HomeMy WebLinkAbout128-26 RESOLUTION
Page 1
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
Resolution: 128-26
File Number: 2026-1512
A RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID 26-28 AND APPROVE A TWO YEAR CONTRACT WITH CARDS
HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A ECOWASTE SOLUTIONS INC. FOR PROCESSING OF THE CITY’S
COMMINGLED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000.00 FOR THE REMAINDER
OF 2026, AND AN ESTIMATED MONTHLY COST OF $4,100.00 BEGINNING IN 2027
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2025, City Council passed Resolution 164-25 accepting and adopting the 2025 Recycling and
Trash Collection Rate Study; and
WHEREAS, staff has been preparing for the transition to cart-based recycling set to launch June 1, 2026, and all
mixed recycling materials will be sent to an external processor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby awards Bid 26-28 and authorizes a two
year contract with CARDS Holdings, LLC D/B/A Ecowaste Solutions, Inc. for processing of the city’s commingled
recyclable materials in the amount of $50,000.00 for the remainder of 2026, and AN estimated monthly cost of
$4,100.00 beginning in 2027, with an option to renew the contract for up to two additional one year terms.
PASSED and APPROVED on May 19, 2026
Approved:
_______________________________
Molly Rawn, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
www.fayetteville-ar.gov
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
2026-1512
MEETING OF MAY 19, 2026
TO: Mayor Rawn and City Council
THROUGH: Peter Nierengarten, Environmental Director
FROM: Jennifer Park, Waste Reduction Project Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of a contract with CARDS HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A ECOWASTE
SOLUTIONS for processing of the City’s commingled recyclable materials at an
estimated cost of $50,000 for the remainder of FY26 with estimated recurring
monthly cost of $4,100.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend approval of a contract with CARDS HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A ECOWASTE SOLUTIONS,
pursuant to Bid 26-28, for processing of the City’s commingled recyclable materials at an estimated cost
of $50,000 for the remainder of FY26 with estimated recurring monthly cost of $4,100.
BACKGROUND:
In August 2024 the City of Fayetteville contracted with Raftelis Financial Consultants to conduct a
Recycling and Trash Collection Rate Study that evaluated the City’s current curbside sort recycling
operation and three alterative recycling operational scenarios for rate-setting purposes. The proposed
operational changes were evaluated based on their potential to enhance overall program performance,
safety, and long-term fiscal sustainability, relative to their financial impact on the system. The study
identified cart-based recycling (weekly) as the most cost-effective option that best meets the City’s
operational objectives. City Council approved this study and its recommendations on July 15th, 2025.
City staff has been preparing for the transition to cart-based recycling set to launch on June 1, 2026. All
mixed recycling materials collected will now go to an external processor. New recycling carts to replace
the existing bins will be provided to all residents through a generous grant provided by the Recycling
Partnership in the fall of 2025. The Recycling and Trash Collections Division will be delivering new carts to
residents in May.
DISCUSSION:
On March 1, 2026, the City issued Invitation to Bid 26-28 for Recyclables Processing Services, with a closing
date of March 26, 2026. One bid was received from CARDS Holdings, LLC. RTC staff have negotiated the
following terms with CARDS HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A ECOWASTE SOLUTIONS:
• Contract term: Two years with two one-year renewal options
• Processing fee: $140 per ton
• Revenue share: If the Average Market Value (AMV) of the City's recyclables exceeds the processing
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Mailing address:
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
www.fayetteville-ar.gov
fee, CARDS HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A ECOWASTE SOLUTIONS and the City split the balance 50/50. If
the AMV falls below the processing fee, the City pays CARDS HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A ECOWASTE
SOLUTIONS the difference with no revenue share.
• AMV Calculation: Based on the 2024 composition study conducted by Kessler Consulting Inc. until a
new study is completed four to six months after program launch.
The City's estimated annual cost under this contract is $50,000 for remainder of 2026.
This contract takes effect June 1, 2026, when the City transitions to cart-based collection and mixed
recyclables that require external processing.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
This expenditure would be allocated from account 5500.750.5000-5315.00 -Contract Services
ATTACHMENTS: 3. Staff Review Form, 4. 2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study, 5. Bid 26-28, Bid Tab
- Final, 6. Bid 26-28, Submittal - CARDSNWA, 7. Bid 26-28, Bid Form - Final, 8. Bid 26-28 Fayetteville
Recycling Processor Agreement - Final
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Page 1
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
Legislation Text
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
File #: 2026-1512
A RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID 26-28 AND APPROVE A TWO YEAR CONTRACT WITH
CARDS HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A ECOWASTE SOLUTIONS INC. FOR PROCESSING OF
THE CITY’S COMMINGLED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000.00
FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2026, AND AN ESTIMATED MONTHLY COST OF $4,100.00
BEGINNING IN 2027
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2025, City Council passed Resolution 164-25 accepting and adopting the 2025
Recycling and Trash Collection Rate Study; and
WHEREAS, staff has been preparing for the transition to cart-based recycling set to launch June 1,
2026, and all mixed recycling materials will be sent to an external processor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby awards Bid 26-28 and
authorizes a two year contract with CARDS Holdings, LLC D/B/A Ecowaste Solutions, Inc. for
processing of the city’s commingled recyclable materials in the amount of $50,000.00 for the remainder
of 2026, and AN estimated monthly cost of $4,100.00 beginning in 2027, with an option to renew the
contract for up to two additional one year terms.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
2026-1512
Item ID
5/19/2026
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
N/A for Non-Agenda Item
Jennifer Park 4/23/2026 RECYCLING/TRASH COLLECTION (750)
Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department
Action Recommendation:
Staff recommend approval of a contract with CARDS HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A ECOWASTE SOLUTIONS for processing
of the City’s commingled recyclable materials at an estimated cost of $50,000 for the remainder of FY26 with
estimated recurring monthly cost of $4,100.
Budget Impact:
5500.750.5060-5315.00 Recycling and Trash Collection
Account Number Fund
Project Number Project Title
Budgeted Item?Yes Total Amended Budget $62,000.00
Expenses (Actual+Encum)$-
Available Budget $62,000.00
Does item have a direct cost?No Item Cost $-
Is a Budget Amendment attached?No Budget Amendment $-
Remaining Budget $62,000.00
Purchase Order Number:Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Change Order Number:Approval Date:
Original Contract Number:
Comments:
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Submitted By Kessler Consulting, Inc.
2024 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
STUDY
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Table of Contents
i
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Study Objectives ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background .............................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. 2
Section 2 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Hand Sort ................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Generator Sectors and Sorting Events ..................................................... 3
2.1.2 Hand Sort Material Categories ................................................................. 4
2.1.3 Sampling and Sorting Procedures ............................................................ 4
2.1.4 Analytical Procedures ............................................................................... 9
2.2 Visual Audit Methodology (WCS) .......................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Load Classification .................................................................................. 12
2.2.2 Auditing Procedure ................................................................................. 12
2.2.3 Analytical Procedures ............................................................................. 12
2.3 District-Wide Aggregate Composition Calculation ................................................ 12
Section 3 Capture Study Hand Sort Results .......................................................................... 14
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 14
3.2 City of Fayetteville Single-Family Residential Waste ............................................ 16
3.3 City of Fayetteville’s Multi-Family Residential Waste ........................................... 19
3.4 City of Fayetteville’s Commercial Waste ............................................................... 22
3.5 City of Fayetteville Single-Family Residential Recyclables .................................... 25
3.6 City of Fayetteville Film Composition and Generation ......................................... 29
Section 4 WCS Results ........................................................................................................... 32
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 32
4.2 BMSWD Single-Family Residential Waste ............................................................. 34
4.3 City of Prairie Grove Single-Family Residential Waste .......................................... 37
4.4 City of Johnson Single-Family Residential Waste .................................................. 40
4.5 Other Single-Family Residential Waste ................................................................. 43
Section 5 WCS Visual Audit Results ....................................................................................... 46
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 46
5.2 General Public Waste ............................................................................................ 48
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Table of Contents
ii
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
5.3 C&D Debris ............................................................................................................ 51
5.4 Mixed Dumpsters .................................................................................................. 54
Section 6 Discussion of Findings ........................................................................................... 57
6.1 Regional Aggregate Waste Composition ............................................................... 57
6.2 Potential Opportunities ......................................................................................... 60
6.2.1 BMSWD ................................................................................................... 60
6.2.2 City of Johnson ....................................................................................... 62
6.2.3 City of Fayetteville .................................................................................. 63
Tables
Table 2-1: Outbound Recyclables Percentages (Fayetteville) ........................................................ 5
Table 2-2: Sampling Schedule for Capture Study (Fayetteville) ..................................................... 5
Table 2-3: Daily Sampling Schedule for Capture Study (Fayetteville) ............................................ 6
Table 2-4: Single-Family Residential Recycling Sample and Route Information (Fayetteville) ...... 6
Table 2-5: Single-Family Residential Waste Sample and Route Information (Fayetteville) ........... 6
Table 2-6: Sampling Schedule for WCS (BMSWD and Johnson) ..................................................... 7
Table 2-7: Daily Hand Sorting Sampling Schedule for WCS (BMSWD and Johnson) ...................... 8
Table 2-8: Daily Visual Audit Schedule for WCS ........................................................................... 11
Table 3-1: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Single-Family Residential Waste ....................... 18
Table 3-2: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Multi-Family Residential Waste ........................ 21
Table 3-3: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Commercial Waste ........................................... 24
Table 3-4: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Single-Family Recyclables ................................. 27
Table 3-5: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Single-Family Recyclables per Sampled Day ..... 28
Table 3-6: Generation (lbs./HH/yr.), Capture Rate, and Recovery Rates of City of Fayetteville’s
Single-Family Recyclables per Sampled Day ................................................................................. 28
Table 3-7: Single-Family Residential Film Composition and Generation Summary ..................... 29
Table 3-8: Multi-Family Residential Film Composition Summary ................................................ 30
Table 3-9: Commercial Film Composition Summary .................................................................... 30
Table 4-1: Composition of BMSWD Single-Family Residential Waste .......................................... 36
Table 4-2: Composition of City of Prairie Grove Single-Family Residential Waste ....................... 39
Table 4-3: Composition of City of Johnson Single-Family Residential Waste ............................... 42
Table 4-4: Composition of Other Single-Family Residential Waste .............................................. 45
Table 5-1: Density Factors Used to Convert Percent by Weight to Percent by Volume .............. 47
Table 5-2: Composition of General Public Waste from Visual Audits .......................................... 49
Table 5-3: Composition of C&D Debris from Visual Audits .......................................................... 52
Table 5-4: Composition of Mixed Dumpsters from Visual Audits ................................................ 55
Table 6-1: Composition of Regional Waste (% by weight) ........................................................... 58
Table 6-2: Potentially Recoverable Materials in the Total Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Stream
....................................................................................................................................................... 60
Table 6-3: Potentially Recoverable Materials in the Single-Family Residential Garbage Stream 61
Table 6-4: Potentially Recoverable Materials in the Single-Family Residential MSW .................. 62
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Table of Contents
iii
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 6-5: Potentially Recoverable Materials in the Single-family Residential MSW .................. 63
Table 6-6: Potentially Recoverable Materials in the Commercial and Multi-Family MSW .......... 64
Figures
Figure 2-1: Example of Weighted Average Composition Analysis (Fayetteville) ............................ 9
Figure 2-2: Example of Weighted Average Composition Analysis – Citywide (Fayetteville) ........ 10
Figure 2-3: Example of Weighted Average Generation Rate Analysis (Fayetteville) ................... 10
Figure 3-1: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Single-Family Residential Waste ..................... 17
Figure 3-2: Annual Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Multi-Family Residential Waste .......... 20
Figure 3-3: Annual Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Commercial Waste .............................. 23
Figure 3-4: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Single-Family Residential Recyclables ............. 26
Figure 3-5: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Single-Family Residential Film ......................... 30
Figure 3-6: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Commercial Film – Trash Only ......................... 31
Figure 4-1: Composition of BMSWD Single-Family Residential Waste......................................... 35
Figure 4-2: Composition of City of Prairie Grove Single-Family Residential Waste ..................... 38
Figure 4-3: Composition of City of Johnson Single-Family Residential Waste ............................. 41
Figure 4-4: Composition of Other Single-Family Residential Waste............................................. 44
Figure 5-1: Composition of General Public Waste (% by volume) ................................................ 50
Figure 5-2: Composition of General Public Waste (% by weight) ................................................. 50
Figure 5-3: Composition of C&D Debris (% by volume) ................................................................ 53
Figure 5-4: Composition of C&D Debris (% by weight) ................................................................. 53
Figure 5-5: Composition of Mixed Dumpsters (% by volume) ...................................................... 56
Figure 5-6: Composition of Mixed Dumpsters (% by weight) ....................................................... 56
Figure 6-1: Composition of Regional Waste (% by weight) .......................................................... 59
Appendix A – Capture Study Hand Sort Material Categories
Appendix B – Waste Characterization Study Hand Sort Material Categories
Appendix C – Waste Characterization Study Visual Audit Material Categories
Appendix D – Capture Study Individual Sample Results
Appendix E – Capture Study Single-Family Residential Detailed Generation Rate Results
Appendix F – Capture Study Single-Family Residential Individual Sample Results
Appendix G – Capture Study Single-Family Residential Detailed Recyclables Generation and
Capture Results
Appendix H – Capture Study Film Material Categories
Appendix I – Waste Characterization Study Individual Sample Results
Appendix J – Individual Visual Audit Results
Appendix K – City of Fayetteville Overall Disposal
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
1
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Study Objectives
Boston Mountain Solid Waste District (BMSWD) contracted Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) to
conduct a Waste Characterization Study (WCS) designed to understand Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) materials being disposed from the different generator sectors and jurisdictions across
the BMSWD operating region. To maximize resources and leverage efficiencies, BMSWD offered
jurisdictions the opportunity to join this scope to obtain waste data specific to their governance.
The cities of Fayetteville and Johnson accepted the opportunity. To further support BMSWD and
the Northwest Arkansas region, The Recycling Partnership (TRP) provided funding for a Recycling
Characterization Study (RCS) for the City of Fayetteville that allows the city a deeper
understanding of their recyclables recovery rates, referred to herein as a capture study.
Thus, this report summarizes all work conducted under the following separate studies:
1. BMSWD WCS – A waste characterization study for the BMSWD operating region.
2. City of Johnson WCS – A waste characterization study specific for the city.
3. City of Fayetteville Capture Study – A study integrating a waste characterization study and
recycling characterization study specific for the city to understand the recycling capture
rates of their MSW material streams.
