SECTION 1 Backgroundmission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATTACHMENTS/FA43271.pdfrecalculations will be...

San Francisco International Airport 1-1 August 2014 Waste Characterization Study

SECTION 1 Background

At the request of South San Francisco Scavenger Company, ESA conducts this annual study to characterize materials disposed from San Francisco International Airport. This report covers the study that took place from July 16 through 22, 2014.

The methodology repeated that of previous studies (2008, 2011 - 2013) as closely as possible. On each day, ESA staff recorded visual observations of designated loads of discarded materials. Most were compactors, but there were also several roll-off box loads (uncompacted) and one load, consisting of the contents of several smaller containers, that was brought in by a front-end loading (FEL) collection truck. A total of 22 sources were sampled. The results are organized in the same manner as previous reports, for ease of comparison.

ESA appreciates the efforts of staff at South San Francisco Scavenger Company to provide the necessary space and coordination for this study to occur.

Appendix F - SFO Annual Solid Waste Characterization Report (2014)


SECTION 2 Methodology

2.1 Sample Sources The sources were 15 compactors, six uncompacted rolloff boxes, and one load consisting of the contents of several smaller bins, which are also known as front-end-loader (FEL) containers. All of these sources are located around the Terminal complex as shown in Figure 2-1. The location of each source is provided in Table 2-1 below.

TABLE 2-1 LOCATIONS OF SOLID WASTE SOURCES AT SFO

Source Number Source Location

Container / Collection Method

A-2 Gate A-2 International Terminal Compactor

D-2 Terminal 2 Compactor

D-3 Terminal 2 Compactor

E-1 Terminal 3 near Gate 69 Compactor

F-1 Gate 81 Compactor

G-1 Gate 93 Compactor

G-2 Gates 94-96 Compactor



C-4 (was H-4) Gate 78 Compactor

C-5 (was H-5) Gate 21 Compactor

IT-1 Courtyard 4 Compactor




30 - Gate 40 Gate 40 30-cubic-yard Rolloff Box

14 - RAC Rental Car Facility 14-cubic-yard Rolloff Box

20 - CT3 Courtyard 3 20-cubic-yard Rolloff Box

30 - Gate 59 Gate 59 30-cubic-yard Rolloff Box

30 - Maint North Field near USCG area 30-cubic-yard Rolloff Box

20 - Airtrain AirTrain Maintenance Facility 20-cubic-yard Rolloff Box

FEL Bins at multiple locations Front-End-Loader Truck


FIGURE 2-1

LOCATIONS OF SAMPLED CONTAINERS

2.2 Methodology ESA observed the contents of each of the sources one time. Each load was placed on the floor of the transfer building in a designated location where ESA staff could review the contents. Sample areas were delineated in each load at the front, rear and middle, and were examined closely. Any bags in the sample were opened and the contents spread out so that a visual characterization of the material composition could be made. Taken together, the three samples from each load contained a sufficient volume of material to be considered representative of all the material types in the load. Through visual observation, and based upon experience with other waste characterization studies, ESA estimated and recorded the percentage, by volume, of each material type in the sample.


SECTION 3 Analysis of Data

3.1 Material Categories and Types The primary materials category groups and material types (within each group) for the visual observations were defined as follows:

Paper includes corrugated boxes, high grade paper, newspaper, magazines, mixed paper, and multi-layer composite paper.

Plastic includes recyclable PET and HDPE containers, other plastic containers, plastic bags and film, plastic cutlery, expanded polystyrene, mixed rigid plastics, and other plastics. For the 2011 study, three material types were added to the Plastic group: Compostable plastic containers, compostable bags and film, and compostable plastic cutlery. For the 2013 study, recyclable (i.e., clean) plastic film was added to the Plastic group. These types continued to be used in 2014.

Glass includes glass containers such as bottles and jars, and other glass, such as plate glass.

Metal includes aluminum cans, other non-ferrous metals, steel food and beverage cans, other ferrous metal, and white goods (large appliances)

Plant Wastes includes leaves and grass, branches and stumps, and prunings and trimmings.

Organics includes food scraps, other compostables, , untreated lumber, pallets, and treated wood wastes. The previous study (2008) included diapers in this category. They are now classified as Miscellaneous Materials.

Other Compostables includes all organic materials that are not separately listed above (food scraps, untreated lumber, pallets, and treated wood wastes) and soiled paper (which includes food soiled paper, paper towels from bathrooms, and paper based food packaging or food service ware, such as plates, cups, and bowls).

Miscellaneous Materials includes textiles and leather, carpet and carpet padding, diapers and tires. For the 2013 study, recyclable carpet padding was added to the Miscellaneous Materials group.

C&D Waste includes crushable inerts (such as concrete, rock and asphalt, and toilets & ceramics), gypsum board or drywall, dirt & fines, other demolition materials, and other construction materials.

Hazardous Wastes (HW) includes paint and adhesives, vehicle fluids, universal wastes (such as batteries and lamps), medical wastes and medicines.


Special Waste includes electronics and electrical items, multi-material composite items and other wastes that are not identified in other material categories.

3.2 Estimated Densities of Material Types To convert the observed volumes into estimated weights, density factors were used for each of the waste types. For consistency, the same densities were used as in the previous studies in this series. These densities are shown in Table 3-1 below.

