2015 waste composition study - metro vancouver · 2016-07-07 · tetra tech eba inc. suite 1000 –...

Tetra Tech EBA Inc. Suite 1000 – 10th Floor, 885 Dunsmuir Street

Vancouver, BC V6C 1N5 CANADA

Tel 604.685.0275 Fax 604.684.6241

PRESENTED TO

Metro Vancouver

2015 Demolition, Land-clearing, and Construction Waste

Composition Monitoring Program

JANUARY 11, 2016

ISSUED FOR USE

FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01

2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx

This page intentionally left blank.

2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY

FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE

i 2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tetra Tech EBA Inc. (Tetra Tech) was retained by both Metro Vancouver and the City of Vancouver to complete a

joint-Demolition, Land-clearing and Construction (DLC) Waste Composition Study. The objective of this joint study

was to establish current data on the composition of DLC waste disposed of at the following locations:

Western 40 Hectares (W40Ha) site at the Vancouver Landfill (VLF) located in Delta BC;

EcoWaste Landfill in Richmond, BC; and

Out-of-region DLC waste facilities.

The sampling work was conducted in September and October 2015. Metro Vancouver funded the sampling work

at EcoWaste Landfill while the City of Vancouver covered the DLC sampling work at the VLF. The results for each

facility, along with the estimate of out-of-region waste, were then combined to obtain an overall regional estimate

of DLC waste composition. The City of Vancouver commissioned a separate waste composition report comprising

both the results of the VLF DLC waste audit and an audit on their residential garbage and green waste streams.

Metro Vancouver is commissioning this report as a part of its commitment to continually monitor the composition of

the region’s municipal solid waste stream over time, and track progress towards reaching its waste diversion targets.

DLC WASTE COMPOSITION

At each facility, DLC waste was visually estimated into 16 primary categories and a total of 44 subcategories. Table

A-1 summarizes the DLC waste composition results by primary category at the Vancouver Landfill, Table A-2

summarizes the results at the EcoWaste Landfill, and Table A-3 summarizes the overall regional DLC waste

composition. Detailed results are available in the report, and a summary of all secondary categories by material

type are available in Table A directly after the report, or sorted by material use in Table B at the end of this report.

Vancouver Landfill

The percentage of wood in the VLF’s DLC waste composition profile was significantly higher than it was in 2011,

increasing 29 percentage points over the four years. However, the total weight of wood arriving is fairly comparable

to 2011, as the total tonnage of DLC material received at the facility in 2015 dropped by 35 percentage points. It is

important to note that at the VLF in 2011, the demolition loads were charged a fixed rate, whereas in 2015 they

were charged per tonne. What was observed is that there is no longer a significant amount of rubble, concrete and

masonry items within the DLC loads, whereas these materials used to account for 25% of the weight in 2011.

Asphalt is the other major category that saw a significant drop in tonnage compared to 2011. These materials

combined account for a majority of the decrease in the tonnage received at VLF between 2011 and 2015. Concrete

and Asphalt are accepted at a lower tipping fee at the EcoWaste landfill as they have beneficial uses and can be

recycled; also, there are other Concrete and Asphalt recyclers in the region where these materials are likely being

diverted. Concrete and Asphalt that is received at the VLF is stockpiled on site and processed to create aggregate

and other materials that can be used for operational or construction activities.



ii 2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx

Table A-1: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition

Material Category by Type 2015

% by Weight

2011

% by Weight

2015

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

2011

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

Change in

Annual

Weight1

(tonnes)

2015-2011

Wood 90.0% 61% 112,292 117,915 -5,623

Dimensional Lumber (unpainted)

28.7% 31% 35,743 60,430 -24,687

Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated)

18.7% 7% 23,365 13,550 9,815

Composite 24.9% 22% 31,095 43,219 -12,124

Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 14.0% - 17,521 - 17,521

Asphalt 2.5% 6% 3,128 12,300 -9,172

Plastic 1.5% 1% 1,892 2,625 -733

Metal 1.5% 2% 1,855 3,268 -1,413

Misc. Building 1.5% <1% 1,840 4,360 -2,520

Land-clearing 1.2% 2% 1,538 3,567 -2,029

Rubble 0.5% 18% 565 34,921 -34,356

Masonry 0.4% 2% 506 2,962 -2,456

Concrete 0.3% 5% 332 9,147 -8,815

Household 0.2% <1% 201 80 121

Textiles 0.1% <1% 173 98 75

Bulky 0.1% <1% 168 98 70

Rubber 0.1% <1% 106 127 -21

Glass and Ceramics 0.0% <1% 62 821 -759

Paper 0.0% <1% 48 24 24

Miscellaneous 0.0% <1% 0 141 -141

Total2,3 100% 100% 125,000 192,000 -67,000

1 In 2011 DLC loads at Vancouver Landfill were charged a flat rate per load, regardless of weight; in 2015 DLC loads are charged by weight. 2 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 3 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision.

EcoWaste Landfill

The largest portion of the DLC waste is wood (41%) from transfer station reloads, roofing projects, and construction

sites. This includes, by weight, composite wood (18%), painted or treated dimensional lumber (10%), unpainted

dimensional lumber (7%), and a small amount of wood flooring, wood shingles, and pallets make up the remaining

6%. The second largest category by weight is asphalt (13%), which consists of asphalt shingles. The third largest

category by weight is miscellaneous building material (10%) including carpet, underlay, and fiberglass insulation.



iii 2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx

The DLC waste composition is fairly similar to 2011 by overall percentage. The biggest changes are a decrease in

the amount of rubble and concrete. There was very little concrete and rubble observed in any loads in 2015,

compared to 2011. The overall tonnage of material arriving at EcoWaste Landfill has more than doubled since 2011,

but as seen in Table 16, the overall composition is similar. As noted by Tom Land, President and CEO of EcoWaste

Industries, the construction market in the Metro Vancouver has remained strong, which includes the removal of

existing Single Family and smaller Multi-Family housing to create higher density development. This creates a very

active demolition waste market, as well as waste from new construction activities. Recycling activities for large new

construction activities appear to be effective, however Single Family housing demolition recycling activities tend to

be more challenged due to space constraints for on-site source separation.

Table A-2: EcoWaste DLC Waste Composition


% by Weight

2011

% by Weight

2015

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

2011

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

Change in

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

2015-2011

Wood 40.8% 37% 77,726 32,038 45,688

Asphalt 13.3% 12% 25,319 10,423 14,896

Misc. Building 9.8% 6% 18,747 5,266 13,481

Rubble 9.2% 20% 17,510 17,442 68

Plastic 8.6% 10% 16,305 8,554 7,751

Bulky 2.5% <1% 4,684 325 4,359

Land-clearing 2.4% 1% 4,558 924 3,634

Paper 2.3% <1% 4,442 330 4,112

Metal 2.2% 1% 4,230 1,093 3,137

Miscellaneous 2.2% 3% 4,192 2,565 1,627

Textiles 2.2% <1% 4,129 561 3,568

Household 1.9% 2% 3,667 1,415 2,252

Glass and Ceramics 1.3% 1% 2,466 1,280 1,186

Rubber 0.9% <1% 1,803 291 1,512

Masonry 0.3% <1% 546 67 479

Concrete 0.1% 4% 155 3,744 -3,589

Total1,2 100% 100% 190,000 86,000 104,000

1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision.

Regional DLC Waste Composition

Wood continues to be the largest portion of the DLC waste in the region, averaging 57% of the total by weight. The

second largest category is asphalt (9%) followed by miscellaneous building materials at (7%) rubble at (7%) and

plastic (6%). The remaining material categories each account for 2% or less of the total DLC waste stream. As

noted previously, the largest changes include the decrease and almost elimination of all concrete. The amount of

rubble has also decreased by almost 50%. The largest overall increases are in the amount of wood, miscellaneous

building materials, plastic and asphalt. The total DLC tonnages in the following table includes 70,474 tonnes of



iv


material that is sent out-of-region for disposal. There is an assumption that this material has the same composition

as the transfer station reload DLC waste material sampled at VLF and EcoWaste.