Both the WCSs for BMSWD and the City of Johnson involved hand sorting single-family
residential waste. The BMSWD WCS also included visually auditing construction and demolition
(C&D) waste, mixed dumpsters (i.e., any material that is not listed as C&D and is collected by a
contracted hauler), and the general public (i.e., material self-hauled to drop off areas by non-
contracted haulers). The Capture Study for the City of Fayetteville included hand sorting
commercial waste, single-family residential waste, multi-family waste, as well as single-family
and multi-family recycling.
Note:
This report provides subheadings within each section to clearly differentiate between the
“Waste Characterization Study(s)” and the “Capture Study”, ensuring a clear understanding of
the data and analyzation for both.
1.2 Background
BMSWD, located in Northwest Arkansas, provides a variety of municipal solid waste services and
resources to a population of almost 280,0001 residents with over 115,512 housing units 2 in the
counties of Madison and Washington, and their 45 incorporated areas (19 in Madison County
and 26 in Washington County). The cities of Fayetteville and Johnson are both located in
Washington County.
1 US Census Bureau, 2023. County Population Totals: 2020-2023 (census.gov)
2 US Census Bureau, 2023. National, State, and County Housing Unit Totals: 2020-2023 (census.gov)
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 1: Introduction
2
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
The City of Fayetteville is the second-most populous city in Arkansas, and the largest in
Northwest Arkansas, with a growing population of approximately 101,6803, as of 2023. Located
on the outskirts of the Boston Mountains within the Ozarks, Fayetteville is well-known for the
sports teams of the University of Arkansas, which brings an increase in population during sport
seasons. The City of Fayetteville states that it “provides all of the resources and culture of a
large city while maintaining a quality of life that remains true to its unique heritage.4” The City
of Fayetteville manages the collection of residential and commercial waste, recycling, and
composting. It operates a transfer station and a materials recovery facility (MRF) that are open
to the public and private contracted haulers. The MRF processes recyclable materials collected
through curbside pickups and drop-offs. KCI sorted both trash and recycling from these facilities
to conduct a representative Capture Study for the City of Fayetteville.
The City of Johnson, located in the Ozark Mountains, is famous for its beautiful natural springs
and landscapes. Positioned between Fayetteville and Springdale, it has a rapidly growing
population of around 3,7625 as of 2023. Waste collection in the city is managed by several
commercial haulers, including LRS Business Services, Waste Management (WM), Trash Panda
Dumpster Rentals, and Republic Services. LRS provides residents with services for garbage,
recycling, yard waste, C&D debris, and dumpster rentals. Garbage collection occurs on
Thursdays and is occasionally transported to the BMSWD Transfer Station.
BMSWD offers solid waste and recycling drop-off services for licensed haulers in Madison and
Washington County, as well as for the general public. BMSWD proactively develops new
programs for waste reduction and diversion that will benefit residents, haulers, and BMSWD.
They have initiated a rural curbside recycling pilot project that provides a discounted rate for
residential curbside recyclables when residents use their complimentary green and blue bags.
For this year's WCS, KCI focused exclusively on incoming solid waste from both licensed and
unlicensed haulers to better understand its current composition and assess the potential for
diversion.
1.3 Acknowledgements
KCI would like to acknowledge and thank the City of Fayetteville, the City of Johnson, and
Boston Mountain Solid Waste District staff members who assisted with the planning and
logistics of this WCS and Capture Study. KCI specifically thanks Robyn Reed, Taylor Osburn, Brian
Pugh, Andrew Cook, and the entire scale house and transfer station operations staff for their
assistance and support throughout this project. The cooperation and positive attitudes of all
team members were essential to the success of the WCS and Capture Study.
3 United States Census Bureau, 2023. County Population Totals: 2020-2023 (census.gov)
4 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. (n.d.). https://www.fayetteville-ar.gov/902/About-Fayetteville
5 United States Census Bureau, 2023. County Population Totals: 2020-2023 (census.gov)
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
3
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Section 2
Methodology
2.1 Hand Sort
2.1.1 Generator Sectors and Sorting Events
KCI conducted a two-week (10-day) sorting event, to pull and sort enough samples to provide
statistically valid results for BMSWD’s waste, City of Johnson’s waste, and City of Fayetteville’s
waste and recyclables.
Capture Study
The hand sorting portion of the Capture Study focused on the waste and residential recyclables
generated within the City of Fayetteville. The three generator sectors included:
• Single-family residential: Single-family residential waste and recycling collected from
single-family residential dwellings within the City of Fayetteville. Single-family recycling
collected via the city’s unique curbside sort collection system consisted of only material
placed in residents bins that would typically be left behind as contamination.
• Multi-family residential: Multi-family residential waste and recycling collected from
multi-family dwellings within the City of Fayetteville. Samples of recycling were
collected from "battleships" across various complexes.
• Commercial: Commercial waste collected from commercial businesses within the City of
Fayetteville. Note: Commercial recycling is not included in this study due to it only being
clean cardboard or paper. This material was collected either with front-end loader
vehicles or compactor roll-off collection boxes from commercial businesses.
The Capture Study consisted of a one-week (5-day) sorting event. During this event, KCI followed
the Sampling and Sorting Protocol that was reviewed and approved by the City of Fayetteville
staff and TRP prior to the event.
Waste Characterization Study
The hand sorting portion of the WCS focused on waste generated within Madison and
Washington County for disposal. The WCS only focused on the following generator sector for
this portion of the study:
• Single-family residential: Single-family residential waste collected from residential
dwellings within the region.
The WCS included a one-week (5-day) sorting event. During this event, KCI followed the
Sampling and Sorting Protocol that was reviewed and approved by BMSWD staff prior to the
event. To provide the City of Johnson with a comprehensive and statistically valid WCS,
additional samples were collected, and hand sorted utilizing the same approved Sampling and
Sorting Protocol.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 2: Methodology
4
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
2.1.2 Hand Sort Material Categories
Capture Study
Waste and recyclables were sorted into the 49 and 53 material categories, respectively, defined
in Appendix A. Out of the 53 material categories, six were dedicated to plastic film. To develop
and define these material categories, KCI spoke with both TRP to address the necessary
categories to support national research and the City of Fayetteville to ensure all material
categories were defined to support their needs. In coordination with the City of Fayetteville
staff, KCI made the following modifications to the categories:
• Addition of ‘Soiled Pizza Boxes’ to align with their accepted recyclable materials.
• The City of Fayetteville’s outbound recycling tonnages, which was used for calculating
recycling composition and recyclables composition, did not separately track clear and
opaque PET bottles or natural and colored HDPE bottles. Therefore, the categories were
combined in this report.
Waste Characterization Study
Waste was sorted into the 46 material categories defined in Appendix B. KCI reviewed these
categories with BMSWD to ensure these categories not only met their needs, but also aligned
with both sorts. In coordination with BMSWD staff, KCI made the following modifications to the
categories:
• Addition of ‘Soiled Pizza Boxes’ to align with their accepted recyclable materials.
2.1.3 Sampling and Sorting Procedures
The first week of sampling and sorting occurred at the Fayetteville Transfer Station located at
1560 South Happy Hollow Rd, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 to complete the Capture Study. The
second week of sampling and sorting occurred at the Boston Mountain Transfer Station located
at 11398 Bond Road, Prairie Grove, Arkansas 72753 focusing just on the WCS.
KCI provided all safety gear; a primary and backup scale calibrated to 0.05 pounds; and two to
three staff people to oversee all sampling, sorting, weighing, and data recording. Sorting labor
was provided or contracted by KCI. A tent was rented at each sorting location to help keep the
samples and workers safe and dry during rain. At both sorting locations, a loader and operator,
sorting tables, and bins were provided to KCI.
KCI prepared, and all parties reviewed and approved, a Site Safety Plan that was followed
throughout the sorting events. KCI worked closely with all staff to coordinate and set up a sort
location that was safe and efficient for the sorting activities. Each morning of the events, sorters
were given thorough safety instructions by one of KCI’s supervisors to ensure worker safety and
proper sorting. No injuries occurred during the sorting events.
Capture Study (Fayetteville)
During the five-day sorting event, from September 16th – 20th, KCI sampled 12 loads of single-
family residential waste 5 loads of multi-family residential waste, and 7 loads of commercial
waste from the City of Fayetteville. KCI also sampled 6 loads of multi-family recyclables and 12
loads of post-curb-sorted single-family residential recycling contamination. The City of
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 2: Methodology
5
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Fayetteville sorts their single-family residential recyclables at the curb; therefore, it would not
be feasible or beneficial to sort through the recyclable material collected. Instead, KCI examined
only contamination found in the customer bins that was left after the city staff performed the
curb-sort collection. KCI did include data on the recyclables from these routes to estimate the
full recyclables stream composition. Table 2-1 presents the outbound percentages for each
program recyclable material used during these calculations.
KCI initially planned to obtain both trash and recycling from individual multi-family complexes to
be able to calculate a capture rate and a household generation rate for each complex. Due to
issues with sampling, KCI was not able to obtain the necessary data needed. However, KCI was
able to provide a composition of both the multi-family trash and recycling it sorted.
Sample selection was organized by generator sector to ensure sufficient samples to achieve
representative and statistically valid results. KCI reviewed waste and recycling tonnage data and
set target sample numbers for each generator sector.
Table 2-2 details the number of waste and recycling samples sorted for each generator type
throughout the sorting event. Table 2-3 presents the daily sampling schedule.
Table 2-1: Outbound Recyclables Percentages (Fayetteville)
Material Percentage of Outbound
Program Recyclables1
Corrugated Cardboard 59.1%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 11.3%
PET Bottles #1 3.2%
HDPE Bottles #2 1.8%
Aluminum Can 1.8%
Tin/Steel Cans 1.9%
Glass 20.9%
Total 100%
1Data provided by City for 2023 end markets. Recent replacement of baler forced KCI to use data from 2023.
Table 2-2: Sampling Schedule for Capture Study (Fayetteville)
Material Sector Percent of Incoming
Tons Number of Samples
Waste
Residential 39.0% 12
Multi-family1 61.0% 5
Commercial1 7
Total 100% 24
Recycling
Residential 78.4% 122
Multi-family1 21.6% 6
Commercial1 -3
Total 100% 18
1City does not track commercial and multi-family tonnages separately.
2A sample of contamination from three routes during each collection day.
3Commercial recycling is not included in this study due to it only being clean cardboard or paper, glass, or comingled plastic bottles.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 2: Methodology
6
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 2-3: Daily Sampling Schedule for Capture Study (Fayetteville)
Material Sector Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Total
Waste
Residential 3 3 3 3 02 12
Multi-family 2 0 0 1 2 5
Commercial 1 3 3 0 0 7
Total 6 6 6 4 2 24
Recycling Residential1 3 3 3 3 02 12
Multi-family 1 1 1 1 1 5
Total 4 4 4 4 1 17
1 Samples of contamination following the curb sort.
2The City does not normally collect residential material on Friday.
Table 2-4: Single-Family Residential Recycling Sample and Route Information (Fayetteville)
Sample # Collection Day Route # # of Households1 Annual Tons2 Generation Rate
(lb/HH/yr)
1 Monday 35
5,735 849.54 296.27 2 Monday 33
3 Monday 37
6 Tuesday 33
7,515 574.88 153.00 7 Tuesday 37
8 Tuesday 31
9 Wednesday 36
8,237 574.74 139.55 10 Wednesday 38
11 Wednesday 34
13 Thursday 35
7,105 667.79 187.98 14 Thursday 31
17 Thursday 37
Total 28,592 2,666.95 186.55
1Total number of households for all residential recycling routes on each collection based on route data provided by the city.
2Total annual recycling tons for all residential recycling routes on each collection day. Tonnage data from January – December
2023. Baler replacement in January 2024 forced KCI to use data from 2023.
Table 2-5: Single-Family Residential Waste Sample and Route Information (Fayetteville)
Sample # Collection Day Route # # of Households1 Annual Tons2 Generation Rate
(lb/HH/yr)
4 Monday 4063
5,735 4,082.79 1,423.82 5 Monday 4076
6 Monday 4056
10 Tuesday 4050
7,515 4,556.33 1,212.60 11 Tuesday 4063
12 Tuesday 4057
16 Wednesday 4076
8,237 4,950.90 1,202.11 17 Wednesday 4053
18 Wednesday 4063
22 Thursday 4076
7,105 4,222.82 1,188.69 23 Thursday 4065
24 Thursday 4057
Total 28,592 17,812.84 1,246.00
1Total number of households for all residential waste routes on each collection based on route data provided by the city.
2Total annual waste tons for all residential waste routes on each collection day. Tonnage data from January – December 2023.
Baler replacement in January 2024 forced KCI to use data from 2023.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 2: Methodology
7
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Following the procedures described in the Sampling and Sorting Protocol, each selected vehicle
tipped its entire load at a designated area at the transfer station. The load was visually divided
into six sections, and based on a die roll, one of the six sections was randomly selected. For
waste, a representative sample of at least 200 pounds was pulled, placed on a tarp at the sorting
area, labeled, and stored until sorted.
For single-family residential recycling, KCI worked with city staff to pre-select three residential
routes on each collection day for inclusion. Using a multi-compartment vehicle, city staff
collected the recyclables following its standard curb sorting procedure. They then collected all
the contamination that remained in the bins in a separate compartment in the vehicle. Once
back at the transfer station, the vehicle was weighed (contamination plus recyclables) and then
tipped the collected contamination. The entire sample of contamination was placed in bins,
labeled, and stored until sorted. For multi-family recycling, “battleship” containers from each
property were emptied into a roll off, mixed, and a sample of 150 pounds was pulled, placed on
a tarp, labeled, and stored until sorted.
All samples were hand-sorted into the previously defined material categories. After the entire
sample was sorted, one of the KCI supervisors weighed and recorded the net weights of each
material category on tablet-based data log. Film was placed aside and labeled after each sample
was sorted. At the end of the week, the film was sorted and weighed by KCI staff.
Waste Characterization Study (BMSWD and Johnson)
During the five-day sorting event, from September 23rd – 27th, KCI randomly selected and
sampled 30 loads that included both commercial and residential waste from all jurisdictions
represented in the BMSWD operating region. Sample selection was organized by jurisdiction to
ensure sufficient samples to achieve representative and statistically valid results. KCI reviewed
waste tonnage data and set target sample numbers for each generator sector and jurisdiction.
