l
o
I
c:
I1l
...,
..,.
o
,!.
I1l
:::iE
C'l
o
I
a.
Ql
(J)
C'l
o
I
>
o
Z
..,.
9
c:
I1l
.....,
..,.
o
>.
I1l
:::iE
..,.,
o
I
~
...,
..,.
o
a.
Ql
(J)
..,.
o
I
>
o
Z
N
o
I
a.
Ql
(J)
N
o
>
o
Z
M
o
,!.
I1l
:::iE
M
o
>.
I1l
:::iE
M
o
....!..
::l
.....,
N
o
,!.
I1l
:::iE
N
~
::l
.....,
.....
o
,!.
I1l
:::iE
.....
o
I
>.
I1l
:::iE
.....
o
I
:;
.....,
.....
o
I
a.
Ql
(J)
.....
o
I
>
o
Z
* Note: Composite value for the following cities: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas/Huston, Denver, Detroit, Los Angles, Miami, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle/Portland, Washington, D.C.
Source: Recycling Manager Archives, www.amm.com/recman/archives.CahnersBusinesslnformation.AmericanMetaIMarketLLC.adivision of Metal Bulletin PLC.
COM
Markets.xls Fig 6-2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Figure 6-3
Composite Market Value - Post Consumer Paper
160
~ Corrugated
--- Newspaper #6
-+- High-grade office
140 ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------
120 -- - -- - -- -
100
r:::
0
-
L-
a)
c- 80
~
~
'0
c
60
40
20
0
..... C; ..... ..... ...... ...... C\I N N N N N <"'l <"'l <"'l <"'l <"'l <"'l -.r -.r -.r -.r -.r -.r
9 0 ~ 0 0 9 9 9 ~ 0 0 9 9 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0
.!. >. 6- > 6- > >. 6- > .!. >. >. 6- >
c: ltl ::3 c: m >- ::3 c: m "5 c:
ltl ltl Q) 0 ell ltl Q) 0 ltl ltl Q) 0 ltl ltl ltl =; Q) 0
..., :::iE :::iE ..., en z ..., :::iE :::iE ..., en z ..., :::iE :::iE ..., en z ..., :::iE :::iE en z
. Note: Composite value for the following cities: Atlanta. Boston. Chicago. Cleveland. Dallas/Huston, Denver. Detroit. Los Angles. Miami. Minneapolis. New York. Philadelphia. San Francisco. Seattle/Portland. Washington. D.C.
Source: Recycling Manager Archives. www.amm.com/recman/archives.CahnersBusinesslnformation.AmericanMetaIMarketLLC.adivision of Metal Bulletin PLC.
COM
Markets.xls Fig 6-3
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~~
Figure 6-4
Composite Market Value - Glass
45
1--.- Clear -+- Green -.- Brown I
40
35 -------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 ---------------------------------
c
.s 25
..
CI)
Q.
~
.!l!
"0 20
c
15
. - :- -. -. --.- -. - .. -~ -. -. - .- -. - \- - ~ - ~-; - ~ - -. - ~ - ~ -.- -~ - -.- - ~ - ~ - -.- -~ - ~- -; -. - -.- -~ - -. -; -. - -. - ~ - ~-; - ~ - -. -~ -. -; -~ --.
10
5
0
..... ..... ;; ..... ..... ... N N N N N N (') (') (') (') (') (') '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t
9 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0
.!. >- 6.. > .!. >- 6.. I C: .!. :>. I I .!. I I 6- >
c: :; c: :; > :; c. > c: >- ~
III III III Q) 0 111 III III Q) 0 III III III Q) 0 III III III Q) 0
::2: ..., ..., ..., ::2: ...,
..., ::2: en z ..., ::2: ::2: en z ..., ::2: ::2: en z ..., ::2: en z
. Note: Composite value for the following cities: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas/Huston, Denver, Detroit, Los Angles, Miami, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle/Portland, Washington, D.C.
Source: Recycling Manager Archives, www.amm.com/recman/archives.CahnersBusinesslnformation.AmericanMetaIMarketLLC.adivision of Metal Bulletin PLC.
COM
Markets.xls Fig 6-4
I
l~
,[
[
I'
(
I
-L
[,
:
,- ,[
[
[
C --
[
- -
r
L
[ , -
, -
.-
'[
['
,[
[
[
1-
~~_.",
1-
l__
'~ L.,
-~ ('
, ,
.
.'~ -
SectiC)~n
Seven
- ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONI
Section 7
Pilot Curbside Recycling Program
Evaluation
7.1 Introduction
One of the primary objective's of this waste characterization study is to evaluate the
current pilot residential curbside recycling program. This section provides a
summary of the Salina Pilot Residential Curbside Recycling Program between June
through December 2004, evaluates the types of materials recovered, and estimates the
material recycling rates.