Table A-3: Overall Regional DLC Waste Composition


% by Weight 2011

% by Weight

2015 Estimated

Annual Weight

(tonnes)

2011 Estimated

Annual Weight

(tonnes)

Change in Annual Weight

(tonnes) 2015-2011

Wood 57% 54% 217,943 150,823 67,120

Asphalt 9% 8% 34,597 22,519 12,078

Misc. Building 7% 3% 28,441 9,488 18,953

Rubble 7% 19% 27,814 52,289 -24,475

Plastic 6% 4% 24,380 10,871 13,509

Metal 2% 2% 7,785 4,377 3,408

Bulky 2% <1% 7,487 411 7,076

Textiles 2% <1% 7,067 638 6,429

Land-clearing 2% 2% 6,236 4,518 1,718

Miscellaneous 2% <1% 6,227 2,601 3,626

Paper 2% <1% 5,868 341 5,527

Household 1% <1% 5,419 1,438 3,981

Glass and Ceramics 1% <1% 2,601 2,063 538

Rubber 1% <1% 2,257 409 1,848

Masonry <1% 1% 1,052 3,081 -2,029

Concrete <1% 5% 486 12,906 -12,420

Total1,2 100% 100% 386,000 279,000 107,000




v


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ I

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 DLC WASTE AUDIT METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 2

2.1 DLC Waste Audits ................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1.1 Composition Auditing ................................................................................................................ 2

2.1.2 Data Analysis and Statistical Evaluation .................................................................................. 3

3.0 DLC WASTE AUDIT RESULTS ................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition ......................................................................................... 4

3.1.1 Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 ................................... 7

3.2 EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition ......................................................................................... 9

3.2.1 EcoWaste DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 Study .................................... 12

3.3 Regional DLC Waste Composition ...................................................................................................... 13

3.3.1 Metro Vancouver Regional DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 .................... 15

4.0 CLOSURE .................................................................................................................................. 17

LIST OF TABLES IN TEXT

Table A-1: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition ........................................................................ ii

Table A-2: EcoWaste DLC Waste Composition .................................................................................... iii

Table A-3: Overall Regional DLC Waste Composition .......................................................................... iv

Table 1: Sorting Locations and Dates ................................................................................................... 2

Table 2: Total and Average Weight of each Sample ............................................................................. 2

Table 3: Driver Reported DLC Load Source .......................................................................................... 3

Table 4: Total DLC Waste Disposed ..................................................................................................... 4

Table 5: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Type ................................................ 4

Table 6: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Use ................................................. 6

Table 7: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 .................................... 8

Table 8: EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Type ................................................. 9

Table 9: EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Use ................................................ 11

Table 10: EcoWaste DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 ............................................. 12

Table 11: Estimated Total Regional DLC Waste Composition by Material Type................................... 14

Table 12: Overall Regional DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 ................................... 16



vi 2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx

LIST OF FIGURES IN TEXT

Figure 1: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition % Weight Sorted by Material Type ................... 5

Figure 2: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition % Weight Sorted by Material Use ..................... 7

Figure 3: EcoWaste Landfill Composition by Weight ........................................................................... 10

Figure 4: EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition % Weight Sorted by Material Use .................... 12

Figure 5: Metro Vancouver Regional Composition by Weight ............................................................. 15

APPENDIX SECTIONS

TABLES

Table A Secondary Category Garbage Data by Load Source

Table B Secondary Category Detailed Organics Data by Load Source

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Tetra Tech’s General Conditions

DLC Category Descriptions and Typical Density Conversion Factors

Select Photos – Vancouver Landfill

Select Photos – Ecowaste Landfill

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms Definition

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

DLC Demolition, Land-clearing, and Construction

GVS&DD Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

VLF Vancouver Landfill

W40Ha Western 40 Hectares

Terminology Definition

Hauler Vehicle delivering the waste

Load Amount of waste contained in a hauler truck

Load Source Origin of a specific sample

Sample Portion of the load that was weighed and sorted

Material Categories Types of materials groupings assessed for the waste characterization



vii 2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx

LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of the Metro Vancouver and their agents. Tetra Tech EBA Inc. (operating

as Tetra Tech) does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the recommendations

contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than the Metro Vancouver, or for

any Project other than the proposed development at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk

of the user. Use of this report is subject to the terms and conditions stated in Tetra Tech EBA Inc.’s Services Agreement. Tetra

Tech’s General Conditions are provided in Appendix A of this report.

NOTE TO THE READER

The samples collected and audited for this study are “snapshots” in time, meaning the reported quantities are estimates and

only represent the conditions for the period of time in which they were collected. Seasonal and annual variability, weather, and

other factors can affect the amount and characterization of waste and recyclables generated by the various sectors at any given

time. Even with combined educational, regulatory, and financial initiatives the reader should not assume that it is necessarily

easy, practical, or economical to recover a substantial portion of a disposed material from a mixed waste stream or at its source.



1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

Tetra Tech EBA Inc. (Tetra Tech) was retained by both Metro Vancouver and the City of Vancouver to complete a

joint-Demolition, Land-clearing and Construction (DLC) Waste Composition Study. The objective of this joint study

was to establish current data on the composition of DLC waste disposed of at the following locations:

Western 40 Hectares (W40Ha) site at the Vancouver Landfill (VLF) located in Delta BC;

EcoWaste Landfill in Richmond, BC; AND

Out-of-region DLC waste facilities.

The sampling work was conducted in September and October 2015. Metro Vancouver funded the sampling work

at EcoWaste Landfill while the City of Vancouver covered the DLC sampling work at the VLF. The results for each

facility, along with the estimate of out-of-region waste, were then combined to obtain an overall regional estimate

of DLC waste composition. The City of Vancouver commissioned a separate waste composition report comprising

both the results of the VLF DLC waste audit and an audit on their residential garbage and green waste streams.

Metro Vancouver is commissioning this report as a part of its commitment to continually monitor the composition of

the region’s municipal solid waste stream over time, and track progress towards its reaching its waste diversion

targets.

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District (GVS&DD) is responsible for managing municipal solid waste

for over 2 million residents in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

To do this, the GVS&DD oversees a solid waste disposal system, which includes a mass-burn waste to energy

facility, six transfer stations, and a long-haul landfill in Cache Creek, BC. Combined with a transfer station and local

landfill owned and operated by the City of Vancouver, this public-sector system provides transfer and disposal

services to the residents and businesses in the region. Waste from the DLC sector is managed primarily at the

EcoWaste Industries Landfill and other privately-operated facilities and at the City of Vancouver Landfill.

The objective of this waste monitoring program is to gain an up-to-date estimate of the composition of the DLC

waste stream for the Metro Vancouver area in collaboration with the City of Vancouver. The Corporation has set a

goal of increasing the regional waste diversion rate from 55% to 70% by 2015, and to 90% by 2020. Understanding

the current composition of the waste stream enables the Corporation to continue to develop and implement new

programs that will increase the diversion of targeted material streams into reuse, recycling or energy recovery

opportunities and decrease the overall proportion of waste being sent to disposal.

The last DLC waste composition monitoring program was performed at the Vancouver Landfill and EcoWaste

Landfill facilities in 2011.

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

The Tetra Tech project team prepared a sampling framework and protocol customized for this study, working from

data completeness, scheduling, safety, and budgetary perspectives. The location and dates the study took place

are summarized in Table 1. The total number of samples completed, along with the total and average weight of

material sorted is summarized in Table 2.



2


Table 1: Sorting Locations and Dates

Location Load Source Date (2015)

VLF DLC October 5 – October 8

EcoWaste DLC October 13 – October 16

At the VLF, a total of 50 samples weighing 772,706 kg were audited, with an average weight per load of 15,454 kg.

A majority of the truck at VLF were from residential demolitions and the trucks were similar in size and composition.

At EcoWaste, a total of 53 samples weighing 483,720 kg were audited, with an average weight per load of 9,127

kg. Trucks arriving at EcoWaste were variable is size and composition, ranging from small trucks and trailers to 40

yard trucks. DLC waste was visually estimated into 16 primary categories and a total of 44 subcategories.

Table 2: Total and Average Weight of each Sample

Load Source Number of Samples Total Weight Audited (kg) Average Weight of

Samples (kg)

VLF - DLC 50 772,706 15,454

EcoWaste - DLC 53 483,720 9,127

2.0 DLC WASTE AUDIT METHODOLOGY

This section reviews the components of the study, provides an overview of how waste was collected and sampled,

and outlines other key factors and considerations for the study. Sampling and sorting was conducted in accordance

with the methodology set out in the Recommended Waste Characterization Methodology for Direct Waste Analysis

Studies in Canada (Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment [CCME] 1999). Detailed category descriptions

are included in Appendix B.

2.1 DLC WASTE AUDITS

At both the Vancouver and EcoWaste Landfills, trucks were selected on an “as-available” basis, meaning all

demolition trucks would be sent to the audit area upon arrival if there was sufficient space. This process added

inherent randomness, as selection was largely dictated by order of arrival, which varied daily. Trucks were sent

directly to the audit area by the scale or landfill staff; therefore, no bias was introduced to the study by Tetra Tech

audit staff. Twelve to eighteen samples were brought to the audit area each day.

Upon arrival of demolition trucks, a Tetra Tech audit representative would approach each truck driver to obtain the

license plate, truck size (yd³), load size (tonnes) (if applicable), percentage full (%) and load source (residential,

construction, etc.). This information was recorded and used to correlate visual estimates with actual load weights

as determined by the scale. Once information was obtained, the trucks were directed to dump their load in the audit

area.