Table 2-6 details the number of waste sorted for the WCS for each generator type and
jurisdiction. Table 2-7 represents the actual daily sampling schedule used during the WCS.
Table 2-6: Sampling Schedule for WCS (BMSWD and Johnson)
Hauler/Jurisdiction Name Annual Tons Percent of Incoming
Tons Total Samples
Commercial1
Residential2 4,320.5 10.1% 12
C&D2 4,145.63 9.7% 104
Unknown Commercial Waste3 3964.82 9.3% -
Mixed Dumpsters2 3,580.4 8.4% 104
City of Prairie Grove 3,496.66 8.2% 3
City of Johnson (LRS) 886.9 2.1% 6
CARDS NWA 612.28 1.4% 1
Waste Management Material not disposed at BMSWD Transfer Station 3
General Public
General Public 21,629.0 50.7% 204
Total 42,636.1 100% 655
1BMSWD defines commercial as any entity or jurisdiction that has a contract.
2Classification is based off assumptions from incoming material data and discussions with BMSWD.
3Small haulers (less than 0.5%) labeled as commercial waste that is unknown and therefore cannot be sampled.
4Material evaluated as a visual audit due to the composition of the material.
5Total includes both sampling and visual audits.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 2: Methodology
8
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 2-7: Daily Hand Sorting Sampling Schedule for WCS (BMSWD and Johnson)
Sample # Sector Hauler Day
1 Residential Murray’s Trash Service Monday
2 Residential Skywalker Disposal Monday
3 Residential Murray’s Trash Service Monday
4 Residential Trash Away Monday
5 City of Prairie Grove City of Prairie Grove Tuesday
6 City of Prairie Grove City of Prairie Grove Tuesday
7 Residential Neighbors NWA Tuesday
8 Residential Courtesy Sanitation Tuesday
9 Residential Trash Away Tuesday
10 Residential Courtesy Sanitation Tuesday
11 City of Tontitown Waste Management Wednesday
12 City of Tontitown Waste Management Wednesday
13 City of Prairie Grove City of Prairie Grove Wednesday
14 Residential Northwest Sanitation Wednesday
15 Residential Trash Away Wednesday
16 Residential Northwest Sanitation Wednesday
17 Residential Trash Away Wednesday
18 CARDS NWA CARDS NWA Thursday
19 City of Johnson LRS Thursday
20 City of Johnson LRS Thursday
21 City of Johnson LRS Thursday
22 City of Johnson LRS Thursday
23 City of Johnson LRS Thursday
24 City of Johnson LRS Thursday
25 City of Tontitown Waste Management Thursday
Once the desired number of samples from each generator type and jurisdiction were
determined, KCI coordinated with BMSWD’s scale house staff to target and identify random
loads of waste from each generator sector and jurisdiction.
Following the procedures described in the Sampling and Sorting Protocol, each selected vehicle
tipped its entire load at a designated area at the Transfer Station. The load was visually divided
into six sections, and based on a die roll, one of the six sections was randomly selected. For
MSW, a representative sample of at least 200 pounds was pulled, placed on a tarp at the sorting
area, labeled, and stored until sorted. The only exceptions to this were the samples from CARDS
and Waste Management (Tontitown). Waste Management provided 8 customer carts that were
directly pulled from their routes for samples 11 and 12. CARDS collected 200-pound samples
from each of their trucks on Monday-Thursday and delivered this as one sample in a roll off
container. This container was sorted as a single sample.
All samples were hand-sorted into the previously defined material categories. After the entire
sample was sorted, one of the KCI supervisors weighed and recorded the net weights of each
material category on an electronic data recording form.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 2: Methodology
9
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
2.1.4 Analytical Procedures
Capture Study (Fayetteville)
After completing the sorting event, KCI compiled the data and calculated the following metrics
for each collection day and the citywide average.
• Composition (percentage by weight): Because only the contamination from the
recycling routes was sorted, KCI calculated the composition of the entire recycling
stream for sample by applying an assumed recovered recyclable composition based on
the city’s annual recycled material report to the weight of the recovered recyclables in
the collection vehicle (net load weight minus weight of contamination). The weighted
average composition of the trash and recycling streams for each collection was
calculated by averaging the composition of each sample weighted by the load weight of
each sample’s respective route. Figure 2-1 illustrates an example of this weighting for
Mixed Paper in recycling for Monday. The citywide average composition was calculated
by weighting the average composition of each collection day by the annual tons by day
(Note: sample-specific annual tons could not be calculated and used as the weighting
factor because the city does not track tonnage by route). Figure 2-2 illustrates an
example of this weighting for Mixed Paper in recycling. Weighting the average
composition by load weights and annual tons ensures that routes and collection days
with higher or lower tonnages are appropriately represented in the average
composition.
Figure 2-1: Example of Weighted Average Composition Analysis (Fayetteville)
Note: For each material, the percentage in the average is the average of all samples adjusted for each sample’s
portion of the summed load weights of all samples.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 2: Methodology
10
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 2-2: Example of Weighted Average Composition Analysis – Citywide
(Fayetteville)
• Annual Generation (pounds per household per year): The citywide average annual
generation rate was calculated by dividing the total annual tons by the total number of
households. The citywide generation rate of each material type was calculated by
applying the weighted average composition for each collection day to the respective
day’s annual generation rate, then weighting the average by the number of households
on each day. Figure 2-3 illustrates an example of this weighting for Mixed Paper.
Weighting the average generation by number of households ensures that routes with
more or less households are appropriately represented in the average generation rate.
Figure 2-3: Example of Weighted Average Generation Rate Analysis (Fayetteville)
Note: For each material, the generation rate in the average is the average of all days adjusted for each day’s
portion of the total number of households. (HH = households)
• Apparent Recovery Rate (percentage by weight): The apparent recovery rate is the
total generation of the recycling stream divided by the total generation of both trash
and recycling.
• Actual Recovery Rate (percentage by weight): The actual recovery rate is the
generation of Program Recyclables in the recycling stream divided by the total
generation of both trash and recycling. Note: The actual recovery rate deducts
contamination in the recycling stream.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 2: Methodology
11
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
• Capture Rate (percentage by weight): The capture rate of each material that was
considered to be a Program Recyclable was calculated by dividing the average
generation of each material type in the recycling stream by the total generation of that
material in both the trash and recycling streams. The total capture rate of all Program
Recyclables was also calculated.
• Confidence Intervals: A 90 percent confidence interval was also calculated for the
citywide average compositions using a standard statistical t-test. The confidence
interval indicates that, with a 90 percent level of confidence, the actual citywide mean is
within the upper and lower limits of the interval. Note: Because generation, capture,
and recovery rates are based on the total annual tons for each collection (annual tons by
route are not tracked by the city), confidence intervals were not able to be calculated
for these metrics.
WCS (BMSWD and Johnson)
After fieldwork was completed, KCI calculated the weighted average of each material category
by each generator sector. The average compositions (represented as percent by weight) for
each generator sector was weighted by the net load weight of each load sampled and by the
annual tons delivered from each jurisdiction/hauler, where appropriate, as provided by BMSWD.
Data analysis followed industry-accepted standards for statistical sampling, as outlined in the
ASTM Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal
Solid Waste (D5231-92; reapproved 2008). Where appropriate, 90 percent confidence intervals
were calculated, using a standard statistical t-test, for each material category. The confidence
interval indicates that with a 90 percent level of confidence, the actual arithmetic mean is within
the upper and lower limits shown. This interval provides an understanding of how much
variation occurred in the quantity of that material category found in the samples sorted.
Generally, a more homogeneous stream and a greater number of samples sorted will have a
higher level of accuracy and a narrower margin between the upper and lower bounds of the
confidence interval. Note: Because this is a statistical analysis, the lower end of the confidence
interval may be a negative number.
2.2 Visual Audit Methodology (WCS)
Because of the heavy, unwieldy, and highly irregular nature of bulky waste, hand sorting is not
feasible. Therefore, visual audits were performed on bulky waste during the sorting event for
the WCS. KCI conducted 40 visual audits. These 40 samples included 20 general public samples,
10 C&D samples and 10 mixed dumpster samples. KCI decided on the number of samples, with
the confirmation from BMSWD, after analyzing the incoming tonnages (Table 2-6). Table 2-8
shows a daily visual audit schedule of the load classification further described in Section 2.2.1.
Table 2-8: Daily Visual Audit Schedule for WCS
Hauler - Jurisdiction Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Total
General Public 5 3 4 4 4 20
C&D 2 2 2 2 2 10
Mixed Dumpsters 2 5 2 1 0 10
Totals 9 10 8 7 6 40
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 2: Methodology
12
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
2.2.1 Load Classification
The three types of loads included in the visual audits were as follows based on discussion with
BMSWD staff to provide further waste classification:
• General Public: Waste and recycling delivered by members of the public who do not
have a licensed hauling contract with BMSWD.
• C&D Debris: Waste materials generated from construction, renovation, and demolition
activities hauled by licensed haulers.
• Mixed Dumpsters: Waste hauled by licensed haulers that does not primarily consist of
C&D debris.
2.2.2 Auditing Procedure
During the sorting event, 40 randomly selected loads were visually audited: 20 general public,
10 C&D debris, and 10 mixed dumpsters. After discussing with the clients, the samples were
visually audited using 8 different material groups and 37 material categories (defined in
Appendix C).
As each selected vehicle tipped its load, KCI staff interviewed the driver and recorded the load
type, hauler name (if applicable), date and time, type of vehicle, sample number, visual
observations about the load, size of the roll-off container or compartment holding the waste,
and volume of waste present within. After the load was tipped, KCI staff visually estimated the
percent by volume of identifiable items and materials as listed in Appendix C. These percentages
were recorded using a tablet-based data log.
2.2.3 Analytical Procedures
The average composition (represented as percent by volume) for each load classification was
weighted by the estimated volume of each load. KCI also calculated the 90 percent confidence
interval for the weighted average using a standard statistical t-test. To assist BMSWD in further
quantifying the bulky waste, KCI applied industry-accepted conversion factors to convert the
weighted average compositions into percent by weight.
2.3 District-Wide Aggregate Composition Calculation
To calculate the total composition of waste generated within the district (BMSWD district-wide
aggregate), the waste compositions of individual generator sectors or load types (percent by
weight), for both the hand sort and visual audits, were averaged together weighted by the
relative percentage that each generator sector or load type contributes to the total tonnage of
waste throughout the district. Table 2-9 shows the annual tons allocated to each generated
sector. Weighting the averages ensures that the contribution of generator
sector/jurisdiction/hauler is equitably accounted for in the district-wide composition.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 2: Methodology
13
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 2-9: Total Waste Annual District Tonnages
Jurisdiction/Hauler Annual Tonnage
Si
n
g
l
e
-Fa
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
City of Fayetteville Single-family Residential1 17,813
BMSWD Single-family Residential2 4,321
City of Prairie Grove Single-family Residential2 3,497
City of Johnson Single-family Residential2 887
Other Single-family Residential2 3,753
Subtotal Residential 30,271
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l City of Fayetteville Multi-family1 29,696 City of Fayetteville Commercial1
BMSWD General Public2 21,629
BMSWD C&D Debris2 4,805
BMSWD Mixed Dumpsters2 3,666
Subtotal Commercial 59,796
Total 90,067
1City of Fayetteville data provided by the City for 2023
2BMSWD data provided by the district for August 2023 to July 2024.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
14
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Section 3
Capture Study Hand Sort Results
3.1 Introduction
This section summarizes the composition of trash and recycling and the generation, recovery,
and capture rates measured during the Capture Study. Unless otherwise stated, all results
presented in this section are expressed in percentage by weight. The percentages included in
the tables and figures are the mean values for each material category. Where appropriate, the
tables also provide the 90 percent confidence intervals for each material category.
For the purposes of analysis and discussion, the material categories in the Capture Study were
organized into the following groups:
• Program Recyclable Paper: Paper grades currently accepted in the City of Fayetteville’s
recycling program.
o Corrugated Cardboard o Mixed Recyclable Paper
• Program Recyclable Containers: Plastic, metal, and glass containers accepted in the City
of Fayetteville’s recycling program.
o PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars –
Clear (#1)
o PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars –
Opaque/Pigmented (#1)
o Natural HDPE Bottles (#2)
o Colored HDPE Bottles (#2)
o Tin/Steel Cans
o Aluminum Cans
o Glass Bottles and Jars
• Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Materials: Materials that are currently accepted
in the City of Fayetteville’s household hazardous waste drop-off trailer every Thursday.
Electronics (E-waste) and Small Appliances are not accepted at the drop-off trailer but is
accepted at the transfer station at no cost (size/weight restrictions apply).
o Hazardous/Special Waste
o Batteries
o Sharps
o Electronics (E-waste) and
Small Appliances
• Potential Compostables: Materials that potentially could be composted in a commercial
composting facility if properly separated from inorganic material.
o Compostable Paper
o Food Waste
o Yard Waste
• Potential Recyclable Materials: Materials that potentially could be introduced to the
City of Fayetteville’s recycling collection.
o PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5)
• Potential Recoverables: Materials that have the potential to be recovered or recycled
but are not currently collected for recycling in the City of Fayetteville’s recycling
program. Some of these materials, such as textiles and shoes and C&D debris, would
require source-separation and/or additional processing to recover.
o Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top
Cartons
o PET Clamshells (#1)
o PET Drink Cups (#1)
o Other PET Non-bottle Rigids
– Clear (#1)
o Other PET Non-bottle Rigids
– Opaque/Pigmented (#1)
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Hand Sort Results
15
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
o Non-bottle HDPE
Containers (#2)
o PP Clamshells (#5)
o PP Tubs (#5)
o Other PP Non-bottle Rigids
(#5)
o Other Plastic Drink Cups
(#3, #4, #6, #7)
o Other Small Rigid Packaging
Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7)
o Bulky Rigid Plastics
o Expanded Polystyrene Foam
o Unacceptable Metals
o Aluminum Foil and Trays
o Textiles and Shoes
o C&D Debris
o Tires
• All Other Materials: Materials not classified above and not feasible to recover with
traditional programs or technology. Note: Other Plastic Film/Flexibles includes all film
(excluding garbage bags) that was later sorted into detailed categories. See section 3.6.
o Wet Paper and Cardboard
(Recyclables Only)
o Soiled Pizza Boxes
o Non-recyclable Paper
o Unacceptable Rigid Plastic
o Unacceptable Glass,
Ceramics, and Porcelain
o Bulky Items
o Disposable Diapers
o Other Contaminants/All
Other Garbage
o Liquids
o Plastic Garbage Bags
o Other Plastic Film/Flexibles
o Bagged Waste (Recyclables
Only)
o Tanglers (Recyclables Only)
o Bagged Recyclables
(Recyclables Only)
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
16
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
3.2 City of Fayetteville Single-Family Residential Waste
Figure 3-1 depicts the composition of single-family residential waste. Table 3-1 shows the
composition of single-family residential waste.
