DATE: May 11, 2017 TO: Planning & Organization - PDF document

DATE: May 11, 2017 TO: Planning & Organization Committee/Recycling Board FROM: Tom Padia, Deputy Director BY: Mark Spencer, Senior Program Manager SUBJECT: Presentation of 2016 Benchmark Data SUMMARY StopWaste has collected single family, multi-family and selected commercial waste samples from the point of generation since 2013. This presentation reviews the most recent data collected and provides an overview of trends from the past four years. DISCUSSION With Benchmark Information Service Fee funding, StopWaste has contracted with Container Pros to maintain a crew of three persons to collect samples throughout the year since 2013. In 2016, Container Pros collected 1826 samples from single family dwellings. These samples were collected from randomly selected addresses throughout Alameda County, with roughly 100 samples collected in each jurisdiction. For each sample, the entire contents of the waste (garbage) bin were collected, bagged, labelled and transported to a facility in San Leandro owned by ACI where they were sorted into five categories; waste, recyclable materials, plant debris, food soiled paper and food scraps. These materials were then weighed separately for each sample. In 2016 Container Pros collected 494 samples from multi-family dwellings in seven jurisdictions and 770 samples from commercial addresses of five selected business types. Each sample consisted of three bags (roughly 96 gallons) pulled from the waste bin at the address. The samples were labelled and transported to the ACI facility where they were sorted and weighed. An independent contractor performed the QA/QC of the data collected by Container Pros which was then analyzed by Mark Spencer. This presentation on the Benchmark project provides an overview of the past four years’ results. The Benchmark Information Service Fee will be discontinued as of June 30, 2017 and this summer the Container Pros crew will be gathering one last set of single family and multi-family data as part of the 2017 Waste Characterization Study. A reduced level of ongoing sampling collected countywide will be incorporated into the new project, Measurement and Analysis, in the FY 17/18 budget and will be funded by core revenues. RECOMMENDATION This item is for information only

2016 Benchmark Results • 15 minutes of “Fun with Statistics” • All questions entertained

The Magic of the Normal Distribution For this Set of Samples: Average height = 5’4” (1.65 • meters) Standard Deviation = 3” • 68% of samples are between • 5’1” and 5’7” Height is normally distributed because there are multiple factors (over 400) that influence height Genetics • Diet • Maternal Health •

The Magic of the Normal Distribution Average Height Women: 64” Average Height Men: 70” Standard Deviation: 3” Given the Magic of the Normal Distribution 1. We could go outside. 2. Randomly select 6 men and 6 women 3. Measure their height 4. Have a have a 90% chance of detecting a significant difference between the height of men and the height of women in our sample.

270 SF Households had 0% GSIG (~1 in 6 households) Average = 38% 2016 Benchmark Single Family Results- Alameda County: Sample size (n) = 1826 Samples • Average Percent Good Stuff in Garbage: 38% • Standard Deviation: 24% •

928 SF Households had 0% Recyclables (~50% of households) Average = 9.5% Average Percent Recyclables in Garbage= 9.5% Average Percent Organics in Garbage= 28% 489 SF Households had 0% Organics in Garbage (~25% of SF Households)

The Downsides to a Not Normal World Jurisdiction A: Jurisdiction B: Percent Good Stuff in Garbage: 30% Percent Good Stuff in Garbage: 35% To have a 95% chance of detecting a Statistically Significant Difference Need ~350 samples from each jurisdiction. Same numbers (~350 samples per year) apply if we want to detect a change between years for one jurisdiction. Each year of the study we’ve had between 100-125 samples per jurisdiction (~200 in Oakland, )

100.00% 95.00% 90.00% 85.00% 80.00% 75.00% 70.00% 65.00% 60.00% 55.00% 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% City

Single Family Percent Good Stuff in Garbage 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% Average Percent GSIG Percent Samples with Less Than 10% GSIG 30.0% Percent Samples with 0% GSIG Percent Samples with More Than 40$ 20.0% GSIG 10.0% 0.0% 2013 2014 2015 2016

Single Family Setout Weight (weight entire contents of waste cart) 25.0 20.0 Average Sample Weight 15.0 Average Sample Weight Households with more than 40% GSIG 10.0 Average Sample Weight Households with less than 10% GSIG 5.0 0.0 2013 2014 2015 2016

Single Family Weight Organics in Garbage 12.0 10.0 8.0 Average Weight Organics 6.0 Average Weight Organics Households with more than 40% GSIG Average Weight Organics Households with less than 10% GSIG 4.0 2.0 0.0 2013 2014 2015 2016

Single Family Weight Recyclables in Garbage 3.0 2.5 2.0 Average Weight Recyclables 1.5 Average Weight Recyclables Households with more than 40% GSIG Average Weight Recyclables Households with less than 10% GSIG 1.0 0.5 0.0 2013 2014 2015 2016

Multi-Family Percent Good Stuff in Garbage Union Alameda Berkeley Fremont Hayward Livermore Oakland Oro Loma City 2014 43.9% 44.2% 52.1% 46.1% 43.4% 43.7% 2015 37.2% 39.8% 52.7% 57.1% 46.6% 44.4% 53.3% 2016 44.8% 37.8% 39.8% 41.7% 35.1% 32.8% 44.3% Signif- 0.05 No Diff <0.0001 <0.0001 No Diff <0.0001 <0.0001 icance

2014 Multi Family 2015 Multi Family 2016 Multi Family Percent GSIG Percent GSIG Percent GSIG 0.9 0.9 1 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 Mean 38.1% Mean 46.5% Mean 46.7% N 494 N 528 N 528

Commercial Benchmark 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Type of Business Number Mean Type of Business General Retail 178 39.6% Grocery 71 41.2% Indust./Light Manuf. 136 32.6% Office 175 40.7% Restaurant 210 49.4%

2015 Percent Good Stuff in Garbage- Restaurant by Setout Category 110.0% 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Setout SetOut Number Mean G (Garbage) 142 48.7% GO (Garbage and Organics) 12 56.2% GR (Garbage and Recycling) 115 53.1% GRO (All Three) 60 47.2%

2016 Percent Good Stuff in Garbage- Restaurant by Setout Category 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Setout Setout Number Mean G 65 49.1% GO 7 63.4% GR 85 51.7% GRO 43 41.6%

Single Family Food Scraps FoodScraps 100.00% 95.00% 90.00% 85.00% 17.4% of single family waste stream (19% in 2015) • 80.00% 75.00% 70.00% Average of 3.0 pounds of foodscraps per single • 65.00% family set out (3.6 in 2015) 60.00% 55.00% 50.00% 39% of the 1826 single family households • 45.00% sampled had no food scraps in their garbage 40.00% 35.00% (50% in 2015) 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% Of families that had foodscraps in their garbage, • 15.00% the samples had an average of 4.8 pounds 10.00% • 5.00% made up 28.4% of their waste stream • 0.00% (7.2 pounds and 38.4% in 2015) •

Food Soiled Paper Plant Debris 10% of single family waste stream 0.5% of single family waste • • stream (0.6% in 2015) Average of 1.6 pounds of food soiled • paper per single family set out. 98% of single family • households had no plant 44% of the 1826 single family debris in their garbage • households sampled had no food (90% in 2015) soiled paper in their garbage. Of families that had food soiled • paper in garbage, the samples had an average of 2.8 pounds of food soiled paper per single family setout and made up 17.4% of their waste stream.

Questions? mspencer@stopwaste.org 510-891-6551