-------
distributions (combined, residential, and commercial) passed a one sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test for normality using a = 0.05 and were considered acceptable without any data exclusion.
5
4
>
u o
£ 3
a>
3
a- _
£ 2
LL.
1
0













50
60
70
80
90 100
L0 (m3 CH^/Mg MSW)
110
120 130 140
Figure 1-22. Frequency and Range of all Lo Values Measured from Commercial Samples
Figure 1-22 is a histogram of the Lo values determined for commercial loads only. The
data mildly skew left while illustrating data with a mean value of 85 m3 CH4/Mg MSW and a
median value of 88. Calculating a 95% confidence interval provides the range of 77-92 m3 CH4
/Mg MSW for all commercial loads. These values are relatively proportional in opposition to the
residential data in Figure 1-23 which shows data skewing to the right and a lower mean Lo = 75
m3 CFL/Mg MSW and median 71, as well as a 95% confidence interval provides the range of
67-85 m3 CFL/Mg MSW. With the exception of the single high value (due to the uncommonly-
high amount of methane-generating food waste in the sample) the residential data hold a more
concentrated spread than the commercial loads. While the histograms suggest a difference
between the two groups, a two-sample t test with alpha = 0.05 showed no significant difference
between commercial and residential Lo values. Similar t tests between different counties showed
no significant difference in Lo related to source region.
3
cr
a>
*_
LL.
1
0
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170
L0 (m3 CH^/Mg MSW)
Figure 1-23. Frequency and Range of All Lo Values Measured from Residential Samples
34

-------
The Fines fractions received special focus in this research because this fraction was often
omitted or under studied in previous investigations of Lo. Table 1-10 shows that the average
contribution of methane yield in each of the 39 waste collection vehicles was approximately 19%
of the overall Lo. The heterogeneous nature of the Fines allows this material to contribute over
50% of the overall methane measured for one truck while inert materials such as soil can pool in
fines fractions that contribute little to the overall yield of MSW. In this study the average Lo for
all vehicles would have been 65 m3 CFL/Mg MSW if these fractions were omitted.
Table 1-10: Significance of Fines on Lo
Lo	Fines<2" CELt Fines
-------
Figure 1-24. Total Carbon Content (Dry Mass Carbon/Dry Mass Material) by Fraction. Boxes Show
Median, 1st and 3rd Quartiles of the Data for Each Fraction (Whiskers Represent Minimum and
Maximum Values)
Table 1-11. Total Carbon Content by Fraction (Dry Mass Carbon/Dry Mass Sample)

Average Carbon Content
Std. Dev
Min
Max
Cardboard
42%
2%
35%
45%
Newspaper
45%
3%
36%
53%
Office Paper
38%
2%
35%
45%
Pasteboard
40%
1%
37%
45%
Junk Mail
36%
3%
29%
45%
Aseptic Paper
45%
2%
42%
49%
Misc. Paper
38%
3%
32%
45%
Food and Soiled Paper
43%
5%
30%
62%
Yard Waste
42%
5%
26%
47%
BF Fines <2"
40%
4%
33%
50%
BF Fines <1"
37%
8%
15%
54%
Textiles
47%
10%
40%
92%
Wood
44%
2%
39%
46%
Comp. Wood
41%
2%
38%
44%
36
-------
1.15 Biogenic and Fossil Carbon
The analysis of total carbon in biodegradable samples allowed for a determination of the
biogenic/fossil carbon split among waste. This metric is determined in waste-to-energy facilities
using radiocarbon analysis via ASTM D6866 of stack samples collected over a 24-hour period in
accordance with the requirements of the mandatory GHG reporting rule. In this study, the total
carbon content in biodegradable fractions was assumed to be biogenic while plastics fractions
were assumed to be about 75% fossil carbon, based on the chemical formulas of the most
prevalent materials such as HDPE, PET, PP, etc. The waste composition of each load was paired
with the biogenic/fossil carbon content values for each fraction and combined to calculate the
average values depicted in Figure 1-25 and Table 1-12. With these calculations and assumptions,
the overall biogenic/fossil carbon split was determined to be 54/46 for all MSW in this study.
The ratio of biogenic and fossil carbon was determined based on the total mass of carbon present
in each collection vehicle, which was combined with moisture content data to calculate the total
mass of carbon per mass of wet MSW (as-discarded) and dry MSW. A summary of these values
is shown in Table 1-12 and the full list of carbon and moisture content by vehicle is presented in
Appendix F.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
lillili

Dur
Comrr
nam Durham Ath
lercial Residential Comrr
ens Ath
lercial Resid
¦ Biogenic
ens Lee Con
ential
- Fossil
lmercial Lee Res
idential UF Com
mercial
Figure 1-25 Average Biogenic/Fossil Carbon Split for All Loads
37
-------
Table 1-12. Average Biogenic/Fossil Carbon Split for All Loads. Based on Dry Mass Carbon/Dry
Mass Waste Composition
Biogenic Carbon Fossil Carbon Total Carbon (g Total Carbon (g



C/g dry MSW)
C/g wet MSW)
Durham Commercial
54%
46%
45%
33%
Durham Residential
49%
51%
37%
27%
Athens Commercial
56%
44%
33%
27%
Athens Residential
56%
44%
33%
26%
Lee Commercial
51%
49%
30%
25%
Lee Residential
58%
42%
26%
22%
UF Commercial
50%
50%
41%
31%
Average
54%
46%
34%
27%

180

160
~o

-7"
,4 V
y = 480.39x +12.352
R2 = 0.366
0.050	0.100	0.150	0.200
Biogenic Carbon Content- Wet (g biogenic C /g wet waste)
0.250
Figure 1-26. Comparison of Lo and Biogenic Carbon Content for each Load, Dur-Com 3 Excluded
Total carbon content for each sample was applied with the waste composition data to
determine the biogenic/fossil carbon content. Figure 1-26 shows a comparison of the methane
yield (Lo) of each load sorted and the biogenic carbon content (wet weight) for each respective
load. This figure's regression line excludes the Lo value for Durham Commercial 2 (shown in
red), which was relatively low (46 m3 CIL/Mg MSW) as a result of uncommonly-high presence
38
-------
of wood (52% of as-discarded mass) in the load. Excluding this Lo value increased the
percentage of variation explained by the linear model from about 20% to nearly 37%. Regression
analysis based on 95% confidence intervals revealed a statistically significant relationship
between biogenic carbon content (wet weight) and Lo for the data sets inclusive (P-value = 5.7 x
10"5) and excluding (P-value = 4 x 10"3) of Durham Commercial 2. A table of these values is
located in Appendix F.
The fines fractions received specific interest because of the difficulty in characterizing
the material. Table 1-13 lists the samples used and shows that no correlation between yield and
biogenic carbon content was defined for the fines fractions. The carbon in these samples was
almost completely biogenic. The fractions analyzed by Beta Analytic had been hand sorted to
remove items that were perceived as non-biodegradable (the Inert Fines Fraction described in
Section 2.4.1) which accounted for between 13% and 59% of the mass. A small amount of
plastic films were removed in this process- less than 10% of the removed mass. The majority of
IFF material removed was glass shards, rocks/pebbles, cigarettes, and clay cat litter. The plastics
that could have contributed fossil carbon to the samples were minimal in mass relative to heavy
items such as soil and food waste that made up a majority of the composition. See Appendix C
for more composition data of the fines fractions. No correlation between BFF size and biogenic
carbon content was observed in the samples studied.
Table 1-13. Biogenic Carbon Content in Dry, Ground, Sorted Biodegradable Fines Fractions
County
Load
F raction
CH4 Yield
Biogenic Carbon
Biodegradable Fines Fraction



(mL/g
Content in Dry
(wet mass of fines sample



VS)
Samples (percent
kept/wet mass of total fines




modern carbon)
sample before sorting)
Lee
Res 6
BF<2"
289
99%
61%
Lee
Com 6
BF<2"
318
100%
41%
Durham
Com 3
BF<2"
353
99%
75%
Athens
Com 3
BF<1"
283
100%
87%
Athens
Res 2
BF<1"
324
100%
65%
Durham
Res 5
BF<1"
366
100%
75%
1.16 Degradable Carbon Fraction
By calculating each yield of methane and carbon dioxide at STP, the density of each gas
under standard conditions was used to determine the fraction of carbon in each sample that
evolved to either gas. Figure 1-27 portrays how carbon was studied and described in this research
with total carbon assessed as described in Section 3.6. The biogenic/fossil carbon split detailed in
Section 3.7 is describing the physical makeup of the total carbon content. The amount of
biogenic carbon that evolved into carbon in CO2 or CH4 was determined by assessing the yields
of gas and comparing the respective yield for each sample to the amount of biogenic carbon
present prior to digestion under anaerobic conditions. In all waste samples studied the average
fraction of biogenic carbon mass that evolved to carbon in CO2 and CH4 was 43%. Commercial
carbon averaged 47% and residential carbon averaged 51%. Individual sites are listed in
Table 1-14 and range from 38-53%. The biogenic carbon mass fractions determined for
residential and commercial fractions of MSW from Lee County of 52% and 50% for commercial
39
-------
and residential waste respectively. These values are less than those reported to the U.S. EPA by
the Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility (RRF), which were reported to be
64.3% when measured in facility's emissions stream (U.S. EPA 2013). The RRF collects
quarterly 24-hour stack samples for radiocarbon analysis to ascertain the fraction of carbon that
is biogenic in origin to meet EPA requirements. From 2014 to 2016, these quarterly samples
ranged from 59% to 63% biogenic carbon (U.S. EPA 2016).
Non-Carbon
Biogenic Carbon 	
Fossil Carbon
— Carbon Evolved to C02 & CH4
Figure 1-27. Carbon Studied in this Research
Table 1-14. Average Degradable Carbon Fraction by Location. Values Represent % of Dry Mass of
Total Biogenic Carbon that Evolved to Carbon in CH4 or CO2
Location	Average Fraction of Biogenic
Carbon Evolved to Carbon
in Biogas (CELt and CO2)
Durham Commercial
38%
Durham Residential
50%
Athens Commercial
48%
Athens Residential
53%
Lee Commercial
50%
Lee Residential
52%
UF Commercial
52%
The average content of degradable carbon was determined after the values were
determined for each individual sample. Figure 1-28 shows the spread of all degradable carbon
40
-------
percentages, grouped by fraction. Similar to the methane yields show in shown in Figure 1-28,
increased heterogeneity in the sample results in a wider spread of values. High lignin content in
fibrous materials such as newspaper, wood, and yard waste is known to reduce methane yields
under anaerobic conditions, as the carbon is not easily available to these organisms without prior
hydrolysis. While wood and newspaper both have average carbon contents of 45%, only 9% and
5%, respectively, of that carbon was able to convert to both CO2 and CH4 in the BMP assays.
The maximum value for newspaper, illustrated with the whiskers in Figure 1-28 is likely due to
contamination such as oil or sugar saturating the newspaper prior to study.
Table 1-15 presents the mean values of this degradable carbon by fraction and displays the
average fraction of carbon that evolved to CO2 and CH4 for comparison. The ratio of C evolved to
CH4 to C evolved to CO2 ranged from 1.1 (office paper) to 2.4 (newspaper). Typical anaerobic
landfill gas exhibits CH4 to CO2 ratios in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 (anaerobic bioconversion of
cellulose results in a theoretical ratio of 1.0). As some CO2 will dissolve into solution in the BMP
bottle, the amount of CO2 measured is expected to be less than that produced. This effect is
magnified for those constituents with lower methane yields (e.g., wood, newspaper). In addition,
those constituents with greater amounts on non-cellulosic biodegradable organic matter (e.g., food
waste, fines), also results in higher CH4 to CO2 ratios, not surprising, as fats and lipids yield a
greater percentage of CH4 compared to cellulosic materials.
o
u
o3
x
u
o
o
-Q
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
cT
4?
& c*


J






E
3 1
PF


F
p e]
T
—1 _
x








3


¦¦

3
J









&

4>"

<£>

&

*

&

£
-------
Table 1-15. Average Degradable Carbon Fraction by Fraction. Values Represent Average % of
Total Carbon (Mass) in Dry Samples that Evolved to Carbon in CH4 or CO2
Fraction Average Fraction	Average Fraction	Ratio of fraction C
of Carbon that	of Carbon that	evolved to C in
Evolved to C in	Evolved to C in	CH4: fraction C
CH4	CO2	evolved to C in