Key findings from the single-family residential results are as follows:
• All Other Materials accounted for nearly 37 percent of the entire waste stream. Key
components of this category include All Other Garbage at approximately 11 percent,
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles at almost 10 percent, and both Disposable Diapers and Non-
recyclable Paper, each representing about 4 percent.
• Potential Compostables comprised nearly 26 percent of the waste from single-family
residences, with Food Waste being the largest category at nearly 15 percent. Yard
Waste accounted for over 6 percent, while Compostable Paper represented
approximately 5 percent.
• Potential Recoverables made up over 15 percent of the waste stream, with Textiles and
Shoes being the highest material category within this group at about 6 percent.
• Mixed Recyclable Paper represented almost the entirety of the Program Recyclable
Paper group at over 11 percent.
• Program Recyclable Containers accounted for 6 percent of the waste stream.
• Only 1.5 percent of the waste stream consisted of Household Hazardous Drop-off
Materials.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
17
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 3-1: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Single-Family Residential Waste
Note: For this figure, the following categories have been combined:
• Recyclable Plastic Bottles include PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) – Clear, PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) –
Opaque/Pigmented, Natural HDPE Bottles (#2), and Colored HDPE Bottles (#2).
• Metal Cans includes Tin/Steel and Aluminum Cans.
• Potential Recyclable Materials include PP Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#5).
• Other Potential Recoverable Rigid Plastics include PET Clamshells (#1), PET Drink Cups (#1), Other PET
Non-bottle rigid– Clear (#1), Other PET Non-bottle Rigid – Opaque/Pigmented (#1), Non-bottle HDPE
Containers (#2), PP Clamshells (#5), PP Tubs (#5), PP Drink Cups (#5), Other PP Non-bottle Rigid (#5),
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7), and Other Small Rigid Packaging Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7).
• Other Potential Recoverables include Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons, Expanded Polystyrene Foam,
Bulky Rigid Plastic, Unacceptable Metals, and Aluminum Foil and Trays.
• Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off include Hazardous/Special Waste, Batteries, Sharps, and E-Waste &
Small Appliances.
• Other Plastic Film/Flexibles include Single Resin PE (Polyethylene) Film, Single Resin PP (Polypropylene)
Film, Multi-material Laminated Packaging, Stand-up Pouches, Large Film Bags, and Unknown Film Type.
• All Other Materials include Soiled Pizza Boxes, Unacceptable Rigid Plastic, Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics,
and Porcelain, Bulky Items, Tires, All Other Garbage, and Liquids.
Corrugated
Cardboard, 3.1%Mixed Recyclable
Paper, 11.4%Plastic Recyclabe
Containers, 2.8%
Metal Recyclable
Containers, 2.0%
Glass Bottles and
Jars, 1.2%
Compostable
Paper, 4.6%
Food Waste, 14.7%
Yard Waste, 6.4%
Potential Recyclable
Materials, 0.2%
Other Potential
Recoverable Rigid
Plastics, 3.0%
Textiles and Shoes,
6.3%
C&D Waste, 1.8%
Other Potential
Recoverables, 4.4%
Household Hazardous
Waste Drop-off
Materials, 1.5%
Non-recyclable Paper,
4.0%
Plastic Garbage
Bags, 2.5%
Other Plastic
Film/Flexibles, 9.6%
Bulky Items, 2.1%
Disposable Diapers,
4.2%
All Other Material,
14.2%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
18
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 3-1: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Single-Family Residential Waste
Material Categories
Weighted
Average
90% Confidence Intervals
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Corrugated Cardboard 3.1% 1.8% 4.4%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 11.4% 9.5% 13.3%
Total Program Recyclable Paper 14.5% 12.2% 16.8%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) 1.8% 1.4% 2.3%
HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.9% 0.7% 1.2%
Tin/Steel Cans 0.8% 0.6% 1.1%
Aluminum Cans 1.1% 0.9% 1.4%
Glass Bottles and Jars 1.2% 0.7% 1.8%
Total Program Recyclable Containers 6.0% 4.9% 7.0%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.3% -0.2% 0.8%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
E-Waste and Small Appliances 1.1% 0.3% 2.0%
Total Household Hazardous Drop-off Location Materials 1.5% 0.6% 2.4%
Compostable Paper 4.6% 3.8% 5.5%
Food Waste 14.7% 12.6% 16.9%
Yard Waste 6.4% 2.9% 10.0%
Total Potential Compostables 25.8% 22.4% 29.1%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.2% 0.1% 0.4%
Total Potential Recyclable Materials 0.2% 0.1% 0.4%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.5% 0.2% 0.9%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.4% 0.2% 0.6%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids - Clear (#1) 0.4% 0.2% 0.5%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.2% 0.0% 0.4%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.8% 0.6% 1.1%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.5% 0.1% 0.8%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids(#5) 0.3% 0.1% 0.4%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Other Small Rigid Pkg. Conts. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.7% 0.1% 1.3%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 1.1% 0.8% 1.5%
Unacceptable Metals 1.4% 0.7% 2.0%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.7% 0.5% 0.9%
Textiles and Shoes 6.3% 4.3% 8.3%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 1.8% 0.3% 3.3%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Potential Recoverables 15.4% 13.2% 17.7%
Non-recyclable Paper 4.0% 3.0% 5.0%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 2.0% 1.5% 2.5%
Plastic Garbage Bags 2.5% 2.0% 3.1%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 9.6% 7.4% 11.8%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.6% 0.0% 1.1%
Bulky Items 2.1% -1.1% 5.3%
Disposable Diapers 4.2% 2.9% 5.4%
All Other Garbage 11.1% 9.1% 13.0%
Liquids 0.3% 0.1% 0.6%
Total Other Materials 36.6% 33.0% 40.1%
Total 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
19
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
3.3 City of Fayetteville’s Multi-Family Residential Waste
Figure 3-2 depicts the annual composition of multi-family residential waste. Table 3-2 shows the
composition of multi-family residential waste.
Key findings from the multi-family residential results are as follows:
• All Other Materials constituted more than 34 percent of the total waste stream. This
category includes significant components such as All Other Garbage, which accounted
for over 10 percent, Bulky Items at over 8 percent, and Disposable Diapers, making up
approximately 5 percent.
• Potential Recoverables represented over 22 percent of the waste stream, with C&D
Debris comprising more than 9 percent and Textiles and Shoes contributing over 6
percent.
• Potential Compostables also comprised over 22 percent of the waste generated by
multi-family homes, with Food Waste being the largest segment at nearly 19 percent.
Compostable Paper accounted for over 3 percent, while Yard Waste was less than 1
percent.
• Corrugated Cardboard and Mixed Recyclable Paper each made up around 6 percent of
the stream, totaling approximately 12 percent for Program Recyclable Paper.
• Program Recyclable Containers accounted for over 8 percent of the waste stream.
• Less than 1 percent of the waste stream was made up of Household Hazardous Drop-off
Materials.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
20
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 3-2: Annual Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Multi-Family Residential Waste
Note: For this figure, the following categories have been combined:
• Recyclable Plastic Bottles include PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) – Clear, PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) –
Opaque/Pigmented, Natural HDPE Bottles (#2), and Colored HDPE Bottles (#2).
• Metal Cans includes Tin/Steel and Aluminum Cans.
• Potential Recyclable Materials include PP Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#5).
• Unacceptable Plastic Containers include PET Clamshells (#1), PET Drink Cups (#1), Other PET Non-bottle
rigid– Clear (#1), Other PET Non-bottle Rigid – Opaque/Pigmented (#1), Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2),
PP Clamshells (#5), PP Tubs (#5), PP Drink Cups (#5), Other PP Non-bottle Rigid (#5), Other Plastic Drink
Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7), and Other Small Rigid Packaging Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7).
• Other Potential Recoverables include Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons, Expanded Polystyrene Foam,
Bulky Rigid Plastic, Unacceptable Metals, and Aluminum Foil and Trays.
• Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off include Hazardous/Special Waste, Batteries, Sharps, and E-Waste &
Small Appliances.
• Other Plastic Film/Flexibles include Single Resin PE (Polyethylene) Film, Single Resin PP (Polypropylene)
Film, Multi-material Laminated Packaging, Stand-up Pouches, Large Film Bags, and Unknown Film Type.
• All Other Materials include Soiled Pizza Boxes, Unacceptable Rigid Plastic, Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics,
and Porcelain, Bulky Items, Tires, All Other Garbage, and Liquids.
Corrugated
Cardboard, 5.7%Mixed Recyclable
Paper, 6.4%
Recyclable Plastic
Bottles, 3.2%
Metal Cans, 2.5%
Glass Bottles and
Jars, 2.7%
Compostable
Paper, 3.3%
Food Waste, 18.6%
Yard Waste, 0.3%
Potential Recyclable
Materials, 0.1%
Unacceptable Plastic
Containers , 2.4%Textiles and Shoes,
6.3%
C&D Waste, 9.3%
Other Potential
Recoverables, 4.1%
Household Hazardous
Waste Drop-off
Materials, 0.9%
Non-recyclable
Paper, 1.2%
Garbage Bags, 2.1%
Other Plastic
Film/Flexibles, 3.8%
Bulky Items, 8.4%
Disposable Diapers,
5.4%
All Other Material,
13.2%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
21
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 3-2: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Multi-Family Residential Waste
Material Categories
Weighted
Average
90% Confidence Intervals
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Corrugated Cardboard 5.7% 0.6% 10.9%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 6.4% 5.0% 7.8%
Total Program Recyclable Paper 12.1% 5.8% 18.5%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars - Clear (#1) 2.3% 1.2% 3.3%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.5% 0.3% 0.7%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.4% 0.2% 0.6%
Tin/Steel Cans 1.0% 0.3% 1.8%
Aluminum Cans 1.5% 0.5% 2.4%
Glass Bottles and Jars 2.7% 0.5% 4.9%
Total Program Recyclable Containers 8.4% 5.8% 11.0%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.3% -0.5% 1.0%
Batteries 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
E-Waste and Small Appliances 0.6% -0.1% 1.3%
Total Household Hazardous Drop-off Location Materials 0.9% 0.2% 1.7%
Compostable Paper 3.3% 1.5% 5.0%
Food Waste 18.6% 14.9% 22.4%
Yard Waste 0.3% -0.1% 0.7%
Total Potential Compostables 22.2% 17.3% 27.1%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
Total Potential Recyclable Materials 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.4% 0.1% 0.6%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.2% 0.0% 0.4%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids - Clear (#1) 0.5% 0.1% 0.8%
Other PET Non-Bottle Rigids – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.4% -0.5% 1.3%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.1% -0.1% 0.3%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.6% 0.4% 0.9%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
Other PP Non-bottle (#5) 0.2% 0.0% 0.4%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Other Small Rigid Pkg. Conts. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.7% -0.5% 3.8%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.7% 0.3% 1.1%
Unacceptable Metals 1.1% -0.5% 2.6%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.4% 0.0% 0.7%
Textiles and Shoes 6.3% 2.2% 10.5%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 9.3% -4.2% 22.7%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Potential Recoverables 22.2% 9.5% 34.8%
Non-recyclable Paper 1.2% 0.6% 1.8%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.3% -0.1% 0.6%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 0.8% 0.5% 1.1%
Garbage Bags 2.1% 0.9% 3.3%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 3.8% 2.8% 4.9%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.3% 0.0% 0.6%
Bulky Items 8.4% -0.4% 17.1%
Disposable Diapers 5.4% 0.6% 10.2%
All Other Garbage 10.3% 2.7% 17.9%
Liquids 1.5% 0.6% 2.5%
Total Other Materials 34.1% 21.6% 46.5%
Total 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
22
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
3.4 City of Fayetteville’s Commercial Waste
Figure 3-3 depicts the composition of City of Fayetteville’s commercial waste. Table 3-3 shows
the composition of commercial waste.
Key findings from the commercial waste results are as follows:
• Potential Compostables made up over 31 percent of the commercial waste stream, with
Food Waste as the largest segment at more than 26 percent. Compostable Paper
accounted for over 4 percent, while Compostable Paper represented less than 1
percent.
• All Other Materials constituted more than 27 percent of the total waste stream. This
category includes significant components such as Other Plastic Film/Flexibles at over 8
percent, All Other Garbage at around 5 percent, Non-recyclable Paper at approximately
4 percent, and both Disposable Diapers and Garbage Bags, each accounting for about 3
percent.
• Potential Recoverables represented over 18 percent of the waste stream, with C&D
Debris being the largest category within this group at about 10%.
• Mixed Recyclable Paper comprised approximately 9 percent of the Program Recyclable
Paper Grouping, while Corrugated Cardboard accounted for the remaining 8 percent.
• Program Recyclable Containers made up less than 5 percent of the waste stream.
• Only about 1 percent of the waste stream was composed of Household Hazardous Drop-
off Materials.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
23
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 3-3: Annual Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Commercial Waste
Note: For this figure, the following categories have been combined:
• Recyclable Plastic Bottles include PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) – Clear, PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) –
Opaque/Pigmented, Natural HDPE Bottles (#2), and Colored HDPE Bottles (#2).
• Metal Cans includes Tin/Steel and Aluminum Cans.
• Potential Recyclable Materials include PP Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#5).
• Unacceptable Plastic Containers include PET Clamshells (#1), PET Drink Cups (#1), Other PET Non-bottle
rigid– Clear (#1), Other PET Non-bottle Rigid – Opaque/Pigmented (#1), Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2),
PP Clamshells (#5), PP Tubs (#5), PP Drink Cups (#5), Other PP Non-bottle Rigid (#5), Other Plastic Drink
Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7), and Other Small Rigid Packaging Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7).
• Other Potential Recoverables include Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons, Expanded Polystyrene Foam,
Bulky Rigid Plastic, Unacceptable Metals, and Aluminum Foil and Trays.
• Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off include Hazardous/Special Waste, Batteries, Sharps, and E-Waste &
Small Appliances.