2.1.1 Composition Auditing

Prior to visual auditing, the load was spread apart by an excavator to an approximate depth of 0.5 m to ensure that

all material types were visible. Both the field supervisor and field assistant visually estimated the contents of the

load by volume percentage. This was accomplished by first estimating the amount of material by primary categories,

and then further estimating the amount of materials within the primary category. Estimates derived by each person

were compared to determine acceptability and were adjusted until consensus is reached. Any items with known



3


volume or weight, such as pallets, were also counted to provide reference for quality checks. Items that had higher

or lower than average compaction were noted so density conversion factors could be adjusted during analysis.

Additionally, as necessary, unique material was weighed and measured (volumetrically) to determine item specific

densities that were used to improve the accuracy on a case-by-case basis. At the end of each day, scale tickets

were obtained from the scale house for weight comparison during data analysis.

2.1.2 Data Analysis and Statistical Evaluation

All data from field sheets was entered into spreadsheets programmed with material density for each material type.

Volume percentage was multiplied by material bulk densities, total truck volume, and percent full to determine

weight estimates. The estimated weight was compared against net weight as determined by scale tickets. These

densities were used to calculate approximate weights of each material type, and the sum of these weights was

used to compare to the actual load weight to assess the accuracy of the visual estimation method. In cases where

the density provided did not accurately represent material found in the field, the density was manually adjusted to

reflect field conditions. The detailed list of all material densities is included in Appendix B. Percent difference

between actual and estimated weight was calculated for each sample, and for the entire sample set as a whole.

A 95% confidence interval was calculated for each material type.

3.0 DLC WASTE AUDIT RESULTS

The results from the DLC waste audit are provided in the following sections. The average was determined by using

a weighted mean which was calculated by volume percentage, by weighted percentage, and the total estimated

annual weight. The confidence interval was calculated for primary categories using a 95% confidence level.

Each driver that arrived and was selected for auditing was asked their load source. Table 3 summarizes the results

from both the VLF and EcoWaste Landfill. At the VLF a vast majority of the loads arriving were from residential

demolitions. There were only two (2) loads reported as construction, and two (2) hog fuel loads which were from a

wood waste recycler.

Table 3: Driver Reported DLC Load Source

Waste Category Vancouver Landfill EcoWaste Landfill Total Net Weight (tonnes)

Transfer Station Reload - 12 12 236

Commercial Demolition - 9 9 63

Residential Demolition 46 7 53 779

Residential Renovation - 2 2 3

Construction 2 5 7 38

Land-clearing - 3 3 9

Manufacturing - 3 3 24

Roofing - 12 12 47

Hog Fuel 2 - 2 56

Total 50 53 103 1,256

The total quantities of waste that were disposed of at each location are summarized in Table 4. These quantities

were provided by the City and Metro Vancouver and were used in calculating the weighted regional composition

reported in Section 3.4.



4


Table 4: Total DLC Waste Disposed

Location Timeframe Weight (tonnes)

Vancouver Landfill1 October 2014 – September 2015 124,705

EcoWaste Landfill2 January 2014 – December 2014 190,477

Out-of-region Export2 January 2014 – December 2014 70,474

1 Values proved by City of Vancouver Staff, 2 Values provided by Metro Vancouver Staff

The accuracy of each sample’s bulk density conversion was calculated relative to the actual net weight of the load,

as reported on the scale ticket. For example, if the bulk density conversion resulted in an estimated total weight of

5,000 kg for a particular sample, and the scale ticket indicated the load was 6,000 kg, then the accuracy for that

sample was -20%. The aggregate bulk density accuracy of all loads for each landfill was also calculated, and was

found to be within 1.8% for the EcoWaste Landfill, and 5.2% for the VLF. As necessary, density conversion factors

were generally left the same as the 2011 study except for one change to the density of wood at each landfill, as the

overall type of wood that arrives at each was different. For example, the density of wood (227 kg/yd3 or 297 kg/m3)

provided from the 2011 Audit was found to be much higher than the type of wood that was commonly found at the

VLF, which tended to be relatively dry, light, and splintered. An alternative value of 181 kg/yd3 (237 kg/m3) was

obtained from CalRecycle online DLC audit resources.1 The 227 kg/yd3 (297 kg/m3) was found to be more reflective

of the intact dimensional lumber found at the EcoWaste Landfill.

3.1 VANCOUVER LANDFILL DLC WASTE COMPOSITION

The weighted average DLC waste composition at the VLF is presented in Table 5, sorted in descending order by

material type. The results are presented by percentage volume as visually estimated, and the percentage weight

as calculated using the estimated material densities for each material category. The estimated annual weight is

based on tonnages provided by the VLF for October 2014 to September 2015. At the end of this report, Table A

includes detailed data for all material categories, and Appendix C includes select photographs of the loads that

arrived at VLF.

Table 5: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Type

Material Category by

Type

Average % by

Volume

Average % by

Weight

Estimated Annual

Weight (tonnes)

% by Volume 95%

Confidence Interval

Wood 88.3% 90.0% 112,292 2.4%


36.1% 28.7% 35,743 1.3%

Composite 17.9% 24.9% 31,095 3.0%


23.6% 18.7% 23,365 3.6%

Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood

7.2% 14.0% 17,521 4.0%

Wood Flooring e.g., Hardwood, Laminate

3.7% 3.7% 4,569 1.3%

Asphalt 1.5% 2.5% 3,128 0.4%

Plastic 1.6% 1.5% 1,892 0.4%

1CalRecycle Construction/Demolition and Inert Debris Tools and Resources. www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/cdi/tools/Calculations.htm



5



Type

Average % by

Volume

Average % by

Weight

Estimated Annual

Weight (tonnes)

% by Volume 95%

Confidence Interval

Metal 1.6% 1.5% 1,855 0.4%

Misc. Building 3.1% 1.5% 1,840 1.0%

Land-clearing 2.3% 1.2% 1,538 1.9%

Rubble 0.2% 0.5% 565 0.2%

Masonry 0.4% 0.4% 506 0.2%

Concrete 0.2% 0.3% 332 0.1%

Household 0.2% 0.2% 201 0.3%

Textiles 0.2% 0.1% 173 0.1%

Bulky 0.2% 0.1% 168 0.1%

Rubber 0.0% 0.1% 106 0.1%

Glass and Ceramics 0.0% 0.0% 62 0.0%

Paper 0.1% 0.1% 48 0.1%

Miscellaneous 0.0% 0.0% 0 --

Total1,2 100% 100% 125,000


The calculated confidence intervals are presented in Table 5. All confidence intervals were low as all loads were

from what looked like residential demolitions, other than the hog fuel/shredded wood loads. Therefore, the variation

from load to load was low with the largest confidence interval calculated to be ± 4% at a 95% confidence level.

Figure 1: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition % Weight Sorted by Material Type

Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) 28.7%

Composite Wood24.9%


18.7%

Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 14.0%

Wood Flooring e.g. Hardwood, Laminate

3.7%

Plastic 1.5%

Misc. Building 1.5% Landclearing 1.2% Metal 1.5% Asphalt 2.5% All Other Categories1.7%



6


Figure 1 shows the VLF DLC waste composition percentage weight sorted by material type. The largest portion of

the DLC waste is wood from residential demolitions. This includes by percentage weight, unpainted dimensional

lumber (29%), painted or treated dimensional lumber (19%), composite wood (25%), hog fuel/shredded wood

(14%), and wood flooring (4%). The remaining portions of the DLC waste stream were small amounts of other

materials that were mixed in during demolition such as asphalt, carpet, insulation, yard waste, masonry, and rubble.

During the study, field staff took observations to allow for density adjustments from the standard reported values in

the field. If a load was noted as wet, or damp, density conversion factors were increased based on the field

observations. If material was highly compacted, the density was increased. It was noted that wood was a bit less

shredded compared to observations from 2011, and the loads when they arrive were relatively bulky and not all

100% full and compacted compared to previous observations in 2011. Therefore, it was necessary to lower the

overall density of wood that arrives at the VLF to take this into account. The density of wood (227 kg/yd³ or

297 kg/m³) provided from the 2011 Audit was found to be much higher than the type of wood that was commonly

found at the VLF, which tended to be relatively dry, light, and splintered. An alternative value of 181 kg/yd³

(237 kg/m³) was obtained from CalRecycle online DLC audit resources as this value was used in the calculations.

The overall confidence intervals are quite small as there was not much variability between samples noted. All

inbound loads were from similar sized trucks hauling from residential demolition sites.

The weighted average DLC waste composition at the VLF is presented in Table 6, sorted in descending order by

material use. Figure 2 shows the VLF DLC waste composition percentage weight sorted by material use. The results

are presented by percentage volume as visually estimated, and the percentage weight as calculated using the

estimated material densities for each material category. The estimated annual weight is based on tonnages

provided by the VLF for October 2014 to September 2015. Table B following the report includes detailed data for

all material categories.