CO2
Cardboard
25%
14%
1.8
Newspaper
10%
4%
2.4
Office Paper
29%
27%
1.1
Pasteboard
29%
22%
1.3
Junk Mail
36%
30%
1.2
Aseptic Paper
29%
21%
1.4
Misc. Paper
29%
23%
1.3
Food and Soiled Paper
35%
22%
1.6
Yard Waste
15%
9%
1.7
BF Fines <2"
32%
18%
1.8
BF Fines <1"
31%
17%
1.8
Textiles
25%
19%
1.4
Wood
5%
3%
1.8
Comp Wood
7%
4%
2.0
42
-------
Conclusions
Waste composition studies were employed to capture MSW from waste collection
vehicles at the point of disposal to ensure that the maximum amount of degradable materials
remained intact for laboratory analysis. Representative samples were identified and sorted
following ASTM D5231-92 and organic fractions were returned to the UF Environmental
Engineering Laboratories for further study. Laboratory analyses were used to characterize the
biodegradable components with respect to methane generation via BMP assay. Methane
generation data were then attributed to the weight-fraction of the component determined in the
WCS and Lo for each representative sample was determined.
Lo values were found to range from 46-162 m3 CTL/Mg MSW, with an average value of
80 m3/Mg MSW (Table 1-9). While the geographic range covered by the samples does not
represent the entire U.S. it does provide insight on Lo based on the analysis of as-discarded
commercial and residential MSW. The Lo values for the 39 MSW collection vehicle samples
gathered during this study were normal in distribution as tested by a one sample Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test for normality using a = 0.05. This suggested that waste composition and laboratory
analysis yielded consistent results among samples obtained from different locations with the
process developed for this study.
This average value is 20% lower than the current 100 m3 CIL/Mg MSW value for Lo
suggested by the USEPA in AP-42; however, the range of values does not exclude a value of 100
m3 CTL/Mg MSW from the range of possibilities. Of the 39 trucks sorted, six resulted in Lo
values higher than 100, one of which produced a calculated 162 m3 CTL/Mg MSW-nearly as
much as the potential to emit factor of 170 m3 CTL/Mg MSW required for use by the landfill new
source performance standards and emissions guidelines promulgated under the Clean Air Act.
Twelve of the 39 trucks sorted produced Lo values between the average 80 and 100 m3 CTL/Mg
MSW.
The methane evolved from these samples originated from biogenic carbon found in the
waste. The solid waste in this study showed an average total carbon content on a dry basis of
34%. Of that total carbon, 54% was estimated to be biogenic carbon and 46% was estimated to
be fossil carbon. The average fraction of biogenic carbon that evolved to CH4 or CO2 is 43%. If
100 kg of waste with an average composition is placed in one of the landfills that hosted a waste
sort in this study, 11.8 kg of carbon is expected to be converted to biogas at STP.
The range of Lo values found in this study can be attributed to the 450 samples, the
heterogeneous nature of the MSW, and the need to categorize waste samples into manageable
categories for study. The clear differences between residential and commercial waste yields and
the varying proportions in which they could be received leads one to conclude that the source of
waste and the varying compositions will have a significant impact on the ultimate yield of
landfilled materials. Since these wastes are all managed the same way in landfills the results
were combined as presented in this work. The results from this study do fall within the range
reported with similar BMP studies; Figure 1-29 depicts these values, all of which were
determined using different methods, reactor sizes, and substantially smaller sample sets.
43
-------
200
180
_ 160
§ 140
fn 120
txo
_P ^ 100
3? 80
u
60
— 40
20
0
¦ nil
1
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ <# ^
	:3>	.>S
^ ~ 
-------
7
6
> 5
£ 4
§¦ 3
a)
£ 2
1
0















45 50 55 60
65
70
75
80

85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
(m3 CH^Mg MSW)
Figure 1-30. Frequency and Range of All Lo Values Calculated Using Average Yields for each
Individual Organic Fraction
The visual representation is slightly misleading in this case as the average values vary
little between the individual Lo values and those determined with average yields for each organic
fraction. These values are compared in Table 1-16. While the histograms suggest a difference
between the Lo values of the two groups, a two-sample t test with alpha = 0.05 showed no
significant difference.
Table 1-16. Comparison of Lo Values Calculated Using Average Yields and Individualized Yields
for Each Individual Organic Fraction
Lo Values Determined with	Lo Values Determined with
Individual Yields (Figure 1-21)	Average Yields (Figure 1-30)
Mean
80
84
Median
76
81
Std. Dev
24.1
18.7
Min
46
48
Max
162
131
While the range of methane yields for each fraction of MSW could vary, much of the
variation could be attributed to heterogeneity in the fraction (e.g., food wastes, fines), unique
characteristics of different manufactured products (e.g., lignin content in newspaper and
cardboard), or unavoidable contamination of liquids on dry materials. From the 39 representative
samples collected in this study, over 1,400 BMPs were performed on the 14 biodegradable waste
fractions, analyzed in triplicate.
In addition to determining them methane potential for these samples, further investigation
into the physical characteristics provides us with a better understanding of waste today. For each
45
-------
sample studied in one contained research effort, we know its source, prevalence relative to the
truck from which it was pulled, the county in which it originated, and how its presence rates
relative to other samples from three different states. We also know the moisture and volatile
solids content of that specific sample, as well as the total carbon content. The methane and
carbon dioxide potentials were determined on that same mass of waste that was sorted hundreds
of miles away. After determining the carbon content of that sample, the fraction of molecules
that are capable of changing phases from solid to gas under anaerobic conditions was also
determined. This same chain of investigation was carried out 450 times in this research. A
comparison of the biogenic carbon content and Lo values revealed that the biogenic carbon
content/wet mass of as-discarded MSW can account for approximately 37% of the variation in
measured methane potential.
The objective of this research was to measure the Lo of both residential and commercial
MSW in the condition and composition at the point of disposal. This work was motivated by
recent studies that suggest the actual MSW Lo values are substantially lower than the current AP-
42 default values of 100 m3 CFU/Mg MSW. Lo values were found in this work resulted in a range
from 46-162 m3 CFU/Mg MSW, with an average value of 80 m3/Mg MSW. While the average
value found here is less than the AP-42 default value, the AP-42 default was within the range of
values determined in this study. Differences between the results found in this study and other
work stems from the contribution of waste materials outside the typical stream of household and
commercial MSW going to landfills (some of which are accounted for in waste composition
studies) and include items such as soil, sludge, and building debris. This study also measured
methane potential of all biodegradable waste components including the miscellaneous, or
"Fines" fractions were found to contribute an average of 19% of the total methane yield for each
load of MSW studied. In one load the fines contributed over 50% of the total methane generated.
If fines were omitted from this study completely, the average Lo calculated would have been 65
m3 CFU/Mg MSW as opposed to 80. While the limited geographic extent covered here precludes
describing these results as representative of nationwide MSW, they should provide context to
those utilizing Lo in FOD projections.
46
-------
References
Amini H, Reinhart D, Niskanen A. 2013. "Comparison of first-order-decay modeled and actual
field measured municipal solid waste landfill methane data." Waste Management,
Elsevier Ltd. 33(12):2720-2728.
Amini H, Reinhart D, Mackie K. 2012. "Determination of first-order landfill gas modeling
parameters and uncertainties." Waste Management, Elsevier Ltd. 32(2):305-316.
APHA. 1999. "2540 SOLIDS." Standard Methods for The Examination of Water and
Wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
Water Environment Federation.
ASTM International. 2016. "ASTM D5231-92(2016) Standard Test Method for Determination of
the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste." ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM International. 2009. "ASTM D2974-07a Standard Test Method for Moisture, Ash, and
Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils." ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM International. 2003. "ASTM D5231-92 (2003) Standard Test Method for Determination
of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste." ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM International. 1992. "ASTM El 196-92 (withdrawn) Test Method for Determining the
Anaerobic Biodegradation Potential of Organic Chemicals." ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Athens-Clarke County. 2014. "Annual Report Fiscal Year 2014." Athens, GA: Athens-Clarke
County Solid Waste Department Recycling Division. Athens, GA.
Bentley HW, Smith SJ and Schrauf T. 2005. "Baro-pneumatic estimation of landfill gas
generation rates at four landfills in the southeastern United States." Proceedings from the
SWAN A 28th annual landfill gas symposium, 1-16.
Buffiere P, Loisel D, Bernet N, Delgenes J. 2006. "Towards new indicators for the prediction of
solid waste anaerobic digestion properties." Water Science and Technology, 53(8):233-
241.
Caldas A, Machado S, Karimpour-Fard M, Carvalho M. 2014. "MSW characteristics and landfill
gas generation performance in tropical regions." Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering t 19:8545-8560.
Cho H, Moon H, Kim J. 2012. "Effect of quantity and composition of waste on the prediction of
annual methane potential from landfills." Bioresource Technology, 109:86-92.
De la Cruz F and Barlaz M. 2010. "Estimation of waste component-specific landfill decay rates
using laboratory-scale decomposition data." Environmental Science & Technology,
44(12):4722-8.
De la Cruz F, Chanton J, Barlaz M. 2013. "Measurement of carbon storage in landfills from the
biogenic carbon content of excavated waste samples." Waste Management, 33(10):2001-
2005.
47
-------
Demir A, Bilgili M, Ozkaya B. 2004. "Effect of leachate recirculation on refuse decomposition
rates at landfill site: A case study." International Journal of Environmental Pollution,
21(2):175-190.
Demirel B and Scherer P. 2008. "The roles of acetotrophic and hydrogenotrophic methanogens
during anaerobic conversion of biomass to methane: A review." Reviews in
Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 7(2): 173-90.
Duran M and Speece R. 1999. "Biodegradability of residual organics in the effluent of anaerobic
processes." Environ Technology, 20(6):597-605.
Durham County. 2009. Durham County 10 Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
Durham, NC: North Carolina Division of Waste Management, 53.
Eleazer W, Odle W, Wang Y, Barlaz M. 1997. "Biodegradability of municipal solid waste
components in laboratory-scale landfills." Environmental Science & Technology,
31 (3):911 -7.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2014. "Solid Waste Management in Florida
2014 Annual Report." Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Jeon EJ, Bae SJ, Lee DH, Seo DC, Chun SK, Lee NH and Kim JY. 2007. "Methane generation
potential and biodegradability of MSW components." Sardinia 2007Eleventh
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium.
Jokela JPY, Vavilin VA, Rintala JA. 2005. "Hydrolysis rates, methane production and nitrogen
solubilisation of grey waste components during anaerobic degradation." Bioresource
Technology, 96(4):501-8.
Kim H and Townsend T. 2012. "Wet landfill decomposition rate determination using methane
yield results for excavated waste samples." Waste Management, 32(7): 1427-33.
Krause MJ and Townsend TG. 2014. "Rapid waste composition studies for the assessment of
solid waste management systems in developing countries." International Journal of
Waste Resources, 4:145.
Krause M, Chickering G, Townsend T, Reinhart D. 2016. "Critical review of the methane
generation potential of municipal solid waste." Critical Reviews in Environmental
Science & Technology, 46(13): 1117-1182.
Lee M, Suh C, Ahn Y, Shin H. 2009. "Variation of ADM1 by using temperature-phased
anaerobic digestion (TPAD) operation." Bioresource Technology, 100(11):2816-2822.
Lesteur M, Latrille E, Maurel VB, Roger JM, Gonzalez C, Junqua G, Steyer JP. 2011. "First step
towards a fast analytical method for the determination of biochemical methane potential
of solid wastes by near infrared spectroscopy." Bioresource Technology, 102(3):2280-
2288.
Lesteur M, Bellon-Maurel V, Gonzalez C, Latrille E, Roger JM, Junqua G, Steyer JP. 2010;
2009. "Alternative methods for determining anaerobic biodegradability: A review."
Process Biochemistry, 45(4):431-440.
48
-------
Machado SL, Carvalho MF, Gourc J, Vilar OM, do Nascimento JCF. 2009. "Methane generation
in tropical landfills: Simplified methods and field results." Waste Management,
29(1): 153-161.
O'Keefe D, Cynoweth D, Barkdoll A, Nordstet R, Owens J, Sifontes J. 1993. "Sequential batch
anaerobic composting of municipal solid-waste (msw) and yard waste." Water Science
and Technology, 27(2):77-86.
Owen WF, Stuckey DC, Healy JB, Young LY, McCarty PL. 1979. "Bioassay for monitoring
biochemical methane potential and anaerobic toxicity." Water Resources, 13(6):485-492.
Owens J and Chynoweth D. 1993. "Biochemical methane potential of municipal solid-waste
(msw) components." Water Science and Technology, 27(2): 1-14.
ReinhartD. 1996. "Full-scale experiences with leachate recirculating landfills: Case studies."
Waste Manage Resources, 14(4):347-365.
Sandip M, Kanchan K, Ashok B. 2012. "Enhancement of methane production and bio-
stabilisation of municipal solid waste in anaerobic bioreactor landfill." Bioresource
Technology, 110:10-7.
Scharff H and Jacobs J. 2006. "Applying guidance for methane emission estimation for
landfills." Waste Management, 26(4):417-29.
Schumacher MM. 1983. "Landfill methane recovery." Energy Technology Review no. 84. Ridge,
NJ: Noyes Data Corporation.
Shanmugam P and Horan NJ. 2009. "Simple and rapid methods to evaluate methane potential
and biomass yield for a range of mixed solid wastes." Bioresource Technology,
100(l):471-474.
Staley B and Barlaz M. 2009. "Composition of municipal solid waste in the united states and
implications for carbon sequestration and methane yield." Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 13 5(10): 901-9.
State of North Carolina. 2012. "North Carolina Solid Waste and Materials Management Annual
Report FY 2011-2012." N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Tolaymat TM, Green RB, Hater GR, Barlaz MA, Black P, Bronson D, Powell J. 2010.
"Evaluation of landfill gas decay constant for municipal solid waste landfills operated as
bioreactors." Journal of Air Waste Management Association, 60(l):91-97.
Trzcinski AP and Stuckey DC. 2011. "Parameters affecting the stability of the digestate from a
two-stage anaerobic process treating the organic fraction of municipal solid waste."
Waste Management, 31(7): 1480-1487.
U.S. EPA. 2016. Standards of performance for municipal solidwaste landfills. 40 C.F.R. § 60
2016.
U.S. EPA. 2016. "Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility." Facility Level
Information on Greenhouse Gases Tool. U.S. EPA, 2016. Web. 30 Mar. 2018.
U.S. EPA. 2013. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 2013 Revisions and Proposed Confidentiality
Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements. Comp. U.S. EPA.
Regulations.gov, 2 Apr. 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2018.
49
-------
U.S. EPA. 2004. Criteria for municipal solid waste landfills subpart D - design criteria. 40
C.F.R. § 258
U.S. EPA. 2001. Supplement A to volume I: Stationary point and area sources: Compilation of
air pollutant emission factors, fifth edition;2001 ASI 9198-13.4;AP-42 vol. I, supp. A.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, volume I: Stationary point and
area sources: Chapter 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. U.S. EPA Office of Research
and Development. Washington, DC.
Valencia R, van der Zon W, Woelders H, Lubberding HJ, Gijzen HJ. 2009. "Achieving 'Final
storage quality' of municipal solid waste in pilot scale bioreactor landfills." Waste
Management, 29(l):78-85.
Wang X. 2015. "Biodegradability of forest products in laboratory- and field- scale municipal
solid waste (MSW) landfills." ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Wang X and Barlaz MA. 2016. "Decomposition and carbon storage of hardwood and softwood
branches in laboratory-scale landfills." Science of The Total Environment, 557-558, 355-
362.
Wang X, Padgett JM, Powell JS, Barlaz MA. 2013. "Decomposition of forest products buried in
landfills." Waste Management, 33(11):2267-76.
Wang X, Padgett J, De la Cruz F, Barlaz M. 2011. "Wood biodegradation in laboratory-scale
landfills." Environmental Science & Technology, 45(16):6864-6871.
Wang Y, Byrd C, Barlaz M. 1994. "Anaerobic biodegradability of cellulose and hemicellulose in
excavated refuse samples using a biochemical methane potential assay." Journal of
Industrial Microbiology, 13, 147-153.
Zheng W, Phoungthong K, Lu F, Shao L, He P. 2013. "Evaluation of a classification method for
biodegradable solid wastes using anaerobic degradation parameters." Waste
Management, 33(12):2632-4260.
50
-------
Appendices
Appendix A. Waste Composition Data Sheet Template
Waste Composition Study
Name
QA/QC Signature
Date
Truck information