The pilot recycling program began in June 2004 with a total of 968 participating
households from within the city limits. All of the participants utilize the City for
waste collection. The City of Salina Public Works employees collect from the
registered participants, sort the material at the curb and deposit the materials into the
City's recycling collection vehicle. The collection vehicle has six compartments to
facilitate sorting at the curb of recyclable materials. Collected materials are then taken
to Images Recycling of Salina, Kansas to be recycled. As part of the pilot program,
Images Recycling collects the following categories of recyclable materials from the
residential participants:
. Newspapers/ Magazines;
. "Mishmash" - Includes any paper that will tear, including hard cover books;
. Plastics #1 through #5;
. Steel Cans;
. Clear Glass;
. Brown Glass; and
. Aluminum - Includes aluminum cans and foil.
In addition to the above categories, Images Recycling recycles corrugated cardboard
and other recyclable materials that may have a market in the area. Limited sorting is
done at the Images processing facility to segregate materials. Currently, plastic
commingled containers are not separated, but rather baled as mixed plastic and sold
to a facility that has capabilities to segregate the plastics by type. The aforementioned
material types collected as part of the pilot program are baled and distributed to
various recyclable markets in the area.
7.2 Curbside Recycling Recovery Rates
Table 7-1 and Figure 7-1 provide a summary of the materials recovered during the'
pilot recycling program. Although most of the categories used in the pilot recycling
7-1
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 7
Pilot Curbside Recycling Program Evaluation
program mimic the waste characterization study categories, CDM had to correlate the
Mishmash and the Plastics number 1 though 5 categories. CDM assumed Mishmash
consists of High-Grade Paper and approximately 85% of Other Paper (i.e. 15% of
Other Paper would not meet Images definition of Mishmash). This percentage is
based on available data from other waste characterization studies for typical paper
stream compositions and the Images Recycling's description of the materials in the
Mishmash category. CDM assumed that the plastics #1 though #5 category
corresponds to the combination of the waste study's Clear HDPE Bottles, Colored
HDPE Bottles and PET Bottles categories. These are the vast majority of the recyclable
plastics in the waste stream based on available data for typical plastics waste stream
compositions.
The results of the pilot program were tracked weekly by City and Images staff. One
item monitored was the number of households that participated each week.
Understanding the rate of participation is one component in the recovery rate. The
other component is the recycling efficiency, which relates to the quantity of materials
recycled by active participants. The recovery rate combines participation rates with
the recycling efficiency rates per household as described below:
Participation Rate :=
Number Participating Households/Number of Total Households
Recycling Efficiency Rate :=
Recyclables Recovered/ Total Recyclables in Participating Households
Recovery Rate :=
Recyclables Recovered / Total Recyclables in Total Households
. In the pilot program, the "Total Households" are the number of households that
signed up to participate and "Participating Households" are the number of
households that set out each week. The recovery rates were calculated based on the
tons of material recycled, the results of the waste characterization study, and the 2000
Census data for population information. Out of approximately 968 households in the
pilot recycling program the following recovery rates were calculated:
. 114% of Newspapers/Magazines;
. 99% of Brown Glass;
. 65% of Clear Glass;
. 48% of Plastics #1 through #5
. 38% of Aluminum Cans;
COM 7-2
P:\B558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONI
Section 7
Pilot Curbside Recycling Program Evaluation
. 35% of Steel Food and Beverage Containers; and
. 33 % of Mishmash.
These recovery rates should not be interpreted literally, but rather considered a
relative order of magnitude. For example, the recovery rates of 114% for
Newspapers/Magazines and the 99% recovery rate for Brown Glass are obviously not
a true estimate of the recovery rate. Because the pilot program is only a small subset
of the community, the number of recyclable materials available per household may
vary significantly from the average. It appears that the total tons of Newspapers,
Magazines and Brown Glass recovered during the pilot recycling program isgreater
than the average generation rate per household. This may be due to larger household
sizes or the difference in each household's waste stream. These differences can bias
the recovery rates both up and down. The recovery rates from a pilot recycling
program are traditionally higher than what would be observed in a full-scale
residential curbside recycling program. This high recovery rate is likely influenced by
the fact that the participants volunteered to take part in the program and would be
more conscious of recycling as well as more informed of the recycling categories. A
sustainable participation rate in any full-scale residential curbside recycling program
is typically only 80 percent. In addition to reduced participation rates, a full-scale
residential recycling program will have residents that do not completely understand
the recycling program resulting in lower recycling efficiency rates.
