2015 waste composition study - metro vancouver · 2016-07-07 · tetra tech eba inc. suite 1000 –...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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.
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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
Material Category by Type 2015
% 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
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
iv
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
Material Category by Type 2015
% 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
1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision.
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
v
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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.
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
1
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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.
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
2
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
3
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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.
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
4
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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%
Dimensional Lumber (unpainted)
36.1% 28.7% 35,743 1.3%
Composite 17.9% 24.9% 31,095 3.0%
Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated)
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
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
5
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
Material Category by
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
1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision.
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%
Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated)
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%
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
6
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
7
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
Material Category by Use Average % by
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
1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision.
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.
Dimensional Lumber (unpainted)
28.7%
Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated)
18.7%Composite Wood24.9%
Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood14.0%
Land-clearing1.2%
Plastic
Metals1.5%
Roofing2.5%
Flooring4.8%
All Other Materials2.1%
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
8
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
Dimensional Lumber (unpainted)
36.1% 37% 28.7% 31% 35,743 60,430 -24,687
Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated)
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
Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood
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
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
9
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
estimated material densities for each material category. The estimated annual weight is based on tonnages
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%
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
10
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision.
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%
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
11
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
estimated material densities for each material category. The estimated annual weight is based on tonnages
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
Material Category by Use Average % by
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
1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision.
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
12
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
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
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%
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
13
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
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
1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision.
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.
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
14
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
Dimensional Lumber (unpainted)
28.7% 35,743 7.2% 13,687 7.6% 5,343 14.2% 54,773
Dimensional Lumber (painted/treated)
18.7% 23,365 10.1% 19,229 11.1% 7,817 13.1% 50,411
Hog Fuel / Shredded Wood
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
1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision.
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
15
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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%
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
16
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
1 Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. 2 Total tonnage was rounded to reflect level of precision.
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
TABLES
Table A Secondary Category Garbage Data by Load Source
Table B Secondary Category Detailed Organics Data by Load Source
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
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)
% by Volume % by Weight
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
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
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)
% by Volume % by Weight
Estimated
Annual
Weight
(Tonnes)
Total
Estimated
Volume %
Total
Estimated
Weight %
Estimated
Annual
Weight
(Tonnes)
Vancouver Landfill EcoWaste Landfill Out of Region Regional Average
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
2015 COV and EcoWaste DLC Data 2 of 2
FILE: ENVSWM03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
Table B: DLC Waste Composition - All Categories Sorted by Material Use
Material Category by Use % by Volume % by Weight
Estimated
Annual
Weight
(Tonnes)
% by Volume % by Weight
Estimated
Annual
Weight
(Tonnes)
% by Volume % by Weight
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
Vancouver Landfill EcoWaste Landfill Out of Region Regional Average
2015 COV and EcoWaste DLC Data 1 of 2
FILE: ENVSWM03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
Table B: DLC Waste Composition - All Categories Sorted by Material Use
Material Category by Use % by Volume % by Weight
Estimated
Annual
Weight
(Tonnes)
% by Volume % by Weight
Estimated
Annual
Weight
(Tonnes)
% by Volume % by Weight
Estimated
Annual
Weight
(Tonnes)
Total
Estimated
Volume %
Total
Estimated
Weight %
Estimated
Annual
Weight
(Tonnes)
Vancouver Landfill EcoWaste Landfill Out of Region Regional Average
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
2015 COV and EcoWaste DLC Data 2 of 2
FILE: ENVSWM03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
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
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
Photo 3: Demolition, Land-clearing, and Construction (DLC) Samples
Photo 4: DLC-1 consisting mostly of dimensional lumber (clean wood)
3
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
Photo 7: DLC-17 contained propane tanks.
Photo 8: DLC– 43 sample interspersed with bits of insulation.
5
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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.
2015 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 11, 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
2015 DLC Waste Composition Monitoring.docx
APPENDIX D
SELECT PHOTOS – ECOWASTE LANDFILL
1
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
Photo 1: Landfill Overview
Photo 2: Typical 90 yard truck unloading>
2
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
Photo 3: Typical 30 yard truck unloading.
Photo 4: Typical 40 yard truck unloading.
3
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
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
FILE: SWM.SWOP03008-01 | JANUARY 2016 | ISSUED FOR USE
Photo 19: DLC-EW49 consisting entirely of particle board (wood). Source: Furniture Manufacturer.
Photo 20: DLC-EW51 containing fiberglass. Source: Hot Tub Manufacturer.