Table 6: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Use

Material Category by Use Average % by

Volume

Average % by

Weight

Estimated Annual

Weight (tonnes)

Wood 84.8% 86.4% 107,723

Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) 36.1% 28.7% 35,743

Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) 23.6% 18.7% 23,365

Composite 17.9% 24.9% 31,095

Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 7.2% 14.0% 17,521

Flooring 4.9% 4.8% 5,951

Roofing 1.5% 2.5% 3,109

Plastics 1.6% 1.5% 1,892

Metals 1.6% 1.5% 1,855

Land-clearing 2.3% 1.2% 1,538

Rubble 0.2% 0.5% 565

Masonry/Brick 0.4% 0.4% 506

Wall Finishing 0.3% 0.3% 339

Concrete 0.2% 0.3% 332

Household Garbage 0.2% 0.2% 201



7



Volume

Average % by

Weight

Estimated Annual

Weight (tonnes)

Textiles 0.2% 0.1% 173

Insulation (i.e. fiberglass, cellulose, foam) 1.6% 0.1% 119

Pavement 0.0% 0.1% 96

Glass and Ceramics 0.0% 0.0% 62

Paper 0.1% 0.0% 48

Bulky Items 0.0% 0.0% 0

Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0

Miscellaneous 0.0% 0.0% 0

Total1,2 100% 100% 125,000


The largest portion of the DLC waste is wood from residential demolitions. This includes by percentage weight,

wood (86 %), flooring (5%), and roofing (3 %). The remaining material uses are less than 2% and are a small portion

of the waste stream.

Figure 2: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste Composition % Weight Sorted by Material Use

3.1.1 Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011

Table 7 compares the VLF DLC waste composition by material use to the data obtained during the 2011 DLC waste

composition study.


28.7%


18.7%Composite Wood24.9%

Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood14.0%

Land-clearing1.2%

Plastic

Metals1.5%

Roofing2.5%

Flooring4.8%

All Other Materials2.1%



8


The percentage of wood in the VLF’s DLC waste composition profile was significantly higher than it was in 2011,

increasing 29 percentage points over the four years. However, the total weight of wood arriving is fairly comparable

to 2011, as the total tonnage of DLC material received at the facility in 2015 dropped by 35 percentage points. It is

important to note that at the VLF in 2011, the demolition loads were charged a fixed rate, whereas in 2015 they

were charged per tonne. What was observed is that there is no longer a significant amount of rubble, concrete and

masonry items within the DLC loads, whereas these materials used to account for 25% of the weight in 2011.

Asphalt is the other major category that saw a significant drop in tonnage compared to 2011. These materials

combined account for a majority of the decrease in the tonnage received at VLF between 2011 and 2015. Concrete

and Asphalt are accepted at a lower tipping fee at the EcoWaste landfill as they have beneficial uses and can be

recycled; also, there are other Concrete and Asphalt recyclers in the region where these materials are likely being

diverted. Concrete and Asphalt that is received at the VLF is stockpiled on site and processed to create aggregate

and other materials that can be used for operational or construction activities.

It was noted that the wood is a bit less shredded, and the loads when they arrive are relatively bulky and not 100%

full and compacted compared to 2011. Therefore, it was necessary to lower the overall density of wood that arrives

at the VLF to take this into account. The overall confidence intervals are quite small as there was not much variability

between samples noted. All loads coming in were from similar sized trucks hauling from residential demolition sites.

Table 7: Vancouver Landfill DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011

Material Category

by Type

2015

% by

Volume

2011

% by

Volume

2015

% by

Weight

2011

% by

Weight

2015

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

2011

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

Change in

Annual

Weight1

(tonnes)

2015-2011

Wood 88.3% 66% 90.0% 61% 112,292 117,915 -5,623


36.1% 37% 28.7% 31% 35,743 60,430 -24,687


23.6% 9% 18.7% 7% 23,365 13,550 9,815

Composite 17.9% 20% 24.9% 22% 31,095 43,219 -12,124


7.2% - 14.0% - 17,521 - 17,521

Asphalt 1.5% 5% 2.5% 6% 3,128 12,300 -9,172

Plastic 1.6% 2% 1.5% 1% 1,892 2,625 -733

Metal 1.6% 2% 1.5% 2% 1,855 3,268 -1,413

Misc. Building 3.1% <1% 1.5% <1% 1,840 4,360 -2,520

Land-clearing 2.3% 3% 1.2% 2% 1,538 3,567 -2,029

Rubble 0.2% 11% 0.5% 18% 565 34,921 -34,356

Masonry 0.4% 2% 0.4% 2% 506 2,962 -2,456

Concrete 0.2% 4% 0.3% 5% 332 9,147 -8,815

Household 0.2% <1% 0.2% <1% 201 80 121

Textiles 0.2% <1% 0.1% <1% 173 98 75



9


Material Category

by Type

2015

% by

Volume

2011

% by

Volume

2015

% by

Weight

2011

% by

Weight

2015

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

2011

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

Change in

Annual

Weight1

(tonnes)

2015-2011

Bulky 0.2% <1% 0.1% <1% 168 98 70

Rubber 0.0% <1% 0.1% <1% 106 127 -21

Glass and Ceramics

0.0% <1% 0.0% <1% 62 821 -759

Paper 0.1% <1% 0.0% <1% 48 24 24

Miscellaneous 0.0% <1% 0.0% <1% 0 141 -141

Total2,3 100% 100% 100% 100% 125,000 192,000 -67,000

1 In 2011 DLC loads at Vancouver Landfill were charged a flat rate per load, regardless of weight; in 2015 DLC loads are charged by weight. 2 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 3 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision.

The difference between the quantity of unpainted and painted dimensional lumber could be dependent on the audit

team. In 2015 our team identified any dimensional lumber with a treatment applied including a wood stain as painted

or treated wood. The definition of painted or treated wood from 2011 is not available for comparison and this should

be well defined to insure consistency for each audit. A majority of the painted lumber encountered during the 2015

study was lightly stained wood, and not heavily painted or treated such as outdoor deck boards or wood siding.

There was an overall decrease in the amount of composite wood, and VLF in 2015 received hog fuel/shredded

wood, which is expected to be wood waste from Urban Wood Waste that cannot be recycled or re-sold through

their markets because it is too hard to sort, or is too contaminated with treated and painted wood.

3.2 ECOWASTE LANDFILL DLC WASTE COMPOSITION

The weighted average DLC waste composition at the EcoWaste Landfill is presented in Table 8. The results are

presented by percentage volume as visually estimated, and the percentage weight as calculated using the


provided by Metro Vancouver for the 2014 calendar year. Table A following the report includes detailed data for all

material categories, and Appendix H includes select photographs.

Table 8: EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Type

Material Category

by Type % by Volume % by Weight

Estimated Annual

Weight (tonnes)

% by Volume 95%

Confidence Interval

Wood 33.9% 40.8% 77,726 7%

Asphalt 9.4% 13.3% 25,319 8%

Misc. Building 11.6% 9.8% 18,747 3%

Rubble 2.8% 9.2% 17,510 8%

Plastic 17.6% 8.6% 16,305 5%

Bulky 2.9% 2.5% 4,684 2%

Land-clearing 4.1% 2.4% 4,558 5%

Paper 6.2% 2.3% 4,442 2%



10


Material Category

by Type % by Volume % by Weight

Estimated Annual

Weight (tonnes)

% by Volume 95%

Confidence Interval

Metal 2.5% 2.2% 4,230 1%

Miscellaneous 2.9% 2.2% 4,192 2%

Textiles 2.4% 2.2% 4,129 1%

Household 2.3% 1.9% 3,667 1%

Glass and Ceramics 0.4% 1.3% 2,466 1%

Rubber 0.6% 0.9% 1,803 1%

Masonry 0.3% 0.3% 546 0%

Concrete 0.1% 0.1% 155 0%

Total1,2 100% 100% 190,000


The calculated confidence intervals are presented in Table 8. The most commonly occurring categories had the

highest confidence intervals, as some loads that arrive would be close to 100% one material type. Therefore, the

variation from load to load is high; however, the overall dataset becomes fairly accurate with the largest confidence

interval calculated to be ± 8% at a 95% confidence level. During the study, field staff took observations to allow for

density adjustments from the standard reported values in the field. The noted density changes compared to the

2011 study included a number of small changes for specific samples based on these observations, and these

changes are noted in the calculations spreadsheet. This included if a load was noted as wet, or damp, density

conversion factors were increased based on the field observations. If material was highly compacted, the density

was increased.

Figure 3: EcoWaste Landfill Composition by Weight

Wood, 40.8%

Plastic, 8.6%Misc. Building Material,

9.8%

Landclearing, 2.4%

Household Garbage, 1.9%

Bulky Items, 2.5%

Paper, 2.3%

Miscellaneous, 2.2%

Metals, 2.2%

Asphalt, 13.3%

Rubble, 9.2%Textiles, 2.2% Rubber, 0.9% All Other Materials, 1.7%



11


Figure 3 shows the EcoWaste DLC waste composition percentage weight sorted by material type. The largest

portion of the DLC waste is wood from transfer station reloads, roofing projects, and construction sites. This

includes, by volume, composite wood (13%), painted or treated dimensional lumber (9%), unpainted dimensional

lumber (6%), and small amount of wood flooring, wood shingles, and pallets make up the remaining 6%. The second

largest category by volume is plastic at (18%). This includes plastic film, Styrofoam, and miscellaneous plastic such

as vinyl siding and plastic pipes. The third largest category by volume is miscellaneous building material including

carpet, underlay, and fiberglass insulation. The fourth largest category by volume is asphalt, which consists of

asphalt shingles.