7-3
P:\855Bsalina\waste study\PhaS9 2\Phase 2 Report re\l.doc
-------------------
Figure 7-1
Pilot Curb-Side Recycling Program Recovery Rates
Salina MSWLF
130%
I New~papersl Magazines 113.7% I ~
.
.
.
110%
~ L-
a:; n L.I
~
90%
I Brown Glass 98.6% I L_
~ Clear Glass 64.8% I
Q)
>
0 70%
(J . . . . .
Q)
0:: .
~
0 Plastics #1-547.7%
.
. .
50% .
g . . . .
. .
30% .
I Steel Cans 34.6% I Mishmash 32.8% I I Aluminum 38.0% I
10%
0 ';).s.~ r} 0' 0' rt- 0'
';)'>~ ~ ~ 2P ~ ~
,?-,>C$ ~0 Cf ~0 u0
c::l~' 0 ~o <:)0
Month
COM
Sections 5-10 Tables & Figures.xls 7-1 Curbside Recycling rates
June 1 st -June 30th July 1st -July 31st AU!=lust 1 st -Au!=lust 31 st
Tons of Tons Recovery Tons of Tons Recovery Tons of Tons Recovery
Material collected Rate Material collected Rate Material collected Rate
Participation 968 968 968
Newspapers/
Magazines 9.80 11.42 116.53% 9.62 9.71 100.88% 9.28 9.69 104.45%
Mishmash 13.43 3.74 27.85% 13.19 3.99 30.23% 12.71 4.12 32.40%
Clear Glass 1.86 1.27 68.38% 1.83 1.23 67.48% 1.76 1.19 67.25%
lastics #1-5 3.03 1.30 42.94% 2.97 1.30 43.77% 2.87 1.29 44.91%
Steel Cans 2.12 0.59 27.85% 2.08 0.55 26.23% 2.01 0.54 26.88%
IBrown Glass 0.63 0.62 97.49% 0.62 0.62 99.92% 0.60 0.63 105.33%
IAluminum 0.84 0.31 36.82% 0.83 0.38 46.25% 0.80 0.27 33.39%
September 1 st - September 30th October 1st - October 31st November 1 st - November 30th
Tons of Tons Recovery Tons of Tons Recovery Tons of Tons Recovery
Material collected Rate Material collected Rate Material collected Rate
Participation 968 968 968
~ewspapers/
Magazines 8.66 9.99 115.31% 8.31 9.12 109.78% 8.63 11.04 127.91%
Mishmash 11.87 3.90 32.84% 11.39 3.76 33.03% 11.83 4.49 37.93%
Clear Glass 1.65 1.11 67.57% 1.58 0.85 53.67% 1.64 1.03 62.51%
Plastics #1-5 2.68 1.35 50.36% 2.57 1.12 43.57% 2.67 1.40 52.48%11
Steel Cans 1.87 0.57 30.68% 1.80 0.68 37.60% 1.87 0.84 45'i
Brown Glass 0.56 0.55 98.02% 0.54 0.46 86.14% 0.56 0.53 95.9
l<\luminum 0.75 0.32 42.85% 0.72 0.23 32.72% 0.74 0.25 34.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
December 1st - December 31st
Tons of Tons Recovery
Material collected Rate
Participation 968
Newspapers/
Magazines 8.67 10.50 121.04%
Mishmash 11.89 4.20 35.33
Clear Glass 1.65 1.10 66.70
Plastics #1-5 2.68 1.50 55.95
Steel Cans 1.88 0.90 48'~1
Brown Glass 0.56 0.60 107.1
luminum 0.75 0.30 40.19%11
COM
Table 7-1
Pilot Curb-Side Recycling Program
Recovery Rates
City of Salina MSWLF
Avera!=le Values
Tons of Tons Recovery
Material collected Rate
968
9.00 10.21 113.70%
12.33 4.03 32.80%
1.71 1.11 64.80%
2.78 1.32 47.71%
1.94 0.67 34.64%
0.58 0.57 98.58%
0.77 0.30 38.03%
7-1 Monthly Curbside Recycling Sections 5-10 Tables & Figures.xls
[~
'[
[
[
[
[
[
[ .. ~,
[,
, '
[,
:'c
[
,[
[
[.
I
I' ,[
I
I'
L-
C, .' ,-
e
" '
/,
,-.:
.-;
. ~:
, .
- '..'.
.1,
~
,I
. "
c;ti6n
Eight
-';. "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONI
Section 8
Future Recycling Programs
8.1 CurbSide Residential Recycling Program
Implementation of a full-scale residential curbside recycling program would have a
measurable impact on the quantity of landfilled waste in Salina County. Based on the
results of the waste characterization study, 9,569 tons of residential waste, of which
8,155 tons originates from the City, is composed of materials currently recycled in the
pilot residential curbside recycling program. Note that corrugated cardboard is also
included in this total because it is a typical material collected in a residential curbside
recycling program.