• Other Plastic Film/Flexibles include Single Resin PE (Polyethylene) Film, Single Resin PP (Polypropylene)
Film, Multi-material Laminated Packaging, Stand-up Pouches, Large Film Bags, and Unknown Film Type.
• All Other Materials include Soiled Pizza Boxes, Unacceptable Rigid Plastic, Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics,
and Porcelain, Bulky Items, Tires, All Other Garbage, and Liquids.
Corrugated
Cardboard, 7.8%Mixed Recyclable
Paper, 9.2%
Recyclable Plastic
Bottles , 1.8%
Metal Cans, 1.2%
Glass Bottles and
Jars, 1.6%
Compostable
Paper, 4.3%
Food Waste, 26.4%
Yard Waste, 0.6%
Potential Recyclable
Materials, 0.0%
Other Potential
Recoverable Rigid
Plastics, 1.6%
Textiles and Shoes,
3.2%
C&D Waste, 9.9%
Other Potential
Recoverables, 3.8%
Household Hazardous
Waste Drop-off
Materials, 1.2%
Non-recyclable
Paper, 4.1%
Garbage
Bags, 3.3%
Other Plastic
Film/Flexibles, 8.4%
Bulky Items, 0.3%
Disposable Diapers,
3.3%
All Other Material,
7.9%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
24
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 3-3: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Commercial Waste
Material Categories
Weighted
Average
90% Confidence Intervals
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Corrugated Cardboard 7.8% 3.0% 12.5%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 9.2% 5.9% 12.5%
Total Program Recyclable Paper 17.0% 13.2% 20.7%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars - Clear (#1) 1.1% 0.5% 1.6%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.4% 0.2% 0.6%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.4% 0.2% 0.5%
Tin/Steel Cans 0.3% 0.1% 0.5%
Aluminum Cans 0.9% 0.2% 1.6%
Glass Bottles and Jars 1.6% -0.2% 3.4%
Total Program Recyclable Containers 4.7% 1.8% 7.6%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.3% -0.3% 0.8%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sharps 0.1% -0.1% 0.3%
E-Waste and Small Appliances 0.9% -0.6% 2.3%
Total Household Hazardous Drop-off Location Materials 1.2% -0.3% 2.7%
Compostable Paper 4.3% 2.6% 6.0%
Food Waste 26.4% 19.4% 33.3%
Yard Waste 0.6% -0.2% 1.5%
Total Potential Compostables 31.3% 22.3% 40.3%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Total Potential Recyclable Materials 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 1.6% 0.2% 3.0%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids - Clear (#1) 0.2% -0.1% 0.4%
Other PET Non-Bottle Rigids – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.1% -0.1% 0.2%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.5% 0.2% 0.8%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.3% 0.1% 0.4%
Other PP Non-bottle (#5) 0.1% -0.1% 0.2%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
Other Small Rigid Pkg. Conts. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.7% -0.1% 1.4%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.7% 0.4% 1.1%
Unacceptable Metals 0.4% -0.7% 1.6%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.3% 0.0% 0.6%
Textiles and Shoes 3.2% 0.4% 6.0%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 9.9% -2.3% 22.1%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Potential Recoverables 18.4% 7.5% 29.4%
Non-recyclable Paper 4.1% 1.8% 6.4%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 0.7% 0.2% 1.1%
Garbage Bags 3.3% 2.1% 4.5%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 8.4% 4.0% 12.8%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.9% -1.2% 3.1%
Bulky Items 0.3% -0.1% 0.7%
Disposable Diapers 3.3% -2.5% 9.1%
All Other Garbage 5.1% 2.7% 7.4%
Liquids 1.2% -0.3% 2.8%
Total Other Materials 27.3% 18.4% 36.2%
Total 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
25
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
3.5 City of Fayetteville Single-Family Residential
Recyclables
Figure 3-4 depicts the composition of single-family residential recyclables Table 3-4 shows the
composition of single-family residential recyclables. Table 3-5 illustrates the overall composition
of City of Fayetteville’s single-family recyclables.
Key findings from the single-family residential recyclables results are as follows:
Composition
• Program Recyclable Paper accounted for nearly 70 percent of the entire recyclables
stream. Corrugated Carboard represented over 58 percent and Mixed Recyclable Paper
consisted roughly 11 percent.
• Program Recyclable Containers represented almost 30 percent of the entire recyclables
stream. The majority of this consisted of Glass Bottles and Jars at over 20 percent. PET
Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) accounted for about 3 percent.
• Potential Recyclable Material, Non-processable Recyclable Materials, and Other
Materials all represented less than 1 percent of the entire recyclables stream.
Generation (pounds/household/year), Capture, and Recovery Rates
Table 3-6 shows the overall generation (pounds/household/year), capture rate, and recovery
rates of the City of Fayetteville’s single-family recyclables. Detailed generation rates by material
type are provided in Appendix E. Additionally, Appendix F shows individual material weights for
each sample. Generation and capture rates of individual Program Recyclables are in Appendix G.
• On average, households generated 187 pounds of recycling (including contamination)
and 1,246 pounds of trash per household per year. This equates to an apparent
recovery rate of 13 percent or an actual recovery rate (deducting Contaminants from
the recycling) of 12.9 percent.
• Households generated an average total of 440 pounds of Program Recyclables (between
both trash and recyclables) per household per year, 185 pounds of which were in the
recycling, for a recyclables capture rate of 42 percent.
• On average, households are discarding approximately 253 pounds of currently accepted
recyclable material in the trash stream. At present, more recyclable material is ending
up in the trash than in recycling.
• Corrugated Cardboard had the highest capture rate at 73.8 percent. The next highest
capture rate was Glass Bottles and Jars at 71.4 percent.
• Program Recyclable Containers had a higher capture rate than Program Recyclable
Paper, 42.4 percent, and 41.8 percent, respectively.
• Of the Program Recyclable Containers, PET Bottles #1, HDPE Bottles (#2), Tin/Steel Cans,
and Aluminum Cans all had a recyclable capture rate between 20 and 25 percent.
• Mixed Recyclable Paper had the lowest capture rate at 12.9 percent.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
26
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 3-4: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Single-Family Residential Recyclables
Note: For this figure, the following categories have been combined:
• Recyclable Plastic Bottles include PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) – Clear, PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) –
Opaque/Pigmented, Natural HDPE Bottles (#2), and Colored HDPE Bottles (#2).
• Metal Cans includes Tin/Steel and Aluminum Cans.
• Non-processable Recyclable Material include PET Clamshells (#1), PET Drink Cups (#1), Other PET Non-
Bottle (#1) - Clear, Other PET Non-Bottle (#1) – Opaque/Pigmented, HDPE Non-Bottle Containers (#2), PP
Clamshells (#5), PP Tubs (#5), PP Drink Cups (#5), Other PP Non-bottle (#5), Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6,
#7), Other Small Packaging Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7), and Unacceptable Metals.
• Contaminants include Wet Paper and Cardboard, Aseptic Boxes and Cartons, Compostable Paper, Non-
recyclable Paper, Soiled Pizza Boxes, Expanded Polystyrene Foam, Bulky Rigid Plastics, All Other Plastics,
Garbage Bags, Other Plastic Film/Flexibles, Aluminum Foil and Trays, Other Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain,
Food Waste, Yard Waste, Textiles and Shoes, C&D Debris, Hazardous/Special Waste, Batteries, Sharps, E-
Waste & Small Appliances, Bulky Items, Tires, Tanglers, Bagged Recyclables, Bagged Waste, Disposable
Diapers, and All Other Contaminants.
Corrugated
Cardboard, 58.4%
Mixed Recyclable
Paper, 11.3%
Recyclable Plastic
Bottles, 5.0%
Metal Cans, 3.7%
Glass Bottles and Jars,
20.6%
Non-processable
Recyclable Material,
0.3%
Contaminants, 0.7%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
27
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 3-4: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Single-Family Recyclables
Material Categories
Weighted
Average
90% Confidence Intervals
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Corrugated Cardboard 58.4% 58.0% 58.7%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 11.3% 11.3% 11.3%
Total Program Recyclable Paper 69.7% 69.3% 70.1%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%
HDPE Bottles (#2) 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%
Tin/Steel Cans 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%
Aluminum Cans 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%
Glass Bottles and Jars 20.6% 20.5% 20.8%
Total Program Recyclable Containers 29.4% 29.2% 29.5%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Potential Recyclable Materials 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids - Clear (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Other PET Non-Bottle Rigids – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PP Non-bottle (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Small Rigid Pkg. Conts. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Unacceptable Metals 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Non-processable Recyclable Materials 0.3% 0.1% 0.5%
Wet Paper and Cardboard 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Aseptic Boxes and Cartons 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
Compostable Paper 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
Non-recyclable Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Garbage Bags 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Food Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Textiles and Shoes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
C&D Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bulky Item 0.0% -0.2% 0.3%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tanglers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bagged Recyclables 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Bagged Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
All Other Contaminants 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Total Other Materials 0.7% 0.3% 1.1%
Total 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
28
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 3-5: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Single-Family Recyclables per Sampled Day
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Citywide
Recycling Stream
Program Recyclable Paper 69.9% 69.1% 69.6% 70.0% 69.7%
Program Recyclable Containers 29.5% 29.1% 29.3% 29.5% 29.4%
Potential Recyclable Materials 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Non-processable Recyclable Materials 0.2% 0.7% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3%
Contaminants 0.4% 1.1% 0.8% 0.5% 0.7%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Citywide
Trash Stream
Program Recyclable Paper 11.4% 13.8% 17.3% 15.0% 14.5%
Program Recyclable Containers 3.7% 6.7% 6.5% 6.9% 6.0%
Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Materials 1.9% 0.3% 2.6% 1.1% 1.5%
Potential Compostables 29.7% 25.3% 22.6% 26.3% 25.8%
Potential Recyclable Materials 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2%
Potential Recoverable Materials 17.6% 11.2% 17.1% 16.0% 15.4%
All Other Materials 35.6% 42.6% 33.5% 34.6% 36.6%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 3-6: Generation (lbs./HH/yr.), Capture Rate, and Recovery Rates of City of Fayetteville’s
Single-Family Recyclables per Sampled Day
Monday
(lbs./HH/yr.)
Tuesday
(lbs./HH/yr.)
Wednesday
(lbs./HH/yr.)
Thursday
(lbs./HH/yr.)
Citywide
(lbs./HH/yr.)
Recycling Stream
Program Recyclable Paper 206.97 105.73 97.13 131.49 129.96
Program Recyclable Containers 87.36 44.51 40.96 55.40 54.79
Potential Recyclable Materials 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00
Non-processable Recyclable Materials 0.61 1.04 0.35 0.18 0.54
Contaminants 1.31 1.72 1.11 0.90 1.26
Total 296.27 153.00 139.55 187.98 186.55
Trash Stream
Program Recyclable Paper 162.61 166.84 208.05 178.29 180.71
Program Recyclable Containers 51.99 81.35 77.62 81.95 74.53
Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Materials 26.73 3.33 31.78 13.55 18.76
Potential Compostables 422.71 306.51 271.36 313.03 321.31
Potential Recyclable Materials 1.91 1.14 5.41 1.32 2.57
Potential Recoverable Materials 250.92 136.31 205.10 189.86 192.42
All Other Materials 506.96 517.11 402.80 410.69 455.70
Total 1423.82 1212.60 1202.11 1188.69 1246.00
Total Generation of Recyclables (lbs./HH/yr.) 508.93 398.43 423.75 447.13 439.99
Apparent Recovery Rate 17.22% 11.20% 10.40% 13.65% 13.02%
Actual Recovery Rate 17.11% 11.00% 10.29% 13.58% 12.90%
Recyclables Capture Rate 57.8% 37.7% 32.6% 41.8% 42.0%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
29
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
3.6 City of Fayetteville Film Composition and
Generation
This section provides a further breakdown of the material category Other Plastic Film/Flexibles sorted
during the City of Fayetteville’s Capture Study. Table 3-7 summarizes the composition and generation
rate of the film material groups for trash and recycling as well as the overall average. Figure 3-5
illustrates the overall film composition of single-family residential trash and recycling. Note: This data
does not include Plastic Garbage Bags from the samples.
Key findings from the single-family residential film composition results include:
• The recycling stream had negligible amount of Plastic Film/Flexibles (0.17 pounds per
household per year) comparted to the trash stream (119.67 pounds per household).
• Single Resin PE (Polyethylene) film accounted for over half of the Plastic Film/Flexibles in
the study, making it the most prevalent film category.
• Single Resin PP (Polypropylene) film was the second most common type of Plastic
Film/Flexibles, representing almost 28 percent of the total.
• About 5 percent of the Plastic Film/Flexibles was Multi-material Laminated Packaging,
found in items like deli meats, cheese wraps, and snack packages, with similar
percentages in both the trash and recycling streams.
• Unknown Film made up over 5 percent of the Plastic Film/Flexibles. This category
includes any film that doesn’t fit into the other categories or is too small to capture,
such as torn or broken pieces.
• Large Film bags, typically associated with landscaping, outdoor use, or pet food,
comprised over 4 percent of Plastic Film/Flexibles.
• Stand-up Pouches represented about 2 percent of the Plastic Film/Flexibles. These
pouches are commonly used for products like baby food, yogurt, granola, sugar, baking
mixes, coffee, and pet treats.
Table 3-7: Single-Family Residential Film Composition and Generation Summary
Material Categories
Recycling Stream Trash Stream Overall
% lbs./HH/yr. % lbs./HH/yr. % lbs./HH/yr.
Single Resin PE 48.7% 0.08 lbs. 54.3% 65.02 lbs. 54.3% 65.10 lbs.
Single Resin PP 41.5% 0.07 lbs. 27.8% 33.22 lbs. 27.8% 33.29 lbs.
Multi-material Laminated Packaging 6.6% 0.01 lbs. 5.4% 6.48 lbs. 5.4% 6.49 lbs.
Stand-up Pouches 0.4% 0.00 lbs. 2.2% 2.67 lbs. 2.2% 2.67 lbs.
Large, Film Bags 1.9% 0.00 lbs. 4.6% 5.53 lbs. 4.6% 5.53 lbs.
Unknown Film 1.0% 0.00 lbs. 5.6% 6.74 lbs. 5.6% 6.74 lbs.
Total Film 100.0% 0.17 lbs. 100.0% 119.67 lbs. 100.0% 119.84 lbs.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
30
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 3-5: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Single-Family Residential Film
Table 3-8 summarizes the composition of the film material groups for multi-family trash and recycling as
well as the overall average. Note: This data does not include Plastic Garbage Bags from the samples.