TABLE 3-1 MATERIAL CATEGORIES, TYPES, AND ASSUMED DENSITIES

Category Type Density (Pounds

per Cubic Yard)

Category Type Density (Pounds

per Cubic Yard)

Paper Corrugated Cardboard 200 Organic Food 600 High Grade Paper 400 Other Compostables 300 Newspaper 400 Untreated Lumber 300 Magazines 500 Pallets 400 Mixed Paper 400 Treated Wood Waste 400 Multi-material 250 Misc Textiles and Leather 200 Plastic PETE Bottles (#1) 50 Carpet & Carpet padding 200 HDPE Bottles (#2) 75 Recyclable carpet padding 150 Other Plastic Containers 50 Diapers 400 Compostable Containers 50 C&D Tires 400 Plastic Bags & Film 20 Waste Crushable Inerts 2000 Compostable Bags & Film 20 Other Inerts 1800 Recyclable Bags & Film 20 Gypsum Board 400 Plastic serveware 50 Asphalt Roofing 400 Compostable serveware 50 Other Demolition 500 Expanded Polystyrene 10 Other Construction 1500 Mixed Rigid Plastics 75 HHW Paint / Adhesives Other Plastics 50 Vehicle & Equip. Fluids Glass Glass Containers 600 Universal (batteries / lamps) Non-Container Glass 1000 Medical Waste Metal Aluminum Cans 65 Medicine Other Non-Ferrous 80 Other HHW Steel Food & Bevg Cans 250 Special Brown Goods Other Ferrous 125 E-Waste White Goods 250 Composite Bulky Items Plant Leaves and Grass 325 Other Special Waste Waste Branches & Stumps 1000 Prunings 200


3.3 Conversion of Volumes to Weights For a visual, volumetric characterization of mixed wastes such as this study, the analyst records the amounts of various material types as estimated percentages of the total sample volume. For this study, three samples were taken from each load, and the percentages of each waste type were estimated for each sample. The volume percentages were then averaged for each waste type. The end result is a list of waste types, each associated with an estimated volume percentage, and with all percentages summing to 100% for each load. The following method has been used to estimate the weight of each waste type within the entire load, for all of the annual studies performed to date. First, the weight of the entire load was obtained from records at the disposal site. Next, for each waste type, the volume-percentage of that waste type was multiplied by its density, to obtain a nominal weight. All nominal weights were summed, and the total was used to convert each nominal weight to a weight percentage. Each of these weight percentages was then multiplied by the total load weight to obtain the estimated weight of each component. The data sheets in Appendix A provide these volume estimates and weight conversions.

3.4 Recyclability of Material Types As noted above, this study is using methods that were developed for the first such study in 2008 and that were repeated in 2011 - 2013. Repeating the procedures and assumptions provides consistency from year to year, which is helpful in identifying trends; but this approach also has limitations. In particular, some of the assumptions about recyclability, originally made in 2008, may not be realistic given current recycling markets. For example, in-flight accessories given to international travelers, such as pillows, robes, eye masks and slippers, have been classified as textiles in this study but are not generally durable enough for re-use, and are often composite materials (partly paper or plastic) that do not have a ready market as recyclables. We recommend that as this study continues in succeeding years, the assumptions about the recyclability of materials be re-evaluated and the estimates of recyclable and compostable quantities in each load be re-evaluated. Since all of the data reside in a single Excel file, the recalculations will be straightforward, after the assumptions are updated.


SECTION 4 Field Notes From Waste Observations

4.1 Introduction This section describes the material composition and relevant details for each of the loads characterized in the study. Tables showing the data taken by the analyst when conducting the characterization can be found in Appendix A of this report. The subsections below provide specific information about each sample. Loads are listed alphabetically by source ID. Figure 2-1 in Section 2 (above) provides a map of the Airport that shows locations for most of the sources. Readers should note that although our findings are reported to at least two digits of accuracy, the variable nature of refuse and recycling loads and the equally variable densities of materials in those loads can result in the composition of future loads deviating significantly from the values provided in this report.

4.2 Sample Descriptions 4.2.1 Compactor A2 at the International Terminal Gate A-2 Compactor A-2 consisted of 87% recoverable materials (recyclable or compostable), with 24% recyclable and 63% compostable. This contrasts with the previous year, which had concentrations of 46% recyclable and 48% compostable materials. With construction occurring nearby in 2013, the 2013 sample may not have been typical for this location. In 2012, the recoverable were 24% recyclables and 73% compostables. Materials found in this load in 2014 included:

• Several bags of beverage ice. • Material from aircraft cleaning, including single-use pillow covers and beverage

containers. • Gloves, office paper and lunchroom discards from security workers. • Two large sections of flexible yellow air duct. • Customer discards from food service establishments within the airport.


The five most prevalent materials were:

Rank Material Weight percent Rank in 2013 Rank in 2012 1 Other Compostables 40% 1 2 2 Food 24% 2 1 3 Other Construction 9% none none 4 Plastic Serveware 5% 17 8 5 Multi-Material Paper 5% 14 10

4.2.2 Compactor D-2 at Terminal 2 This compactor consisted of 94% compostable material, mainly soiled paper products and food scraps. Another 2% was recyclable material. Less than four percent of the contents of this compactor would require landfill disposal. Materials found in this load in 2014 included:

• Source separated organics, including coffee grounds, some in compostable bags (also seen in 2012 and 2013).

• Several bags of back-of-house organics, such as orange peels apparently from a juice vendor.

