CWS Oakland Characterization Report July 2016 PDF

Report of the Results of a Material Characterization Study
and Processing Diversion Study
City of Oakland, California Residential Recycling Program
Conducted For
CALIFORNIA WASTE SOULTIONS, INC.
Study Dates: July 25 - August 1, 2016
Report Date: August 18, 2016
Study Conducted by
2016 Material Characterization and Processing Diversion Studies
CWS - City of Oakland Residential Recycling Program
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Summary................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Material Characterization Study .............................................................................................. 2
2.1 Objective ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 2
2.3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 4
3. Processing Diversion Study .................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Objective ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Facility Inspection .......................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Selection of Materials and Routes for the Study ........................................................... 8
3.4 Recording of Route Weights ....................................................................................... 10
3.5 Processing of Collected Materials ............................................................................... 10
3.6 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 10
4. Analysis of the Study Data .................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Incoming Material Characteristics ............................................................................... 11
4.2 Processing Diversion Study ........................................................................................ 13
4.3 Comparison of Study Data .......................................................................................... 13
4.4 Calculation of the Material Diversion Rate .................................................................. 14
Figure 1 Composition of All Samples .................................................................................... 1

Figure 2 Distribution of Samples ........................................................................................... 3
Figure 3 Routes Selected for Sampling ................................................................................ 4
Figure 4 Comparison of Sample Weight and Percent of Sample That Was Recyclable ...... 5
Figure 5 Comparison of All Samples .................................................................................... 6
Figure 6 Composition by Day of the Week ........................................................................... 6
Figure 7 Composition Details - All Samples ......................................................................... 7
Figure 8 Composition by Collection Area ............................................................................. 7
Figure 9 Distribution of Loads Selected for the Processing Diversion Study ........................ 8
Figure 10 Number of Loads Selected from Each Area ........................................................... 8
Figure 11 Final Route Selection List ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 12 Materials Collected for the Processing Diversion Study ....................................... 10
Figure 13 Data Collected From the Processing Diversion Study .......................................... 11
Figure 14 Suggested Method for Comparing Study Results................................................. 14
Appendix 1 Details of the Samples Taken for the Material Characterization Study
Appendix 2 Procedure for Selecting and Sorting Samples for the Material Characterization Study
Appendix 3 8-Cell Grid
Appendix 4 Routes Selected for the Material Characterization Study
Appendix 5 Processing Diversion Study - Data Recorded
Appendix 6 Routes Selected for the Processing Diversion Study
1. Summary
The agreement between California Waste Solutions (CWS) and the City of Oakland (the
City) for servicing of the Oakland residential recycling program requires that a material
characterization study and a processing diversion study be conducted twice each year to
determine CWS's compliance with the waste diversion standard specified in the agreement.
The first of these two studies for 2016 was conducted between July 25 and August 1 at
CWS's Wood Street processing facility.
For the material characterization study, 52 samples were selected from trucks serving routes
in West Oakland, East Oakland, hard-to-service areas, and multifamily units. The samples
were sorted into eleven (11) recyclable material categories. The residual/non-recyclable
materials were sorted into two (2) categoriesbulky items removed prior to table sorting,
and residual remaining on the sorting table after all of the recyclable materials had been
removed.
There was considerable variance in the percent of each sample that consisted of recyclable
materials, with values ranging from 37% to 91%. The average recyclable percent for all
materials sorted was 69%. Table 1 provides an illustration of the overall composition of the
samples.
Figure 1: Composition of All Samples
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Newspaper
Mixed paper
Corrugated
Glass bottles & jars
Metal cans
Aluminum foil & trays
Aseptic containers
Plastics containers
Rigid plastics
Textiles
Metals
Residual - bulk
Residual - table
August 15, 2016 1

While the characterization plan was not designed to produce results that were statistically
valid for each collection area, a general comparison can be made between the results for
the West Oakland and East Oakland routes.
West Oakland: 19 samples, percent recyclable - 75%

East Oakland: 24 samples, percent recyclable - 69%
The processing diversion study was designed to estimate the percent of the materials
received at the Wood St. facility that are recovered during normal operations. For this study,
thirteen (13) loads from the week of July 25 - 29 were selected from the four (4) service
categories. When these loads arrived at the Wood St. facility, the gross weight of each truck
was recorded. The loads were then dumped in a corner of the facility yard designated as a
holding area for this study. The tare weight of each truck was recorded after it was
unloaded.
The material accumulated from the 13 loads was processed at the beginning of the shift on
August 1. The results were as follows:
Material processed ..................................... 130,274 lbs.

Residual bales produced .............................. 14,440 lbs.
Glass fraction recovered .............................. 31,700 lbs.
Recyclable materials recovered ................... 84,134 lbs.
Percent of processed material recovered ............ 88.9%
2. Material Characterization Study

2.1 Objective
The objective of this study was to characterize the composition of the materials collected
by CWS from single and multifamily units in the City of Oakland by sorting a sufficient
number of randomly-selected samples such that the results could be stated as being
representative of the characteristics of all materials collected by CWS with at least a 90%
confidence level. The components of the samples were classified into three primary
categories:
a. Program materials
b. Non-program materials recovered by CWS
c. Non-recyclable materials
- Non-recyclable bulky items removed from samples prior to table sorting
- Residual materials from table sorting
2.2 Methodology
2.2.1 Location: Wood Street Processing Facility
2.2.2 Sampling Days: July 25 -29, 2016
2.2.3 Selection of routes to be sampled
The objective was to sample at least 10 loads per sampling day, and no less than 50
loads for the sampling week. The loads to be sampled were selected proportionally,
August 15, 2016 2

based on the approximate weight of materials received at the Wood Street facility from
the two zones of single family homes (East and West Oakland), routes serving
multifamily residences, and the two routes that service the hard-to-serve areas of the
city. For the period February 1 to June 10, 2016, the distribution of incoming materials
at Wood St. was as follows:
West Oakland ....... 33%