As shown in Table 8-1, with reasonably conservative recovery rates assumed,
approximately 14% of the residential waste stream could be diverted from the landfill.
Recovery of old corrugated cardboard (GCe) would be is a significant portion of
recyclable material (7% of residentiallandfilled waste) and should be included in the
curbside recycling program.
8.1.1 Typical Residential Recovery Rates
As stated in Section 7, typically full-scale residential recovery rates are less than in a
pilot recycling program A typical sustainable participation rate in a full-scale
residential curbside recycling program is approximately 80 percent and recycling
efficiency rates are typically less than 80 percent. This means that the recovery rates
are rarely more than 60 percent of the total recyclable materials available in the waste
stream. The following are typical residential recovery rates for specific materials:
. 60% of Newspapers;
. 50% of Glass Containers;
. 50% of Clear HDPE,
. 45 % of Corrugated Cardboard;
. 40% of Magazines;
. 40% of Colored HDPE;
. 40% of Steel Food and Beverage Containers;
. 40% of Aluminum Cans;
. 30% of PET Bottles; and
. 30% of Mixed Paper.
8-1
P:\8558sallna\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report reV.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONI
Section 8
Future Recycling Programs
8.1.2 Implementation of Residential Recycling Program
For the most part, Salina's residential waste is collected by the City of Salina
Department of Public Works (approximately 80% of households in the City) and
Salina Waste Systems (approximately 20% of households), with a relatively small
amount of the Salina residential waste collected by Harris & Son Trash and Recycling.
The City of Salina Department of Public Works only collects from residential
household of three units or less.
Based on 2000 census data, the majority of the City of Salina residences are single
family units, approximately _ %. Therefore, even if a residential curbside
recycling program was implemented by the City of Salina and not the private haulers,
the program would capture a large percentage of the residential materials.
If desired, the implementation of a waste hauler licensing ordinance or recycling
ordinance could improve outreach of a curbside program. Such "recycling
ordinances" are commonly used to require waste haulers to be licensed with the City
or County, to offer curbside collection of recyclables to all residents, to offer collection
of recyclables to commercial businesses, and to provide the municipality with data
regarding quantities of recyclable materials collected.
If a program was implemented in Salina, the passage of some form of a recycling
ordinance would help ensure that all residents are included in the curbside recycling
program and greatly assist in the collection of data to assess the success of a program.
This ordinance would typically require private haulers offer residential curbside
recycling equal to the City's curbside recycling program (e.g., types of materials
collected, frequency of collection, type of collection container, etc.).
Based on the limited analysis completed as part of this study, CDM would likely
recommend implementation of a two-stream collection program. This would
decrease collection time significantly compared to the pilot program by eliminating
sorting at the curb. If desired, this could be implemented at least initially with the
current City-owned collection vehicles. One collection vehicle could be used for
paper products while a second truck is used for commingled containers. Residents
could be provided two collection containers of different colors and with lids be used
to increase collection efficiency. Larger containers could allow for the city to decrease
the number of pick-ups and lids would decrease exposure to the elements. It is likely
that the City could alternate weekly pick-ups between paper products and containers;
therefore, only one vehicle would be required for each recycling route per week
instead of two. Because the City is predominately single family residences with
sufficient storage space and larger collection containers will be used, recovery rates
would probably not be impacted by this practice and recycling collection costs would
decrease significantly.
8-2
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 8
Future Recycling Programs
8.1.3
Education
Implementation of a municipal recycling program typically requires significant
education for the residents and the collection personnel. This public outreach should
be given at the start of the recycling program and continue periodically throughout
the year. Education should include at a minimum the materials that will be collected
and the collection schedules. In addition, informing residents of the benefits to the
community such as where the recyclable materials are sold, how they will be recyded
(end products), and explaining how extending the life of the landfill will benefit the
City can encourage people to participate in the recycling program.
8.2 Other Waste Reduction Alternatives
8.2.1 Material Recovery Facility (MRF)
A location where mixed recydables can be taken for separation and consolidation for
distribution, or a materials recovery facility (MRF), will needed within the City or
region prior to implementation of a full-scale residential recycling program. Because
of the distance of existing MRFs from the City of Salina, either a MRF or a transfer
station will need to be developed locally. Development of a MRF requires
understanding the extent of material separation that is desired. Assuming
implementation of a two-stream program, the MRF should be able to separate acc
from mixed paper, and separate aluminum, steel and plastic containers.