Table 3-8: Multi-Family Residential Film Composition Summary
Material Categories Recycling % Trash %
Single Resin PE 54.3% 45.3%
Single Resin PP 38.0% 39.6%
Multi-material Laminated Packaging 4.6% 6.7%
Stand-up Pouches 0.2% 1.5%
Large, Film Bags 1.2% 3.2%
Unknown Film 1.7% 3.5%
Total Film 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Overall composition of multi-family residential film could not be calculated because KCI could not obtain
multi-family generation rates.
Table 3-9 summarizes the composition of the film material groups for commercial trash. Figure 3-6
illustrates the film composition of commercial trash. Note: This data does not include Plastic Garbage
Bags from the samples.
Table 3-9: Commercial Film Composition Summary
Material Categories Trash %
Single Resin PE 43.6%
Single Resin PP 34.2%
Multi-material Laminated Packaging 4.8%
Stand-up Pouches 3.4%
Large, Film Bags 4.3%
Unknown Film 9.7%
Total Film 100.0%
Single Resin PE,
54.3%
Single Resin PP,
27.8%
Multi-material
Laminated
Packaging, 5.4%
Stand-up
Pouches, 2.2%
Large, Film Bags,
4.6%
Unknown Film,
5.6%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 3: Capture Study Results
31
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 3-6: Composition of City of Fayetteville’s Commercial Film – Trash Only
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Single Resin PE,
43.6%
Single Resin PP,
34.2%
Multi-material
Laminated
Packaging, 4.8%
Stand-up Pouches, 3.4%
Large, Film Bags,
4.3%
Unknown Film,
9.7%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
32
BMSWD\2024 WCS\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Section 4
WCS Results
4.1 Introduction
Results are organized by generator sector (as defined in Section 2).
Unless otherwise stated, all results presented in this section are expressed in percentage by
weight. The percentages included in the tables and figures are the mean values for each
material category. Where appropriate, the tables also provide the 90 percent confidence
intervals for each material category. This section does not include any visual audit data.
For the purposes of discussion and analysis, materials were organized into six broad material
groups based on diversion potential.
• Program Recyclable Paper: Paper grades currently accepted in most of the recycling
programs offered in the area.
o Corrugated Cardboard o Mixed Recyclable Paper
• Program Recyclable Containers: Plastic and metal containers currently accepted in most
of the recycling programs offered in the area.
o PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
(#1) – Clear
o PET Bottles, Jugs, and Jars
(#1) – Opaque/Pigmented
o Natural HDPE Bottles (#2)
o Colored HDPE Bottles (#2)
o Aluminum Cans
o Tin/Steel Cans
• Drop-off Location Recyclables: Materials currently accepted at the BMSWD drop-off
location.
o Unacceptable Metals
o Glass Bottles and Jars
o Textiles and Shoes
o Hazardous/Special Waste
o Batteries
o E-waste & Small Appliances
o Sharps
o Tires
• Potential Compostables: Materials that are or could potentially be composted in a
commercial composting facility if properly separated from inorganic material.
o Compostable Paper
o Yard Waste
o Food Waste
• Potential Recoverables: Materials that have the potential to be recovered or recycled
but are not currently collected for recycling. Some of these materials, such as C&D
debris, would require source-separation and/or additional processing to recover.
o Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top
Cartons
o PET Clamshells (#1)
o PET Drink Cups (#1)
o Other PET Non-Bottle Rigids
(#1) - Clear
o Other PET Non-Bottle Rigids
(#1) – Opaque/Pigmented
o Non-bottle HDPE Containers
(#2)
o PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5)
o PP Clamshells (#5)
o PP Tubs (#5)
o PP Drink Cups (#5)
o Other PP Non-bottle Rigids
(#5)
o Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6,
#7)
o Other Small Packaging
Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7)
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 4: WCS Hand Sort Results
33
BMSWD\2024 WCS\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
o Expanded Polystyrene Foam
o Bulky Rigid Plastics
o Aluminum Foil and Trays
o Construction and
Demolition (C&D) Debris
• Other Materials: Materials not classified above and not feasible to recover with
traditional programs or technology.
o Soiled Pizza Boxes
o Non-recyclable Paper
o Unacceptable Rigid Plastics
o Plastic Garbage Bags
o Non-rigid Plastic Film
o Unacceptable Glass,
Ceramics, and Porcelain
o Bulky Items
o Disposable Diapers
o All Other Garbage
o Liquids
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
34
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
4.2 BMSWD Single-Family Residential Waste
Figure 4-1 depicts the composition of single-family residential waste disposed at BMWSD
Transfer Station by local haulers. Table 4-1 shows the composition of single-family residential
waste.
Key findings from the single-family residential results are as follows:
• Other Materials accounted for the largest share of waste among all material category
groupings, constituting nearly one-third of all waste from single-family households.
Within this group, All Other Garbage made up the highest percentage at over 11
percent. Key contributors included Disposable Diapers at 6 percent, Non-rigid Plastic
Film at almost 5 percent, and Non-recyclable Paper at over 3 percent.
• Potential Compostables represented about 30 percent of all waste generated by single-
family residences. Food Waste was the most significant category, comprising nearly 22
percent. In addition, Compostable Paper accounted for more than 5 percent, while Yard
Waste contributed approximately 4 percent.
• Program Recyclable Paper constituted over 12 percent of the waste stream, with Mixed
Recyclable Paper making up more than 9 percent and Corrugated Cardboard at 3
percent.
• Program Recyclable Containers accounted for over 9 percent of the total waste.
• Potential Recoverables made up approximately 6 percent of the stream, with all
individual material categories contributing 1 percent or less.
• Drop-off Location Materials represented more than 8 percent of the waste stream, with
major categories including Glass Bottles and Jars, Textiles and Shoes, and E-Waste and
Small Appliances, some of which could be potentially recovered.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
35
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 4-1: Composition of BMSWD Single-Family Residential Waste
Note: For this figure, the following categories have been combined:
• Recyclable Plastic Bottles include PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) – Clear, PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) –
Opaque/Pigmented, Natural HDPE Bottles (#2), and Colored HDPE Bottles (#2).
• Metal Cans includes Tin/Steel and Aluminum Cans.
• Other Drop-off Location Materials includes Unacceptable Metals, Hazardous/Special Waste, Batteries, E-
Waste & Small Appliances, Tires, and Sharps.
• Other Potential Recoverables include Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons, Expanded Polystyrene Foam,
Bulky Rigid Plastic, and Aluminum Foil and Trays.
• Unacceptable Plastic Containers include PET Clamshells (#1), PET Drink Cups (#1), Other PET Non-bottle
rigid– Clear (#1), Other PET Non-bottle Rigid – Opaque/Pigmented (#1), Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2),
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5), PP Clamshells (#5), PP Tubs (#5), PP Drink Cups (#5), Other PP Non-bottle Rigid
(#5), Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7), and Other Small Rigid Packaging Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7).
• Non-rigid Film Plastic include Plastic Garbage Bags and Non-rigid Plastic Film.
• All Other Materials include Soiled Pizza Boxes, Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain, Bulky Items,
All Other Garbage, and Liquids.
Corrugated Cardboard, 3.0%
Mixed Recyclable Paper, 9.2%
Recyclable Plastic
Bottles, 6.0%
Metal Cans,
3.2%
Glass Bottles
and Jars, 2.8%
Textiles and
Shoes, 2.9%
Other Drop-off
Location
Materials, 2.7%
C&D Waste,
1.0%
Other Potential
Recoverables, 2.8%
Unacceptable Plastic
Containers, 2.5%
Compostable Paper, 5.5%
Food Waste, 21.6%
Yard Waste, 3.6%
Non-recyclable
Paper, 3.6%
All Other
Plastics, 1.0%
Non-rigid Plastic
Film, 7.0%
Disposable Diapers,
6.0%
All Other Materials, 15.5%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
36
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 4-1: Composition of BMSWD Single-Family Residential Waste
Material Categories
Weighted
Average
90% Confidence Intervals
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Corrugated Cardboard 3.0% 2.0% 4.0%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 9.2% 7.3% 11.1%
Total Program Recyclable Paper 12.2% 10.8% 13.7%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars - Clear (#1) 2.6% 2.1% 3.2%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 2.0% 1.1% 2.9%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 1.2% 0.9% 1.5%
Tin/Steel Cans 1.7% 1.0% 2.3%
Aluminum Cans 1.6% 1.2% 2.0%
Total Program Recyclable Containers 9.3% 7.4% 11.1%
Unacceptable Metals 0.4% 0.1% 0.7%
Glass Bottles and Jars 2.8% 1.8% 3.9%
Textiles and Shoes 2.9% 1.7% 4.2%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.7% 0.4% 1.0%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
E-Waste and Small Appliances 1.4% 0.8% 2.0%
Sharps 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Drop-off Location Materials 8.4% 6.3% 10.5%
Compostable Paper 5.5% 4.5% 6.4%
Food Waste 21.6% 19.8% 23.3%
Yard Waste 3.6% 2.0% 5.1%
Total Potential Compostables 30.6% 28.5% 32.7%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.8% 0.3% 1.4%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids - Clear (#1) 0.2% 0.1% 0.4%
Other PET Non-Bottle Rigids – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.2% 0.1% 0.4%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.6% 0.4% 0.7%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.5% 0.3% 0.6%
Other PP Non-bottle (#5) 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Other Small Rigid Pkg. Conts. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.7% 0.5% 0.9%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.0% 0.4% 1.6%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.3% 0.1% 0.4%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 1.0% 0.2% 1.8%
Total Potential Recoverables 6.3% 4.8% 7.8%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.5% 0.3% 0.8%
Non-recyclable Paper 3.6% 2.7% 4.5%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 1.0% 0.7% 1.3%
Garbage Bags 2.1% 1.2% 3.0%
Non-rigid Plastic Film 4.9% 3.7% 6.1%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.6% 0.3% 0.9%
Bulky Items 1.6% -0.7% 3.8%
Disposable Diapers 6.0% 4.2% 7.9%
All Other Garbage 11.1% 8.3% 14.0%
Liquids 1.7% 0.9% 2.5%
Total Other Materials 33.2% 30.5% 35.9%
Total 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
37
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
4.3 City of Prairie Grove Single-Family Residential
Waste
Figure 4-2 depicts the composition of City of Prairie Grove single-family residential waste. Table
4-2 shows the composition of City of Prairie Grove single-family residential waste.
Key findings from the City of Prairie Grove single-family residential waste results are as follows:
• Other Materials once again comprised the largest share of waste among all material
category groupings, constituting nearly one-third of all waste from single-family
households. Within this category, All Other Garbage represented the highest percentage
at over 11 percent. Significant contributors included Disposable Diapers at almost 6
percent, Non-rigid Plastic Film at over 3 percent, and both Non-recyclable Paper and
Garbage Bags, each accounting for approximately 2 percent.
• Potential Compostables represented about 29 percent of all waste generated by single-
family residences. Food Waste was the most substantial category, making up over 22
percent. Additionally, Yard Waste contributed more than 4 percent, while Compostable
Paper accounted for approximately 2 percent.
• Program Recyclable Paper constituted nearly 13 percent of the waste stream, with
Mixed Recyclable Paper comprising almost 8 percent and Corrugated Cardboard
exceeding 5 percent.
• Drop-off Location Materials accounted for more than 11 percent of the waste stream,
with major categories including Glass Bottles and Jars, Textiles and Shoes, and
Hazardous/Special Waste.
• Potential Recoverables made up approximately 10 percent of the stream, with all
individual material categories contributing 1 percent or less, except for C&D Debris at
4.2 percent and Bulky Rigid Plastic at 3.3 percent.
• Program Recyclable Containers represented about 6 percent of the total waste.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
38
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 4-2: Composition of City of Prairie Grove Single-Family Residential Waste
Note: For this figure, the following categories have been combined:
• Recyclable Plastic Bottles include PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) – Clear, PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) –
Opaque/Pigmented, Natural HDPE Bottles (#2), and Colored HDPE Bottles (#2).
• Metal Cans includes Tin/Steel and Aluminum Cans.
• Other Drop-off Location Materials includes Unacceptable Metals, Hazardous/Special Waste, Batteries, E-
Waste & Small Appliances, Tires, and Sharps.
• Other Potential Recoverables include Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons, Expanded Polystyrene Foam,
Bulky Rigid Plastic, and Aluminum Foil and Trays.
• Unacceptable Plastic Containers include PET Clamshells (#1), PET Drink Cups (#1), Other PET Non-bottle
rigid– Clear (#1), Other PET Non-bottle Rigid – Opaque/Pigmented (#1), Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2),
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5), PP Clamshells (#5), PP Tubs (#5), PP Drink Cups (#5), Other PP Non-bottle Rigid
(#5), Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7), and Other Small Rigid Packaging Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7).
• Non-rigid Film Plastic include Plastic Garbage Bags and Non-rigid Plastic Film.
• All Other Materials include Soiled Pizza Boxes, Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain, Bulky Items,
All Other Garbage, and Liquids.