• Some front of house wastes, mostly coffee cups and other compostable food containers. • Post consumer sushi containers from Wakaba; these are not compostable, as they are

made from polystyrene. The large brown paper sacks of unused bread, seen in 2012 and 2013, were not evident in this load. The five most prevalent materials (by weight) were:

Rank Material Weight percent Rank in 2013 Rank in 2012 1 Food 51% 2 2 2 Other Compostables 42% 1 1 3 Multi-material Paper 3% none none 4 PETE Bottles 1% 13 8 5 Glass Containers 1% 4 none

The presence of multi-material paper is largely due to the use of aseptic packaging for some ingredients at food service establishments.

4.2.3 Compactor D-3 at Terminal 2 This load consisted of 97% materials defined as recyclable or compostable. In a shift from 2012 and 2013, when ninety percent of these materials were compostable, only 71% were compostable


this time, and more than 26% were recyclables. The remaining three percent would need to be landfilled. Materials found in this load included:

• Front of House (FOH) materials that were a mix of compostables and recyclables, such as paper plates with clear plastic lids.

• Back of House (BOH) café wastes including paper towels and coffee grounds. • Source separated organics, some in Bio-bags. • A considerable number of beverage containers, mostly plastic but a few glass. • Large steel cans that had held ingredients used at some food service establishments. • Substantial amounts of several types of recyclable paper, evidently discarded by

passengers and by businesses operating within the terminal. This was noted in prior years as well.


Rank Material Weight percent Rank in 2013 Rank in 2012 1 Food 38% 2 1 2 Other Compostables 32% 1 2 3 Newspaper 7% None 11 4 High Grade Paper 6% 5 7 5 Magazines 4% 10 17

4.2.4 Compactor E-1 at North Terminal – Gate 73 Compactor E-1 was not sampled in 2013. In 2014 this load contained a much higher proportion of compostables (85%, versus 32% in 2012) and a correspondingly lower proportion of recyclables (12%, vs. 57% in 2012) and trash (3%, vs. 11% in 2012). Noteworthy components included:

• Bags of discards that were obviously from gate areas, including plastic and glass beverage containers, reading matter, and boarding documents.

• A small but noticeable portion of organics bagged in compostable bags. In addition, about 5% of all large bags were black plastic. Most of these appeared to contain restaurant kitchen and dish room discards.

• Several empty HDPE bottles of janitorial cleaners (soaps etc.).



Rank Material Weight percent Rank in 2012 1 Food 59% None 2 Other Compostables 26% 2 3 Mixed Paper 6% 6 4 Glass Containers 2% 3 5 PETE Bottles 2% 6

4.2.5 Compactor F-1 at Gate 81 A trend that began in 2013 appears to be continuing. This load contained a substantial amount of food scraps and other compostable materials, but the amounts of non-compostable recyclables (glass bottles, paper) and non-compostable, non-recyclable trash increased substantially. As noted last year, this suggests that janitors or restaurant workers need re-training or better access to a nearby recyclables bin. Materials found in this load included:

• Source separated organics including old bread, produce trimmings, and BOH wastes from food vendors.

• Compostable FOH wastes: paper napkins, paper plates and cups, paper clamshell-style food containers, and pizza boxes were among the prevalent materials found.

• Items from at least one bar, including glass and plastic beverage bottles, juiced lemons, plastic straws / stirrers, etc.

• Packaging from merchandise vendors, as well as office paper that appeared to be from airport tenants.

Rank Material Weight percent Rank in 2013 Rank in 2012

1 Food 39% 1 1 2 Other Compostables 36% 2 2 3 Mixed Paper 9% none none 4 Glass Containers 6% 5 none 5 High Grade Paper 2% none none

4.2.6 Compactor G-1 at Gate 93 Materials from this load consisted primarily of bags of discards that appeared to come from the terminal passenger areas. This load had a much higher proportion of paper than any other load


sampled this year, and a very small amount of compostables; it possibly could have been processed for recycling. Noteworthy materials found in this load included:

• FOH bags from receptacles in the terminal, containing newspapers, magazines in several languages, and various non-recyclables.

• Eyeshades and pillow covers and travel kits provided to passengers by one or more carriers.

• A bag with several sets of identical headphones, possibly provided by an airline for passenger use.

Discards from BOH areas in the terminal were not found.

Rank Material Weight percent Rank in 2013 Rank in 2012 1 Magazines 33% 5 2 2 Newspaper 24% 2 2 3 Textiles and Leather 18% 8 1 4 Mixed paper 10% 6 5 5 Food, Other Compostables, and

Corrugated Cardboard 4% each 4, 1 and 14 none, 4 and

none

4.2.7 Compactor G-2 at Gates 94-96 Like G-1, this load also contained a high proportion of recyclable paper, though not as much. Unlike 2013, when food and other compostables were the two most prevalent materials, there were no food scraps seen, and only a small amount of compostable material was noted. Other materials found in this load, and also seen in 2013, included:

• Complimentary, branded slippers used by airline passengers. • Terminal restroom paper towels, mixed with beverage containers (apparently discarded

by passengers entering restrooms). • E-waste: several sets of headphones.