East Oakland ........ 50%
Multifamily units .... 14%
Hard to serve ........ 3%
Based on this distribution, the number of daily and weekly samples selected from each
source was as follows:
Figure 2: Distribution of Samples

Percent of Incoming Daily
Source Materials Weekly Samples Samples
West Oakland 33% 17 4

East Oakland 50% 25 5
Multifamily 14% 7 1.4
Hard-to-serve 3% 2 0.4
Total 51
The loads from each source to be sampled daily were selected by assigning a random
number to each route for all of the sampling days, and then sorting the random numbers
in numerical order. For the West Oakland routes, the first four (4) routes in the sort
order were selected each day. For the East Oakland routes, the first five (5) routes in
the sort order were selected for each sampling day.
For the multifamily routes, the first route in the sort order was selected. Since route 703
was not selected through this process, loads from route 703 were sampled from the two
days on which it was assigned the lowest random number, so that a total of seven
multifamily routes were sampled for the week.
The route numbers for the hard-to-serve areas were assigned a set of random numbers
for all sampling days. These random numbers were sorted, and the first two route-day
combinations in the sort order were selected for sampling.
Appendix 4 includes the daily routes and the random numbers that were assigned to
each. The routes selected for sampling are indicated in red. The weekly sampling plan
for the week was as follows:
August 15, 2016 3

Figure 3: Routes Selected for Sampling

Source Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
West Oakland 6W 4W 1W 11W 11W

5W 9W 8W 3W 9W
10W 5W 4W 6W 8W
1W 2W 9W 9W 1W
East Oakland 14E 9E 13E 7E 8E
16E 16E 8E 2E 13E
8E 12E 6E 13E 9E
2E 8E 9E 14E 3E
1E 2E 7E 1E 2E
Multi- Family 702 704 704 705 704
703 703
Hard to Serve 706 707
Number of Samples 11 11 10 11 11
A total of 54 loads were selected for sampling. Each morning of the sample week the
route assignments for each collection truck were obtained from the CWS dispatcher. A
truck/route selection form was prepared so that the loads designated for sampling that
day could be identified by truck number. A copy of the forms were provided to the CWS
yard manager and the City of Oaklands consultant representative.
On July 26 and 27, route 9W was designated for sampling, but was assigned to another
truck late in the day after the sampling was underway. It was therefore not possible for
the sorting supervisor to identify the truck that actually served that route and select a
sample for sorting. Therefore, a total of 52 routes were sampled throughout the week.
2.2.4 Method of Sorting Samples

The process for selecting and sorting samples is described in Appendix 2. Appendix 3
provides an illustration of the 8-cell grid that was used to select samples from each load.
2.3 Results
2.3.1 Sample Weight
The smaller loader at the facility was used to select the samples, with one full bucket
selected for each sample. The volume of material selected for each sample was
approximately the same, but the weight of material varied considerably among the
samples, depending on the density of the material. Details on the weight of the samples
selected for sorting is provided in Appendix 1.
We have observed that for some characterization studies, the sorting supervisor would
attempt to equalize the weight of samples by culling samples that appeared to exceed
the desired sample weight. However, it has also been our observation that this process
introduces bias into the study and negates the other measures taken to eliminate bias,
August 15, 2016 4

such as using a random number generator to select routes for sampling and the cells
from which samples are to be selected. Manually culling of samples usually involves the
removal of material from the top of a sample, which generally consist of lighter materials
such as cardboard and paper, and either sorting the material that was removed, or
sorting the material that remained, which tends to be the heavier components of a
sample.
For this study, we attempted to select samples of generally equal volume and then sort
all materials in the samples. The average weight for all samples was 147.4 lbs.
There was not a clear correlation between sample weight and the percent of a sample
that consisted of recyclable materials. However, all samples for which the percent of
recyclable materials was 90% or more weighed less than 180 lbs. Overall, the
recyclable percent of the samples ranged from 91% to 36.8%.
Figure 4 provides a comparison of the percent of recyclable materials in a sample to the

weight of the sample.
Figure 4: Comparison of Sample Weight and Percent of Sample That Was Recyclable
100%
90%
80%
Percent Recyclable
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Sample Weight (lbs.)
Percent of Sample That Was Recyclable
2.3.2 Sorting of Samples

The first step in the sorting process, removal of cardboard and large non-recyclable
items from the sample, was intended to make the remainder of the samples easier to
sort, and to also imitate the activity of the pre-sort line of the facility.
The sort crew was instructed to sort samples as completely as possible and were
instructed to not remove non-recyclable/residual materials from the sorting table until
instructed to do so by the sorting supervisor. The table residual consisted primarily of
food and other organic material, materials contaminated with food, small pieces of paper
(<2), small pieces of miscellaneous plastics, and film plastic. Any appliances or toys
with electrical components were also included in the table residuals.
August 15, 2016 5

2.3.3 Composition of Sampled Material

The following figures present the results of the characterization study. The results for
the days of the week and areas of the city are presented for information purposes only,
and are not necessarily statistically representative since the number of samples for
these categories was insufficient for such an analysis.
Figure 5: Composition of All Samples
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Newspaper
Mixed paper
Corrugated
Glass bottles & jars
Metal cans
Aluminum foil & trays
Aseptic containers
Plastics containers
Rigid plastics
Textiles
Metals
Residual - bulk
Residual - table
Figure 6: Composition by Day of the Week
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Recyclable Residual
August 15, 2016 6