Paper and cardboard are easily separated when the materials are not exposed to the
elements. It is less cost effective to separate mixed paper from high-grade paper in a
residential program. Separation of commingled containers can be completed through
automated equipment requiring a larger capital cost, or through manual separation
requiring greater operational costs. An intermediate option would be to utilize
minimal equipment to sort the metals from the plastics and then bale mixed plastics
for shipment to another facility for further processing. These facilities are available in
the Wichita and the Kansas City areas.
The benefit of development of a local MRF is that surrounding communities could
utilize this asset and potentially contribute to its development or operational costs.
Increased volumes of materials would also decrease the per ton separation costs and
efficiency of the facility.
Based on the 2004 waste composition results and typical material recovery rates, a
projected material recovery was calculated. Table 8-1 summarizes the projected
materials recovered per waste stream. Recovery rates shown are for residential
recycling; however, the residential rates were used to estimate what could be
available if the recycling program was extended to commercial and industrial
properties. The majority of the recyclable materials are in the commercial and
residential waste streams; however, a significant amount of paper products are
available in the industrial waste stream. The recycling programs and policies that
businesses implement will affect the recovery rates for that portion of the waste
8-3
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONI
Section 8
Future Recycling Programs
stream. The recovery rate of corrugated cardboard collected from the industrial and
commercial waste streams and the high-grade paper collected from the commercial
waste stream are typically higher than residential recovery rates especially if the
businesses have a paper and cardboard recycling program. These recovery rates can
be used to design a MRF for Saline County.
8.2.2 Tony's Pizza Recycling Program
Approximately 70% of the landfilled industrial waste in Salina County is generated by
Tony's Pizza. The majority of the waste produced is food waste ( approximately 4,500
tons), followed by corrugated cardboard (approximately 1,800 tons) and plastics
(approximately 1,200 tons). Diversion of waste from this one facility could have a
significant impact on the landfill.
There are several potential alternatives to disposing of the food waste in the landfill.
A common diversion method for food waste is to give it to swine farmers for the cost
of transportation. A potential constraint to this option is that the food waste should
be segregated completely from paper and plastic products, as these would injure the
animals. If the food cannot be completely separated, another option would be to
implement a food waste composting facility. Segregation of food waste from paper
waste would generally no longer be required, although separation of plastic would be
required. In order to minimize contamination of non-composted materials (e.g., food
waste sticking to plastic sheeting), Tony's Pizza would need to make adequate
changes to the plant's disposal practices. As this alternative greatly relies on the
commitment of Tony's Pizza, this option should be discussed initially between the
upper levels of management of the City and corporation.
If diversion of food waste is not feasible, separate roll-off boxes for recycling of wood
pallets and acc could be considered.
8.2.3 Waste Composting Facility
Yard waste totals approximately 6,100 tons or 8% of the total waste stream per year in
Salina County. This material could easily be diverted from the landfill by developing
a composting facility and/ or reorganizing the collection of yard waste materials.
Many municipalities require segregation of these materials at the curb by the resident
and/ or the use of kraft paper bags that are easily distinguished from other waste and
can be included with the compost material as they are biodegradable. The yard waste
can either be dropped off at the composting facility or collected during the summer
season.
As discussed previously, in addition to the yard waste, the composting facility could
also collect food waste from large food waste producers such as Tony's Pizza,
restaurants, etc. Food waste comprises 10,080 tons or 14 % of the waste stream per
year. Almost half of the food waste comes from Tony's Pizza and another quarter
comes from the commercial waste stream. If only a portion of the food waste
available is diverted from the landfill, there will still be a significant increase in the
8-4
P:\6558satina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONI
Section 8
Future Recycling Programs ,
landfill life. A waste composting facility that collects both food waste and yard waste
could reduce the amount of landfilled material by approximately 8%.
8.2.4 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Much of the construction debris such as concrete and asphalt generated in Saline
County is currently recycled. For example, higher tipping fees for concrete encourage
diversion of this waste stream. Althouh other materials such as wood and asphalt
shingles require further impetus and processing for diversion. For example,
construction and demolition debris such as wood and asphalt roofing material could
be put through a chipping machine, possibly mixed with soil, and used as an
alternative daily cover (ADC) and/ or road base for the landfill roads.
With little effort, signage could be put in place dictating certain roll-off containers in
the public drop off area as dedicated to these materials, essentially having haulers
segregate the bulk of these materials. In ?rder to collect wood, CDM recommends
having a dedicated drop-off locations in the convenience area for wood and/ or
asphalt roofing materials.