The weighted average DLC waste composition at Ecowaste is presented in Table 9, sorted in descending order by

material use. Figure 4 shows the VLF DLC waste composition percentage weight sorted by material use. The results

are presented by percentage volume as visually estimated, and the percentage weight as calculated using the


provided by the EcoWaste in 2014. Table D following the report includes detailed data for all material categories.

Table 9: EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition by Material Use


Volume

Average % by

Weight

Estimated Annual

Weight (tonnes)

Wood 29.8% 37.0% 70,483

Roofing 11.4% 15.1% 28,768

Flooring 12.2% 12.2% 23,138

Rubble 2.8% 9.2% 17,510

Plastics 17.6% 8.6% 16,305

Bulky Items 2.9% 2.5% 4,684

Land-clearing 4.1% 2.4% 4,558

Paper 6.2% 2.3% 4,442

Metals 2.5% 2.2% 4,230

Miscellaneous 2.9% 2.2% 4,192

Textiles 2.4% 2.2% 4,129

Household Garbage 2.3% 1.9% 3,667

Glass and Ceramics 0.3% 1.1% 2,130

Rubber 0.6% 0.6% 1,175

Masonry/Brick 0.3% 0.3% 546

Insulation (i.e. fiberglass, cellulose, foam) 1.6% 0.1% 243

Concrete 0.1% 0.1% 155

Wall Finishing 0.1% 0.1% 122

Pavement 0.0% 0.0% -

Total1,2 100% 100% 190,000




12


The largest portion of the DLC waste is wood (37.0%), followed by roofing (15.1%) flooring (12.2%) rubble (9.2%)

and plastic (8.6%). All other material uses categories were estimated to each be 3% or less or the total waste steam.

Figure 4: EcoWaste Landfill DLC Waste Composition % Weight Sorted by Material Use

3.2.1 EcoWaste DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011 Study

Table 10 compares the EcoWaste DLC waste composition by material use to the data obtained during the 2011

DLC waste composition study.

Table 10: EcoWaste DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011


Type

2015

% by

Volume

2011

% by

Volume

2015

% by

Weight

2011

% by

Weight

2015

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

2011

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

Change in

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

2015-2011

Wood 34% 37% 41% 37% 77,726 32,038 45,688

Asphalt 9% 8% 13% 12% 25,319 10,423 14,896

Misc. Building 12% 13% 10% 6% 18,747 5,266 13,481

Rubble 3% 11% 9% 20% 17,510 17,442 68

Plastic 18% 16% 9% 10% 16,305 8,554 7,751

Bulky 3% <1% 2% <1% 4,684 325 4,359

Wood 37.0%

Land-clearing 2.4%

Paper 2.3%

Plastic 8.6%Metals 2.2%

Black Bags 2.2%

Roofing 15.1%

Insulation 0.1%

Flooring 12.2%

Rubble 9.2%

Household Garbage 1.9%

Textiles 2.2%

Bulky Items 2.5% Other Materials 2.1%



13



Type

2015

% by

Volume

2011

% by

Volume

2015

% by

Weight

2011

% by

Weight

2015

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

2011

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

Change in

Annual

Weight

(tonnes)

2015-2011

Land-clearing 4% 2% 2% 1% 4,558 924 3,634

Paper 6% <1% 2% <1% 4,442 330 4,112

Metal 3% 2% 2% 1% 4,230 1,093 3,137

Miscellaneous 3% 3% 2% 3% 4,192 2,565 1,627

Textiles 2% <1% 2% <1% 4,129 561 3,568

Household 2% 2% 2% 2% 3,667 1,415 2,252

Glass and Ceramics <1% 1% 1% 1% 2,466 1,280 1,186

Rubber 1% <1% 1% <1% 1,803 291 1,512

Masonry <1% <1% <1% <1% 546 67 479

Concrete <1% 4% <1% 4% 155 3,744 -3,589

Total1,2 100% 100% 100% 100% 190,000 86,000 104,000


The DLC waste composition is fairly similar to 2011 by overall percentage. The biggest changes are a decrease in

the amount of rubble and concrete. There was very little concrete and rubble observed in any loads in 2015,

compared to 2011. The overall tonnage of material arriving at EcoWaste Landfill has more than doubled since 2011,

but as seen in Table 18, the overall composition is similar. As noted by Tom Land, President and CEO of EcoWaste

Industries, the construction market in Metro Vancouver has remained strong, which includes the removal of existing

Single Family and smaller Multi-Family housing to create higher density development. This creates a very active

demolition waste market, as well as waste from new construction activities. Recycling activities for large, new

construction activities appear to be effective, however Single Family housing demolition recycling activities tend to

be more challenged due to space constraints for site source separation.

3.3 REGIONAL DLC WASTE COMPOSITION

An assessment of the overall regional DLC waste composition is presented in Table 11 as based on the following

three components: the results of the DLC waste composition analysis at EcoWaste Landfill; the City’s DLC waste

composition study at the VLF; and an estimation of the composition of private licensed DLC waste facilities’ residual

loads delivered to other disposal facilities. Metro Vancouver provided the information on the quantity of these

residuals disposed yearly, and it was assumed that the out-of-region material composition is similar to the

composition of transfer station reloads delivered to EcoWaste Landfill and VLF. The overall regional DLC waste

composition is based on an extrapolation of the sampling period’s results over the course of a calendar year. Tetra

Tech received and reviewed historical tonnage reports for each landfill representing several years. Anecdotal

evidence given by staff at both landfills indicated that although there are general fluctuations in the number of loads

disposed of over time, they did not suspect that there was much fluctuation in breakdowns of materials received

throughout the year. Therefore, the effects of seasonality on the region’s DLC waste composition profile were

considered to be insignificant and did not warrant sampling outside of the fall timeline. All averages are calculated

using a weighted average, taking into account how much material arrives at each facility, or the estimated out-of-

region export of DLC waste that occurs.



14


Table 11: Estimated Total Regional DLC Waste Composition by Material Type

VLF EcoWaste Out-of-region Regional Average

Material Category by Type

% by Weight

Annual Weight

(Tonnes)

% by Weight

Annual Weight

(Tonnes)

% by Weight

Annual Weight

(Tonnes)

% by Weight

Annual Weight

(Tonnes)

Wood 90.0% 112,292 40.8% 77,726 39.3% 27,720 56.5% 217,739

Composite 24.9% 31,095 17.9% 34,070 18.1% 12,750 20.2% 77,916


28.7% 35,743 7.2% 13,687 7.6% 5,343 14.2% 54,773


18.7% 23,365 10.1% 19,229 11.1% 7,817 13.1% 50,411


14.0% 17,521 0.5% 989 0.0% 0 4.8% 18,509

Wood Flooring 3.7% 4,569 2.5% 4,757 2.1% 1,454 2.8% 10,781

Wood Shakes and Shingles 0.0% 0 1.3% 2,486 0.0% 0 0.6% 2,486

Pallets (Untreated) 0.0% 0 0.8% 1,507 0.0% 0 0.4% 1,507

Pallets (Treated) 0.0% 0 0.5% 991 0.5% 355 0.3% 1,346

Sawdust 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 0.0% 0 0.0% 10

Asphalt 2.5% 3,128 13.3% 25,319 8.3% 5,867 8.9% 34,314

Misc. Building Materials

1.5% 1,840 9.8% 18,747 11.3% 7,965 7.4% 28,551

Rubble 0.5% 565 9.2% 17,510 14.0% 9,873 7.2% 27,947

Plastic 1.5% 1,892 8.6% 16,305 8.9% 6,268 6.3% 24,465

Metal 1.5% 1,855 2.2% 4,230 2.4% 1,719 2.0% 7,804

Bulky Items 0.1% 168 2.5% 4,684 3.8% 2,665 1.9% 7,518

Textiles 0.1% 173 2.2% 4,129 4.0% 2,804 1.8% 7,106

Miscellaneous/Black Garbage Bags

0.0% 0 2.2% 4,192 2.9% 2,063 1.6% 6,256

Land-clearing 1.2% 1,538 2.4% 4,558 0.2% 130 1.6% 6,226

Paper 0.0% 48 2.3% 4,442 2.0% 1,398 1.5% 5,888

Household Garbage 0.2% 201 1.9% 3,667 2.2% 1,573 1.4% 5,441

Glass and Ceramics 0.0% 62 1.3% 2,466 0.1% 75 0.7% 2,602

Rubber 0.1% 106 0.9% 1,803 0.5% 352 0.6% 2,261

Masonry/Brick 0.4% 506 0.3% 546 0.0% 0 0.3% 1,052

Concrete 0.3% 332 0.1% 155 0.0% 0 0.1% 486

Total1,2 100% 125,000 100% 190,000 100% 70,000 100% 386,000




15


Wood continues to be the largest portion of the DLC waste, averaging 57% of the total. The second largest category

is asphalt (9%) followed by miscellaneous building materials at (7%) rubble at (7%) and plastic (6%). The remaining

material categories each account for 2% or less of the total DLC waste stream.