Figure 7: Composition Details - All Samples
Program Materials Mean Std Deviation Lower Limit Upper Limit
Newspaper 4.13% 0.0317 0.96% 5.00%

Mixed Paper 19.41% 0.0823 11.18% 21.65%
Corrugated 18.95% 0.0842 10.52% 21.23%
Glass bottles & jars 12.49% 0.0966 2.83% 15.12%
Metal cans 2.57% 0.0134 1.24% 2.94%
Aluminum foil & trays 0.20% 0.0037 -0.17% 0.30%
Aseptic containers 0.82% 0.0061 0.21% 0.99%
Plastics containers 7.67% 0.0253 5.14% 8.36%
Total program materials 66.25% 0.1422 52.03% 70.12%
Non-program materials recovered
Rigid plastics 1.15% 0.0228 -1.13% 1.77%
Textiles 0.45% 0.0321 -2.76% 1.32%
Metals 0.87% 0.0191 -1.04% 1.39%
Total other materials 2.47% 0.0473 -2.26% 3.75%
Total all materials 68.72% 0.1383 54.88% 72.48%
Residual/Non-recyclable materials
Residual - bulk 11.62% 0.0988 1.74% 14.31%
Residual - table 19.66% 0.0870 10.96% 22.03%
Total residual 31.28% 0.1383 17.45% 35.04%
Figure 8: Composition by Collection Area
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Program materials
Non-program materials
Residual
East Oakland West Oakland Multifamily Hard-to-Serve
August 15, 2016 7

3. Processing Diversion Study

3.1 The objective of this study will to estimate the percent of the materials processed by CWS
that is diverted from landfill disposal.
3.2 Facility Inspection

An inspection of the Wood Street facility was conducted on July 14. The purpose of this
inspection was to observe and document the typical operating conditions and staffing
levels of the facility. During the planning for this study, CWS and city staff agreed that
during the study, no more than eight (8) individuals would be assigned to the pre-sort line.
The data recorded during the inspection and on the day that the processing diversion
study was conducted are provided in Appendix 5.
3.3 Selection of Materials and Routes for the Study

During the sampling week, randomly-selected loads were unloaded in a designated area
of the facility tipping yard. This area was delineated with safety cones and tape, and was
intended to only include the accumulated materials from the designated loads. The
sampling plan was designed to collect approximately 60 tons of materials from the areas
served by CWS.
3.3.1 The percentages of materials received at CWS from each area were used to
estimate the quantity of materials that should be selected from each area for the
study.
Figure 9: Distribution of Loads Selected for the Processing Diversion Study

Percent of All Materials Tons Required for Study
Source Received at CWS (rounded up)
West Oakland 33% 20

East Oakland 50% 30
Multifamily 14% 9
Hard-to-serve 3% 2
Total 100% 61
3.3.2 To determine the number of loads required from each source, the average weight of
the loads from each source was used.
Figure 10: Number of Loads Selected from Each Area

Average Load Weight Loads Required for 60 tons
Source (tons) for the Week (rounded up)
West Oakland 5.35 4

East Oakland 5.35 6
Multifamily 5.32 2
Hard-to-service 2.17 1
Total 13
August 15, 2016 8

3.3.3 The loads for the study were selected by assigning random numbers to lists of all
loads from each source for the week, and then sorting each list by the random
numbers. For the West Oakland routes, the first four (4) loads in the sort order were
selected. For the East Oakland routes, the first six (6) loads in the sort order were
selected. For the multifamily routes, the first two loads in the sort order were
selected, and for the loads from the hard-to-serve areas, the first load in the sort
order was selected.
Appendix 6 includes the list of weekly loads from each source and the random
numbers that were assigned. The loads selected for the study are indicated in red.
Some of the loads initially selected were also selected for the material
characterization study. Because the loads for the processing diversion study would
be tipped in a separate section of the yard, it would have been difficult to retrieve
samples from the loads for the material characterization study. Therefore substitute
loads for the processing diversion study were selected by picking the next route in
the random number sequence from the same collection day.
The following table lists the original routes selected for sampling and the substitute
routes that were selected to avoid routes that would also be sampled for the material
characterization study.
Figure 11: Final Route Selection List
Substitute
Original Route Route Day Avg Load Wt
2E 5E Mon 5.35
3W Mon 5.35
706 Tues 2.17
11E Tues 5.35
4W 7W Tues 5.35
7E Tues 5.35
6W Wed 5.35
7E 2E Wed 5.35
7W Wed 5.35
704 Thurs 5.32
705 702 Thurs 5.32
13E 6E Fri 5.35
1E Fri 5.35
Estimated week total tons 66.31
August 15, 2016 9

3.4 Recording of Route Weights

When a truck from a selected route arrived at the facility, the gross weight of the truck
was recorded. The driver was then directed by the yard manager to unload in the
designated holding area for the study. After the truck was unloaded, the truck was
weighed again, and the tare weight recorded.
Figure 12: Materials Collected for the Processing Diversion Study
Gross Tare Net Weight