1 Newspaper 24% 4 3 2 Magazines 23% none none 3 Mixed paper 21% 4 4 4 Textiles and Leather 17% 8 1 5 Other Compostables 5% 1 2


4.2.8 Compactor G-3 at Gate 92 Materials found in this load differed substantially from 2013, when packaging from materials used in terminal maintenance made up a significant portion of the load. This year, the load included:

• FOH discards from food and beverage vendors, including beverage cups and bottles as well as clamshell-style food containers.

• Safety vests from Menzies Aviation, a ground handling contractor, and caution tape, indicating that some discards originated from non-passenger areas.

• Aircraft cleanout discards, including bags containing beverage bottles, headphones and miscellaneous items probably discarded by passengers while in flight.


1 Food 26% 4 4 2 Newspaper 23% 2 2 3 Magazines 19% none 5 4 Other Compostables 13% 6 6 5 Mixed Paper 6% 3 3

4.2.9 Compactor G-76 at Gate 76 The materials in this load were almost entirely recoverable, with less than two percent landfill wastes. Ninety-three percent was compostable but largely non-food. Recyclable (not food soiled) corrugated cardboard was completely absent. Materials found in this load included:

• A large amount and wide variety of beverage containers and cup lids. • Retail packaging, apparently removed from goods that were sold or put on display. • A sizeable amount of restroom hand towels.


1 Other Compostables 59% 1 1 2 Food 35% 2 2 3 Mixed Paper 2% 5 none 4 High Grade Paper 1% 11 3 5 Plastic Serveware 1% 15 none


4.2.11 Compactor H-4 at Gate 78 This compactor was recently renamed “C-4” but is in the same location as the former H-4. This load was largely recoverable with 48% organics and 49% recyclable materials. However, if it is being processed for food waste recovery, some or all of the recyclables may not be recovered. Materials found in this load included:

• Many clear plastic “clamshell” single-service food containers. • Empty bottles, and coffee grounds, apparently from a bar. • Some FOH wastes consisting of compostable paper products, unconsumed food, and

utensils. • Discarded objects from electrical work: pieces of metal conduit, a metal panel box, cable

reels made of plywood and paperboard, etc. No scrap wire or connectors were seen, nor any hazardous materials.

Also, roughly 2/3 of the material in this load had been collected in large black (opaque) plastic trash bags. In 2013, nearly all of the material had been collected in this manner. Black bags make it difficult to monitor recycling performance visually.


1 Food 28% 2 3 2 Other Construction 26% none none 3 Other Compostables 20% 1 1 4 Glass Containers 17% 4 2 5 High-Grade paper 4% none none

4.2.12 Compactor H-5 at Gate 21 This compactor was recently renamed “C-5” but is in the same location as the former H-5. This load consisted of 88% organic material and 9% recyclables, with the balance (3%) being items made of unrecyclable plastics or mixed materials (typically, packaging made of paper and plastics combined). Most bags were clear plastic, about 10% were heavy black plastic (most of which appeared to have originated from kitchen and dishwashing areas), and a few compostable plastic bags were also noted. It was not possible to determine the origin of those compostable bags. Materials found in this load included:

• Recyclable containers for ingredients (large HDPE bottles, steel cans, etc.); paperboard food packaging.

• FOH compostables: food-soiled paper and unconsumed food, often commingled with non-compostables such as glass bottles, straws, lids from beverage cups, etc.


• Bags of paper towels from restrooms, which also included the occasional beverage container.


1 Food 49% 2 1 2 Other Compostables 39% 1 2 3 Mixed Paper 3% 3 3 4 Glass Containers 2% none 4 5 Multi-material Paper 1% 4 none

4.2.13 Compactor IT-1 at Courtyard 4 Ninety-seven percent of this load consisted of materials defined as recyclable or compostable. Seventy-four percent was compostable, but not food rich; and 23% was recyclable. Materials found in this load included:

• Some food but mostly other compostable material, such as paper plates, coffee cups, paper hand towels from restrooms, etc.

• Miscellaneous non-compostables, including rubber gloves, a couple of large plastic trays, etc.

• Clean plastic film that appeared to be protective wrap from case-lots of individual-serving packaged food items.


1 Other Compostables 50% 1 1 2 Food 23% 2 8 3 High Grade Paper 14% 7 2 4 Mixed Paper 4% 3 none 5 Corrugated Cardboard 1% 4 5

4.2.14 Compactor IT-2 at Courtyard 4 Although the sign on the side of the IT-2 compactor reads "Trash Only", the contents of this compactor were 59% compostable and 34% recyclable. The 7% of observed landfill materials consisted of composite materials (largely packaging that is made with plastic and paper combined), plastic "clamshell" food containers, a small amount of polystyrene foam takeout food packaging, plus the soiled plastic film bags that contained ,.the disposed materials. It was surprising to see substantial amounts of the following recyclable materials in this "Trash Only" load:


• Beverage bottles and cans. • Corrugated cardboard boxes. • Office paper, some shredded and some intact.

Rank Material Weight percent Rank in 2013 Rank in 2012 1 Food 41% 2 2 2 Other Compostables 18% 1 1 3 High Grade Paper 16% 3 4 4 Mixed Paper 5% 6 none 5 Corrugated Cardboard 4% 9 5

4.2.15 Compactor IT-3 at Courtyard 1 In general, the contents of this compactor were rather similar to those in IT-2, described above. Although marked "Trash Only", this compactor contained an estimated 51% compostable and 44% recyclable materials, as defined for this study. Unlike most other loads, this one contained a noticeable number of black or gray plastic trash bags, at least some of which were from tenant kitchen / food prep areas. Materials found in this load included:

• Packaging from retail vendors: plastic bags, boxes from candy and gum, etc. • FOH and BOH compostable wastes. • Gate-area materials: boarding passes, single-serving beverage bottles, packaging for

travel blankets, etc. • Several glass wine and liquor bottles that may have originated from bars or restaurants

within the terminal. • Several corrugated cardboard boxes, and foam plastic packaging material from within

those boxes.