Gross (lbs)
Bin (lbs)
Driver Name


Cardboard


Truck type


Newspaper


Truck Number


Office paper


Truck weight

QJ
CL
<13
Junk mail


Truck volume


pasteboard


Load total weight


miscellaneous paper


„ „ Clrde One
Collection type
Substream Res Com Indust


aseptic cartons






u_
Food & Soiled Paper


Notes and Comments

CD
Yard


Date


Time

glass
Clear glass


Temp (°F)

Other glass


Humidity


Sample ID


aluminum cans


Comments

fD
tin and steel cans




E
non ferrous metals





ferrous metals


1
o
intermed. <2"


fines <1"


Free Liquid


Human and Animal


Natural textiles


Synthetic textiles


Leather



Gross (lbs)
Bin (lbs)

PET, HOPE (#1-2)



PVC, LDPE, PP, PS,


(A
U
"t7>
ro
Other(#3-7)


Q-
Plastic film



Composite



Other rigid


C&P Debris
carpet


concrete and rock


gypsum


asphalt shingles


dimensional lumber


wood


Composite Wood


rubber


fiberglass insulation


other C&D debris


5
X
X
Pharmaceuticals


HHW


mercury wastes


Z
<0
a
13
large appliances


small appliances


UF
Environmental Engineering Sciences
SOLID and HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
51
-------
Appendix B. Moisture Content and Volatile Solids Content Data
Note: Values of 0 (zero) indicate the MSW component was not present in the representative sample.
TableB-0-1. Lee County, FL Moisture Content by Fraction
MSW
Res 1
Res 2
Res 3
Res 4
Res 5
Res 6
Com 1
Com 2
Com 3
Com 4
Com
Com
Component










5
6
Cardboard
0%
14%
24%
15%
10%
32%
27%
49%
15%
9%
19%
9%
Newspaper
10%
24%
16%
16%
25%
15%
10%
35%
16%
40%
39%
0%
Office Paper
9%
11%
14%
7%
0%
10%
21%
30%
15%
11%
12%
7%
Junk Mail
0%
0%
8%
10%
36%
7%
13%
6%
31%
15%
9%
13%
Pasteboard
22%
25%
23%
16%
31%
14%
26%
41%
12%
22%
11%
14%
Misc. Paper
12%
20%
17%
7%
20%
14%
34%
15%
18%
21%
49%
11%
Aseptic
0%
19%
33%
14%
21%
18%
35%
32%
19%
20%
26%
17%
Cartons












Food &
51%
69%
52%
51%
38%
54%
43%
56%
46%
62%
45%
48%
Soiled Paper












Yard Trash
0%
29%
53%
38%
0%
34%
0%
0%
60%
0%
0%
44%
<2" Fines
61%
57%
55%
48%
53%
52%
58%
58%
51%
42%
54%
54%
<1" Fines
59%
45%
42%
45%
54%
50%
61%
54%
51%
51%
60%
67%
Textiles
1%
10%
8%
25%
22%
16%
43%
19%
32%
34%
0%
7%
Wood
7%
15%
18%
11%
13%
28%
12%
14%
23%
9%
0%
9%
Comp Wood
9%
18%
11%
10%
11%
17%
7%
12%
22%
8%
13%
0%
52
-------
Table B-0-2. Lee County, FL Volatile Solids Content by Fraction
MSW
Res 1
Res 2
Res 3
Res 4
Res 5
Res 6
Com 1
Com 2
Com
Com 4
Com
Com
Component








3

5
6
Cardboard
0%
84%
81%
84%
87%
81%
93%
87%
94%
82%
89%
91%
Newspaper
94%
84%
83%
93%
89%
92%
98%
92%
86%
91%
91%
0%
Office Paper
84%
84%
82%
85%
0%
78%
82%
83%
80%
81%
79%
80%
Junk Mail
0%
0%
74%
77%
79%
75%
69%
53%
74%
85%
87%
86%
Pasteboard
86%
83%
88%
89%
90%
79%
81%
87%
86%
88%
73%
86%
Misc. Paper
69%
69%
76%
67%
78%
83%
81%
78%
89%
80%
84%
74%
Aseptic
0%
91%
89%
95%
92%
96%
97%
83%
97%
94%
97%
99%
Cartons












Food &
82%
91%
88%
88%
74%
89%
91%
88%
87%
92%
86%
94%
Soiled Paper












Yard Trash
0%
83%
34%
89%
0%
76%
0%
0%
76%
0%
0%
85%
<2" Fines
72%
79%
75%
78%
73%
76%
71%
78%
74%
63%
69%
92%
<1" Fines
60%
55%
49%
77%
59%
68%
76%
70%
72%
75%
83%
84%
Textiles
99%
85%
98%
90%
91%
98%
87%
99%
95%
92%
0%
98%
Wood
80%
83%
91%
86%
94%
89%
96%
89%
98%
98%
0%
98%
Comp Wood
89%
83%
87%
92%
94%
92%
88%
89%
89%
87%
92%
0%
53
-------
Table B-0-3. Alachua County, FL Moisture Content by Fraction
MSW Component
Com 1
Com 2
Com 3
Com 4
Com 5
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cardboard
18%
25%
13%
17%
29%
20%
6%
Newspaper
33%
14%
53%
25%
17%
28%
16%
Office Paper
22%
0%
35%
14%
35%
26%
15%
Junk Mail
19%
14%
7%
18%
15%
15%
5%
Pasteboard
16%
8%
11%
25%
21%
16%
7%
Misc. Paper
18%
9%
0%
37%
16%
20%
14%
Aseptic Cartons
21%
26%
26%
26%
27%
25%
2%
Food & Soiled Paper
47%
72%
36%
64%
34%
51%
17%
Yard Trash
24%
0%
0%
63%
0%
44%
27%
<2" Fines
55%
48%
51%
51%
52%
51%
2%
<1" Fines
38%
48%
49%
39%
48%
44%
6%
Textiles
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
2%
1%
Wood
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Comp Wood
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
54
-------
Table B-0-4. Alachua County, FL Volatile Solids Content by Fraction
MSW Component
Com 1
Com 2
Com 3
Com 4
Com 5
Mean
Std Dev.
Cardboard
92%
81%
82%
84%
90%
86%
5%
Newspaper
87%
84%
98%
92%
93%
91%
5%
Office Paper
75%
0%
76%
75%
87%
78%
3%
Junk Mail
76%
82%
69%
71%
74%
74%
5%
Pasteboard
90%
82%
74%
82%
76%
81%
6%
Misc. Paper
86%
82%
0%
73%
92%
83%
8%
Aseptic Cartons
93%
99%
98%
98%
100%
98%
3%
Food & Soiled Paper
96%
97%
100%
94%
88%
95%
4%
Yard Trash
88%
0%
0%
90%
0%
89%
1%
<2" Fines
77%
93%
89%
93%
85%
87%
7%
<1" Fines
50%
72%
73%
31%
90%
63%
23%
Textiles
0%
0%
0%
0%
98%
98%
0%
Wood
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Comp Wood
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
55
-------
Table B-0-5. Athens-Clarke County, GA Moisture Content by Fraction
MSW Component
Res 1
Res 2
Res 3
Res 4
Res 5
Res 6
Com 1
Com 2
Com 3
Com 4
Com 5
Com 6
Cardboard
28%
48%
23%
15%
33%
10%
42%
52%
16%
11%
8%
22%
Newspaper
0%
61%
29%
19%
32%
24%
24%
24%
16%
45%
9%
8%
Office Paper
28%
12%
8%
7%
22%
36%
18%
12%
5%
26%
10%
17%
Junk Mail
32%
10%
31%
22%
27%
10%
6%
19%
42%
23%
22%
18%
Pasteboard
32%
27%
28%
27%
41%
17%
21%
20%
27%
41%
14%
28%
Misc. Paper
26%
31%
19%
21%
19%
16%
15%
32%
23%
7%
20%
23%
Aseptic Cartons
15%
32%
15%
19%
14%
17%
25%
41%
22%
19%
10%
20%
Food & Soiled Paper
56%
34%
33%
42%
59%
80%
41%
67%
31%
38%
57%
37%
Yard Trash
50%
26%
87%
29%
75%
78%
0%
77%
49%
66%
0%
31%
<2" Fines
58%
54%
50%
47%
60%
47%
53%
73%
65%
58%
53%
50%
<1" Fines
45%
45%
54%
52%
35%
28%
45%
41%
57%
53%
27%
42%
Textiles
7%
24%
27%
27%
21%
6%
8%
47%
62%
46%
18%
25%
Wood
35%
14%
13%
0%
0%
10%
0%
12%
14%
12%
0%
9%
56
-------
Table B-0-6. Athens-Clarke County, GA Volatile Solids Content by Fraction
MSW Component
Res 1
Res 2
Res 3
Res 4
Res 5
Res 6
Com 1
Com 2
Com 3
Com 4
Com 5
Com 6
Cardboard
95%
91%
98%
88%
100%
85%
87%
93%
91%
96%
94%
74%
Newspaper
0%
100%
98%
96%
90%
98%
94%
98%
98%
98%
96%
96%
Office Paper
84%
88%
80%
85%
92%
87%
83%
83%
81%
87%
87%
85%
Junk Mail
84%
83%
90%
86%
67%
85%
78%
76%
74%
77%
76%
87%
Pasteboard
85%
87%
89%
83%
86%
87%
91%
91%
87%
84%
93%
94%
Misc. Paper
84%
91%
80%
77%
73%
91%
79%
97%
70%
62%
82%
75%
Aseptic Cartons
95%
87%
93%
94%
93%
98%
95%
93%
93%
99%
95%
100%
Food & Soiled
96%
91%
96%
98%
96%
36%
98%
98%
79%
97%
97%
96%
Paper












Yard Trash
100%
83%
90%
89%
93%
82%
0%
91%
78%
91%
0%
96%
<2" Fines
93%
93%
86%
91%
86%
92%
88%
86%
87%
98%
85%
98%
<1" Fines
76%
69%
76%
70%
71%
56%
80%
76%
83%
80%
22%
74%
Textiles
97%
100%
97%
88%
93%
100%
100%
97%
94%
95%
93%
100%
Wood
91%
97%
86%
0%
0%
85%
0%
100%
84%
84%
0%
84%
57
-------
Table B-0-7. Durham County, NC Sample Moisture Content by Fraction
MSW Component
Res 1
Res 2
Res 3
Res 4
Res 5
Res 6
Com 1
Com 2
Com 3
Com 4
Cardboard
12%
39%
20%
41%
23%
27%
28%
19%
29%
13%
Newspaper
18%
16%
50%
45%
32%
7%
67%
0%
0%
0%
Office Paper
18%
6%
71%
24%
18%
8%
28%
24%
21%
38%
Junk Mail
24%
14%
10%
0%
23%
5%
21%
0%
13%
0%
Pasteboard
29%
31%
29%
36%
34%
28%
30%
38%
26%
36%
Misc. Paper
48%
32%
9%
50%
44%
23%
31%
52%
26%
42%
Aseptic Cartons
29%
36%
27%
39%
26%
22%
32%
0%
0%
46%
Food & Soiled Paper
55%
57%
63%
51%
56%
45%
56%
87%
64%
60%
Yard Trash
31%
49%
70%
31%
0%
37%
0%
0%
39%
0%
<2" Fines
76%
52%
63%
62%
50%
57%
59%
56%
23%
66%
<1" Fines
59%
30%
47%
52%
49%
50%
55%
68%
49%
65%
Textiles
49%
91%
43%
37%
36%
9%
40%
0%
25%
6%
Wood
10%
20%
15%
25%
16%
29%
15%
59%
21%
0%
58
-------
Table B-0-8. Durham County, NC Sample Volatile Solids Content by Fraction
MSW Component
Res 1
Res 2
Res 3
Res 4
Res 5
Res 6
Com 1
Com 2
Com 3
Com 4
Cardboard
94%
87%
82%
98%
98%
83%
89%
95%
74%
78%
Newspaper
95%
78%
100%
87%
88%
82%
84%
0%
0%
0%
Office Paper
53%
40%
45%
71%
20%
50%
85%
63%
56%
77%
Junk Mail
52%
81%
84%
0%
81%
79%
71%
0%
65%
0%
Pasteboard
93%
75%
75%
81%
93%
93%
93%
79%
91%
90%
Misc. Paper
78%
95%
84%
94%
87%
88%
91%
94%
82%
92%
Aseptic Cartons
84%
91%
91%
81%
81%
81%
90%
0%
0%
96%
Food & Soiled
90%
77%
82%
94%
84%
89%
89%
86%
91%
100%
Paper