Date Truck Route Area Weight Weight Lbs. Net Tons
25-Jul 107 3W W 48,060 36,860 11,200 5.60
25-Jul 131 5E E 48,880 35,540 13,340 6.67
26-Jul 307 706 HTS 18,180 14,420 3,760 1.88
26-Jul 123 11E E 43,640 35,500 8,140 4.07
26-Jul 146 7W W 45,720 36,580 9,140 4.57
26-Jul 128 7E E 46,440 35,820 10,620 5.31
27-Jul 142 6W W 47,860 36,780 11,080 5.54
27-Jul 138 2E E 45,560 35,640 9,920 4.96
27-Jul 146 7W W 45,780 36,626 9,154 4.58
28-Jul 305 704 MF 51,000 34,220 16,780 8.39
28-Jul 303 702 MF 43,360 34,200 9,160 4.58
29-Jul 127 6E E 44,180 35,720 8,460 4.23
29-Jul 134 1E E 45,340 35,820 9,520 4.76
Totals 130,274 65.14
3.5 Processing of Collected Materials

The materials accumulated for the study were processed as a batch at the start of the
work day on Monday, August 1. Prior to beginning the processing, the conveyors,
hoppers, and residual bunkers of the facility were cleared and the bins used to accumulate
the glass fraction and any residual materials were emptied.
Approximately three (3) hours were required to process the 65 tons of material that had
been accumulated for the study.
3.6 Data Collection

The approach to this study was to measure the quantity of glass fraction and residual/non-
recyclable materials produced from the accumulated materials, and then subtract these
quantities from the total weight of the accumulated materials processed to determine the
quantity of recyclable materials that were recovered.
August 15, 2016 10

As the materials were being processed, the bins used to accumulate the glass fraction
were weighed as they were filled. Two bins were used and the tare weights of each were
recorded.
The glass fraction consisted primarily of broken glass, small pieces of paper and plastic,
food waste, dirt and other inert materials. This product is removed from the facility by a
company retained by CWS. The company representatives have indicated that 100% of this
product is diverted from disposal.
When all of the materials had been processed, the residual materials were moved to the
baler feed conveyor and baled. Baled residual from the facility is transported to a local
landfill and disposed. The results of the processing diversion study are provided in Figure
13.
Figure 13: Data Collected From the Processing Diversion Study
Material processed 130,274 lbs.

Residual bales produced 9
Weight of all residual bales 14,440 lbs.
Bins of glass fraction filled 12
Net weight of glass fraction material 31,700 lbs.
Recyclable materials recovered
84,134 lbs.
(materials processed minus residual plus glass fraction)
Percent of processed materials recovered 88.9%
4. Analysis of the Study Data

4.1. Incoming Material Characterization
The analysis of the sampling results yielded these parameters:
Weight of all samples sorted .............................................................. 7,694.8 lbs.
Weight of program materials sorted ................................................... 5,097.8 lbs.
Weight of other recyclable materials sorted .......................................... 189.9 lbs.
Weight of all recyclable materials sorted ........................................... 5,287.7 lbs.
Weight of table residuals .................................................................... 1,512.9 lbs.
Weight of bulk residuals ........................................................................ 894.2 lbs.
Weight of all residuals ........................................................................ 2,407.1 lbs.
Mean percent of all materials sampled that were:
Program materials .............................................................................. 66.3%
Non-program materials recycled by CWS ............................................ 2.5%
Program and non-program recyclable materials ................................ 68.8%
Non-recyclable residual materials....................................................... 32.3%
August 15, 2016 11

Standard deviation of the sample recyclable percents.............................. 0.1383

A measure of the variability of the sample results
Confidence Interval ...................................................................................... 3.8%

This parameter is based on the standard deviation and can be used to estimate how
closely the sample mean (percent of sampled material that was recyclable)
approximates the percent of all material collected by CWS that is recyclable. This
confidence interval was calculated based on a 95% confidence level.
Lower and upper confidence interval .......................................... 65.0% to 72.5%

The percent of all material collected by CWS that is recyclable is fixed, but unknown.
The purpose of the sampling plan was to develop a reasonably accurate estimate of
that percent. Based on the results of the sampling, we can be 95% confident that the
percent of all materials collected by CWS that are recyclable is between 65% and
72.5%. There is a 5% chance that the actual percent is outside of that range.
As noted in Section 1 of this report, there was considerable variation in the percent of the
materials in each sample that was recyclable. The range was from 36.8% (sample 12) up
to 91.0% (sample 10). As a result, the width of the confidence interval was 7.5%.
To determine if a narrower confidence interval could be achieved by eliminating samples

on the extremes of recyclable percents, the samples with the 3 lowest recyclable
percents (samples 9, 11, 12) and the 3 highest recyclable percents (samples 10, 35, 39)
were eliminated from the statistical calculations. The results were as follows:
Mean percent of all materials sampled that were recyclable ..................... 69.7%
Standard deviation of the sample recyclable percents.............................. 0.1564
Confidence interval ..................................................................... 65.1% to 74.2%
The mean percent increased by almost 1%, but the confidence interval widened to 9%.
There is no accepted standard for determining the acceptability of a standard deviation

(level of variability) of a set of samples. The important factors for this sampling plan are
that:
The routes designated for sampling were randomly selected
The selection of samples from each load was randomized
There was no bias introduced by manually culling the samples
Each sample was sorted as completely as practical
The overriding conclusion that can be drawn from the sample results is that there is
considerable variability in the quality of the recyclable materials collected in the city.
There was evidence of variability among collection areas and days of the week, but not
sufficient data to demonstrate a statistically significant difference.
August 15, 2016 12

4.2 Processing Diversion Study

The conditions under which the processing diversion study was conducted were
essentially the same as those noted on the day that the facility was inspected. However,
it should be noted, that the staffing level of the facility and the equipment speeds can vary
day-to-day and throughout the day due to a number of factors which are not always under
CWS's control.
At the conclusion of the processing test, approximately 11.1% of the processed material
was recorded as non-recyclable residual. This percent is the same as the residual level
recorded for the processing diversion study conducted in November 2015. For the
November 2015 study, half as much material was processed.
4.3 Comparison of Study Data