Figure 5: Metro Vancouver Regional Composition by Weight

The VLF DLC waste composition was primarily wood waste, whereas loads that contain other materials or a mixture

of materials arrive at the EcoWaste Landfill. The overall average presented in Figure 5 and Table 11 is a weighted

average that takes into account how much material arrives at each facility over a one year period.

3.3.1 Metro Vancouver Regional DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011

Table 12 compares the Metro Vancouver Regional waste composition by material use to the data obtained during

the 2011 DLC waste composition study.

Wood continues to be the largest overall portion of the regional DLC waste composition. The overall percentage

has not changed significantly since 2011; however, the total tonnage increased by approximately 68,000 tonnes.

The 2015 average includes the estimated DLC waste exported out-of-region, whereas this was not included in the

2011 study. Only three materials saw an overall decrease which included rubble, concrete, and masonry materials.

Another notable increase was in the amount of miscellaneous building material. A number of the categories that do

not occur as commonly all increased in 2015 by 1 to 2%. It should be noted that in 2015 the loads were spread out

by an excavator operator so that all of the contents could be seen, whereas in 2011 the loads were estimated as

dumped at the landfill, and there were sometimes large pockets of material that were not visible.

Wood, 56.5%

Plastic, 6.3%

Misc. Building, 7.4%

Landclearing, 1.6%

Household, 1.4%

Bulky Items, 1.9%

Miscellaneous, 1.6%

Paper, 1.5%

Metal, 2.0%

Asphalt, 9.0%

Rubble, 7.2%

Textiles, 1.8%All Other Materials,

1.7%



16


Table 12: Overall Regional DLC Waste by Material Type Comparison to 2011

Material Category by Type

2015 % by

Volume

2011 % by

Volume

2015 % by

Weight

2011 % by

Weight

2015 Estimated

Annual Weight

(tonnes)

2011 Estimated

Annual Weight

(tonnes)

Change in Estimated

Annual Weight

(tonnes) 2015-2011

Wood 51% 57% 57% 54% 217,943 150,823 67,120

Asphalt 6% 6% 9% 8% 34,597 22,519 12,078

Misc. Building 10% 7% 7% 3% 28,441 9,488 18,953

Rubble 2% 11% 7% 19% 27,814 52,289 -24,475

Plastic 13% 6% 6% 4% 24,380 10,871 13,509

Metal 2% 2% 2% 2% 7,785 4,377 3,408

Bulky 2% <1% 2% <1% 7,487 411 7,076

Textiles 2% <1% 2% <1% 7,067 638 6,429

Land-clearing 3% 2% 2% 2% 6,236 4,518 1,718

Miscellaneous 2% 1% 2% <1% 6,227 2,601 3,626

Paper 4% <1% 2% <1% 5,868 341 5,527

Household 2% <1% 1% <1% 5,419 1,438 3,981

Glass and Ceramics <1% <1% 1% <1% 2,601 2,063 538

Rubber <1% <1% 1% <1% 2,257 409 1,848

Masonry <1% 1% <1% 1% 1,052 3,081 -2,029

Concrete <1% 4% <1% 5% 486 12,906 -12,420

Total1,2 386,000 279,000 107,000





TABLES

Table A Secondary Category Garbage Data by Load Source

Table B Secondary Category Detailed Organics Data by Load Source


FILE: ENVSWM03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE

Table A: DLC Waste Composition - All Categories Sorted by Material Type

Material Category by Type % by Volume % by Weight

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)

% by Volume % by Weight

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)


Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)

Total

Estimated

Volume %

Total

Estimated

Weight %

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)

Wood 88.3% 90.0% 112,292 33.9% 40.8% 77,726 31.0% 39.3% 27,720 51.0% 56.5% 217,739

Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) 36.1% 28.7% 35,743 6.3% 7.2% 13,687 6.8% 7.6% 5,343 16.0% 14.2% 54,773

Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) 23.6% 18.7% 23,365 9.0% 10.1% 19,229 10.0% 11.1% 7,817 13.9% 13.1% 50,411

Pallets (Untreated) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.9% 0.8% 1,507 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.5% 0.4% 1,507

Pallets (Treated) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.5% 0.5% 991 0.4% 0.5% 355 0.3% 0.3% 1,346

Wood Flooring (e.g. Hardwood, Laminate) 3.7% 3.7% 4,569 2.3% 2.5% 4,757 1.9% 2.1% 1,454 2.7% 2.8% 10,781

Wood Shakes and Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 0 1.8% 1.3% 2,486 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.9% 0.6% 2,486

Composite 17.9% 24.9% 31,095 12.8% 17.9% 34,070 11.9% 18.1% 12,750 14.3% 20.2% 77,916

Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 7.2% 14.0% 17,521 0.3% 0.5% 989 0.0% 0.0% 0 2.5% 4.8% 18,509

Sawdust 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 10 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 10

Plastic 1.6% 1.5% 1,892 17.6% 8.6% 16,305 19.4% 8.9% 6,268 12.8% 6.3% 24,465

Sheet or film plastic 0.7% 0.0% 38 11.0% 2.0% 3,820 13.1% 0.8% 562 8.1% 1.1% 4,420

Styrofoam packaging 0.0% 0.0% 2 1.3% 0.1% 151 1.8% 0.1% 77 1.0% 0.1% 230

Miscellaneous plastic (rigid plastics, pipes,

vinyl siding) 0.9% 1.5% 1,852 5.3% 6.5% 12,335 4.6% 8.0% 5,629 3.8% 5.1% 19,815

Misc. Building Materials 3.1% 1.5% 1,840 11.6% 9.8% 18,747 15.9% 11.3% 7,965 9.6% 7.4% 28,551

Carpet 0.8% 0.6% 789 5.9% 5.7% 10,895 7.6% 6.4% 4,496 4.5% 4.2% 16,181

Underlay 0.3% 0.2% 292 4.1% 3.9% 7,445 5.7% 4.7% 3,333 3.2% 2.9% 11,070

Linoleum Flooring 0.1% 0.2% 300 0.0% 0.0% 41 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 341

Drywall 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 44 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 44

Lath and Plaster 0.0% 0.0% 6 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 6

Stucco wall finishing 0.3% 0.3% 334 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 334

Ceiling tiles 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 78 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 78

Insulation (i.e. fiberglass, cellulose, foam) 1.6% 0.1% 119 1.6% 0.1% 243 2.6% 0.2% 135 1.8% 0.1% 498

Landclearing 2.3% 1.2% 1,538 4.1% 2.4% 4,558 1.0% 0.2% 130 3.0% 1.6% 6,226

Large yard waste (branches > 15 cm diam. Or

1m long 0.6% 0.6% 717 0.8% 0.8% 1,590 0.1% 0.1% 59 0.6% 0.6% 2,366

Small yard waste, green waste 1.7% 0.7% 821 3.3% 1.6% 2,968 0.9% 0.1% 72 2.3% 1.0% 3,861

Concrete 0.2% 0.3% 332 0.1% 0.1% 155 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 486

Poured with rebar 0.0% 0.0% 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 4

Poured without rebar 0.1% 0.2% 212 0.1% 0.1% 153 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 365

Preformed blocks 0.1% 0.1% 117 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 117

Masonry/Brick 0.4% 0.4% 506 0.3% 0.3% 546 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.3% 0.3% 1,052

Glass and Ceramics 0.0% 0.0% 62 0.4% 1.3% 2,466 0.0% 0.1% 75 0.2% 0.7% 2,602

Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 61 0.0% 0.0% 10 0.0% 0.0% 72

Porcelain (i.e., bathroom fixtures) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.3% 478 0.0% 0.1% 64 0.0% 0.1% 543

Indoor tile (i.e., wall finishing, flooring) 0.0% 0.0% 62 0.2% 0.8% 1,591 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.4% 1,652

Outdoor tile (i.e., roofing) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.2% 336 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.1% 336

Household Garbage 0.2% 0.2% 201 2.3% 1.9% 3,667 2.7% 2.2% 1,573 1.7% 1.4% 5,441

Bulky Items 0.2% 0.1% 168 2.9% 2.5% 4,684 4.3% 3.8% 2,665 2.3% 1.9% 7,518

Miscellaneous/Black Garbage Bags 0.0% 0.0% 0 2.9% 2.2% 4,192 3.0% 2.9% 2,063 2.0% 1.6% 6,256