Consideration must be given to removal of nails if used as road base where vehicles
may access, although this could be done with magnetic separation. Some roofing
materials also contain fiberglass which cannot not be used as ADC. The wood and
roofing materials are more porous than soil alone and with the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment (KDHE) approval this could enhance waste degradation by
increasing the moisture content in the landfill. If either material is used for ADC, than
the landfill volume available for other waste is increased and the dependence on soil
is decreased. Wood is approximately 5,900 tons or 8 percent of the waste stream with
half coming from the Construction/Demolition waste stream. Other materials such as
concrete, gypsum, asphalt, etc. could be recycled if there is an outlet in the area.
8.2.5 Industrial and Commercial Recycling Program
In addition to the residential curbside recycling program, CDM recommends that
businesses and haulers be encouraged to implement recycling programs for, at a
minimum, corrugated cardboard and paper. There is currently cardboard collection
in the City of Salina but it is limited to large volume producers. Corrugated
cardboard is approximately 7,000 tons or 10% of the waste stream with approximately
70% of this coming from the industrial and commercial waste streams. If the
cardboard is recovered at an estimated 45% recovery rate approximately 2,200
additional tons could be recovered from waste stream with a recycling program for
the industrial and commercial waste streams. Other materials could be collected on
an as needed basis.
8.2.6
Miscellaneous Waste Reduction Alternatives
Another alternative that can increase the life of the landfill is to use the concept of
bioreactor landfilling. In a bioreactor landfill, additional water is added to the waste
8-5
P:\6558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phasa 2 Report rev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 8
Future Recycling Programs
to enhance and encourage the degradation of organic materials in the waste, therefore
decreasing the volume of materials in the landfill. This alternative will increase the
active life of the landfill and can decrease the long term liability of the landfill by
shortening the post-closure period. Although this concept may not be in line with the
traditional recycling efforts of diverting waste from the landfill, it obtains similar
ends. In some instances it can make more sense, in that food waste composting
facilities are often associated with odor and dust problems (similar to landfills). By
having the landfill act as the bioreactor rather than an open compost pad, the controls
are already in place at the landfill and proven to be effective, thereby saving costs.
Additional materials such as textiles, rubber and leather may be added to the
recycling program if an outlet for the materials such as carpeting manufacturers or
other recycled products manufacturers can be found in the area.
The recovery rates of materials such as plastic bottles, aluminum cans and
newspapers may be increased if additional recycling receptacles are placed
throughout the City of Salina. The recovery rates of many of the single use containers
have decreased recently because the materials are typically disposed of at the office,
the mall, etc. If recycling is available in many public places and workplaces it is
possible to increase capture of this portion of the waste stream.
Approximately 600 tons of electronics are disposed per year in the landfill. This is not
a significant percent of overall landfill volume; however, these materials could
increase the long term liability of the landfill because many of these components
contribute to toxic materials such as lead, mercury and other heavy metals in the
leachate. The City of Salina could implement electronics recycling events similar to
household hazardous waste collection events. Many electronics can be dismantled
and the plastics, metals and glass recycled. These events could significantly reduce
the amount of electronics disposed of in the landfill.
8.3 Conclusions
As shown in Table 6-1, approximately 73% of the waste stream is potentially
recyclable materials. If even a portion of these materials are diverted from the waste
stream the landfill life could be increased significantly. Items such as a residential
curbside recycling program, industrial and commercial waste recycling programs, a
waste composting facility, and construction/ demolition debris recycling could
potentially increase the landfill life by 24%.
8-6
P:\8558salina\wasle study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table 8-1
Summary of Recovery of Recyclable Materials
City of Salina MSWLF
Industrial Construction! Demolition Commercial Saline County Residential*** City of Salina Residential Total Recyclable Materials
Estimated Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons
Waste Category Recovery Available! Tons Recycled! Available! Tons Recycled! Available! Tons Recycled! Available! Tons Recycled/ Available! Tons Recycled! Tons Available! Tons Recycled!