Rank Material Weight percent Rank in 2013 Rank in 2012 1 Other Compostables 32% 2 1 2 Mixed Paper 19% 5 none 3 Food 18% 1 none 4 High Grade Paper 9% 4 none 5 Glass Containers 6% 11 none

4.2.16 Compactor IT-4 at Courtyard 1 This load was 69% compostable and 27% recyclable material. This was a sizeable shift from the 88% / 10% split found the previous year. The recyclable materials included:


• Mixed paper, newspaper, and a small amount of corrugated cardboard. • A sizeable quantity of glass bottles, concentrated at one end of the load. This appeared to

be from a bar. • Some BOH food and beverage containers: large steel cans and HDPE milk jugs. • A few single-serving plastic beverage bottles.


1 Other Compostables 44% 2 none 2 Food 23% 1 none 3 Glass Containers 14% 5 8 4 Mixed Paper 6% 5 4 5 Newspaper 3% 10 9

4.2.17 14-Cubic Yard Rolloff Box 14-RAC at Rental Car Facility Just as in 2013, ninety-six percent of the sampled materials were defined as recyclable or compostable. Materials found in the samples from this load included:

• Newspaper, mixed paper and small amounts of high grade paper and corrugated cardboard.

• Food and beverage packaging, and unconsumed food, purchased outside of the airport and left behind in vehicles, or brought in by employees.

• Two full size damaged wooden pallets.

Rank Material Weight percent Rank in 2013 Rank in 2012 1 Newspaper 23% 6 10 2 Other Compostables 19% 1 1 3 Mixed Paper 18% 2 2 4 Food 10% 3 3 5 Pallets 9% none none

It should be noted that although the pallets were approximately 9% of the weight of the sampled material, they were a much smaller fraction of the entire load, as no other pallets appeared to be present.

4.2.18 20-Cubic Yard Rolloff Box at Courtyard 3 The sampled material from this load included 99% materials defined as recyclable or compostable, with 47.3% recyclable and 51.5%compostable. It was a mix of restroom, TSA, and coffee shop waste materials (both BOH and FOH).


Materials found in this load included:

• Several large bags full of empty single-use beverage containers, both plastic and aluminum.

• A significant amount of corrugated cardboard (about 30% by weight). One large box was nearly filled with styrofoam packing peanuts.

• TSA gloves, and empty boxes of TSA supplies (e.g., Chem Swabs). • Hand towels from restrooms. • Unconsumed food, and food-soiled compostable paper.


1 Corrugated Cardboard 30% 2 4 2 Other Compostables 29% 1 1 3 Food 21% 6 3 4 PET Bottles 5% 7 10 5 Glass Containers 5% 4 6

4.2.19 30-Cubic Yard Rolloff Box at Gate 40 The samples from this load contained 93% materials defined as recyclable or compostable, with 47% compostable and 46% recyclable. Materials found in this load included:

• Just as in 2013, discards from Delta Airlines aircraft, including beverage containers, food trays, reading material, and wipes. Many of these bags were marked "Recycle".

• Similar materials in US Airways bags, especially wipes, which were classified as "Textiles and Leather" for this study.

• Many empty steel cans that had contained turbine oil. • Office paper from airline operations. • Typical gate / waiting area discards, including magazines and take-away food packaging. • Compostable paper hand towels from restrooms.


1 Other Compostables 47% 1 1 2 Magazines 11% none 4 3 High Grade Paper 10% 3 11 4 Other Ferrous 7% none none 5 Textiles and Leather 7% 5 15


4.2.20 30-Cubic Yard Rolloff Box at Gate 59 Much of this load appeared to have originated from janitorial work within the terminal, but a noticeable amount of material also came from aircraft and air passengers. The load contained 90% recyclable and compostable materials, much of it paper. Materials found in this load included:

• Paper products: office paper, newspaper, mixed paper and magazines. • More plastic film than most loads, due to smaller bags (deskside trash can liners) being

collected inside of larger bags. • Food and food packaging, and other compostable food-soiled paper. • Bags of beverage containers, which may have been collected on aircraft. • Headsets that appeared to have been discarded by passengers or aircraft cleaners.


1 Other Compostables 21% 1 1 2 Food 14% 5 none 3 High Grade Paper (tie) 13% 10 3 4 Newspaper (tie) 13% 5 2 5 Glass Containers 10% 2 none

4.2.21 30-Cubic Yard Rolloff Box at North Field Maintenance Area Once again, this load was very different from most of the others. It also has shown considerable variation from year to year, reflecting maintenance needs that vary over time. Several large components were probably one-time-only occurrences. Samples from this load indicate that 58% of the load was recyclable, and another 42% was compostable. Materials found in this load included:

• A large quantity of dried grass that appeared to have been cut as part of landscaping work.

• Several 5-gallon plastic pails that apparently had held paint. • Several suitcases, damaged beyond repair. • Small metal hardware and fixtures: door latch sets, etc. • Damaged office furniture including three swivel chairs. • Scrap sheetrock (painted) and ceiling tiles.