Paper 0.1% 0.0% 48 6.2% 2.3% 4,442 6.3% 2.0% 1,398 4.2% 1.5% 5,888

Cardboard 0.0% 0.0% 6 4.7% 1.2% 2,198 5.1% 1.0% 740 3.3% 0.8% 2,944

Miscellaneous paper (office, kraft, etc.) 0.0% 0.0% 43 1.5% 1.2% 2,243 1.2% 0.9% 658 1.0% 0.8% 2,944

Vancouver Landfill EcoWaste Landfill Out of Region Regional Average

2015 COV and EcoWaste DLC Data 1 of 2


Table A: DLC Waste Composition - All Categories Sorted by Material Type

Material Category by Type % by Volume % by Weight

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)


Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)


Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)

Total

Estimated

Volume %

Total

Estimated

Weight %

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)


Metal 1.6% 1.5% 1,855 2.5% 2.2% 4,230 2.8% 2.4% 1,719 2.3% 2.0% 7,804

Ferrous 0.1% 0.2% 200 0.1% 0.2% 357 0.1% 0.3% 179 0.1% 0.2% 736

Non-Ferrous 0.3% 0.5% 634 0.2% 0.3% 591 0.1% 0.3% 179 0.2% 0.4% 1,403

Mixed metals (plumbing, electrical, flashing,

siding, furniture) 1.2% 0.8% 1,021 2.2% 1.7% 3,282 2.6% 1.9% 1,362 2.0% 1.5% 5,664

Asphalt 1.5% 2.5% 3,128 9.4% 13.3% 25,319 5.3% 8.3% 5,867 6.1% 8.9% 34,314

Pavement 0.0% 0.1% 96 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 96

Asphalt shingles and tarpaper 1.4% 2.2% 2,791 5.5% 8.7% 16,551 5.3% 8.3% 5,867 4.1% 6.5% 25,209

Tar and gravel roofing 0.1% 0.2% 240 3.9% 4.6% 8,768 0.0% 0.0% 0 1.9% 2.3% 9,008

Rubble 0.2% 0.5% 565 2.8% 9.2% 17,510 3.2% 14.0% 9,873 2.0% 7.2% 27,947

Textiles 0.2% 0.1% 173 2.4% 2.2% 4,129 4.4% 4.0% 2,804 2.0% 1.8% 7,106

Rubber 0.0% 0.1% 106 0.6% 0.9% 1,803 0.4% 0.5% 352 0.4% 0.6% 2,261

Tires, tubing 0.0% 0.0% 28 0.1% 0.1% 237 0.1% 0.1% 71 0.0% 0.1% 337

Rubber roofing 0.0% 0.1% 78 0.1% 0.3% 628 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.2% 706

Other Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.5% 0.5% 938 0.3% 0.4% 281 0.3% 0.3% 1,219

Estimated Total 100% 100% 124,705 100.0% 100.0% 190,477 100.0% 100.0% 70,474 100.0% 100.0% 385,656




Table B: DLC Waste Composition - All Categories Sorted by Material Use

Material Category by Use % by Volume % by Weight

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)


Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)


Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)

Total

Estimated

Volume %

Total

Estimated

Weight %

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)

Wood 84.8% 86.4% 107,723 29.8% 37.0% 70,483 29.1% 37.3% 26,266 47.5% 53.0% 204,472

Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) 36.1% 28.7% 35,743 6.3% 7.2% 13,687 6.8% 7.6% 5,343 16.0% 14.2% 54,773

Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) 23.6% 18.7% 23,365 9.0% 10.1% 19,229 10.0% 11.1% 7,817 13.9% 13.1% 50,411

Pallets (Untreated) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.9% 0.8% 1,507 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.5% 0.4% 1,507

Pallets (Treated) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.5% 0.5% 991 0.4% 0.5% 355 0.3% 0.3% 1,346

Composite 17.9% 24.9% 31,095 12.8% 17.9% 34,070 11.9% 18.1% 12,750 14.3% 20.2% 77,916

Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 7.2% 14.0% 17,521 0.3% 0.5% 989 0.0% 0.0% 0 2.5% 4.8% 18,509

Sawdust 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 10 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 10

Landclearing 2.3% 1.2% 1,538 4.1% 2.4% 4,558 1.0% 0.2% 130 3.0% 1.6% 6,226

Large yard waste (branches > 15 cm diam. Or

1m long 0.6% 0.6% 717 0.8% 0.8% 1,590 0.1% 0.1% 59 0.6% 0.6% 2,366

Small yard waste, green waste 1.7% 0.7% 821 3.3% 1.6% 2,968 0.9% 0.1% 72 2.3% 1.0% 3,861

Paper 0.1% 0.0% 48 6.2% 2.3% 4,442 6.3% 2.0% 1,398 4.2% 1.5% 5,888

Cardboard 0.0% 0.0% 6 4.7% 1.2% 2,198 5.1% 1.0% 740 3.3% 0.8% 2,944

Miscellaneous paper (office, kraft, etc.) 0.0% 0.0% 43 1.5% 1.2% 2,243 1.2% 0.9% 658 1.0% 0.8% 2,944

Plastics 1.6% 1.5% 1,892 17.6% 8.6% 16,305 19.4% 8.9% 6,268 12.8% 6.3% 24,465

Sheet or film plastic 0.7% 0.0% 38 11.0% 2.0% 3,820 13.1% 0.8% 562 8.1% 1.1% 4,420

Styrofoam packaging 0.0% 0.0% 2 1.3% 0.1% 151 1.8% 0.1% 77 1.0% 0.1% 230

Miscellaneous plastic (rigid plastics, pipes,

vinyl siding) 0.9% 1.5% 1,852 5.3% 6.5% 12,335 4.6% 8.0% 5,629 3.8% 5.1% 19,815

Concrete 0.2% 0.3% 332 0.1% 0.1% 155 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 486

Poured with rebar 0.0% 0.0% 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 4

Poured without rebar 0.1% 0.2% 212 0.1% 0.1% 153 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 365

Preformed blocks 0.1% 0.1% 117 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 117

Metals 1.6% 1.5% 1,855 2.5% 2.2% 4,230 2.8% 2.4% 1,719 2.3% 2.0% 7,804

Ferrous 0.1% 0.2% 200 0.1% 0.2% 357 0.1% 0.3% 179 0.1% 0.2% 736

Non-Ferrous 0.3% 0.5% 634 0.2% 0.3% 591 0.1% 0.3% 179 0.2% 0.4% 1,403

Mixed metals (plumbing, electrical, flashing,

siding, furniture) 1.2% 0.8% 1,021 2.2% 1.7% 3,282 2.6% 1.9% 1,362 2.0% 1.5% 5,664

Roofing 1.5% 2.5% 3,109 11.4% 15.1% 28,768 5.3% 8.3% 5,867 7.1% 9.8% 37,745

Asphalt shingles and tarpaper 1.4% 2.2% 2,791 5.5% 8.7% 16,551 5.3% 8.3% 5,867 4.1% 6.5% 25,209

Tar and gravel roofing 0.1% 0.2% 240 3.9% 4.6% 8,768 0.0% 0.0% 0 1.9% 2.3% 9,008

Wood Shakes and Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 0 1.8% 1.3% 2,486 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.9% 0.6% 2,486

Rubber roofing 0.0% 0.1% 78 0.1% 0.3% 628 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.2% 706

Outdoor tile (i.e., roofing) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.2% 336 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.1% 336

Wall Finishing 0.3% 0.3% 339 0.1% 0.1% 122 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 461

Drywall 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 44 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 44

Lath and Plaster 0.0% 0.0% 6 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 6

Stucco wall finishing 0.3% 0.3% 334 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 334

Ceiling tiles 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 78 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 78

Insulation (i.e. fiberglass, cellulose, foam) 1.6% 0.1% 119 1.6% 0.1% 243 2.6% 0.2% 135 1.8% 0.1% 498

Flooring 4.9% 4.8% 5,951 12.2% 12.2% 23,139 15.2% 13.2% 9,284 10.4% 10.0% 38,373

Carpet 0.8% 0.6% 789 5.9% 5.7% 10,895 7.6% 6.4% 4,496 4.5% 4.2% 16,181

Underlay 0.3% 0.2% 292 4.1% 3.9% 7,445 5.7% 4.7% 3,333 3.2% 2.9% 11,070

Linoleum Flooring 0.1% 0.2% 300 0.0% 0.0% 41 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.1% 341

Wood Flooring (e.g. Hardwood, Laminate) 3.7% 3.7% 4,569 2.3% 2.5% 4,757 1.9% 2.1% 1,454 2.7% 2.8% 10,781





Table B: DLC Waste Composition - All Categories Sorted by Material Use

Material Category by Use % by Volume % by Weight

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)


Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)


Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)

Total

Estimated

Volume %

Total

Estimated

Weight %

Estimated

Annual

Weight

(Tonnes)


Masonry/Brick 0.4% 0.4% 506 0.3% 0.3% 546 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.3% 0.3% 1,052