Yard Trash
83%
80%
66%
14%
0%
77%
0%
0%
66%
0%
<2" Fines
79%
61%
74%
76%
76%
80%
61%
68%
68%
75%
<1" Fines
70%
60%
77%
59%
74%
74%
47%
68%
58%
84%
Textiles
95%
72%
96%
97%
100%
94%
100%
0%
100%
100%
Wood
84%
84%
92%
94%
80%
87%
87%
96%
89%
0%
59
-------
Appendix C. Fines Composition Data
Fines <2"	Fines <1"
Fraction
mL CH4
@STP/g BF
Biodegradable
Fraction
mL CH4
@STP/g
Unsorted Fines
mL CH4
@STP/g BF
Organic
Fraction
mL CH4
@STP/g
Unsorted Fines
Lee Res 1
305
61%
188
278
82%
229
Lee Res 2
208
80%
165
200
78%
157
Lee Res 3
317
46%
147
270
11%
29
Lee Res 4
283
75%
211
216
67%
145
Lee Res 5
268
71%
190
314
48%
150
Lee Res 6
295
61%
181
321
41%
132
Lee Com 1
363
77%
280
431
93%
399
Lee Com 2
416
77%
322
439
79%
345
Lee Com 3
365
72%
262
388
92%
356
Lee Com 4
319
50%
159
288
85%
244
Lee Com 5
322
87%
280
396
96%
382
Lee Com 6
318
41%
129
425
80%
342
Athens Res 1
319
47%
151
363
26%
94
Athens Res 2
317
65%
207
324
88%
286
Athens Res 3
70
76%
54
353
78%
275
Athens Res 4
356
91%
325
331
81%
268
Athens Res 5
237
83%
197
301
84%
253
Athens Res 6
423
76%
321
324
62%
199
Athens Com 1
317
58%
185
278
89%
246
60
-------
Athens Com 2
319
68%
216
Athens Com 3
324
87%
283
Athens Com 4
321
93%
297
Athens Com 5
378
67%
255
Athens Com 6
317
80%
Fines <2"
254
Fraction
mL CH4
@STP/g BF
Biodegradable
Fraction
mL CH4
@STP/g
Unsorted Fines
Durham Res 1
330
83%
273
Durham Res 2
328
88%
288
Durham Res 3
313
85%
266
Durham Res 4
359
70%
250
Durham Res 5
334
75%
249
Durham Res 6
349
80%
278
Durham Com 1
294
81%
238
Durham Com 2
453
96%
436
Durham Com 3
401
75%
301
Durham Com 4
353
66%
235
310
80%
248
471
83%
393
283
86%
242
426
98%
418
324
77%
249

Fines <1"

mL CH4
Organic
mL CH4
@STP/g BF
Fraction
@STP/g


Unsorted Fines
383
62%
236
384
36%
138
327
82%
270
345
66%
228
366
18%
67
393
55%
216
248
47%
117
376
84%
317
349
87%
305
363
75%
274
-------
Appendix D. Distributions of Methane Yields by MSW Component
12
	1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1	1		1	
165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
Figure A-0-1. Yield Frequencies of Cardboard Samples
7
6
5
1
0
30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
Figure A-0-2. Yield Frequencies of Newspaper Samples
>
U
a-
-------
14
12
10
>
4
2
0
135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
Figure A-0-3. Yield Frequencies of Office Paper
7
6
5
1
0
105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
Figure A-0-4. Yield Frequencies of Pasteboard
63
-------
135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
Figure A-0-5. Yield Frequencies of Junk Mail
10
>
u
cr
a; 4
120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
Figure A-0-6. Yield Frequencies of Aseptic Paper
64
-------
9
8
7
> 6
u
5 5
3
u- 4
a) ^
*_
3
2
1
0
105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
Figure A-0-7. Yield Frequencies of Miscellaneous Paper
6
5
> 4
u
£
3 3
cr
a>
k.
u- 2
1
0
60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
Figure A-0-8. Yield Frequencies of Food and Soiled Paper
65
-------
4.5
4
3.5
> 3
U
£ 2.5
3
ST 2
^ 1.5
1
0.5
0
30 45 60 75 90 105120135 150165180195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
Figure A-0-9. Yield Frequencies of Yard Waste
12
10
> 8
U
c
-------
4.5
4
3.5
> 3
U
£ 2.5
3
a) z-
^ 1.5
1
0.5
0
135150165180195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 420 435 450 465 480 495
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
Figure A-0-11. Yield Frequencies of Biodegradable Fraction of Fines <1" After Removal of Non-biodegradable Materials
3.5
3
2.5
>
U
c 2
-------
8
7
6
> c
u 5
c
 c
y 5
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
150 165 180 195
Figure A-0-14. Yield Frequencies of Composite Wood
68
-------
14
12
10
>
4
2
0
270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
Figure A-0-15. Yield Frequencies of Cellulose Controls
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
mL CH4 @STP/(no VS added)
Figure A-0-16. Yield Frequencies of Blank Controls
69
-------
Appendix E. Waste Composition and Lo of Representative Samples
Waste Composition of Lee County Truck 988
Sample ID
LEE988-JAN22
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Commercial
988
24340
01/22/14
10:12 AM
Mass
Moisture Volatile Est. L0
Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) L°


Cardboard
10%
27%
93%
255
17.7

Newspaper
2%
10%
98%
79
1.7

Office Paper
0%
21%
82%
369
0.4
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
13%
69%
307
0.6

Pasteboard
2%
26%
81%
200
2.8

Misc. Paper
2%
34%
81%
219
2.1

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
35%
97%
299
2.0

Food & Soiled Paper
21%
43%
91%
387
42
ORGANICS
Yard Trash
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Diapers
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
16%
7%
58%
61%
71%
76%
336
336
15.9
7.4
TEXTILES
Textiles
Leather
5%
0%
43%
0%
87%
0%
212
0
4.9
0.0
WOOD
Wood
4%
2%
96%
49
1.8
PLASTICS
All Plastics
21%
2%



GLASS
All Glass
3%
2%



METALS
All Metals
3%
2%



OTHER
Inorganic Materials
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Inorganic
All Metals, 3%	Materials, 1%
All Glass, 3% \—ii-
Ca rd board, 10%
All Plastics, 21%
Wood
Leather, 0% Textiles
<1 Fines, 7%
<2 Fines, 16%
Newspaper, 2%
Office Paper, 0%
Junk Mail, 0%
Pasteboard, 2%
Misc. Paper,2%
—Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 21%
Yard Trash, 0%
LDiapers, 0%
Figure A-0-17. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE988-JAN22
LEE988-JAN22
Total SampleWeight(lbs)
290
Organic Fraction
68%
Inorganic Fraction
32%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
99
70
-------
Waste Composition of Lee County Truck FM882
Sample ID
LEEFM882-JAN22
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Commercial
FM882
22580
01/22/14
8:02 AM
Inorganic
All Metals, 5% Materials, 0% -Cardboard 7 5%
Newspaper, 1%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) L°


Cardboard
5%
49%
87%
169
3.9

Newspaper
1%
35%
92%
82
0.3

Office Paper
7%
30%
83%
317
12.9
PAPER
Junk Mail
1%
6%
53%
328
2.1

Pasteboard
4%
41%
87%
263
5.3

Misc. Paper
5%
15%
78%
303
9.7

Aeseptic Cartons
2%
32%
83%
286
3.1

Food & Soiled Paper
24%
56%
88%
304
28
ORGANICS
Yard Trash
0%
66%
70%
0
0.0

Diapers
2%
0%
0%
0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
16%
5%
58%
54%
78%
70%
331
340
17.2
5.2
TEXTILES
Textiles
Leather
1%
0%
19%
0%
99%
0%
212
0
1.4
0.0
WOOD
Wood
1%
14%
89%
46
0.3
PLASTICS
All Plastics
20%
2%



GLASS
All Glass
2%
2%



METALS
All Metals
5%
2%



OTHER
Inorganic Materials
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
AM Glass, 2%
Wood
AM Plastics, 20%
Leather
<1 Fines. 5
Junk Mail, 1%
Pasteboard, 4%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 2%
Textiles, 1%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 24%
Yard Trash, 0%
Diapers, 2%
LEEFM882-JAN22
Total SampleWeight(lbs)
313
Organic Fraction
72%
Inorganic Fraction
28%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
89
Figure A-0-18. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE882-JAN22
71
-------
Waste Composition of Lee County Truck 988
Sample ID
LEE988-JAN23
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Commercial
988
24340
01/23/14
7:42 AM
All Metals, 3%
All Glass, 1%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
11%
15%
94%
175
15.7

Newspaper
1%
16%
86%
43
0.3

Office Paper
1%
15%
80%
315
2.9
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
31%
74%
267
0.3

Pasteboard
2%
12%
86%
240
3.4

Misc. Paper
2%
18%
89%
106
1.8

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
19%
97%
260
2.7

Food & Soiled Paper
18%
46%
87%
333
28
ORGANICS
Yard Trash
0%
60%
76%
175
0.0

Diapers
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
12%
10%
2%
2%
74%
72%
335
281
29.4
20.4
TEXTILES
Textiles
Leather
9%
0%
2%
0%
95%
0%
287
0
23.9
0.0
WOOD
Wood
0%
2%
98%
82
0.3
PLASTICS
All Plastics
18%
2%



GLASS
All Glass
1%
2%



METALS
All Metals
3%
2%



OTHER
Inorganic Materials
8%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Cardboard, 11%
P a sties
Food & Soiled
Paper, 18%
Wood, 0%
Textiles
Leather,
<1" Fines, 10%
Fines
Newspaper, 1%
Office Paper, 1%
Junk Mail, 0%
Pasteboard, 2%
Misc. Paper,2%
_Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
\Yard Trash, 0%
Diapers, 1%
LEE988-JAN23
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
224
Organic Fraction
70%
Inorganic Fraction
30%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
129
Figure A-0-19. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE988-JAN23
72
-------
Waste Composition of Lee County Truck FM 882
Sample ID
LEEFM882-JAN23
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Commercial
FM 882
21160
01/23/14
8:59 AM
All Metals, 3%
All Glass, 1% "
Newspaper, 3%
/ Office Paper, 1%
* Junk Mail, 2%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
7%
9%
82%
187
9.7

Newspaper
3%
40%
91%
73
1.3

Office Paper
1%
11%
81%
313
1.7
PAPER
Junk Mail
2%
15%
85%
250
4.1

Pasteboard
3%
22%
88%
267
4.6

Misc. Paper
4%
21%
80%
179
4.4

Aeseptic Cartons
0%
20%
94%
300
1.0

Food & Soiled Paper
12%
62%
92%
318
14
ORGANICS
Yard Trash
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Diapers
8%
0%
0%
0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
18%
6%
42%
51%
63%
75%
265
142
17.7
3.1
TEXTILES
Textiles
Leather
1%
0%
34%
0%
92%
0%
193
0
1.6
0.0
WOOD
Wood
3%
9%
98%
72
2.1
PLASTICS
All Plastics
17%
2%



GLASS
All Glass
1%
2%



METALS
All Metals
3%
2%



OTHER
Inorganic Materials
10%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Cardboard
7%
Inorganic
Materials, 10%
All Plastics, 17%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 12%
Wood, 3%
Leather, 0%
<1 Fines
6%
Textiles, 1%
Fines
Pasteboard, 3%
Misc. Paper,4%
^Aeseptic
Cartons, 0%
Yard Trash, 1%
LEEFM882-JAN23
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
328
Organic Fraction
67%
Inorganic Fraction
33%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
65
Figure A-0-20. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE882-JAN23
73
-------
Waste Composition of Lee County Truck 882
Sample ID
LEE-882-JAN24
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Commercial
882
25260
01/24/14
7:27 AM
Ca rd board
Inorganic 3%
Materials, 1%,
All Glass, 1%
Newspaper, 1%
Office Paper, 2%
Pasteboard,
2%
Misc. Paper,2%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 4%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
	Wood, 0%
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo
Leather,
no/.

