Transcript Maine Waste Composition Study





Project began in Summer of 2011
Sampled waste of 17 municipalities and
regional transfer stations twice each
Looked at both composition of waste along
with method for recycling and waste stream
Only sampled residential “baggable” waste
Municipality/Facility
Approximate 2010 Service Population
County
Bath
8,514
Sagadahoc
Boothbay
3,120
Lincoln
Central Penobscot (Dexter area)
6,531
Penobscot
Hatch Hill (Augusta region)
41,326
Kennebec
Houlton
6,123
Aroostook
Lincoln
5,085
Penobscot
Lisbon Falls
9,009
Androscoggin
Mid Maine (Corinth region)
9,306
Penobscot
Ogunquit
892
Old Town
7,840
Penobscot
Orono
10,362
Penobscot
Paris-Norway
10,197
Oxford
Pittsfield
4,215
Somerset
Pleasant River (Columbia Falls)
1,072
Washington
Scarborough (Ecomaine)
18,919
Cumberland
Skowhegan
8,589
Somerset
St. George (Tenants Harbor)
2,591
Knox
Total
153,691
York




Improving waste management should be a
targeted effort
20 years since its inception, the 50% recycling goal
has not yet been reached (currently ~ 39%)
Knowing composition will help lead to the most
efficient plan of attack
No study of Maine waste has been conducted since
1991/1992 and it is prudent to assume it has
changed



Waste was broken into 9 major categories
Organic, Paper, Plastic, Other, Construction
and Demolition, Metal, Glass, Household
Hazardous, and Electronics
Over 60 subcategories were used





Collect sample of waste (no. of bags varied by
location)
Broke open each bag and settled contents
Sorted into both final subcategories and several
category groupings
Weighed bins, tallied results, and emptied
contents as bins became full
Resorted bins with groupings as needed or at
the end of the day
C&D, Metal,
3.35% 3.26%
Glass,
2.71%
HHW, 1.72%
Electronics,
0.92%
Other Waste,
5.77%
Plastic, 13.44%
Paper, 25.57%
Organics, 43.28%
Major Category
Category %
Organics
43.28%
Paper
25.57%
Plastic
13.44%
Other Waste
5.77%
Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D)
3.35%
Metal
3.26%
Glass
2.71%
Household Hazardous Waste (HHZ)
1.72%
Electronics
0.92%
Sub-Category
% of Total Waste % of Organic Waste
Cumulative %
Food
27.86%
64.38%
64.38%
Remainder/
Composite Organic
10.97%
25.35%
89.73%
Diapers
2.97%
6.86%
96.58%
Leaves & Grass
1.16%
2.68%
99.26%
Prunings &
Trimmings
0.32%
0.74%
100.00%
Sub-Category
% of Total Waste
% of Paper Waste
Cumulative %
Compostable
7.93%
31.02%
31.02%
Other Recyclable
Remainder/
Composite Paper
4.90%
19.15%
50.17%
4.08%
15.95%
66.12%
Magazine/ Catalog
2.88%
11.25%
77.37%
Newsprint
2.43%
9.51%
86.88%
High Grade Office
Uncoated Corrugated
Cardboard/ Kraft
1.64%
6.41%
93.29%
1.61%
6.29%
99.58%
Phone Books
0.11%
0.42%
100.00%
Total
25.57%
100.00%
Sub-Category
All Film
% of Total Waste
4.78%
% of Plastic Waste Cumulative %
35.61%
35.61%
Remainder/Composite Plastic
1.68%
12.50%
48.12%
Durable Plastic Items
1.41%
10.48%
58.59%
#3 - #7 Plastics
1.38%
10.25%
68.85%
HDPE Bottles
1.01%
7.50%
76.35%
Grocery/Merchandise Bags
0.82%
6.10%
82.45%
PET Containers-non bottles
0.71%
5.31%
87.76%
All Styrofoam
0.67%
4.99%
92.75%
PET Bottles/Jars
Plastic ME Deposit
Beverage Containers
0.47%
3.50%
96.25%
0.36%
2.68%
98.93%
HDPE Containers-non bottles
0.14%
1.07%
100.00%
Total
13.44%
100.00%
Sub-Category
Tin/Steel
Containers
% of Total Waste
1.45%
Sub-Category
Clear Glass
Containers
% of Total Waste
1.96%
Glass ME Deposit
Beverage Containers
0.41%
0.28%
Green & Other
Glass Containers
0.13%
0.10%
R/C Glass
0.11%
Appliances
0.04%
Flat Glass
0.07%
Compressed Fuel
Containers
0.03%
Amber Glass
Containers
0.02%
Total
3.26%
Total
2.71%
Other Ferrous
0.93%
Other Non-Ferrous
0.42%
Remainder/
Composite Metal
Aluminum ME
Deposit Containers
Major Category
Organics
Paper
Plastic
Other Waste
C&D
Metal
Glass
Subcategory
Food
Remainder/Composite Organic
Diapers
Yard Waste
Compostable Paper
Other Recyclable Paper
Remainder/Composite Paper
Magainze/Catalogs
Newsprint
High Grade Office Paper
Occ/Kraft
All Film
All Other Plastic
#3 - #7 Plastics
PET (#1)
HDPE (#2)
Grocery/Merch Bags
Plastic ME Dep. BevCont.
Textiles (non-carpet)
Other Metal
Tin/Steel Cont.
Aluminum ME Dep. Beverage Cont.
Clear Glass Cont.
Glass ME Dep. Bev Cont.
% of Major Category
43.28%
25.57%
13.44%
5.77%
3.35%
3.26%
2.71%
% of Subcategory
27.86%
10.97%
2.97%
1.48%
7.93%
4.90%
4.08%
2.88%
2.43%
1.64%
1.61%
4.78%
3.76%
1.38%
1.18%
1.15%
0.82%
0.36%
4.26%
1.71%
1.45%
0.10%
1.96%
0.41%