Rate** Vear Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Vear Year
Mixed Paoer' 0.3 1.702 511 90 27 2.757 827 2.646 794 2.255 677 7195 2158
Corrn~ated & Kraft Paoer 0.45 2.628 1.183 284 128 2.315 1.042 1.783 802 1.519 684 7010 3,154
Newsorint 0.6 0 0 2 I 1.272 763 1.700 1.020 1.449 869 2974 1784
Hioh-orade oaoer 0.5 37 18 12 6 610 305 625 312 533 266 1284 642
Magazines 0.4 . 0 0 0 0 419 168 687 275 585 234 1106 442
Steel food & bevera~e containers 0.4 59 24 112 45 411 165 516 206 440 176 1098 439
PETE bottles 0.3 20 6 9 3 347 104 380 114 324 97 756 227
Clear 21ass containers 0.5 0 0 2 I 247 124 454 227 387 193 703 351
Aluminum food & bevera2e containers 0.4 5 2 7 3 211 84 205 82 175 70 428 171
Clear HDPE bottles 0.5 85 43 6 3 128 64 180 90 154 77 399 199
Brown 21ass containers 0.5 0 0 0 0 204 102 154 77 131 66 358 179
Colored HDPE bottles 0.4 0 0 1 0 173 69 177 71 151 60 352 141
GreenJblue elass containers 0.5 0 0 0 0 15 8 62 31 53 26 77 39
TOTAL 4,535 1,785 525 217 9,110 3,824 9,569 4,101 8,155 3,496 23,739 9,928
PERCENT OF TOTAL WASTE STREAM 6.4% 2.5% 0.7% 0.3% 12.9% 5.4% 13.6% 5.8% 11.6% 5.0% 33.7% 14.1%
Note: *Mixed Paper is assumed to be 85% of the Other Paper category as defined in this waste characterization study.
** Residential recovery rate based on combined values from recycling studies conducted in Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts and New York City. New York.
... Combined value for City of Salina aod Saline County Townships
CDM
8.1 Potential Recyclable Sections 5-10 Tables & Figures.xls
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDNI
Section 8
Future Recycling Programs
Table 8-2
Evaluation of Recycling Alternatives
Recycling Alternative Materials Recovered Estimated Tons
Diverted
Residential Curbside Paper, Newspaper, Magazines, 3,496
Recycling Corrugated Cardboard,
Aluminum, Plastic, Steel and
Glass Containers
Tony's Pizza Recycling Food Waste 2,250
Corrugated Cardboard 900
Plastics 600
Composting Facility Yard Waste 3,000
Construction/ Demolition Wood 1,500
lnd ustrial/ Commercial Paper 1,500
Recycling Program
Newspaper /Magazines 1,050
Corrugated Cardboard 1,800
Containers 795
Total Diversion from Landfill = 16,900 Tons = 24% Total Landfilled per Year
8-8
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report rev.doc
[,
[
"
r'
L
[- J,"
"
r
<-
[
[
C
[
I"
e "
[
,:-
[ .J
I
I [
. '
. ,
;[,
!
I
'[
. .
:,,1
l_
[.
i L.
I
i , [
I
1,--
:-.". .
'I
,..,'
.;..' ~
"
'5
ectio'n
II
Nine
',"\'
'i'
, ,
:~ .
.- '~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 9
Recommendations
Based on the results of the waste characterization study and evaluation of the
alternatives discussed in Section 8, CDM recommends the City of Salina consider the
following options:
. Implementing a full-scale residential curbside recycling program;
. Developing an recycling ordinance requiring waste haulers be licensed with the
City of Salina, submit reports to city and provide a curbside recycling option
equal to the City of Salina program;
. Implementing an ordinance requiring industrial and commercial recycling;
. Developing a Saline County material recovery facility or transfer station;
. Using wood and other appropriate Construction/Demolition Debris as
alternative daily cover;
. Implementing a waste composting facility for both yard waste and large food
waste producers such as Tony's Pizza; and
. Converting the landfill to a bioreactor landfill.
CONI 9-1
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\Phase 2 Report reV.doc
:;.:[.........
. ,
,
,.
.[
- ~ '-,.
',;.-'
';'
~' ,~i
[.
[-
~" -
.'.:s
'C'".
,:.n,'
'"
"L.
';"
O'
- _.f
.',
"
:D~'
;j'. .,
">-,
c.
.~...:
'0:..'-
, ,~
.; ,.,"
, "
. 'j
G','
-u~
_/c,;.
~,...~
.....e...
.' .
",C._',V
!.'
'-,~
?-"'?
L'
btibrr
..,- - -
:]......-..::.:.'.. .'n,..,,:1:':"
"'e'"
- "". A
. .
. .. . . .
", "
. ~'-.. ~ .
, " . , ',-'
- , " -""
J.. ',: '," )' ,>
- - '.
.; '.'" ,," -," .'.....
" ,.
"
Jo
I '.
:-L
,. ,-'
.r',\
'~-
.F'. >
, .'
"
'c
:/.
J
, ~ .'
, ,
"":.'v
. r','
'.':lr'
.... '.
".;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDNI
Section 10
References
CDM,1997. City of Salina Solid Waste Characterization Study, Final Report, Camp
Dresser & McKee, Inc., August 1997.
Kansas Business & Industry Recycling Program, 2005. Recycling Centers by County,
www.kansasbirp.comj directorycounty.asp.
Milstein, March 2005. Gardens will gain from diet afleftovers, The Oregonian, Milstein,
Michaet March 7, 2005.