To determine compliance with the material diversion standard in the CWS-City of
Oakland agreement, the results of the material characterization study must be compared
with the results of the processing diversion study. To do so, an adjustment of the study
results is required for the following reasons:
a. Glass containers were one of the categories sorted for the material characterization
study, and represented 12.5% of all the materials sorted. However, CWS recovers
very few whole glass containers. This material is generally recovered as broken
glass and is included in the glass fraction quantity measured during the processing
diversion study.
b. Loose food waste, small pieces of paper and plastic, and dirt and miscellaneous inert
materials were included in the table residual during the material characterization
study. Most of these materials become part of the glass fraction recovered by CWS.
To properly compare the results of the two studies it is necessary to re-categorize table
residual from the material characterization study as material that would be available for
recovery during the processing diversion study. The suggested re-categorization is
illustrated in Figure 14. For consistency, the glass bottles and jars quantities are shown
in the re-categorization section since most of these materials become part of the glass
fraction.
This method does not perfectly align the results of the two studies. During the material
characterization study, large pieces of plastic sheeting and film plastic were removed as
bulk residual. Smaller pieces of this material and plastic bags were included in the table
residual. When this material is processed through the facility, some becomes part of the
recovered paper and the balance is included in the residual bales. However, given the
lightness of this material, it was deemed to not be factor in making the suggested
adjustment method invalid.
Small electrical appliances were also categorized as table residual during the material
characterization study. When processed through the facility, these materials would likely
become part of the residual bales. However, only small quantities of these appliances
were found during the material characterization study.
August 15, 2016 13

Figure 14: Suggested Method for Comparing Study Results
Material Characterization Study Processing Diversion Study
1. Materials Sorted 7,695 Materials Processed 130,274
2. Newspaper Newspaper
Mixed paper Mixed paper
Corrugated Corrugated
Metal cans Metal cans
Aluminum trays & foil Aluminum trays & foil
Aseptic containers Aseptic containers
Plastic containers Plastic containers
Rigid plastics Rigid plastics
Metals Metals
Wood Wood
Subtotal recovered 58.7% 4,517 Subtotal recovered 64.6% 84,134
3. Materials re-categorized
Glass bottles & jars 13.4% 1,031
Table residual 18.5% 1,424
4. Subtotal - re-categorized 31.9% 2,455 Glass fraction recovered 24.3% 31,700
Total materials available for Total recovered during test

5. 90.6% 6,972 88.9% 115,834
recovery (line 2 + line 4) (line 2 + line 4)
4.4 Calculation of the Material Diversion Rate

Using the results of the suggested method illustrated in Figure 14, the values for the
formulas in Section 8.01.3 of Exhibit 7 Attachment A of the agreement are:
Quantity of materials received at CWS, Jan - Jun 2016 .................... 28,043 tons
Percent of materials that are recoverable, from the

material characterization study .................................................................. 90.6%
Percent of materials recovered during the processing diversion

study........................................................................................................... 88.9%
Calculated percent of received materials that were

recoverable: 28,043 x 90.6% ............................................................. 25,407 tons
Calculated percent of received materials that should have

been recovered: 28,043 x 88.9% ...................................................... 24,930 tons
Material diversion rate: 24,930 25,407................................................... 98.1%
August 15, 2016 14

2016 Material Characterization and Processing Diversion Studiies
APPENDIX 1 CWS - City of Oakland Residential Recycling Program
DETAILS OF THE SAMPLES TAKEN FOR THE MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
Percent
Sample # Date Route Truck Area Weight Recyclable
1 Jul 25 702 303 Multifamily 160.2 85.8%

2 Jul 25 8E 129 East Oakland 183.9 74.0%
3 Jul 25 706 307 Hard-to-Serve 62.0 85.8%
4 Jul 25 6W 142 West Oakland 103.6 81.3%
12 Jul 26 704 305 Multifamily 374.8 36.8%
13 Jul 26 703 304 Multifamily 157.9 83.7%
22 No sample
24 Jul 27 704 306 Multifamily 271.6 60.0%
32 No sample
DETAILS OF THE SAMPLES TAKEN FOR THE MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
Percent
Sample # Date Route Truck Area Weight Recyclable
33 Jul 28 705 302 Multifamily 122.5 66.8%

34 Jul 28 703 304 Multifamily 109.3 82.7%
44 Jul 29 704 305 Multifamily 185.4 73.5%
50 Jul 29 707 306 Hard-to-Serve 199.1 76.5%
PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING AND SORTING SAMPLES

FOR THE MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
1. Selection of Samples: When a load designated for sampling arrived at the facility and was
dumped in the facility tipping area, an imaginary 8-cell grid (2 rows lengthwise and 4 cells
per row, see Appendix 3) was used to designate the area from which a sample will be
selected. A random number generator was used to determine the cell for each load from
which the sample was to be selected.
The facility loader operator was directed by the sorting supervisor to select a sample of
approximately 150 - 200 pounds from the designated cell, move the sample to the sorting
area, and drop it on a tarp.
2. Sorting of Samples: Each sample was photographed before being sorted. Five individuals
(Sorters) separated the samples into the designated categories. After the samples were
sorted, the weight of the materials in each category was recorded.
The method of sorting was as follows:

a. The sample was dumped on a tarp in the sorting area.
b. Large recyclable materials, such as cardboard, were removed from the sample
and placed in a tote labeled for that material.
c. Large non-recyclable items, such as garden hoses, contaminated cardboard, film
plastic, or bags of household trash, were removed from the tarp and placed in a
tote labeled "residual - bulk".
d. The tarp with the remaining materials was moved to the sorting table.
e. The sort crew remove recyclable materials from the sample, leaving non-
recyclable materials on the table.
f. When directed by the sorting supervisor, the sort crew moved all of the totes with
recyclable materials to the scale area to be weighed.
g. The totes for the collection of residual materials were then brought to the sort
table and filled with the residual materials remaining on the table. The table
residual was photographed before being placed in totes.
h. All totes with recyclable materials and residual materials were weighed, and the
weights recorded. The weight of the bulky non-recyclable materials removed
from samples prior to table sorting was recorded separately from the weight of
the residual from the table sorting.
3. Material Categories:
3.1 Program Materials
Material Notes and Examples
Newspaper Newspaper and advertising inserts

White and colored paper, magazines, telephone books, chipboard,
Mixed paper
junk mail, high grade paper, egg cartons, shopping bags
Corrugated cardboard Uncontaminated
Glass bottles and jars Uncontaminated and empty
Metals cans Ferrous, non-ferrous, bi-metal containers, empty aerosol containers

Aluminum foil and trays Uncontaminated
Aseptic food containers Milk and juice cartons, soup and juice boxes
Narrow-neck rigid food and beverage containers, non-bottle rigid
Plastics
plastics
3.2 Additional Materials Recycled by CWS
Miscellaneous ferrous metals, pots and pans, propane tanks, helium

Metals
tanks, fire extinguishers
Large rigid plastics Water bottles, milk crates
3.3 Non-recyclable Materials
Recyclable materials contaminated with food, oil, or other materials,

Non-recyclable materials
hangers, film plastic, polystyrene, etc. (see section 2.4)
4. Guidelines for Classifying Materials as "non-recyclable"

The following guidelines were used to determine whether a particular piece of material from
the above list will be considered to be recyclable.
4.1 Material is recyclable only if any contamination on the material is easy to wash away
without destroying the piece of recyclable material itself. Examples of contamination
that cannot be washed away easily include oil contamination on paper, paint
contamination on any material, presence of any toxic material, or dried-out solids inside
a glass or plastic bottle.
4.2 Material is not recyclable if 10% or more of its weight is composed of contaminant
rather than the primary recyclable material itself. For example, bottles or plastic
containers containing food or other material in more than trace amounts will not be
considered to be recyclable.
4.3 Material is not recyclable if it is shredded in such a way that it is impractical to process it
for recycling. For example, finely shredded office paper will not be considered to be
recyclable.
4.4 Material is not recyclable if it arrives mixed with other materials (recyclable or not) and it
is impractical or difficult to separate them. For example, if aluminum cans arrive packed
inside a closed tin can, neither the aluminum cans nor the tin cans will be considered
recyclable.
Any piece of material that was rejected from being considered recyclable was counted as
garbage/residual. In addition, the particular materials listed below were counted as non-
recyclable.
Non-recyclable Paper: Blueprint paper, Carbon paper, Contaminated newspaper

(with grease, pet waste, or paint), Facial tissue, Foil gift wrap, Foil-wrapped beverage
containers, Frozen food packaging, Frozen juice cartons (cardboard portion), Hard
cover books, Padded, plastic or TyvekTM envelopes, Paper napkins, Paper take-out
containers, Paper towels, Personal hygiene products, Photographs and photo paper,
Pizza boxes, Stickers (in sheets or rolls), Thermal fax paper, Wax paper.
Non-recyclable Plastic: Bubble wrap, Cellophane or snack food bags (e.g. pasta,
bagged salad, candy, cookies), Credit Cards, Disposable razors, Frozen-food bags or
pouches, Hoses (e.g. car, garden, appliance), Microwave trays, Ointment tubes,
Plastic or wax liners from food packaging, Plastic utensils, Plastic wrap, Plastics
without numbers 1-7, PVC pipes or tubing, Straws, Swimming pools, Syringes (sharps),
Tarps, Toothpaste tubes, Toys, Webbing from lawn furniture.
Non-recyclable Metal: Aerosol cans not empty, Bolts, Car parts with hazardous
waste, Contaminated cans (with dirt, rocks, or food), Engine parts, Gas tanks, Hangers,
Keys, Metal hoses, Nails, Nuts, Screws.
Non-recyclable Glass: Blue glass, Ceramics, Coffee mugs, Cookware (e.g. PyrexTM),
Dishware, Drinking glasses, Glass art, Light bulbs (fluorescent or electronic), Lead
wrapping and corks from wine bottles, Mirrors, Windows.
Mixed Materials: Paint cans, toys, appliances, and other materials that consist of
multiple materials such as plastic, metal, and paper.
Materials Containing Electronics: Kitchen appliances, Toys with electric motors or

components, Audio components and appliances, Cellular telephones.
8-CELL GRID USED FOR SAMPLE SELECTION
Front of Load
Routes Selected for the Material Characterization Study
West Oakland - 4 samples per day

Route Random Route Random Route Random Route Random Route Random
6W 279 4W 39,384 1W 7,216 11W 21,734 11W 34,038