Cardboard
3%
19%
89%
167
4.1 Textiles,/"

Newspaper
1%
39%
91%
22
0.2 1%

Office Paper
2%
12%
79%
349
3.8
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
9%
87%
285
0.0

Pasteboard
2%
11%
73%
300
4.0

Misc. Paper
2%
49%
84%
164
1.7

Aeseptic Cartons
4%
26%
97%
282
7.2

Food & Soiled Paper
33%
45%
86%
374
59
ORGANICS
Yard Trash
0%
0%
70%
0
0.0

Diapers
11%
0%
0%
0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
10%
9%
54%
60%
69%
83%
299
336
9.6
10.2
TEXTILES
Textiles
Leather
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0
0
0 0
0 0
WOOD
Wood
0%
0%
92%
0
0.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
20%
2%



GLASS
All Glass
1%
2%



METALS
All Metals
2%
2%



OTHER
Inorganic Materials
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0
AM Metals, 2%,
AM Plastics, 20%
<1 Fines, 9%
<2 Fines, 10%
Diapers, 11%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 33%
Yard Trash, 0%
Figure A-0-21. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE882-JAN24
LEE-882-JAN24
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
260
Organic Fraction
77%
Inorganic Fraction
23%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
100
74
-------
Waste Composition of Lee County Truck 988
Sample ID	LEE988-JAN24
WasteType	Commercial
Truck Number	988
Total Load Weight (lbs)	29500
Date	01/24/14
Time	7:24 AM


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
5%
9%
91%
166
6.6

Newspaper
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Office Paper
6%
7%
80%
229
10.8
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
13%
86%
318
0.9

Pasteboard
2%
14%
86%
261
4.7

Misc. Paper
6%
11%
74%
303
12.8

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
17%
99%
272
1.3

Food & Soiled Paper
8%
48%
94%
293
11
ORGANICS
Yard Trash
0%
44%
85%
97
0.0

Diapers
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
4%
4%
54%
67%
92%
84%
256
168
3.9
1.8
TEXTILES
Textiles
Leather
5%
0%
7%
0%
94%
0%
143
0
5.8
0.0
WOOD
Wood
0%
9%
91%
36
0.1
PLASTICS
All Plastics
17%
2%



GLASS
All Glass
0%
2%



METALS
All Metals
6%
2%



OTHER
Inorganic Materials
19%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Figure A-0-22. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE988-JAN24
Cardboard, 5%
Newspaper, 0%
Junk Mail, 0%
k Pasteboard, 2%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
All Metals, 6%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 8%
.Yard Trash, 0%
All Plastics, 17%
<1" Fines, 4%
|\_Leather, 0%
Wood, 0%
LEE988-JAN24
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
212
Organic Fraction
49%
Inorganic Fraction
51%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
60
75
-------
Waste Composition of Lee County Truck C61108
Sample ID
LEEC61108-JAN22
Inorganic
Materials,=
1%
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Residential
C61108
14940
01/22/14
10:16 AM
All Metals, 4%.
Newspaper, 0%.
Cardboard
0%
Office Paper, 0%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Newspaper
0%
10%
94%
84
0.3

Office Paper
0%
9%
84%
287
0.8
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
12%
69%
0
0.0

Pasteboard
3%
22%
86%
175
3.8

Misc. Paper
9%
12%
69%
132
7.4

Aeseptic Cartons
0%
19%
91%
0
0.0

Food & Soiled Paper
25%
51%
82%
322
32
ORGANICS
Yard Trash
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Diapers
7%
0%
0%
0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
15%
3%
61%
59%
72%
60%
232
154
9.5
1.3
TEXTILES
Textiles
Leather
6%
0%
1%
2%
99%
20
1.1
0.0
WOOD
Wood
2%
7%
80%
0
0.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
17%
2%



GLASS
All Glass
5%
2%



METALS
All Metals
4%
2%



OTHER
Inorganic Materials
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Leather, 0%
<1" Fines
Junk Mail,
AM Plastics, 17%
Textiles
Fines
Pasteboard, 3%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 0%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 25%
Yard Trash, 0%
Figure A-0-23. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE61108-JAN22
LEEC61108-JAN22
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
267
Organic Fraction
70%
Inorganic Fraction
30%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
56
76
-------
Waste Composition of Lee County Truck V4023
Sample ID
Office Paper, TO
LEEV4023-JAN22
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Residential
V4023
6580
01/22/14
10:26 AM
All Metals, 5%
All Glass, 2%
Mass
Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
2%
14%
84%
224
3.9

Newspaper
1%
24%
84%
184
0.8

Office Paper
0%
11%
84%
294
0.4
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
20%
69%
0
0.0

Pasteboard
0%
25%
83%
246
0.7

Misc. Paper
6%
20%
69%
209
6.9

Aeseptic Cartons
0%
19%
91%
208
0.6

Food & Soiled Paper
9%
69%
91%
272
7
ORGANICS
Yard Trash
30%
29%
83%
134
23.7

Diapers
3%
0%
0%
0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
11%
6%
57%
45%
79%
55%
163
159
5.8
2.8
TEXTILES
Textiles
Leather
6%
0%
10%
0%
85%
0%
3
0
0.1
0.0
WOOD
Wood
2%
15%
83%
44
0.7
PLASTICS
All Plastics
15%
2%



GLASS
All Glass
2%
2%



METALS
All Metals
5%
2%



OTHER
Inorganic Materials
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Ca rd board
norganic
Materials, 1%
paper, 1%
nk
Aeseptic
Cartons, 0%
& Soiled
Paper, 9%
All Plastics, 15%
Leather, Wood, 2%
Textiles, 6%
<1 Fines, 6%
<2 Fines, 11%
Pasteboard, 0%
Diapers, 3%
Figure A-0-24. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE4023-JAN22
LEEV4023-JAN22
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
252
Organic Fraction
75%
Inorganic Fraction
25%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
54
77
-------
Waste Composition of Lee County Truck P406
Sample ID
LEEP406-JAN22
Newspaper, 1%
Office Paper, TO
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Residential
P406
26040
01/22/14
4:00 PM


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
3%
24%
81%
217
4.2

Newspaper
1%
16%
83%
149
0.7

Office Paper
0%
14%
82%
289
0.4
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
8%
74%
311
0.4

Pasteboard
2%
23%
88%
246
2.8

Misc. Paper
7%
17%
76%
290
12.2

Aeseptic Cartons
0%
33%
89%
252
0.5

Food & Soiled Paper
8%
52%
88%
294
10
ORGANICS
Yard Trash
0%
53%
34%
61
0.0

Diapers
6%
0%
0%
0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
15%
9%
55%
42%
75%
49%
34
118
1.7
3.1
TEXTILES
Textiles
Leather
4%
0%
8%
0%
98%
0%
299
0
10.8
0.0
WOOD
Wood
6%
18%
91%
26
1.1
PLASTICS
All Plastics
19%
2%



GLASS
All Glass
1%
2%



METALS
All Metals
8%
2%



OTHER
Inorganic Materials
11%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Figure A-0-25. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE406-JAN22
Junk Mail, 0%
Pasteboard, 2%
Aeseptic
Misc. ^ Cartons, 0%
All Glass, All Metals, 8%
1%
Cardboard, 3%
Inorganic
Materials, 11%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 8%
Trash, 0%
P a sties
Fines
Leather, 0%
Textiles, 4%
LEEP406-JAN22
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
276
Organic Fraction
59%
Inorganic Fraction
41%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
48
78
-------
Waste Composition of Lee County Truck 4023
Sample ID
LEE4023-JAN23
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Residential
4023
24340
01/23/14
11:40 AM
Newspaper, 1%_
inorganic
Materials, 6%
All Gl


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
7%
15%
84%
235
11.8

Newspaper
1%
16%
93%
111
0.9

Office Paper
2%
7%
85%
338
4.2
PAPER
Junk Mail
2%
10%
77%
319
3.5

Pasteboard
1%
16%
89%
269
1.8

Misc. Paper
3%
7%
67%
279
4.8

Aeseptic Cartons
0%
14%
95%
264
0.8

Food & Soiled Paper
11%
51%
88%
375
18
ORGANICS
Yard Trash
26%
38%
89%
105
15.2

Diapers
6%
0%
0%
0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
6%
2%
48%
45%
78%
77%
190
162
4.7
1.3
TEXTILES
Textiles
Leather
5%
0%
25%
0%
90%
0%
207
0
6.9
0.0
WOOD
Wood
9%
11%
86%
16
1.1
PLASTICS
All Plastics
6%
2%



GLASS
All Glass
2%
2%



METALS
All Metals
6%
2%



OTHER
Inorganic Materials
6%
0%
0%
0
0.0
aboard
P a sties
Soiled
11%
Wood
Leather.
0% Textiles, 5%
<1" Fines, 2% i <2" Fines|
6%
Office Paper, 2%
Junk Mail, 2%
Pasteboard, 1%
Misc. Paper,3%
	Aeseptic
Cartons, 0%
Figure A-0-26. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE4023-JAN23
LEE4023-JAN23
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
407
Organic Fraction
79%
Inorganic Fraction
21%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
75
79
-------
Waste Composition of Lee County Truck 4001
Sample ID
LEE4001-JAN23
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Residential
4001
16460
01/23/14
12:01 PM
Office Paper, TO jUnkMail,TO
Newspaper, 2%
Cardboard, 0%
All
Mass
Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
Normalized Metals,
Alftzftass,
2%
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
0%
10%
87%
249
0.5

Newspaper
2%
25%
89%
126
1.9

Office Paper
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
36%
79%
0
0.0

Pasteboard
2%
31%
90%
242
2.9

Misc. Paper
2%
20%
78%
273
2.9

Aeseptic Cartons
0%
21%
92%
248
0.3

Food & Soiled Paper
22%
38%
74%
333
35
ORGANICS
Yard Trash
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Diapers
5%
0%
0%
0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
12%
5%
53%
54%
73%
59%
127
226
5.1
3.2
TEXTILES
Textiles
Leather
0%
0%
22%
0%
91%
0%
177
0
0.3
0.0
WOOD
Wood
12%
13%
94%
0
0.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
14%
2%



GLASS
All Glass
2%
2%



METALS
All Metals
5%
2%



OTHER
Inorganic Materials
16%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Figure A-0-27. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE4001-JAN23
All Plastics
Wood, 12%
Pasteboard, _Misc. Paper,2%
2%
, /	Aeseptic
Ca
Food & Soiled
Paper, 22%
^^Yard Trash, 0%
Leather, 0% 
-------
Waste Composition of Lee County Truck P388
Sample ID
LEEP388-JAN23
Newspaper, 1%
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Residential
P388
26180
01/23/14
2:56 PM
Cardboard, 1%
All Glass, 2%
unk Mail, 1% Pasteboardj 2./o
Misc. Paper,5%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
1%
32%
81%
170
1.3

Newspaper
1%
15%
92%
92
0.9

Office Paper
0%
10%
78%
335
0.0
PAPER
Junk Mail
1%
7%
75%
310
2.4

Pasteboard
2%
14%
79%
232
3.4

Misc. Paper
5%
14%
83%
222
7.2

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
18%
96%
262
1.8

Food & Soiled Paper
22%
54%
89%
347
31
ORGANICS
Yard Trash
0%
34%
76%
72
0.0

Diapers
11%
0%
0%
0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
16%
4%
52%
50%
76%
68%
121
196
7.0
2.7
TEXTILES
Textiles
Leather
3%
0%
16%
0%
98%
0%
207
0
5.4
0.0
WOOD
Wood
5%
28%
89%
34
1.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
14%
2%



GLASS
All Glass
2%
2%



METALS
All Metals
5%
2%



OTHER
Inorganic Materials
6%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Office
AM
Metals
5%
Plastics
Food & Soi ed
Paper, 22%
Wood
<2 Fines, 16%
Textiles, 3%
<1" Fines, 4%
Figure A-0-28. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE388-JAN23
Yard Trash, 0%
LEEP388-JAN23
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
353
Organic Fraction
71%
Inorganic Fraction
29%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
64
81
-------
Waste Composition of UF Waste Truck 3510
Sample ID
UF COM 1
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Commercial
3510
04/23/14
10:12 AM
Organic Textiles,
2%
.Cardboard, 6%
Inorganic
Materials, nof All Glass, 1%
All Metals,4%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
6%
18%
92%
227
9.8

Newspaper
2%
33%
87%
55
0.7

Office Paper
6%
22%
75%
275
8.9
PAPER
Junk Mail
2%
19%
76%
240
3.0

Pasteboard
4%
16%
90%
297
9.2

Misc. Paper
1%
18%
86%
213
1.5

Aeseptic Cartons
2%
21%
93%
232
2.9
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
30%
1%
47%
24%
96%
88%
257
172
38.6
1.4
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
9%
4%
55%
38%
77%
50%
173
188
5.3
2.3
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
2%
2%
98%
212
4.1

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
21%




GLASS
All Glass
1%




METALS
All Metals
4%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
0%





Human & Animal Waste
5%
0%
0%
0
0.0
<1" Fines,
4%
<2" Fines, 9%
Yard Trash, 1%
Newspaper, 2%
Office
Paper, 6%
AM Plastics, 21%
Junk Mail, 2%
Pasteboard, 4%
Misc. Paper
Ca rton
Food & Soiled
Paper, 30%
UF COM 1
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
219
Organic Fraction
73%
Inorganic Fraction
27%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
88
Figure A-0-29. Waste Composition and Lo of UF Transfer Station Com-1
82
-------
Waste Composition of UF Waste Truck 4538
Sample ID	UF COM 2
WasteType	Commercial
Truck Number	4538
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date	04/23/14
Time	12:00 AM
Mass Moisture Volatile Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
5%
25%
81%
225
7.1