Rank Material Weight percent Rank in 2013 Rank in 2012 1 Leaves and Grass 37% none none 2 Gypsum Board 21% 12 none 3 Other Construction Material 18% none 2 4 Textiles and Leather 9% 5 none 5 Mixed Rigid Plastics 5% 14 none

4.2.23 Front-End-Loader (FEL) Bins at Multiple Locations This load consisted of the contents of containers collected by a front end loading truck, ranging in size up to 6 cubic yards and located at sites shown with the symbol "[B]" in Figure 2-1. The FEL bin contents were combined into a single load, smaller than most of the other loads described above. Unlike some prior years, there was enough material collected for sampling to proceed as prescribed, with three sample points. Almost all of the materials were bagged, and they were relatively clean. Ninety-five percent of the sampled contents consisted of materials defined as recyclable or compostable. Materials found in this load included:

• Bags of recyclable beverage bottles and cans, with air carrier names and logos on teh bags. These appear to have been collected for recycling but thrown into the trash.

• Small pieces of siding and painted lumber, apparently from a minor demolition job. • Aircraft-size beverage cups, and other discards typically left behind by aircraft

passengers. • Substantial amounts of food and food-soiled paper suitable for composting, possibly

originating in outlying operations such as fire stations.

Rank Material Weight percent Rank in 2013 Rank in 2012 1 Other Compostables 36% 1 1 2 Food 28% 6 3 3 Other Demolition 16% none none 4 Mixed Paper 6% 2 none 5 Plastic Serveware 3% none none

4.2.22 20-Cubic-Yard Rolloff Box at AirTrain Location This load was a mix of discards from transit passengers and materials associated with facility maintenance. Samples from this load indicate that although only 17% of the load was recyclable, almost 82% was compostable. Most of these compostable materials were not food but a mix of restroom hand towels and food-soiled paper. Many of the bags were black plastic (opaque), which adds some uncertainty to our estimates; the only way to assure that the analyzed bags are typical would be to open them all. Materials found in this load included:


• Personal food-preparation items: cans, frozen food boxes, fresh produce, etc. • Rubber gloves, presumably from train car cleaning crews • Restroom trash including hand towels and other compostable paper items • A wooden panel, possibly used as a room divider or bulletin board

Rank Material Weight percent Rank in 2013

1 Other Compostables 68% 1 2 Food 14% 2 3 Other Demolition 6% none 4 Newspaper 3% none 5 Magazines 3% none

Materials from this source were not available for analysis in 2012.

4.3 Summary of Observations Table 4-1 below lists the potential maximum recovery rate for each of the loads based on the composition of the materials observed at the transfer station. Materials have been categorized as recyclable, compostable, or non-recoverable (trash), following the same classification scheme as the 2013 study. As in 2013, recyclable plastic film was found in substantial quantities within a few loads, and not at all in others. Source separation, accumulating this material in large clear plastic bags for recycling by a qualified service provider, may be a viable recycling method. In general, the recyclable and compostable materials presented a very similar profile to prior years. The airport appears to be continuing to divert most corrugated cardboard successfully, since very little of that material was found in most samples or seen in observations of entire loads. In several cases, the amount of contaminant (recyclables and trash) in compostables loads was noticeably reduced from prior years. Although contaminants continue to be present, their concentrations seem to be dropping. Non-recoverable materials also were similar to those seen in prior years. The basic issue that the airport may wish to address is the substantial amount of both recyclable and compostable materials that continue to be found in the trash-to-landfill stream. To emphasize this point, the loads that were designated for landfill disposal are marked with the symbol [L] along the left margin of Table 4-1. Samples are listed in the same sequence as in the descriptions above. Estimated percentages are by weight.


TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS1

Sources

Material Weight Percent

Recyclables Compostables Trash

A-2 Gate A-2 International Terminal 24% 63% 13%

D-2 Terminal 2 2% 94% 4%

L] D-3 Terminal 2 26% 71% 3%

L] E-1 North Terminal- Gate 73 12% 85% 3%

F-1 Gate 81 21% 75% 4%

L] G-1 Gate 93 91% 7% 2%

L] G-2 Gates 94-96 90% 6% 3%

L] G-3 Gate 91 58% 39% 3%

G-76 Gate 76 5% 93% 2%

L] H-4 Gate 78 49% 48% 4%

H-5 Gate 21 9% 88% 3%

IT-1 Courtyard 4 23% 74% 3%

L] IT-2 Courtyard 4 34% 59% 7%

L] IT-3 Courtyard 1 45% 51% 5%

IT-4 Courtyard 1 27% 70% 4%

L] 14-RAC Rental Car Facility 58% 38% 4%

L] 20-CTYD3 Courtyard 3 47% 52% 1%

L] 30-GT40 Gate 40 46% 47% 7%

L] 30-GT59 Gate 59 56% 35% 10%

L] 30-Maint North Field Maintenance Area 58% 42% 0%

L] FEL Bins at Various Locations 32% 63% 5%

L] 20-AirTrain Air Train Maintenance 17% 82% 1%

Table 4-2, below, shows the five most prevalent material types in each sample, by rank (numbered 1 through 5), based on the calculated weight percentage of each material. For example, in sample A2, the most prevalent material was Other Compostables (ranked #1), followed by Food, Other Construction, Plastic Serveware, and Multi-Material Paper.