Corrugated Cardboard, 5.1%
Mixed Recyclable Paper, 7.8%
Recyclable Plastic
Bottles, 2.8%
Metal Cans, 3.7%
Glass Bottles
and Jars, 5.0%
Textiles and
Shoes, 3.3%
Other Drop Off
Location
Materials, 3.0%
C&D Waste,
4.2%
Other Potential
Recoverables, 4.3%
Unacceptable Plastic
Containers, 1.7%Compostable Paper,
2.4%
Food Waste, 22.4%
Yard Waste,
4.2%
Non-
recyclable
Paper, 2.1%
All Other Plastics,
1.4%
Non-rigid Plastic
Film, 5.4%
Diapers, 5.6%
All Other Materials, 15.6%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
39
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 4-2: Composition of City of Prairie Grove Single-Family Residential Waste
Material Categories
Weighted
Average
90% Confidence Intervals
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Corrugated Cardboard 5.1% -2.7% 12.9%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 7.8% 4.5% 11.1%
Total Program Recyclable Paper 12.9% 4.5% 21.3%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars - Clear (#1) 1.8% 0.8% 2.9%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.6% 0.3% 0.9%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.3% -0.2% 0.9%
Tin/Steel Cans 2.1% 0.1% 4.0%
Aluminum Cans 1.6% 0.9% 2.4%
Total Program Recyclable Containers 6.5% 3.2% 9.7%
Unacceptable Metals 0.3% 0.0% 0.6%
Glass Bottles and Jars 5.0% -1.2% 11.3%
Textiles and Shoes 3.3% 0.0% 6.7%
Hazardous/Special Waste 2.4% -3.2% 8.0%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
E-Waste and Small Appliances 0.2% -0.6% 1.1%
Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Drop-off Location Materials 11.4% 3.2% 19.6%
Compostable Paper 2.4% 1.1% 3.7%
Food Waste 22.4% 20.0% 24.7%
Yard Waste 4.2% -1.8% 10.2%
Total Potential Compostables 28.9% 20.5% 37.4%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.2% -0.2% 0.5%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.1% -0.1% 0.4%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids - Clear (#1) 0.1% -0.1% 0.3%
Other PET Non-Bottle Rigids – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.5% -0.3% 1.2%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.2% -0.1% 0.5%
Other PP Non-bottle (#5) 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Other Small Rigid Pkg. Conts. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.2% 0.0% 0.5%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.5% 0.0% 1.1%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 3.3% -6.4% 13.0%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.3% 0.0% 0.7%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 4.2% -6.4% 14.7%
Total Potential Recoverables 10.2% -9.5% 29.9%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.6% -1.3% 2.6%
Non-recyclable Paper 2.1% 1.1% 3.1%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 1.4% -0.9% 3.6%
Garbage Bags 2.3% 0.9% 3.8%
Non-rigid Plastic Film 3.1% 2.0% 4.1%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.4% -0.3% 1.2%
Bulky Items 1.9% -1.6% 5.5%
Disposable Diapers 5.6% -3.3% 14.5%
All Other Garbage 11.7% 5.9% 17.5%
Liquids 0.9% 0.1% 1.8%
Total Other Materials 30.1% 10.3% 49.9%
Total 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
40
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
4.4 City of Johnson Single-Family Residential Waste
Figure 4-3 depicts the composition of City of Johnson single-family residential waste. Table 4-3
shows the composition of single-family residential waste. City of Johnson waste is not
transported and disposed directly through BMSWD but handled under a sperate private hauler
contract.
Key findings from the City of Johnson’s single-family residential waste results are as follows:
• Potential Compostables accounted for 33 percent of all waste generated by single-
family residences, with Food Waste being the largest category at 25 percent. In addition,
Compostable Paper contributed nearly 6 percent, while Yard Waste made up
approximately 2 percent.
• Other Materials represented about 31 percent of the total waste from single-family
households. Within this category, Disposable Diapers held the highest percentage at
almost 9 percent. Other significant contributors included All Other Garbage at roughly 6
percent, Non-rigid Plastic Film at over 5 percent, and Non-recyclable Paper, which
accounted for around 4 percent.
• Program Recyclable Paper constituted over 14 percent of the waste stream, with Mixed
Recyclable Paper making up more than 9 percent and Corrugated Cardboard nearing 5
percent.
• Program Recyclable Containers and Potential Recoverables each accounted for about 6
percent of the total waste.
• Drop-off Location Materials represented nearly 10 percent of the waste stream, with
major categories including Glass Bottles and Jars and Textiles and Shoes.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
41
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 4-3: Composition of City of Johnson Single-Family Residential Waste
Note: For this figure, the following categories have been combined:
• Recyclable Plastic Bottles include PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) – Clear, PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) –
Opaque/Pigmented, Natural HDPE Bottles (#2), and Colored HDPE Bottles (#2).
• Metal Cans includes Tin/Steel and Aluminum Cans.
• Other Drop-off Location Materials includes Unacceptable Metals, Hazardous/Special Waste, Batteries, E-
Waste & Small Appliances, Tires, and Sharps.
• Other Potential Recoverables include Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons, Expanded Polystyrene Foam,
Bulky Rigid Plastic, and Aluminum Foil and Trays.
• Unacceptable Plastic Containers include PET Clamshells (#1), PET Drink Cups (#1), Other PET Non-bottle
rigid– Clear (#1), Other PET Non-bottle Rigid – Opaque/Pigmented (#1), Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2),
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5), PP Clamshells (#5), PP Tubs (#5), PP Drink Cups (#5), Other PP Non-bottle Rigid
(#5), Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7), and Other Small Rigid Packaging Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7).
• Non-rigid Film Plastic include Plastic Garbage Bags and Non-rigid Plastic Film.
• All Other Materials include Soiled Pizza Boxes, Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain, Bulky Items,
All Other Garbage, and Liquids.
Corrugated Cardboard, 4.8%
Mixed Recyclable Paper, 9.5%
Recyclable Plastic
Bottles, 3.1%
Metal Cans,
3.2%
Glass Bottles
and Jars, …
Textiles and
Shoes, 3.1%
Other Drop Off
Location Materials,
1.7%
C&D Waste, 0.5%
Other Potential
Recoverables, 2.7%
Unacceptable Plastic
Containers, 2.7%
Compostable Paper, 5.7%
Food Waste, 25.0%
Yard
Waste,
2.3%
Non-
recyclable
Paper, 4.2%
All Other
Plastics,
1.4%
Non-rigid
Plastic Film,
7.3%
Diapers, 8.8%
All Other Materials, 9.1%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
42
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 4-3: Composition of City of Johnson Single-Family Residential Waste
Material Categories
Weighted
Average
90% Confidence Intervals
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Corrugated Cardboard 4.8% 0.8% 8.8%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 9.5% 8.7% 10.3%
Total Program Recyclable Paper 14.3% 10.1% 18.6%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars - Clear (#1) 2.1% 1.3% 2.9%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.6% 0.4% 0.7%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.3% 0.1% 0.5%
Tin/Steel Cans 1.8% 1.0% 2.7%
Aluminum Cans 1.4% 1.0% 1.8%
Total Program Recyclable Containers 6.3% 4.9% 7.8%
Unacceptable Metals 0.5% 0.0% 1.1%
Glass Bottles and Jars 4.8% 1.6% 8.0%
Textiles and Shoes 3.1% 0.9% 5.4%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
E-Waste and Small Appliances 1.1% -0.1% 2.2%
Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Drop-off Location Materials 9.7% 5.0% 14.3%
Compostable Paper 5.7% 4.3% 7.1%
Food Waste 25.0% 21.9% 28.0%
Yard Waste 2.3% 0.1% 4.5%
Total Potential Compostables 33.0% 29.6% 36.3%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.8% -0.1% 1.6%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.3% 0.2% 0.5%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids - Clear (#1) 0.3% 0.1% 0.5%
Other PET Non-Bottle Rigids – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.4% 0.0% 0.7%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.2% 0.1% 0.4%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.5% 0.4% 0.7%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
Other PP Non-bottle (#5) 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%
Other Small Rigid Pkg. Conts. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.2% 0.1% 0.4%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 1.1% 0.7% 1.5%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.4% 0.1% 0.6%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.5% 0.1% 0.9%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.5% -0.1% 1.1%
Total Potential Recoverables 6.0% 3.8% 8.1%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Non-recyclable Paper 4.2% 2.9% 5.4%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 1.4% 0.5% 2.3%
Garbage Bags 2.0% 1.8% 2.2%
Non-rigid Plastic Film 5.3% 4.8% 5.8%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.3% -0.1% 0.7%
Bulky Items 0.8% -0.2% 1.8%
Disposable Diapers 8.8% 3.0% 14.6%
All Other Garbage 6.1% 5.0% 7.1%
Liquids 1.9% 0.2% 3.7%
Total Other Materials 30.8% 23.2% 38.4%
Total 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
43
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
4.5 Other Single-Family Residential Waste
Figure 4-4 depicts the composition of other single-family residential waste disposed outside of
BMSWD Transfer Station which includes samples from CARDS and Waste Management. Table 4-
4 shows the composition of single-family residential waste.
Key findings from other single-family residential waste results are as follows:
• Potential Compostables accounted for nearly 32 percent of all waste generated by
single-family residences, with Food Waste being the largest category at over 20 percent.
Additionally, Yard Waste contributed nearly 7 percent, while Compostable Paper made
up approximately 5 percent.
• Other Materials represented about 28 percent of the total waste from single-family
households. Within this category, All Other Garbage held the highest percentage at over
7 percent. Other significant contributors included Non-rigid Plastic Film at nearly 6
percent, Non-recyclable Paper at over 5 percent, and Disposable Diapers, which
accounted for around 4 percent.
• Drop-off Location Materials constituted almost 11 percent of the waste stream. The two
major material categories were Glass Bottles and Jars (4.5 percent) and Textiles and
Shoes (3.8 percent).
• Potential Recoverables accounted for 11 percent of the waste stream. Over half of this
material grouping being C&D Debris with almost 7 percent of the waste steam. The
remaining material categories in the grouping each represented less than 1 percent of
the waste stream.
• Mixed Recyclable Paper (9.4 percent) and Corrugated Cardboard (1.4 percent) combined
for a Program Recyclable Paper category accounting for nearly 11 percent of the waste
stream.
• Program Recyclable Containers accounted for over 7 percent of the stream, with PET
Bottles, Jugs, and Jars – Clear (#1) representing the largest category within this group at
about 3 percent.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
44
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 4-4: Composition of Other Single-Family Residential Waste
Note: For this figure, the following categories have been combined:
• Recyclable Plastic Bottles include PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) – Clear, PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) –
Opaque/Pigmented, Natural HDPE Bottles (#2), and Colored HDPE Bottles (#2).
• Metal Cans includes Tin/Steel and Aluminum Cans.
• Other Drop-off Location Materials includes Unacceptable Metals, Hazardous/Special Waste, Batteries, E-
Waste & Small Appliances, Tires, and Sharps.
• Other Potential Recoverables include Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons, Expanded Polystyrene Foam,
Bulky Rigid Plastic, and Aluminum Foil and Trays.
• Unacceptable Plastic Containers include PET Clamshells (#1), PET Drink Cups (#1), Other PET Non-bottle
rigid– Clear (#1), Other PET Non-bottle Rigid – Opaque/Pigmented (#1), Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2),
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5), PP Clamshells (#5), PP Tubs (#5), PP Drink Cups (#5), Other PP Non-bottle Rigid
(#5), Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7), and Other Small Rigid Packaging Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7).
• Non-rigid Film Plastic include Plastic Garbage Bags and Non-rigid Plastic Film.
• All Other Materials include Soiled Pizza Boxes, Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain, Bulky Items,
All Other Garbage, and Liquids.
Corrugated Cardboard, 1.4%
Mixed Recyclable Paper, 9.4%
Recyclable Plastic
Bottles, 4.6%
Metal Cans, 2.8%
Glass Bottles
and Jars, 4.5%
Textiles and
Shoes, 3.8%
Other Drop Off
Location
Materials,
2.5%
C&D Waste,
6.6%
Other Potential
Recoverables, 2.5%
Unacceptable Plastic
Containers, 2.0%
Compostable Paper, 4.8%Food Waste, 20.5%
Yard
Waste,
6.6%
Non-
recyclable
Paper, 5.5%
All Other
Plastics,
1.5%
Non-rigid
Plastic Film,
8.6%
Diapers, 4.1%
All Other Materials, 8.4%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
45
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 4-4: Composition of Other Single-Family Residential Waste
Material Categories
Weighted
Average
90% Confidence Intervals
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Corrugated Cardboard 1.4% -1.4% 4.2%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 9.4% 7.1% 11.6%
Total Program Recyclable Paper 10.8% 7.8% 13.8%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars - Clear (#1) 2.9% 2.0% 3.7%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.6% 0.3% 1.0%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.5% 0.4% 0.7%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.6% -1.5% 2.6%
Tin/Steel Cans 1.3% 0.7% 1.9%
Aluminum Cans 1.5% 0.8% 2.2%
Total Program Recyclable Containers 7.4% 5.1% 9.7%
Unacceptable Metals 0.9% 0.3% 1.5%
Glass Bottles and Jars 4.5% 2.6% 6.4%
Textiles and Shoes 3.8% 2.3% 5.3%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.5% 0.0% 0.9%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
E-Waste and Small Appliances 1.0% 0.1% 1.9%
Sharps 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Drop-off Location Materials 10.8% 7.4% 14.2%
Compostable Paper 4.8% 3.8% 5.8%
Food Waste 20.5% 8.8% 32.3%
Yard Waste 6.6% 1.4% 11.8%
Total Potential Compostables 31.9% 21.4% 42.4%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.6% 0.3% 0.9%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.3% 0.1% 0.5%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids - Clear (#1) 0.0% -0.1% 0.2%
Other PET Non-Bottle Rigids – Op./Pig. (#1) 0.2% -0.3% 0.6%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.0% -0.2% 0.2%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.7% 0.1% 1.2%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Other PP Non-bottle (#5) 0.0% -0.1% 0.1%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.2% -0.1% 0.5%
Other Small Rigid Pkg. Conts. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.2% -0.7% 1.0%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.9% 0.5% 1.3%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.4% -0.4% 1.3%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.5% -0.3% 1.4%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 6.6% -7.8% 20.9%
Total Potential Recoverables 11.0% -2.4% 24.5%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.2% -0.1% 0.5%
Non-recyclable Paper 5.5% 3.4% 7.5%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 1.5% 1.1% 1.9%
Garbage Bags 2.7% 1.9% 3.4%
Non-rigid Plastic Film 5.9% 3.5% 8.4%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.3% 0.0% 0.6%
Bulky Items 0.0% -0.2% 0.2%
Disposable Diapers 4.1% -2.4% 10.6%
All Other Garbage 7.1% 5.0% 9.2%
Liquids 0.8% -3.2% 4.7%
Total Other Materials 28.1% 23.8% 32.4%
Total 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
46
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Section 5
WCS Visual Audit Results
5.1 Introduction
The composition of waste in each load type (as defined in Section 2) for the visual audits is
presented in this section. All results are expressed in both percentage by volume and by weight.
The percentages by volume included in the tables and figures are the weighted average values
for each material category. The percentages by volume also provide a 90 percent confidence
interval for each material category. KCI employed bulk density factors from the US EPA and
CalRecycle to convert the percent by volume to percent by weight of each material category.
Table 5-1 shows the conversion factors used and their source. Note: A confidence interval is not
calculated for the percent by weight due to the methodology used to calculate the confidence
interval from the raw data, which was measured in percent by volume.