5W 1,021 9W 43,050 8W 107,253 3W 89,606 9W 69,930
10W 231,353 5W 53,152 4W 127,549 6W 336,290 8W 147,168
1W 333,054 2W 235,722 9W 287,453 9W 357,758 1W 181,424
3W 370,583 6W 353,722 11W 351,558 8W 448,008 2W 462,096
9W 708,792 1W 378,546 6W 383,401 2W 457,398 7W 578,736
8W 727,571 11W 430,276 10W 517,824 5W 494,390 4W 587,871
7W 800,087 7W 518,472 2W 573,885 4W 569,392 10W 836,031
11W 820,013 10W 656,235 3W 591,194 10W 712,241 3W 908,636
2W 831,325 8W 833,424 7W 928,008 1W 723,570 6W 916,637
4W 942,227 3W 993,317 5W 975,268 7W 888,318 5W 969,739
East Oakland - 5 samples per day

14E 24,279 9E 30,366 13E 78,361 7E 63,072 8E 41,717

16E 43,204 16E 99,946 8E 158,581 2E 218,370 13E 141,246
8E 104,564 12E 148,969 6E 160,950 13E 266,246 9E 256,968
2E 135,970 8E 308,762 9E 191,321 14E 300,336 3E 376,930
1E 237,092 2E 344,965 7E 282,991 1E 305,071 2E 572,472
4E 269,229 11E 458,005 1E 337,895 6E 365,650 4E 590,754
11E 339,461 1E 491,543 14E 338,211 4E 375,622 14E 737,879
5E 388,090 3E 585,296 15E 446,822 15E 399,903 16E 745,922
9E 569,991 6E 632,818 12E 462,253 9E 439,625 1E 838,181
15E 630,835 13E 734,189 16E 535,163 11E 492,943 11E 843,372
7E 755,092 15E 809,461 2E 547,005 5E 576,410 10E 876,559
3E 813,869 5E 880,097 11E 693,181 3E 602,944 6E 877,533
13E 830,906 7E 919,995 3E 788,364 8E 606,406 15E 896,345
10E 843,968 14E 973,747 5E 892,076 10E 651,488 12E 921,135
6E 850,908 10E 989,233 10E 919,085 12E 699,266 7E 944,295
12E 939,349 4E 998,911 4E 961,968 16E 904,522 5E 991,089
Multifamily - 7 samples per week

702 297,189 704 133,543 704 249,907 705 5,020 704 380,196
705 744,870 705 158,284 703 406,219 702 54,834 702 578,217
703 772,778 703 369,972 705 682,877 703 409,580 703 709,106
704 796,916 702 845,553 702 715,767 704 965,973 705 799,617
Hard to Serve - 2 samples per week
Route Random
706M 171,950
707F 277,177
707T 339,402
706F 405,347
707W 546,456
706TH 563,454
707M 610,084
706T 871,253
706W 962,172
1. Data Collection: July 25 - 29, 2016

2. Date facility inspection: July 14, 2016
3. Date of Test: August 1, 2016
Processing Diversion Study
4. Facility Staffing
Jul 14 Aug 1 Data Recorded
Total crew on hand 34 25
Pre-sort line 7 8
West paper pick line 4 4
East paper pick line 2 1
5. Equipment Settings
Equipment Jul 14 Aug 1
C2 100% 100%
C3 100% 100%
S-5A 65% 85%
S-5B 60% 80%
S-5C 65% 80%
S-5D 63% 85%
C-6 40% 30%
S-9A 70% 80%
S-9B 63% 80%
C-10 35% 35%
C-18 43% 40%
6. Glass Fraction Recovered on August 1: Bin gross weights (lbs.)

#1 Tare: 660 lbs. #2 Tare: 640 lbs. Total Gross Weight Total Net Weight
3,800 3,960 7,760 6,460
3,540 3,340 6,880 5,580
3,400 3,180 6,580 5,280
3,380 3,420 6,800 5,500
3,020 3,180 6,200 4,900
2,200 3,080 5,280 3,980
7. Residual Bales Produced on August 1

Number of bales Weight (lbs)
9 14,440
8. Total material processed on August 1 ............ 130,274 lbs.

9. Processing residual .......................................... 14,440 lbs.
10. Total recovered .............................................. 115,834 lbs.
11. Glass fraction recovered .................................. 31,700 lbs.
12. Other materials recovered ................................ 84,134 lbs.
13. Recovery rate - other materials ............................... 64.6%
14. Recovery rate - total recovered ............................... 88.9%
Routes Selected for the Processing Diversion Study
West Oakland Routes Multifamily Routes
Route Day Random Route Day Random Route Day Random

7W Wed 75056 11W Wed 642402 705 Thurs 57356.77891
3W Mon 111880 5W Thurs 655334 704 Thurs 59031.73311
4W Tues 119317 11W Tues 695714 704 Wed 61231.3809
6W Wed 142662 9W Thurs 712019 704 Mon 69625.29572
6W Fri 151981 10W Fri 745405 702 Mon 227321.5717
8W Mon 156024 7W Mon 808708 703 Fri 254609.061
7W Tues 162788 11W Thurs 821397 705 Tues 345076.0475
8W Fri 185356 10W Wed 831557 705 Mon 508702.9958
2W Thurs 190775 2W Wed 868624 703 Wed 523324.2666
8W Wed 213808 8W Thurs 881657 702 Tues 572650.7187
7W Fri 240177 11W Fri 924414 705 Fri 629316.7492
10W Tues 240572 1W Fri 948306 703 Mon 780412.3889
6W Tues 246827 3W Thurs 958945 702 Thurs 847251.194
1W Wed 266199 3W Wed 960665 703 Thurs 867877.5559
9W Mon 268631 5W Wed 964926 705 Wed 885767.2438
9W Tues 288285 9W Fri 969082 703 Tues 899712.4013
6W Thurs 323851 11W Mon 975018 704 Tues 904127.8745
4W Fri 328127 4W Wed 978357 702 Wed 991480.7095
3W Tues 349308 7W Thurs 980087 704 Fri 991541.163
1W Tues 396727 702 Fri 999869.5501
8W Tues 399612
3W Fri 412133
10W Thurs 426496 Hard-to-serve Routes
6W Mon 453968 Route Day Random
1W Mon 457727 706 Tues 71097.00468
5W Fri 472802 706 Thurs 420695.9156
9W Wed 480807 706 Mon 527624.8709
10W Mon 489761 707 Fri 600369.4313
4W Thurs 491121 707 Tues 644157.8928
2W Tues 492673 707 Thurs 828952.9165
2W Fri 513485 707 Mon 848214.9365
4W Mon 605717 706 Wed 869561.7198
5W Mon 622195 706 Fri 886320.6138
1W Thurs 623018 707 Wed 992442.9892
5W Tues 626567
2W Mon 629649