Paper percentage of
total waste stream
decreased by 23%
Significant decreases
in Cardboard and
High Grade Office
Paper
Substantial decrease
(75%) in Newsprint
Type of
Paper
91/92 % of
2011 % of
Total Waste
Total
Stream
Waste Steam
Corrugated
cardboard
2.92
1.61
High grade
office
3.04
1.64
Magazines/
catalogs
2.92
2.88
Newsprint
9.88
2.43
Telephone
books
0.19
0.11
Total of all
paper
33.04
25.57




Plastics bag waste cut
in half
Rigid plastics has
increased by 160%
Plastic percentage of
total waste stream has
doubled
Plastic Film waste
much of increase
Type of
Plastic
91/92 % of
Total Waste
Stream
2011 % of
Total Waste
Stream
Plastic bags
1.59
0.82
All HDPE
1.23
1.15
Rigid
plastics
1.12
2.92
Total of all
plastic
6.69
13.44
Metal stays consistent while
individual categories have
varied from1992
Type of
Metal
Glass has decreased by a third
with Clear Glass Containers
decreasing by 30% from 1992
91/92 % of
Total Waste
Stream
2011 % of
Total Waste
Stream
Tin/steel
containers
2.28
1.45
Clear Glass
Containers
3.39
2.37
Ferrous
0.55
0.93
0.17
0.15
0.07
0.42
Green/Amber
Containers
Aluminum
0.39
0.10
All other
Glass
0.50
0.19
Total of all
metal
3.29
3.26
Total of all
Glass
4.06
2.71
Non-ferrous
Type of
Glass
91/92 % of
2011 % of
Total Waste Total Waste
Stream
Stream



Broken down
by town
sampled,
variations are
apparent
Distribution
skewed to the
right
Some towns
have much
better recovery
rates


Distribution is
tighter for
clear glass
containers and
near normal
Standard
deviation is
less than half
of newsprint
Recyclable
21.72%
Compostable
38.41%
Waste
39.87%





Classification is by:
What is widely recycled around the state
Compostable without significant effort
What is currently not diverted in a significant
amount of locations around the state
Not a perfect analysis due to fungible nature
between categories of many items.
Waste Category
% of Total WasteCumulative % of Total Waste
Food Waste
27.86%
27.86%
R/C Organic
10.97%
38.83%
Compostable Paper
7.93%
46.76%
Other Recyclable Paper
4.90%
51.66%
All Film
4.78%
56.44%
Textiles (non-carpet)
4.26%
60.70%
R/C Paper
4.08%
64.78%
Diapers
2.97%
67.75%
Magainze/Catalogs
2.88%
70.62%
Newsprint
2.43%
73.05%

Where can the next advances in recycling
come?

What can be improved?
 Methods, actions, enforcement, technology.

What can be added and/or promoted everywhere?
 Textiles, film, grocery bags, hard plastics not #1-7,
composites, etc.

How can we better utilize compositing to
decrease the waste stream

Regional composting?
 Is it feasible? Cost-effective? What process should be
used? Can we control the smell?

Backyard composting
 Public perception, animal issues, individual
responsibility.

What are best practices in Waste Management?

Pay-as-you-throw, Single-Stream, curbside
collection, drop-off, mandatory recycling, HHW
collection, citizen education, etc.

State is still not near 50% recycling goal

Waste composition has transformed with time


Plastic waste on rise as paper and glass decline
Recyclables in waste stream is over 20% and
compostable material is nearly 40%

Top 10 waste subcategories account for 73.05% of
the waste

There are widespread variations by town and by
subcategory that are observed