1 Rounding may cause rows to sum up to slightly more or less than 100%.


TABLE 4-2

PREVALENT MATERIALS IN EACH SAMPLE, BY RANK

(BASED ON WEIGHT PERCENTAGE)

Material Type A

2

D2

D3

E1

F1

G1

G2

G3

G76

H4

(now

C4)

H5

(now

C5)

IT1

IT2

IT3

IT4

20R

AC

20C

TYD

3

30G

ate4

0

30G

ate5

9

30M

aint

FEL

20A

irTra

in

Corrugated Cardboard 5 5 5 1

High Grade Paper 4 5 4 5 3 3 4 3 3

Newspaper 3 2 1 2 5 1 3

Magazines 5 1 2 3 2

Mixed Paper 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 3 4 4 2 4 3 4

Multi-material Paper 5 5

PETE Bottles (#1) 4 5 4

Plastic Serveware 4 5 5

Mixed Rigid Plastics 5

Glass Containers 5 4 4 4 4 5 3 5 5

Other Ferrous 4

Leaves and Grass 1

Food 2 2 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 4 3 2 2 2

Other Compostables 1 1 1 2 2 5 5 4 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1

Pallets 5

Textiles and Leather 3 4 5 4

Gypsum Board 2

Other Demolition 3 3

Other Construction 3 2 3

On the following page, Table 4-3 shows the concentrations of organics, recyclables, and trash (sent to landfill) for each container since the 2008 inception of this study. The containers are grouped by stream (Food Waste or Landfill) and location (Domestic Terminal, International, and Non-Terminal). In most cases, there is only a small difference from the year 2013 to 2014, but a very dramatic shift seems to have occurred in compactors G1, G2, and G3 as well as the roll-off container serving Gate 59. All of these loads are destined for landfill, and they all show a dramatic decrease in organics content, dropping by 30 to 50 percentage points. It appears that much of the food waste and compostable material found in 2013 is now being diverted elsewhere or prevented entirely. Airport staff may wish to review their recycling efforts, and changes in tenants’ practices, to determine the cause of this change.


Table 4 - 3 TRENDS IN ESTIMATED CONCENTRATIONS

2008 2011 2012 2013 2014 Domestic Terminal Food Waste Loads

D2 Organics 94.8% 98.1% 82.0% 94.0% Recyclables 5.0% 1.8% 17.1% 2.2% Trash 0.2% 0.2% 0.9% 3.9%

F1 Organics 72.0% 92.4% 97.2% 87.3% 75.4% Recyclables 24.0% 7.4% 2.7% 10.4% 21.1% Trash 4.0% 0.2% 0.1% 2.3% 3.5%

Gate 76 Organics 70.0% 65.1% 94.8% 72.7% 93.2% Recyclables 29.0% 34.5% 5.2% 24.4% 5.3% Trash 1.0% 0.4% 0.0% 2.8% 1.5%

H3 (discontinued 2014) Organics 73.0% 91.1% 97.8% 77.8% Recyclables 23.0% 7.8% 2.0% 19.5% Trash 4.0% 1.0% 0.2% 2.7%

H5 (now C5) Organics 70.0% 92.2% 79.9% 75.8% 88.1% Recyclables 25.0% 7.5% 17.8% 17.6% 9.2% Trash 5.0% 0.3% 2.3% 6.6% 2.6%

Landfill Loads 20Courtyard 3

Organics 60.6% 55.5% 51.5% Recyclables 38.7% 39.8% 47.3% Trash 0.7% 4.7% 1.2%

30Gate 40 Organics 71.0% 77.0% 67.7% 51.5% 47.4% Recyclables 27.0% 21.8% 29.5% 44.9% 45.9% Trash 2.0% 1.1% 2.8% 3.6% 6.8%

30Gate 59 Organics 21.1% 45.0% 76.6% 34.6% Recyclables 78.4% 54.9% 22.3% 55.6% Trash 0.5% 0.1% 1.0% 9.8%

C1 Organics 35.0% 51.4% Recyclables 64.0% 39.6% Trash 1.0% 9.0%


2008 2011 2012 2013 2014 D3

Organics 87.3% 89.8% 90.4% 71.4% Recyclables 10.9% 7.8% 4.7% 25.7% Trash 1.7% 2.4% 4.9% 2.9%

E1 Organics 54.0% 59.5% 32.1% 85.1% Recyclables 32.0% 38.0% 57.2% 12.2% Trash 14.0% 2.5% 10.7% 2.8%

H4 (now C4) Organics 44.0% 53.9% 60.9% 57.4% 47.6% Recyclables 50.0% 40.3% 38.6% 37.3% 48.7% Trash 6.0% 5.8% 0.5% 5.3% 3.7%

International Terminal Food Waste Loads

A2 Organics 64.0% 45.9% 72.9% 48.1% 63.1% Recyclables 35.0% 49.5% 23.9% 46.3% 24.4% Trash 1.0% 4.6% 3.2% 5.6% 12.5%

IT1 Organics 78.0% 62.6% 60.0% 78.8% 74.4% Recyclables 20.0% 36.2% 39.1% 17.0% 22.7% Trash 2.0% 1.2% 0.9% 4.3% 2.8%


Landfill Loads G1

Organics 38.0% 13.2% 11.6% 53.2% 7.2% Recyclables 60.0% 84.8% 88.0% 37.5% 91.2% Trash 2.0% 2.1% 0.5% 9.3% 1.6%