East Oakland Routes
Route Day Random Route Day Random

13E Fri 6466 13E Thurs 538697
7E Wed 15744 3E Tues 541323
7E Tues 30143 14E Tues 542683
11E Tues 31825 15E Mon 542698
2E Mon 36540 10E Tues 547959
1E Fri 38120 15E Tues 553272
3E Fri 55734 12E Wed 554179
6E Fri 89898 11E Mon 570341
16E Fri 90646 2E Thurs 585553
14E Mon 128689 8E Mon 612668
2E Wed 154273 1E Wed 643844
4E Fri 154813 4E Tues 656537
5E Mon 185757 1E Mon 682473
12E Tues 193917 16E Tues 686352
14E Fri 210121 13E Mon 717529
11E Thurs 215946 10E Wed 728140
4E Mon 224550 6E Thurs 735673
2E Tues 250611 9E Mon 750714
11E Wed 287867 8E Fri 765315
1E Tues 293830 6E Tues 797089
13E Wed 312247 7E Thurs 818839
8E Thurs 338122 11E Fri 824282
1E Thurs 349150 3E Thurs 825198
14E Wed 351301 10E Thurs 832627
6E Mon 352900 15E Thurs 851849
8E Wed 395407 15E Wed 851901
4E Thurs 415496 2E Fri 859823
5E Thurs 416356 13E Tues 868905
10E Mon 430588 14E Thurs 870251
3E Mon 441598 4E Wed 888931
9E Thurs 441956 8E Tues 891987
16E Wed 444213 9E Fri 926654
9E Wed 472362 16E Mon 940666
15E Fri 473532 12E Thurs 944689
12E Mon 492621 5E Fri 962061
5E Tues 506243 7E Fri 962223
7E Mon 519074 16E Thurs 986622
9E Tues 528991 10E Fri 994429
6E Wed 532296 12E Fri 998035
3E Wed 537744 5E Wed 998596

CWS Oakland Characterization Report July 2016 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CWS Oakland Characterization Report July 2016 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report of the Results of a Material Characterization Study

and Processing Diversion Study

City of Oakland, California Residential Recycling Program

CALIFORNIA WASTE SOULTIONS, INC.

Study Dates: July 25 - August 1, 2016

Report Date: August 18, 2016

Figure 1 Composition of All Samples .................................................................................... 1

Figure 1: Composition of All Samples

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Glass bottles & jars

Aluminum foil & trays

August 15, 2016 1

West Oakland: 19 samples, percent recyclable - 75%

Material processed ..................................... 130,274 lbs.

2. Material Characterization Study

August 15, 2016 2

West Oakland ....... 33%

Figure 2: Distribution of Samples

West Oakland 33% 17 4

August 15, 2016 3

Figure 3: Routes Selected for Sampling

West Oakland 6W 4W 1W 11W 11W

2.2.4 Method of Sorting Samples

August 15, 2016 4

Figure 4 provides a comparison of the percent of recyclable materials in a sample to the

Percent of Sample That Was Recyclable

2.3.2 Sorting of Samples

August 15, 2016 5

2.3.3 Composition of Sampled Material

Figure 5: Composition of All Samples

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Glass bottles & jars

Aluminum foil & trays

Figure 6: Composition by Day of the Week

August 15, 2016 6

Figure 7: Composition Details - All Samples

Program Materials Mean Std Deviation Lower Limit Upper Limit

Newspaper 4.13% 0.0317 0.96% 5.00%

Figure 8: Composition by Collection Area

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

East Oakland West Oakland Multifamily Hard-to-Serve

August 15, 2016 7

3. Processing Diversion Study

3.2 Facility Inspection

3.3 Selection of Materials and Routes for the Study

Figure 9: Distribution of Loads Selected for the Processing Diversion Study

West Oakland 33% 20

Figure 10: Number of Loads Selected from Each Area

West Oakland 5.35 4

August 15, 2016 8

Figure 11: Final Route Selection List

August 15, 2016 9

3.4 Recording of Route Weights

Figure 12: Materials Collected for the Processing Diversion Study

Gross Tare Net Weight

25-Jul 107 3W W 48,060 36,860 11,200 5.60

25-Jul 131 5E E 48,880 35,540 13,340 6.67

26-Jul 307 706 HTS 18,180 14,420 3,760 1.88

26-Jul 123 11E E 43,640 35,500 8,140 4.07

26-Jul 146 7W W 45,720 36,580 9,140 4.57

26-Jul 128 7E E 46,440 35,820 10,620 5.31

27-Jul 142 6W W 47,860 36,780 11,080 5.54

27-Jul 138 2E E 45,560 35,640 9,920 4.96