Newspaper
5%
14%
84%
83
2.9

Office Paper
5%
0%
0%
275
0.0
PAPER
Junk Mail
1%
14%
82%
298
2.6

Pasteboard
1%
8%
82%
226
2.1

Misc. Paper
2%
9%
82%
324
5.1

Aeseptic Cartons
2%
26%
99%
286
4.8
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
26%
1%
72%
24%
97%
88%
262
172
18.8
1.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
12%
2%
48%
48%
93%
72%
176
187
9.7
1.6
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
1%
2%
98%
212
2.6

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
27%




GLASS
All Glass
1%




METALS
All Metals
6%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
2%





Human & Animal Waste
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Figure A-0-30. Waste Composition and Lo of UF Transfer Station Com-2
Inorganic
Materials, 2%
Cardboard, 5%
Newspaper, 5%
Office Paper, 5%
Junk Mail, 1%
t Pasteboard, 1%
Misc. Paper,
2l 2%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 2%
All Plastics, 27%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 26%
Wood, 0%
Leather, 0%.
Organic.
Textiles, 1%
Yard Trash, 1%
<1" Fines, 2%
UF COM 2
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
330
Organic Fraction
65%
Inorganic Fraction
35%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
58
83
-------
Waste Composition of UF Waste Truck 4538
Sample ID
UF COM3
Newspaper, 1%
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Commercial
4538
04/23/14
11:10 AM
All Metals, 3
All Glass, 1%
Mass
Moisture Volatile Est. L0
Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
5%
13%
82%
280
11.0

Newspaper
1%
53%
98%
78
0.3

Office Paper
3%
35%
76%
304
5.2
PAPER
Junk Mail
1%
7%
69%
224
0.8

Pasteboard
1%
11%
74%
221
1.5

Misc. Paper
2%
0%
0%
213
0.0

Aeseptic Cartons
3%
26%
98%
255
5.9
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
26%
0%
36%
0%
100%
0%
271
0
45.0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
6%
2%
51%
49%
89%
73%
182
101
5.2
0.7
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
8%
0%
0%
0
0.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
21%




GLASS
All Glass
1%




METALS
All Metals
3%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
14%





Human & Animal Waste
2%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Cardboard
Inorga
Material
AM Plastics, 21%
Food & Soi ed
Paper, 26%
Wood, 8%
Leather, 0%
Organic
Textiles, 0%
Office Paper, 3%
k Mail, 1%
Pasteboard, 1%
. Pa per, 2%
	Aeseptic
Cartons, 3%
Yard Trash, 0%
<1" Fines, 2%
UF COM 3
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
330
Organic Fraction
61%
Inorganic Fraction
39%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
76
Figure A-0-31. Waste Composition and Lo of UF Transfer Station Com-3
84
-------
Waste Composition of UF Waste Truck 4538
Sample ID
UF COM4
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Commercial
4538
04/24/14
11:00 AM


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
3%
17%
84%
194
4.2

Newspaper
0%
25%
92%
116
0.4

Office Paper
2%
14%
75%
289
3.6
PAPER
Junk Mail
1%
18%
71%
218
1.7

Pasteboard
2%
25%
82%
252
3.8

Misc. Paper
3%
37%
73%
274
3.2

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
26%
98%
260
2.7
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
23%
1%
64%
63%
94%
90%
258
115
20.0
0.3
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
11%
3%
51%
39%
93%
31%
146
106
7.5
0.6
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
9%
2%
98%
212
17.5

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
28%




GLASS
All Glass
1%




METALS
All Metals
2%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
0%





Human & Animal Waste
4%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Inorganic Cardboard ,3%
Materials, 0%_
All Metals, 2%.
Junk Mail, 1%
Misc. Paper,3%
.Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
Newspaper,
Office Paper, 2%
All Glass, 1%
Pasteboard, 2%
All Plastics, 28%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 23%
Organic Textiles,
9%
Wood
Leather
<2 F
Yard Trash, 1%
<1" Fines, 3%
UF COM 4
Total Sample Weight (lbs)

Organic Fraction
68%
Inorganic Fraction
32%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
65
Figure A-0-32. Waste Composition and Lo of UF Transfer Station Com-4
85
-------
Waste Composition of UF Waste Truck 4538
Sample ID
UF COM 5
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Commercial
4538
04/25/14
2:22 PM
All Metals, 3% lnorganic
All Glass, 1%	| Materials, 1%
Newspaper, 2%
Mass
Moisture Volatile Est. L0
Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
6%
29%
90%
199
8.2

Newspaper
2%
17%
93%
38
0.6

Office Paper
9%
35%
87%
148
7.2
PAPER
Junk Mail
2%
15%
74%
273
3.5

Pasteboard
3%
21%
76%
218
4.1

Misc. Paper
3%
16%
92%
219
5.4

Aeseptic Cartons
2%
27%
100%
242
3.7
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
30%
0%
34%
0%
88%
0%
347
0
61.8
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
8%
2%
52%
48%
85%
90%
182
177
5.8
1.4
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
7%
2%
98%
212
13.9

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
20%




GLASS
All Glass
1%




METALS
All Metals
3%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
1%





Human & Animal Waste
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Wood,
0% I
Orga
<1" Fines, 2%
Yard Trash, 0%
nk Mail, 2%
dboard
Office
AM Plastics, 20%
Pasteboard
Texties
Food & Soiled
Paper, 30%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 2%
UF COM 5
Total Sample Weight (lbs)

Organic Fraction
75%
Inorganic Fraction
25%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
116
Figure A-0-33. Waste Composition and Lo of UF Transfer Station Com-5
86
-------
Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 30-40-503
Sample ID
ATH COM 1
Inorganic
Materials, 2%
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Commercial
30-40-503
16380
March 4 2015
8:00 AM
All Metals, 2%
All Glass, 1%
Newspaper, 1%
4%
I, 2%
Pasteboard, 2%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
6%
42%
87%
234
6.8

Newspaper
1%
24%
94%
116
0.6

Office Paper
4%
18%
83%
314
8.0
PAPER
Junk Mail
2%
6%
78%
283
3.6

Pasteboard
2%
21%
91%
249
4.1

Misc. Paper
4%
15%
79%
301
8.5

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
25%
95%
273
2.6
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
24%
11%
41%
49%
98%
78%
310
0
43.5
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
10%
5%
53%
45%
88%
80%
189
417
8.1
9.0
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
3%
8%
100%
266
7.4

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
17%




GLASS
All Glass
1%




METALS
All Metals
2%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
2%





Human & Animal Waste
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Wood, 0%
Leather,
0%
Organic
Cardboard , 6%
Office
P astics
Food & Soiled
Paper, 24%
Figure A-0-34. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC Coml
Misc. Paper,4%
_Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
ATH COM 1
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
268
Organic Fraction
78%
Inorganic Fraction
22%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
102
87
-------
Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 30-40-503
Sample ID
ATH COM 2
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Commercial
30-40-503
30520
March 4 2015
3:00 PM


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
5%
52%
93%
232
5.5

Newspaper
1%
24%
98%
77
0.5

Office Paper
2%
12%
83%
311
3.6
PAPER
Junk Mail
1%
19%
76%
333
1.2

Pasteboard
1%
20%
91%
231
2.5

Misc. Paper
3%
32%
97%
212
4.3

Aeseptic Cartons
3%
41%
93%
273
3.8
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
22%
0%
67%
77%
98%
91%
216
226
15.0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
1%
1%
73%
41%
86%
76%
217
227
0.5
0.6
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
1%
47%
97%
324
2.4

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
11%
12%
100%
171
16.5
PLASTICS
All Plastics
24%




GLASS
All Glass
1%




METALS
All Metals
1%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
17%





Human & Animal Waste
4%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Newspaper, 1%
Office Paper, 2%
Junk Mail, 1%
Pasteboard, 1%
Misc. Paper,3%
All
Metals,
All fc°1ass,
1%
Figure A-0-35. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC Com2
Cardboard, 5%
Inorganic
Materials, 17%
i
Food & Soiled
Paper, 22%
_Aeseptic
Cartons, 3%
Wood, 11%
Leath
Yard Trash, 0%
Fines, 1%
" Fines, 1%
Organic
Textiles, 1%
ATH COM 2
Total Sample Weight (lbs)

Organic Fraction
57%
Inorganic Fraction
43%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
57
88
-------
Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 160-30-40-503
Sample ID
ATH COM 3
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Commercial
160-30-40-503
26800
March 6 2015
7:30 AM
Mass
Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
5%
16%
91%
239
9.5

Newspaper
4%
16%
98%
40
1.2

Office Paper
5%
5%
81%
306
10.9
PAPER
Junk Mail
1%
42%
74%
303
1.3

Pasteboard
4%
27%
87%
218
5.3

Misc. Paper
2%
23%
70%
315
4.1

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
22%
93%
244
0.9
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
24%
0%
31%
49%
79%
78%
393
124
50.4
0.2
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
9%
4%
65%
57%
87%
83%
331
356
9.5
5.4
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
0%
62%
94%
365
0.3

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
2%
14%
84%
46
0.8
PLASTICS
All Plastics
17%




GLASS
All Glass
6%




METALS
All Metals
6%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
2%





Human & Animal Waste
3%
0%
0%
0
0.0
lnor&anic Cardboard, 5%
Materials, 2% r
Newspaper, 4%
Office Paper, 5%
Junk Mail, 1%
Pasteboard, 4%
Misc.
Paper, 2%
^Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
AM Plastics, 17%
Soi ed
Wood, 2%
Leather, 0%
Organic
Textiles, 0%
<1" Fines, 4%
Yard Trash, 0%
ATH COM 3
Total Sample Weight (lbs)

Organic Fraction
69%
Inorganic Fraction
31%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
100
Figure A-0-36. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC Com3
89
-------
Waste Composition of Athens County Truck MR06 (706-769-1700)
Sample ID
ATH COM 4
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Commercial
MR06 (706-769-170C
22640
March 6 2015
9:00 AM
Newspaper, 2%
Cardboard, 3%
Office Paper,
0%
Junk Mail, TO
Pasteboard, 2%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
3%
11%
96%
224
5.9

Newspaper
2%
45%
98%
73
0.9

Office Paper
0%
26%
87%
281
0.3
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
23%
77%
351
0.5

Pasteboard
2%
41%
84%
228
1.8

Misc. Paper
17%
7%
62%
327
32.2

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
19%
99%
303
3.3
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
16%
0%
38%
66%
97%
91%
401
144
37.8
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
10%
2%
58%
53%
98%
80%
322
363
13.6
3.4
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
0%
46%
95%
246
0.3

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
3%
12%
84%
17
0.4
PLASTICS
All Plastics
15%




GLASS
All Glass
2%




METALS
All Metals
4%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
21%





Human & Animal Waste
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
All Glass,
2%

Inorganic
to
Materials, 21%
y

1/
Misc. Paper,

y/m 17%
All Metals, 4%
r ,
All Plastics, 15% i
k ™
j
Paper, 16%
Wood, 3%
Yard Trash, 0%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
LeatherA \
0% <1" Fines, 2%
_ Organic
Textiles, 0%
Figure A-0-37. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC Com4
ATH COM4
Total Sample Weight (lbs)

Organic Fraction
58%
Inorganic Fraction
42%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
100
90
-------
Waste Composition of Athens County Truck AA 156
Sample ID
ATH COM 5
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Commercial
AA 156
11540
March 6 2015
12:00 PM
Inorganic Cardboard,/
Materials, TO
All Metals,
-
Newspaper, 0%
Office
Paper, 0%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
1%
8%
94%
227
1.8

Newspaper
0%
9%
96%
40
0.2

Office Paper
0%
10%
87%
281
0.3
PAPER
Junk Mail
10%
22%
76%
140
8.6

Pasteboard
7%
14%
93%
214
11.2

Misc. Paper
3%
20%
82%
234
4.3

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
10%
95%
293
2.5
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
16%
1%
57%
0%
97%
0%
351
0
23.5
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
6%
9%
53%
53%
85%
80%
218
363
5.5
12.8
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
0%
18%
93%
337
0.9

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
16%




GLASS
All Glass
10%




METALS
All Metals
4%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
0%





Human & Animal Waste
11%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Junk Mail, 10%
Pasteboard, 7%
Misc. Pa per, 3%
AN Plastics, 16%
Soi ed
Wood, 0%
Leather, 0%
Organic
Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
Textiles, 0%
Yard Trash, 1%
Figure A-0-38. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC Com5
ATH COM 5
Total Sample Weight (lbs)

Organic Fraction
70%
Inorganic Fraction
30%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
72
91
-------
Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 30-40-502
Sample ID
ATH COM 6
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Commercial
30-40-502
March 6 2015
3:00 PM


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
5%
22%
74%
263
7.7

Newspaper
0%
8%
96%
38
0.0

Office Paper
1%
17%
85%
303
1.8
PAPER
Junk Mail
2%
18%
87%
194
2.2

Pasteboard
5%
28%
94%
194
6.7

Misc. Paper
4%
23%
75%
281
5.8

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
20%
100%
283
1.9
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
13%
0%
37%
31%
96%
96%
326
87
26.0
0.1
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
7%
2%
50%
42%
98%
74%
271
321
9.1
3.3
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
1%
25%
100%
302
2.0

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
9%
9%
84%
20
1.4
PLASTICS
All Plastics
21%