G2 Organics 49.0% 37.6% 30.5% 55.7% 6.3% Recyclables 47.0% 60.4% 69.0% 33.7% 90.4% Trash 4.0% 2.0% 0.5% 10.6% 3.3%

G3 Organics 45.0% 37.4% 15.3% 69.8% 39.3% Recyclables 51.0% 58.3% 84.5% 28.7% 57.8% Trash 4.0% 4.3% 0.2% 1.4% 2.9%


2008 2011 2012 2013 2014 IT2



Non-Terminal Landfill Loads

14Rent-a-car Organics 61.7% 59.3% 62.6% 38.0% Recyclables 37.1% 38.1% 33.5% 58.3% Trash 1.2% 2.6% 3.8% 3.7%

20AirTrain Organics 56.0% 63.1% 84.4% 81.7% Recyclables 38.0% 32.9% 13.6% 16.9% Trash 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 1.5%

30Maintenance Organics 4.4% 5.9% 31.9% 41.7% Recyclables 92.3% 36.4% 60.2% 58.0% Trash 3.4% 3.1% 7.9% 0.3%

Non-Terminal and Domestic Terminal Landfill Loads Front-End Loader (bins)



SECTION 5 Recommendations

5.1 Using These Findings In prior years (2011 – 2013), this section of this report has provided some discussion of specific container-loads, including shifts in composition from year to year, highlighting significant changes in diversion, for better or worse. This year, Table 4-3 in the preceding section shows those data for all loads, in 2008 and 2011 – 2014, providing several years’ worth of data that will enable the reader to identify and compare trends. For example, in Section 4 we noted a significant reduction in compostable organics within G1, G2, G3 and Gate 76 loads, which go to landfill. However, one should also note that this was generally accompanied by a strong increase in the recyclable materials going to landfill (see especially G1 and G2). Why? In fact, looking back across the data from 2011 to 2014, it may be that 2013 was an unusual year for the material in those compactors. For the design and management of a large-scale diversion program, it is essential to compare waste audit data with internal changes that may have affected the data, in order to learn how those changes are really affecting the discard streams. This report describes the composition of single loads but does not factor in collection frequency. Also, loads that are designated for recyclables (cans, bottles, paper, cardboard, etc.) were not examined for this report. To represent the waste reduction performance of the entire airport, our findings, plus comparable findings for loads of recyclables, should be scaled up to tons per year for each source within the airport. The following are prior observations and recommendations that (based on our 2014 data) remain relevant and will lead to further progress toward diverting materials from landfill.

1. Some food vendors appear to be source separating organics but others apparently are not. The food vendor wastes are almost entirely recyclable or compostable.

2. Retail vendors produce largely paper and film plastic wastes. Working with them to institute simple source separation and material custody practices will further reduce material to landfill.

3. Work with vendors and custodians to ensure that source separated recyclable and compostable materials are a) identifiable by handlers and b) directed to the proper collection containers.

4. Paper towels from airport restrooms are compostable. Restroom wastes were observed to consist almost entirely of paper towel with small amounts of contaminants, and some

Implementation


recyclables, primarily beverage containers that are discarded when a person enters the restroom.

5. Many of the materials from plane clean outs can be recycled and composted. It appears that some carriers are making efforts to collect recyclable/compostable materials in flight, but these are sometimes being discarded as refuse.

6. Increase opportunities for FOH separation. An increasingly ecologically conscious public is becoming more willing to source separate their discards. They need to be provided the infrastructure to do so.

7. Work with carriers and the administrative aspects of operations at SFO to increase recycling and composting for their operations.

This year we also noted the following:

• Several loads contained materials that obviously originated from bars within the terminals, and those included numerous glass bottles and food scraps. Bars should be better equipped to source-separate.

• An increasing number of single-use pillowcases are being discarded from aircraft. These are made with synthetic fiber that may or may not be easy to recycle. This should be investigated further to determine their recyclability and the best way to accomplish separation and recycling.

5.2 Waste Reduction: Best Practices Prior reports in this series have described several waste reduction measures that could be implemented more effectively at SFO. Based on our 2014 observations, we wish to reiterate a few of them:

• Capture materials that are already source separated such as paper towels, film plastics, and recyclables.

• Provide signage and receptacles to enable patrons of the airport to source separate their wastes.

• Give attention to all aspects of operations, including ticket counters, security checkpoints, employee lounges, and maintenance yards. Very little of what is discarded has to go to landfill. This idea should be reinforced for all employees, tenants and vendors.

• Work with carriers to reduce the amount of materials produced in flight such as travel kits, slippers, pillowcases, etc. Also work with them and aircraft resuppliers to ensure that recyclable materials are not sent to landfill when they are offloaded from an airplane. Ground support staff in the gate areas, and flight kitchen delivery crews, may also need to be trained in this regard.

• For all of the above measures, periodic monitoring and retraining will be necessary for these efforts to become ingrained in work practices at SFO.

San Francisco International Airport August 2014 Waste Characterization Study

Appendix A Data Sheets with Weight Conversions

SECTION 1 Backgroundmission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATTACHMENTS/FA43271.pdfrecalculations will be...

Documents

Transcript of SECTION 1 Backgroundmission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATTACHMENTS/FA43271.pdfrecalculations will be...