Pavement 0.0% 0.1% 96 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 96

Glass and Ceramics 0.0% 0.0% 62 0.3% 1.1% 2,130 0.0% 0.1% 75 0.2% 0.6% 2,266

Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 61 0.0% 0.0% 10 0.0% 0.0% 72

Porcelain (i.e., bathroom fixtures) 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.3% 478 0.0% 0.1% 64 0.0% 0.1% 543

Indoor tile (i.e., wall finishing, flooring) 0.0% 0.0% 62 0.2% 0.8% 1,591 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.4% 1,652

Rubble 0.2% 0.5% 565 2.8% 9.2% 17,510 3.2% 14.0% 9,873 2.0% 7.2% 27,947

Household Garbage 0.2% 0.2% 201 2.3% 1.9% 3,667 2.7% 2.2% 1,573 1.7% 1.4% 5,441

Textiles 0.2% 0.1% 173 2.4% 2.2% 4,129 4.4% 4.0% 2,804 2.0% 1.8% 7,106

Bulky Items 0.2% 0.1% 168 2.9% 2.5% 4,684 4.3% 3.8% 2,665 2.3% 1.9% 7,518

Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 28 0.6% 0.6% 1,175 0.4% 0.5% 352 0.4% 0.4% 1,556

Miscellanous 0.0% 0.0% 0 2.9% 2.2% 4,192 3.0% 2.9% 2,063 2.0% 1.6% 6,256

Estimated Total 124,705 190,477 70,474 385,656






APPENDIX A

TETRA TECH’S GENERAL CONDITIONS

GENERAL CONDITIONS

GEOENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

This report incorporates and is subject to these “General Conditions”.

1.1 USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP

This report pertains to a specific site, a specific development, and a specific scope of work. It is not applicable to any other sites, nor should it be relied upon for types of development other than those to which it refers. Any variation from the site or proposed development would necessitate a supplementary investigation and assessment.

This report and the assessments and recommendations contained in it are intended for the sole use of TETRA TECH’s client. TETRA TECH does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any party other than TETRA TECH’s Client unless otherwise authorized in writing by TETRA TECH. Any unauthorized use of the report is at the sole risk of the user.

This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced either wholly or in part without the prior, written permission of TETRA TECH. Additional copies of the report, if required, may be obtained upon request.

1.2 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT

Where TETRA TECH submits both electronic file and hard copy versions of reports, drawings and other project-related documents and deliverables (collectively termed TETRA TECH’s instruments of professional service); only the signed and/or sealed versions shall be considered final and legally binding. The original signed and/or sealed version archived by TETRA TECH shall be deemed to be the original for the Project.

Both electronic file and hard copy versions of TETRA TECH’s instruments of professional service shall not, under any circumstances, no matter who owns or uses them, be altered by any party except TETRA TECH. The Client warrants that TETRA TECH’s instruments of professional service will be used only and exactly as submitted by TETRA TECH.

Electronic files submitted by TETRA TECH have been prepared and submitted using specific software and hardware systems. TETRA TECH makes no representation about the compatibility of these files with the Client’s current or future software and hardware systems.

1.3 NOTIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES

In certain instances, the discovery of hazardous substances or conditions and materials may require that regulatory agencies and other persons be informed and the client agrees that notification to such bodies or persons as required may be done by TETRA TECH in its reasonably exercised discretion.

1.4 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO TETRA TECH BY OTHERS

During the performance of the work and the preparation of the report, TETRA TECH may rely on information provided by persons other than the Client. While TETRA TECH endeavours to verify the accuracy of such information when instructed to do so by the Client, TETRA TECH accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or the reliability of such information which may affect the report.

1




APPENDIX B

DLC CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS AND TYPICAL DENSITY CONVERSION FACTORS

2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY FILE: ENVSWM03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE

Appendix B: DLC Category Descriptions and Density Conversion FactorsPrimary Secondary Standard Density (kg/yd³)

1 Wood Dimensional Lumber (unpainted) 181 - 2272 Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated) 181 - 2273 Pallets (Untreated) 2274 Pallets (Treated) 2275 Wood Flooring (e.g. Hardwood, Laminate) 2276 Wood Shakes and Shingles 1987 Composite 3188 Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood 4099 Plastic Sheet or film plastic 1010 Styrofoam packaging 1011 Miscellaneous plastic (rigid plastics, pipes, vinyl siding) 38212 Misc. Building Carpet 18213 Underlay 18214 Linoleum Flooring 38215 Drywall 18216 Lath and Plaster 18217 Stucco wall finishing 18218 Ceiling tiles 19519 Insulation (i.e. fiberglass, cellulose, foam) 1420 Landclearing Large yard waste (branches > 15 cm diam. Or 1m long 20421 Small yard waste, green waste 9122 Concrete Poured with rebar 31823 Poured without rebar 31824 Preformed blocks 31825 Masonry Masonry/Brick 22726 Glass and Ceramics Glass 13627 Porcelain (i.e., bathroom fixtures) 83728 Indoor tile (i.e., wall finishing, flooring) 83729 Outdoor tile (i.e., roofing) 83730 Household Household Garbage 18231 Bulky Bulky Items 18232 Miscellaneous Miscellaneous 22733 Paper Cardboard 4534 Miscellaneous paper (office, kraft, etc.) 16535 Metal Ferrous 36336 Non-Ferrous 36337 Mixed metals (plumbing, electrical, flashing, siding, furniture) 15338 Asphalt Pavement 49939 Asphalt shingles and tarpaper 36340 Tar and gravel roofing 61341 Rubble Rubble 454 - 100042 Textiles Textiles 18243 Rubber Tires, tubing 45444 Rubber roofing 454

Sources for Material DensitiesDLC Waste Composition Study of the Ecowaste and Vancouver Landfills, 2005, Gartner Lee2011 Demolition, Land-clearing, and Construction Waste Composition Monitoring, 2011, AET Consultantshttp://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LGLibrary/DSG/IRecycl.htmhttp://www.aqua-calc.com/page/density-table (porcelain)http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-materials-d_1652.html www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/cdi/tools/Calculations.htm

2015 COV and EcoWaste DLC Data1 1




APPENDIX C

SELECT PHOTOS – VANCOUVER LANDFILL

1

FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE

Photo 1: Landfill Overview

Photo 2: Truck Unloading

2


Photo 3: Demolition, Land-clearing, and Construction (DLC) Samples

Photo 4: DLC-1 consisting mostly of dimensional lumber (clean wood)

3


Photo 5: DLC-15 consisting of clean wood and land clearing (tree branches).

Photo 6: DLC-16 consisting of clean wood, insulation, and mixed metals.

4


Photo 7: DLC-17 contained propane tanks.

Photo 8: DLC– 43 sample interspersed with bits of insulation.

5


Photo 9: DLC– 47 consisted of metal, clean wood, as well as bulky objects (shopping cart).

Photo 10: DLC-50 consisting mostly of hog fuel.




APPENDIX D

SELECT PHOTOS – ECOWASTE LANDFILL

1


Photo 1: Landfill Overview

Photo 2: Typical 90 yard truck unloading>

2


Photo 3: Typical 30 yard truck unloading.

Photo 4: Typical 40 yard truck unloading.

3


Photo 5: Typical 25 yard truck preparing to unload adjacent to another load.

Photo 6: Typical 40 yard truck unloading adjacent to sample DLC-EW17

4


Photo 7: Typical 6 yard truck unloading?

Photo 8: Typical DLC-EW03 consisting of wood, plastic, misc. building material, paper, metals, and black bags. Commercial Demolition.

5


Photo 9: DLC-EW04 containing tires along with other materials. Source: Transfer Station.

Photo 10: Typical appearance of a load from a Transfer Station source.

6


Photo 11: DLC–EW10 consisting of roofing material. Roofing material was 2/3 Styrofoam, 1/6 composite wood, and 1/6 tar and gravel. Source: Roofing Project.

Photo 12: DLC-EW08 consisting of misc. building material, wood, metals and bulky items, including mattresses (without springs) and couches. Source: Residential Demolition.

7


Photo 13: DLC–EW22 consisting primarily of rubble. Source: Metal Recycling Facility.

Photo 14: DLC-EW09 consisting mostly of land-clearing material. Source: Land-clearing.

8


Photo 15: DLC–EW15 consisting entirely of thick plastic sheeting. Source: Construction.

Photo 16: DLC-EW24 consisting of wood and bulky items including a hot tub and couch. Source: Residential Demolition.

9


Photo 17: DLC–EW16 containing five (5) mattresses along with a variety of other materials. Source: Transfer Station.

Photo 18: DLC-EW42 consisting of wood and asphalt shingles. Source: Residential Roofing.

10


Photo 19: DLC-EW49 consisting entirely of particle board (wood). Source: Furniture Manufacturer.

Photo 20: DLC-EW51 containing fiberglass. Source: Hot Tub Manufacturer.

2015 waste composition study - metro vancouver · 2016-07-07 · tetra tech eba inc. suite 1000 –...

Documents