GLASS
All Glass
8%




METALS
All Metals
3%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
3%





Human & Animal Waste
3%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Figure A-0-39. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-COM6
Inorganic
Materials, 3%,
All Metals, 3%
Newspaper, 0%
Office Paper, 1%
Junk Mail, 2%
Pasteboard, 5%
Cardboard, 5%
Soi ed
Plastics
Wood
Misc. Paper,4%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
Yard Trash, 0%
Leather, 0% <1" Fines, 2^
'/«
Organic Textiles,
1%

ATH COM 6
Total Sample Weight (lbs)

Organic Fraction
65%
Inorganic Fraction
35%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
68
92
-------
Sample ID
Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 30-30-516
Cardboard, 1%.
ATH RES 1
Newspaper, 0%
Office
Paper, 1%
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Residential
30-30-516
17100
March 4 2015
11:00 AM
Inorganic
Materials,


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
1%
28%
95%
175
1.1

Newspaper
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Office Paper
1%
28%
84%
276
0.9
PAPER
Junk Mail
1%
32%
84%
289
2.0

Pasteboard
2%
32%
85%
177
1.8

Misc. Paper
2%
26%
84%
196
2.8

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
15%
95%
259
2.1
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
28%
0%
56%
50%
96%
100%
336
174
39.1
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
14%
6%
58%
45%
93%
76%
151
94
8.2
2.3
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
3%
7%
97%
309
7.3

Leather
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
0%
35%
91%
57
0.1
PLASTICS
All Plastics
17%




GLASS
All Glass
2%




METALS
All Metals
4%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
1%





Human & Animal Waste
15%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Organic.
Textiles, 3'
Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
Pasteboard
Misc. Pa per, 2 ^
AM Glass, 2%
AM
Metals
4%
AM Plastics, 17%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 28%
Wood
Leather
Yard Trash, 0%
Figure A-0-40. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-RES-1
ATH RES 1
Total Sample Weight (lbs)

Organic Fraction
76%
Inorganic Fraction
24%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
68
93
-------
Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 30-31-530
Sample ID
ATH RES 2
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Residential
30-31-530
17180
March 5 2015
8:00 AM
Cardboard, 1%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
1%
48%
91%
243
0.9

Newspaper
0%
61%
100%
32
0.0

Office Paper
1%
12%
88%
314
2.7
PAPER
Junk Mail
8%
10%
83%
235
14.7

Pasteboard
4%
27%
87%
347
9.8

Misc. Paper
7%
31%
91%
280
13.0

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
32%
87%
285
1.3
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
36%
0%
34%
26%
91%
83%
538
134
116.1
0.2
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
0%
0%
54%
45%
93%
69%
46
312
q o
d o
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
2%
24%
100%
212
3.0

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
0%
14%
97%
66
0.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
20%




GLASS
All Glass
6%




METALS
All Metals
5%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
3%





Human & Animal Waste
2%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Inorganic
Materials, 3%.

All Metals, 5%.
Pasteboard, 4%
Misc. Paper,7%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
All Plastics, 20%
Wood, 0%.
Food & Soiled
Paper, 36%
<1" Fines, Op
Organic J
Textiles, 2% I
<2" Fines, 0%.
All Glass,
6%
All F
, 20%
<2" Fines, 0%
Yard Trash, 0%
Food El S
Paper, 36%
Figure A-0-41. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-RES-2
ATH RES 2
Total Sample Weight (lbs)

Organic Fraction
67%
Inorganic Fraction
33%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
162
94
-------
Waste Composition of Athens County Truck F4-191
Sample ID
ATH RES 3
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Residential
F4-191
9400
March 5 2015
11:30 AM
Mass
Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
3%
23%
98%
194
4.5

Newspaper
0%
29%
98%
18
0.0

Office Paper
2%
8%
80%
308
5.0
PAPER
Junk Mail
2%
31%
90%
226
2.9

Pasteboard
4%
28%
89%
208
5.3

Misc. Paper
2%
19%
80%
310
3.7

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
15%
93%
364
2.7
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
24%
0%
33%
87%
96%
90%
338
345
53.0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
13%
2%
50%
54%
86%
76%
271
258
15.0
1.9
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
0%
27%
97%
238
0.7

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
4%
13%
86%
27
0.8
PLASTICS
All Plastics
18%




GLASS
All Glass
3%




METALS
All Metals
5%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
9%





Human & Animal Waste
5%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Newspaper, 0%
Cardboard, 3%
All Glass, 3%
Figure A-0-42. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-RES-3
Leather, 0%.
Organic Textiles,
0%
<1" Fines, 2%
Office Paper, 2%
.Junk Mail, 2%
Misc. Paper,2%
>ard, 4%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
Inorganic
Materials, 9%
A P a sties
Soiled
Wood
Yard Trash, 0%
ATH RES 3
Total Sample Weight (lbs)

Organic Fraction
65%
Inorganic Fraction
35%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
96
95
-------
Waste Composition of Athens County Truck AAA 14
Sample ID
ATH RES 4
Cardboard, 1%
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Category
PAPER
Residential
AAA 14
15800
March 5 2015
2:00 PM
Inorganic
Materials, 2%
A Newspaper,
1%
All Glass, 2%
Junk Mail, 3%
Pasteboard, 5%
Subcategory
Mass
Percent
Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
Content Solids
(M3/Mg)
Normalized
Lo
Cardboard
Newspaper
Office Paper
Junk Mail
Pasteboard
Misc. Paper
Aeseptic Cartons
1%
1%
6%
3%
5%
6%
1%
15%
19%
7%
22%
27%
21%
19%
88%
96%
85%
86%
83%
77%
94%
233
56
276
288
184
232
273
1.9
Wood,
0.3 0%
12.6
Leather,
6.3 o%
5.9
8.1
2.1
Office
Paper, 6%
AM Plastics, 17%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 23%
Organic Textiles,
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
23%
4%
42%
29%
98%
89%
315
62
41.6
1.6
Yard Trash, 4%

FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
10%
4%
47%
52%
91%
70%
216
244
10.0
3.6

TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
0%
27%
88%
298
0.3



Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0


WOOD
Wood
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
ATH RES 4

PLASTICS
All Plastics
17%




Total Sample Weight (lbs)

GLASS
All Glass
2%




Organic Fraction
74%
METALS
All Metals
5%




Inorganic Fraction
26%
OTHER
Inorganic Materials
2%




Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
95

Human & Animal Waste
6%
0%
0%
0
0.0


Figure A-0-43. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-RES-4
96
-------
Waste Composition of Athens County Truck AAA 2
Sample ID
ATH RES 5
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Residential
AAA 2
9320
March 5 2015
12:18 PM
Newspaper, 0%
Office
Cardboard, 14% . Paper TO


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
14%
33%
100%
226
20.5

Newspaper
0%
32%
90%
56
0.0

Office Paper
0%
22%
92%
312
0.3
PAPER
Junk Mail
2%
27%
67%
194
2.1

Pasteboard
6%
41%
86%
319
8.9

Misc. Paper
11%
19%
73%
185
12.3

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
14%
93%
275
1.7
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
18%
0%
59%
75%
96%
93%
144
237
10.3
0.2
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
0%
0%
60%
35%
86%
71%
351
233
q o
d o
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
1%
21%
93%
346
2.9

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0
PLASTICS
All Plastics
20%




GLASS
All Glass
3%




METALS
All Metals
4%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
11%





Human & Animal Waste
6%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Figure A-0-44. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-RES-5
Inorganic
Materials, 11%
A Meta
A G ass. 3
Pasteboard, 69
All Plastics, 20%
Soi ed
Wood
Leather, 0%
Fines
Trash, 0%
unk Mail, 2%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
Organic.
Textiles, 1%
ATH RES 5
Total Sample Weight (lbs)

Organic Fraction
61%
Inorganic Fraction
39%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
59
97
-------
Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 94757
Sample ID
ATH RES 6
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Residential
94757
4300
March 5 2015
1:03 PM


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
0%
10%
85%
178
0.4

Newspaper
1%
24%
98%
73
0.5

Office Paper
2%
36%
87%
295
2.9
PAPER
Junk Mail
3%
10%
85%
319
6.1

Pasteboard
6%
17%
87%
256
10.9

Misc. Paper
4%
16%
91%
367
10.7

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
17%
98%
280
1.4
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
14%
0%
80%
78%
36%
82%
73
161
0.7
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
13%
6%
47%
28%
92%
56%
242
190
15.2
4.7
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
1%
6%
100%
325
3.6

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
1%
10%
85%
20
0.1
PLASTICS
All Plastics
15%




GLASS
All Glass
5%




METALS
All Metals
6%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
4%





Human & Animal Waste
19%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Figure A-0-45. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-RES-6
Cardboard, 0%
Inorganic
Materials, 4%
Newspaper, 1%
Office Paper, 2%
j Junk Mail, 3%
Pasteboard
6%
AM Plastics, 15%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 14%
Wood, 1%
Leather
Misc. Paper,4%
_Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
Yard Trash, 0%
Organic.
Textiles, 1%
ATH RES 6
Total Sample Weight (lbs)

Organic Fraction
71%
Inorganic Fraction
29%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
57
98
-------
Waste Composition of Durham County Truck WM-210510
Sample ID
DURCOM 1
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Commercial
WM-210510
1313
March 24 2015
9:00 AM


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
14%
28%
89%
215
19.6

Newspaper
4%
67%
84%
183
48.8

Office Paper
1%
28%
87%
203
1.2
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
21%
85%
366
0.5

Pasteboard
1%
30%
93%
299
2.9

Misc. Paper
6%
31%
91%
281
11.2

Aeseptic Cartons
0%
32%
90%
243
0.4
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
6%
0%
56%
0%
89%
0%
364
0
8.4
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
7%
4%
59%
55%
61%
47%
291
248
5.1
2.2
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
1%
40%
100%
0
0.0

Leather
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
10%
15%
87%
69
5.1
PLASTICS
All Plastics
22%




GLASS
All Glass
0%




METALS
All Metals
7%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
5%





Human & Animal Waste
3%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Figure A-0-46. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Com-1
Inorganic
Materials, 5%
All Glass, 0%
Cardboard, 14%
AN Metals, 7%
All Plastics, 22%
Soi ed
Wood, 10%
Newspaper, 4%
Office Paper,
i%
/junk
Mail,
l\faste board,
1%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 0%
Yard Trash, 0%
Leather,
.« I v. <1" Fines, 4%
Organic
Textiles, 1%
DURCOM 1
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
303
Organic Fraction
65%
Inorganic Fraction
35%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
105
99
-------
Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 3472 (Waste Ind)
Sample ID
DUR COM 2
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Commercial
3472 (Waste Ind)
8120
March 25 2015
7:30 AM
All Glass, 2%
All Metals, 1%
Inorganic
Materials, TO


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
31%
19%
95%
241
58.3

Newspaper
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Office Paper
0%
24%
82%
253
0.8
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Pasteboard
0%
38%
79%
206
0.1

Misc. Paper
2%
52%
94%
305
2.6

Aeseptic Cartons
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
27%
0%
87%
0%
86%
0%
295
0
9.2
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
6%
2%
56%
68%
68%
68%
452
373
r-»
CO r-i
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
3%
59%
96%
108
1.2
PLASTICS
All Plastics
25%




GLASS
All Glass
2%




METALS
All Metals
1%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
0%





Human & Animal Waste
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
All Plastics, 25%
Cardboard,31%
Soi ed
Paper, 2%
Leather,
0%
Organic
Yard Trash, TO
Figure A-0-47. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Com-2
•ffice Paper, 0%
Newspaper, 0%
^JU.,kMail,0%
asteboard, 0%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 0%
DUR COM 2
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
520
Organic Fraction
72%
Inorganic Fraction
28%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
82
100
-------
Waste Composition of Durham County Truck WM 210500
Sample ID
DUR COM 3
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Commercial
WM 210500
22320
March 25 2015
10:00 AM
Inorganic
Materials, 2%
All Metals, 2%
All Glass, 0%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
4%
29%
74%
193
4.0

Newspaper
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Office Paper
0%
21%
75%
215
0.3
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
13%
91%
361
1.3

Pasteboard
1%
26%
91%
201
1.7

Misc. Paper
2%
26%
82%
292
3.8

Aeseptic Cartons
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
5%
0%
64%
39%
91%
66%
334
216
6.0
0.1
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
4%
2%
23%
49%
68%
58%
401
349
9.5
1.9
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
2%
25%
100%
216
3.0

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
52%
21%
89%
40
14.6
PLASTICS
All Plastics
18%




GLASS
All Glass
0%




METALS
All Metals
2%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
2%





Human & Animal Waste
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Office Paper, TO
Newspaper, 0%
Cardboard, 4%
Figure A-0-48. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Com-3
o%
Pasteboard, 1%
Misc. Paper,2%
Aeseptic Food &
_Cartons, 0% Soiled
	Paper, 5%
Yard Trash, 0%
<2" Fines, 4%
<1" Fines, 2%
	Organic
Textiles, 2%
AM Plastics, 18%
Wood, 52%
Leather,
0%
DUR COM 3
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
431
Organic Fraction
77%
Inorganic Fraction
23%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
46
101
-------
Waste Composition of Durham County Truck WM 210570
Sample ID
DUR COM 4
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Commercial
WM 210570
22960
March 26 2015
9:10 AM
All Glass, 3%
All Metals, 2%
Inorganic
Materials, 1%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
12%
42%
92%
234
15.3

Newspaper
2%
30%
90%
0
0.0

Office Paper
1%
26%
89%
280
2.4
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Pasteboard
4%
34%
96%
265
6.2