Recycling Manager 2005. Recycling Manager Archives, Composite Prices,
www.amm.comjrecmanjarchives, Cahners Business Information, American Metal
Market LLC, a division of Metal Bulletin PIc.
Schilling, July j August 2002. Curbside Recycling: Out With the Bin, In With the Carts,
MSW Management, Schilling, Steven;SW ANCC; July j August 2002.
Siegler and Starr, May 1999. Sorting Out Recycling Rates, Resource Recycling; Siegler,
Ted and Starr, Natalie; DSM Environmental Services, Inc of Ascutney, Vermont; May,
.1999.
US Census Bureau, 2000. Geographic Area: Salina city, Kansas, Census 2000.
10-1
P:\8558salina\waste study\Phase 2\References.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix A
Photographic Log
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Photograph #1
Date of Photograph: 5/19/04
Photographed by: Chris Martel
Photograph Description: Private hauler tipping a load at the active face of the Salina MSWLF.
Photograph #2
Date of Photograph: 5/19/04
Photographed by: Chris Martel
\
. n~.
-'I. r.
j ,.
I
I
Photograph Description: Weighing of the Corrugated Cardboard and Kraft Paper.
P:\8558SALINA \ WASTE srUDy\SPRING EVENT\SUMMARY REPORT\PHOTO LOG.DOC
-
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Photograph #3
Date of Photograph: 5/19/04
Photographed by: Chris Martel
..J .J J
f,._=~:llrr- U \
00
~()
)
Photograph Description: Collection of the waste for disposal after sample sorting was completed.
Photograph #4
Date of Photograph: 5/20/04
Photographed by: Chris Martel
Photograph Description: Collection of sample for sorting at the sorting table.
P:\8558SALINA \ WASTE STUDy\SPRING EVENT\SUMMARY REPORT\PHOTO LOG.DOC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Photograph #5
Date of Photograph: 5/20/04
Photographed by: Chris Martel
Photograph Description: Sorting of waste sample into the 34 waste categories.
Photograph #6
Date of Photograph: 5/20/04
Photographed by: Chris Martel
Photograph Description: Collection of a sample at the active face of the Salina MSWLF.
P:\8558SALINA \ W ASfE SfUDy\SPRING EVENT\SUMMARY REPORT\PHOTO LOG.DOC
r-.--
I
Photograph #7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD PHOTOGRAPH LOG
I
I
I
I
I
I
Photographed by: Chris Martel
, ./
i .,
. !~
i/
I Photograph Description: CDM conducting a health and safety briefing for the sorting activities.
I
I
I P:\8558SALINA \ W ASfE srUDy\SPRING EVENT\SUMMARY REPORT\PHOTO LOG.DOC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
FIELD PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Photograph #9
Date of Photograph: 5/20/04
Photographed by: Chris Martel
" f ~ ....,. \
.-.....'"
~
Photograph Description: Construction/ demolition load visually characterized at the active face of the Salina
MSWLF.
Photograph #10
Date of Photograph: 5/20/04
Photographed by: Chris Martel
Photograph Description: Hauler tipping at the Salina MSWLF active face.
P:\8558SALINA \ WASTE srUDy\SPRING EVENT\SUMMARY REPORT\PHOTO LOG.DOC
I
FIELD PHOTOGRAPH LOG
I Photograph #11
Date of Photograph: 5/20/04
Photographed by: Chris Martel
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Photograph Description: ATony's Pizza load that was visually characterized at the active face of the Salina
MSWLF.
I Photograph #12 Date of Photograph: 5/21/04 Photographed by: Chris Martel
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Photograph Description: Sorting of waste sample into the 34 waste categories.
I
I P:\8558SALINA\ W ASfE srUDy\SPRING EVENf\SUMMARY REPORT\PHOTO LOG.DOC
I
'I
I
! I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Photograph #13
Date of Photograph: 5/21/04
Photographed by: Chris Martel
Photograph Description: Tipping of a waste sample in the sorting area.
P:\8558SALINA \ WASTE STUDy\SPRING EVENT\SUMMARY REPORT\PHOTO LOG.DOC
r
)
. '-
["
:[
[
C>.
[
'['
[. ."".
,l .
::0' "
. !
'C. L
,.
O. "
:.
c.'.
,:[:
.c....
I.
[~
J-'
L
"[:'
. .
[
I'l~
"
.,-,
"~'I
~ .
. ).
!<'
\ ,'i
,,-'
. "I'
, \1
,< "
(
'r
..:..
,
.,
~ ~.
~:
.:..r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Solid Waste Characterization Study
Sampling Event Work Plan
<)