Misc. Paper
5%
43%
86%
312
7.6

Aeseptic Cartons
3%
31%
99%
198
3.7
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
27%
0%
35%
0%
91%
0%
311
0
50.6
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
7%
2%
66%
65%
75%
84%
353
362
6.5
2.2
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
3%
31%
94%
0
0.0

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
6%
6%
90%
45
2.4
PLASTICS
All Plastics
17%




GLASS
All Glass
3%




METALS
All Metals
2%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
1%





Human & Animal Waste
1%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Leather, 0%
Orga
Textiles, 3%
n
Cardboard, 129
AM Plastics, 17%
Wood
Soiled
<1" Fines, 2%
Yard Trash, 0%J
Newspaper, 2%
Office Paper, 1%
k Mail, 0%
Pasteboard, 4%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 3%
Figure A-0-49. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Com-4
DUR COM 4
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
307
Organic Fraction
77%
Inorganic Fraction
23%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
97
102
-------
Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 34376 (City SWM)
Sample ID
DUR RES 1
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Residential
34376 (City SWM)
March 24 2015
10:30 AM
Mass
Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
3%
12%
94%
189
4.4

Newspaper
1%
18%
95%
49
0.5

Office Paper
1%
18%
83%
305
1.3
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
24%
83%
308
0.7

Pasteboard
4%
29%
93%
293
7.9

Misc. Paper
6%
48%
78%
349
8.2

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
29%
84%
260
1.0
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
22%
1%
55%
31%
90%
83%
461
80
40.9
0.3
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
11%
3%
76%
59%
79%
70%
330
383
6.9
3.8
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
2%
49%
95%
80
0.6

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
1%
10%
84%
51
0.4
PLASTICS
All Plastics
20%




GLASS
All Glass
5%




METALS
All Metals
4%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
2%





Human & Animal Waste
12%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Figure A-0-50. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Res-1
Inorganic Newspaper, 1%
Materials, 2%.
All Metals, 4%
Wood, 1%
Leather, 0%
Organic.
Textiles, 2%
<1" Fines, 3%
Office Paper, 1%
Junk Mail, 0%
Pasteboard, 4%
Cardboard
P a sties
Soi ed
Aeseptic
.Cartons, 1%
Yard Trash, 1%
DUR RES 1
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
282
Organic Fraction
68%
Inorganic Fraction
32%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
77
103
-------
Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 34325 (City SWM)
Sample ID	PUR RES 5	
WasteType	Residential
Truck Number	34325 (City SWM)
Total Load Weight (lbs)	16120
Date	March 25 2015
Time	11:11AM
Mass Moisture Volatile Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) L°


Cardboard
4%
23%
98%
236
6.8

Newspaper
1%
32%
88%
322
2.0

Office Paper
0%
18%
86%
293
0.4
PAPER
Junk Mail
1%
23%
80%
302
1.8

Pasteboard
2%
34%
93%
281
3.6

Misc. Paper
2%
44%
87%
291
2.8

Aeseptic Cartons
0%
26%
81%
130
0.2
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
11%
0%
56%
0%
84%
0%
322
0
12.9
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
18%
6%
50%
49%
76%
74%
334
366
23.1
8.9
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
2%
36%
100%
0
0.0

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
5%
16%
80%
11
0.4
PLASTICS
All Plastics
20%




GLASS
All Glass
4%




METALS
All Metals
5%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
5%





Human & Animal Waste
8%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Figure A-0-51. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Res-2
Newspaper, 1%
Inorganic Cardboard, 4%
Materials, 5%
Office Paper, 0%
Junk Mail, 1%
/pasteboard, 2%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 0%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 11%
Yard
Trash, 0%
All Plastics, 20%
Wood, 5'
Leather, 0%
Organic Textiles,
2%
DUR RES 5
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
342
Organic Fraction
66%
Inorganic Fraction
34%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
63
104
-------
Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 34439 (City SWM)
Sample ID
DUR RES 3
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Category
PAPER
ORGANICS
FINES
TEXTILES
Residential
34439 (City SWM)
36460
March 24 2015
3:00 PM
lnorganicCardbooard
Materials, TO 2%
All Metals, 2%
Subcategory
Mass
Percent
Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
Content Solids
(M3/Mg)
Normalized
Lo
Cardboard
Newspaper
Office Paper
Junk Mail
Pasteboard
Misc. Paper
Aeseptic Cartons
2%
1%
2%
5%
5%
11%
0%
20%
50%
71%
10%
29%
9%
27%
82%
100%
81%
86%
75%
84%
91%
198
59
323
308
145
298
245
11.4 Organi
c
3-6 Textile
24.9 s' 10/°
<1" Fines,
Food & Soiled Paper	19% 63% 82%	377
Yard Trash	0% 70% 73%	171
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
11%
3%
63%
47%
74%
77%
313
327
9.5
3.4
Yard Trash, TO
Organic Textiles
Leather
1%
0%
43%
0%
96%
0%
171
0
1.4
0.0
Newspaper, 1%
Office Paper, 2%
All Glass, 2%
Wood
AM Plastics, 17%
Leather
Soi ed
Pasteboard, 5%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 0%
WOOD
Wood
1%
15%
92%
9
0.1
DUR RES 3

PLASTICS
All Plastics
17%




Total Sample Weight (lbs)
291
GLASS
All Glass
2%




Organic Fraction
79%
METALS
All Metals
2%




Inorganic Fraction
21%
OTHER
Inorganic Materials
0%




Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
81

Human & Animal Waste
17%
0%
0%
0
0.0


Figure A-0-52. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Res-3
105
-------
Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 34355 (City SWM)
Sample ID
DUR RES 4
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Residential
34355 (City SWM)
25080
March 25 2015
11:00 AM
All
Metals,
4%
Cardboard, 1%
News
Office Paper, 0%
Mass
Moisture Volatile Est. L0
Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
1%
41%
98%
218
1.2

Newspaper
0%
45%
87%
122
0.1

Office Paper
0%
24%
73%
295
0.2
PAPER
Junk Mail
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0

Pasteboard
4%
36%
81%
119
2.5

Misc. Paper
2%
50%
94%
272
2.5

Aeseptic Cartons
1%
39%
81%
163
0.5
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
20%
0%
51%
31%
94%
18%
489
35
45.0
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
19%
5%
62%
52%
76%
59%
359
345
19.4
4.9
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
11%
37%
97%
35
2.4

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
2%
25%
94%
142
1.8
PLASTICS
All Plastics
19%




GLASS
All Glass
3%




METALS
All Metals
4%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
1%





Human & Animal Waste
6%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Wood, 2%
Leather, 0%
paper
Inorganic
Materials, 1%
Junk Mail, 0%
Pasteboard, 4%
All Glass, 3%
Food & Soiled
Paper, 20%
All Plastics, 19%
Organic Textiles
11%
Misc. Paper,2%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 1%
Yard Trash, 0%
Figure A-0-53. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Res-4
DUR RES 4
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
374
Organic Fraction
72%
Inorganic Fraction
28%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
81
106
-------
Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 34325 (City SWM)
Sample ID
DUR RES 5
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Time
Residential
34325 (City SWM)
16120
March 25 2015
11:11 AM
Mass
Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
4%
23%
98%
236
6.8

Newspaper
1%
32%
88%
322
2.0

Office Paper
0%
18%
86%
293
0.4
PAPER
Junk Mail
1%
23%
80%
302
1.8

Pasteboard
2%
34%
93%
281
3.6

Misc. Paper
2%
44%
87%
291
2.8

Aeseptic Cartons
0%
26%
81%
130
0.2
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
11%
0%
56%
0%
84%
0%
322
0
12.9
0.0
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
18%
6%
50%
49%
76%
74%
334
366
23.1
8.9
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
2%
36%
100%
0
0.0

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
5%
16%
80%
11
0.4
PLASTICS
All Plastics
20%




GLASS
All Glass
4%




METALS
All Metals
5%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
5%





Human & Animal Waste
8%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Figure A-0-54. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Res 5
Inorganic
Materials, 5%,
Newspaper, 1%_
Cardboard, 4%\
Office Paper, 0%
unk Mail, 1%
asteboard, 2%
All Glass, 4%
Misc. Pa per, 2%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 0%
Soi ed
All Plastics, 20%
Wood
Leather, 0%
Organic Textiles,
2%
Yard
Trash, 0%
DUR RES 5
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
342
Organic Fraction
66%
Inorganic Fraction
34%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
63
107
-------
Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 34379 (City SWM)
Sample ID
DUR RES 6
Waste Type
Truck Number
Total Load Weight (lbs)
Date
Ti me
Residential
34379 (City SWM)
13420
March 25 2015
1:50 PM
Inorganic
Materials, 2%
All Metals, 4%


Mass
Moisture
Volatile
Est. L0 Normalized
Category
Subcategory
Percent
Content
Solids
(M3/Mg) Lo


Cardboard
20%
27%
83%
206
25.6

Newspaper
1%
7%
82%
28
0.2

Office Paper
0%
8%
79%
317
1.0
PAPER
Junk Mail
1%
5%
84%
238
1.7

Pasteboard
3%
28%
93%
191
4.1

Misc. Paper
3%
23%
88%
282
5.0

Aeseptic Cartons
0%
22%
81%
160
0.3
ORGANICS
Food & Soiled Paper
Yard Trash
15%
0%
45%
37%
89%
77%
386
80
28.9
0.2
FINES
<2" Fines
<1" Fines
9%
3%
57%
50%
80%
74%
349
381
10.9
4.3
TEXTILES
Organic Textiles
1%
9%
94%
80
0.8

Leather
0%
0%
0%
0
0.0
WOOD
Wood
1%
29%
87%
109
0.4
PLASTICS
All Plastics
18%




GLASS
All Glass
5%




METALS
All Metals
4%




OTHER
Inorganic Materials
2%





Human & Animal Waste
11%
0%
0%
0
0.0
Newspaper,
1%
Wood, 1%.
Leather, 09
Organic.
Textiles, 1%
<1" Fines, 3%
Cardboard , 20%
Office
AM Plastics, 18%
Paper, 0%
Pasteboard
Soi ed
i\lunk
Mail,
1%
Misc.
Paper, 3%
Aeseptic
Cartons, 0%
i Trash
Figure A-0-55. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Res 6
DUR RES 6
Total Sample Weight (lbs)
381
Organic Fraction
70%
Inorganic Fraction
30%
Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
83
108
-------
Appendix F. Carbon Content in 39 Waste Collection Vehicles

Dry Biogenic Carbon
(g dry biogenic
carbon/g total dry
carbon)
Fossil Carbon (g dry
fossil carbon/g dry
total carbon)
(Assumed MC = 0)
Durham Com-1
49%
51%
Durham Com-2
45%
55%
Durham Com-3
62%
38%
Durham Com-4
61%
39%
Durham Res-1
44%
56%
Durham Res-2
48%
52%
Durham Res-3
53%
47%
Durham Res-4
51%
49%
Durham Res-5
46%
54%
Durham Res-6
52%
48%
Athens Com-1
61%
39%
Athens Com-2
46%
54%
Athens Com-3
61%
39%
Athens Com-4
64%
36%
Athens Com-5
56%
44%
Athens Com-6
52%
48%
Athens Res-1
55%
45%
Athens Res-2
60%
40%
Athens Res-3
58%
42%
Athens Res-4
58%
42%
Athens Res-6
54%
46%
Lee Com-1
53%
47%
109
Total Carbon Wet
(g dry C/g wet
waste)
Total Carbon Dry (g
dry C/g dry waste)
Total Moisture Content
(g EhO/g total waste)
31%
39%
21%
34%
54%
37%
36%
44%
19%
33%
43%
23%
27%
37%
28%
26%
34%
22%
26%
35%
26%
28%
42%
32%
27%
36%
23%
29%
36%
21%
27%
35%
23%
27%
36%
23%
27%
34%
20%
24%
30%
17%
25%
30%
19%
29%
33%
14%
23%
32%
28%
33%
40%
18%
28%
34%
20%
25%
32%
22%
22%
28%
22%
27%
32%
18%
-------

Dry Biogenic Carbon
(g dry biogenic
carbon/g total dry
carbon)
Fossil Carbon (g dry
fossil carbon/g dry
total carbon)
(Assumed MC = 0)
Lee Com-2
48%
52%
Lee Com-3
55%
45%
Lee Com-4
48%
52%
Lee Com-5
52%
48%
Lee Com-6
52%
48%
Lee Res-1
57%
43%
Lee Res-2
64%
36%
Lee Res-3
42%
58%
Lee Res-4
81%
19%
Lee Res-5
50%
50%
Lee Res-6
52%
48%
UF Com-1
58%
42%
UF Com-2
43%
57%
UF Com-3
41%
59%
UF Com-4
45%
55%
UF Com-5
65%
35%
Average of All Vehicles 54%	46%
Min	41%	19%
Max	81%	59%
110
Total Carbon Wet Total Carbon Dry (g Total Moisture Content
(g dry C/g wet dry C/g dry waste) (g EhO/g total waste)
waste)
24%
25%
21%
23%
28%
25%
27%
21%
22%
16%
20%
30%
29%
31%
31%
35%
27%
16%
36%
31%
30%
24%
29%
32%
29%
34%
23%
27%
18%
23%
40%
40%
38%
42%
45%
34%
18%
54%
22%
15%
12%
18%
11%
16%
19%
10%
21%
12%
15%
25%
29%
17%
25%
22%
21%
10%
37%
-------