Caution is advised when using quantified data from visual audits. While KCI has developed a
methodology to be as accurate, comprehensive, and consistent as possible with these audits,
they are nevertheless limited based on what could be observed during the audit. Furthermore,
applying a standard density factor to calculate the percent by weight has its own inherent
inaccuracies as it does not always represent the actual bulk density of the material observed
during the audit. However, they remain a strong tool for understanding quantities of material
streams that are impractical or challenging to hand sort.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 5: WCS Visual Audit Results
47
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 5-1: Density Factors Used to Convert Percent by Weight to Percent by Volume
Material Category
Density Factor
(lbs./cy) Source Notes
Treated Wood 169 CalRecycle 2006
Untreated Wood 169 CalRecycle 2006
Carpet and Padding 105 US EPA 2016 Average of carpet and padding
Drywall 467 US EPA 2016
Roofing Shingles 731 US EPA 2016
Concrete 860 US EPA 2016
Asphalt 773 US EPA 2016
Rock 999 US EPA 2016
Brick and Masonry 860 US EPA 2016 Assumed same as concrete
Fines and Grit 417 US EPA 2016 Remainder/Composite C&D
Fiberglass – Insulation 17 CalRecycle 2006
Fiberglass – Rigid 50 CalRecycle 2006 Assume same as rigid plastics
Tile and Porcelain 860 US EPA 2016 Assumed same as concrete
Linoleum and Vinyl 416 CalRecycle 2006 Other C&D
Paned Glass 380 US EPA 2016 Assume similar to glass bottle
Bagged C&D Debris 150 * Assumed same as bagged household garbage
Furniture 80 CalRecycle 2006 Bulky Items
Mattresses 80 CalRecycle 2006 Bulky Items
Corrugated Cardboard 53 CalRecycle 2006
Other Paper 323 US EPA 2016 Mixed paper (loose)
Film 35 US EPA 2016
Polystyrene Foam 32 US EPA 2016
Rigid Plastics 50 CalRecycle 2006 Durable Plastic Items
PVC Pipe 50 CalRecycle 2006 Assume same as rigid plastics
Major Appliances 145 US EPA 2016
HVAC Ducting 47 US EPA 2016
Ferrous Scrap Metal 225 US EPA 2016
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal 225 US EPA 2016
Yard Waste 250 US EPA 2016 Uncompacted mix
Soil 929 CalRecycle 2006
Bagged Yard Waste 250 US EPA 2016 Assumed same as yard waste
E-waste 438 CalRecycle 2006
Household Hazardous Waste 1671 CalRecycle 2006 Composite Household Hazardous Waste
Tires 225 US EPA 2016 22.5 lb./tire, 10 tires/CY
Textiles 150 US EPA 2016
Bagged Household Waste 150 * Based on KCI experience
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW 150 * Assumed same as bagged household garbage
Sources:
1 US EPA, Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. April 2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
04/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.pdf
2 CalRecycle: Integrated Waste Management Board, Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Detailed
Characterization of Construction and Demolition Waste. June 2006. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1185
*These conversion factors have been adjusted from the EPA and CalRecycle references based on KCI’s experience.
.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 5: WCS Visual Audit Results
48
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
5.2 General Public Waste
Table 5-2 shows the composition of General Public waste estimated during the visual audits in
percent by volume and the estimated composition by weight using density conversion factors.
Figures 5-1 and 5-2 show the composition by volume and weight, respectively.
Key findings of the visual audit of General Public waste are as follows:
• C&D materials represented almost half of the waste stream by volume and over 75
percent by weight. The high density of these materials is the reasoning for the increased
percent by weight. The major components were Treated Wood, Roofing Shingles, and
Bagged C&D Debris.
• The second largest category group, Other Material represented over 30 percent by
volume and approximately 17 percent by weight. Bagged Household Waste, Mixed
Residue, and Tires represented the majority of this category group.
• Plastics, especially Film and Rigid Plastics, were another significant component (by
volume), although this material only comprised a small percentage by weight (less than
one percent).
• Paper, similar to Plastics, accounted for about 3 percent of the stream by volume but
less than one percent by weight.
• About 5 percent by volume (3 percent by weight) of C&D Debris was comprised of
metals.
• Total Organics accounted for approximately 1 percent of the stream by both volume and
weight.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 5: WCS Visual Audit Results
49
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 5-2: Composition of General Public Waste from Visual Audits
Material Category
Weighted
Average
(% by volume)
90% Confidence
Interval Average
Density
(lbs./cy)
Weighted
Average
(% by weight)
Lower
Bounds
Upper
Bounds
Treated Wood 10.9% 4.1% 17.7% 169 6.1%
Untreated Wood 2.0% -0.3% 4.3% 169 1.1%
Carpet and Padding 0.4% -0.5% 1.2% 105 0.1%
Drywall 1.6% -2.8% 5.9% 467 2.4%
Roofing Shingles 25.5% 11.9% 39.2% 731 61.4%
Concrete 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 860 0.0%
Asphalt 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 773 0.0%
Rock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 999 0.0%
Brick and Masonry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 860 0.0%
Fines and Grit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 417 0.0%
Fiberglass - Insulation 0.2% -0.2% 0.6% 17 0.0%
Fiberglass – Rigid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50 0.0%
Tile and Porcelain 0.3% -0.2% 0.7% 860 0.8%
Linoleum and Vinyl 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 416 0.0%
Paned Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 380 0.0%
Bagged C&D Debris 6.8% 1.5% 12.1% 150 3.4%
Total C&D Debris 47.7% 33.3% 62.0% 75.3%
Furniture 3.9% -3.6% 11.4% 80 1.0%
Mattresses 0.5% -0.8% 1.8% 80 0.1%
Total Furniture 4.4% -3.1% 11.9% 1.2%
Corrugated Cardboard 2.6% 1.3% 4.0% 53 0.5%
Other Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 323 0.0%
Total Paper 2.6% 1.3% 4.0% 0.5%
Film 4.2% 2.2% 6.1% 35 0.5%
Polystyrene Foam 0.3% -0.2% 0.7% 32 0.0%
Rigid Plastics 2.3% 1.0% 3.7% 50 0.4%
PVC Pipe 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50 0.0%
Total Plastic 6.7% 4.7% 8.7% 0.9%
Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 145 0.0%
HVAC Ducting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 47 0.0%
Ferrous Scrap Metal 3.9% 0.1% 7.8% 225 2.9%
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal 0.9% 0.4% 1.4% 225 0.7%
Total Metal 4.9% 1.1% 8.7% 3.6%
Yard Waste 0.7% -0.6% 1.9% 250 0.5%
Soil 0.1% -0.1% 0.2% 929 0.2%
Bagged Yard Waste 0.7% 0.3% 1.1% 250 0.6%
Total Organic 1.4% 0.0% 2.8% 1.3%
E-waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 438 0.0%
Hazardous Waste 1.9% 0.3% 3.4% 150 0.9%
Tires 5.3% -3.4% 13.9% 225 3.9%
Textiles 0.2% -0.2% 0.6% 150 0.1%
Bagged Household Waste 14.9% 6.1% 23.7% 150 7.4%
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW 10.0% 3.9% 16.1% 150 4.9%
Total Other Material 32.2% 18.9% 45.6% 17.2%
Total 100% 100%
Note: Columns may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 5: WCS Visual Audit Results
50
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 5-1: Composition of General Public Waste (% by volume)
Figure 5-2: Composition of General Public Waste (% by weight)
Note: For these figures, the following categories have been combined:
• All Other C&D includes the categories Carpet & Padding, Drywall, Concrete, Asphalt, Rock, Brick and Masonry, Fines and Grit,
Fiberglass – Insulation, Fiberglass – Rigid, Tile and Porcelain, Linoleum/Vinyl Paned Glass, and Bagged C&D Debris.
• All Metals includes the categories Major Appliances, HVAC Ducting, Ferrous Scrap Metal, and Non-ferrous Scrap Metal.
• All Yard Waste includes the categories of Yard Waste and Bagged Yard Waste.
• All Other Materials includes the categories of Other Paper, Film, Polystyrene Foam, PVC Pipe, Soil, E-waste, Hazardous
Waste, Tires, Textiles, and Mixed Residue/Loose MSW.
Treated Wood, 10.9%
Untreated Wood, 2.0%
Roofing Shingles,
25.5%
All Other C&D, 9.2%
Furniture, 3.9%Mattresses, 0.5%Corrugated Cardboard, 2.6%
Rigid Plastics, 2.3%
All Metals, 4.9%
All Yard Waste, 1.4%
Bagged Household
Waste, 14.9%
All Other Materials,
21.8%
Treated Wood, 6.1%
Untreated Wood, 1.1%
Roofing Shingles, 61.4%
All Other C&D, 6.7%
Furniture, 1.0%
Mattresses, 0.1%
Corrugated Cardboard,
0.5%
Rigid Plastics, 0.4%
All Metals, 3.6%
All Yard Waste, 1.1%
Bagged Household
Waste, 7.4%
All Other Materials,
10.6%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 5: WCS Visual Audit Results
51
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
5.3 C&D Debris
Table 5-3 shows the composition of C&D Debris estimated during the visual audits in percent by
volume and the estimated composition by weight using density conversion factors. Figures 5-3
and 5-4 show the composition by volume and weight, respectively.
Key findings of the visual audit of C&D Debris are as follows:
• As expected, C&D materials were the most prominent type of material representing
about 85 percent by volume and over 91 percent by weight. Major C&D material types
included Untreated Wood (a significant amount of which were pallets), Treated Wood,
and Drywall.
• Once again, Plastics were another significant component (by volume), although this
material only comprised a small percentage by weight (one percent).
• Metals accounted for approximately 3 percent of the stream by both volume and
weight.
• Other Materials, mostly Mixed Residue and Bagged Household Waste accounted for
approximately 4 percent of the stream by weight.
• Furniture, Paper, and Organics did not account for any of the percent by weight.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 5: WCS Visual Audit Results
52
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 5-3: Composition of C&D Debris from Visual Audits
Material Category
Weighted
Average
(% by volume)
90% Confidence
Interval Average
Density
(lbs./cy)
Weighted
Average
(% by weight)
Lower
Bounds
Upper
Bounds
Treated Wood 15.5% -0.5% 31.6% 169 12.2%
Untreated Wood 52.4% 23.5% 81.4% 169 41.3%
Carpet and Padding 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 105 0.0%
Drywall 12.8% -5.5% 31.2% 467 27.9%
Roofing Shingles 2.6% -2.5% 7.8% 731 9.0%
Concrete 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 860 0.0%
Asphalt 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 773 0.0%
Rock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 999 0.0%
Brick and Masonry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 860 0.0%
Fines and Grit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 417 0.0%
Fiberglass - Insulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17 0.0%
Fiberglass - Rigid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50 0.0%
Tile and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 860 0.0%
Linoleum and Vinyl 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 416 0.0%
Paned Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 380 0.0%
Bagged C&D Debris 1.7% -5.6% 9.0% 150 1.2%
Total C&D Debris 85.1% 70.7% 99.4% 91.6%
Furniture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80 0.0%
Mattresses 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80 0.0%
Total Furniture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Corrugated Cardboard 0.2% -0.2% 0.5% 53 0.0%
Other Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 323 0.0%
Total Paper 0.2% -0.2% 0.5% 0.0%
Film 4.6% -1.7% 10.9% 35 0.8%
Polystyrene Foam 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32 0.0%
Rigid Plastics 1.2% -1.2% 3.6% 50 0.3%
PVC Pipe 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50 0.0%
Total Plastic 5.8% -1.0% 12.5% 1.0%
Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 145 0.0%
HVAC Ducting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 47 0.0%
Ferrous Scrap Metal 2.8% -2.3% 7.9% 225 2.9%
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal 0.2% -0.2% 0.5% 225 0.2%
Total Metal 3.0% -2.3% 8.2% 3.1%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 250 0.0%
Soil 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 929 0.0%
Bagged Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 250 0.0%
Total Organic 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
E-waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 438 0.0%
HHW 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 150 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 225 0.0%
Textiles 0.3% -0.6% 1.2% 150 0.2%
Bagged Household Waste 2.3% -0.8% 5.4% 150 1.6%
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW 3.4% 0.3% 6.5% 150 2.4%
Total Other Material 6.0% 0.2% 11.9% 4.2%
Total 100% 100%
Note: Columns may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 5: WCS Visual Audit Results
53
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 5-3: Composition of C&D Debris (% by volume)
Figure 5-4: Composition of C&D Debris (% by weight)
Note: For these figures, the following categories have been combined:
• All Other C&D includes the categories Carpet & Padding, Drywall, Concrete, Asphalt, Rock, Brick and Masonry, Fines and Grit,
Fiberglass – Insulation, Fiberglass – Rigid, Tile and Porcelain, Linoleum/Vinyl Paned Glass, and Bagged C&D Debris.
• All Metals includes the categories Major Appliances, HVAC Ducting, Ferrous Scrap Metal, and Non-ferrous Scrap Metal.
• All Yard Waste includes the categories of Yard Waste and Bagged Yard Waste.
• All Other Materials includes the categories of Other Paper, Film, Polystyrene Foam, PVC Pipe, Soil, E-waste, Hazardous
Waste, Tires, Textiles, and Mixed Residue/Loose MSW.
Treated Wood, 15.5%
Untreated Wood,
52.4%
Roofing Shingles,
2.6%
All Other C&D,
14.5%
Corrugated Cardboard, 0.2%
Rigid Plastics, 1.2%
All Metals, 3.0%
Bagged Household Waste, 2.3%All Other Materials, 8.3%
Treated Wood, 12.2%
Untreated Wood,
41.3%
Roofing Shingles, 9.0%
All Other C&D, 29.1%
Rigid Plastics, 0.3%
All Metals, 3.1%
Bagged Household Waste, 1.6%All Other Materials, 3.4%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 5: WCS Visual Audit Results
54
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
5.4 Mixed Dumpsters
Table 5-4 shows the composition of Mixed Dumpster loads estimated during the visual audits in
percent by volume and the estimated composition by weight using density conversion factors.
Figures 5-5 and 5-6 show the composition by volume and weight, respectively.
Key findings of the visual audit of Mixed Dumpsters are as follows:
• As with the other bulky waste streams, C&D materials were the most prominent type of
material in the Mixed Dumpsters, representing about 52 percent by volume and 62
percent by weight. Treated and untreated wood represented the majority of the C&D
materials.
• Over 15 percent of the waste by volume and almost 13 percent by weight was other
materials, mostly bagged household waste and mixed residue/loose MSW.
• Metals represented approximately 9 percent (both by volume and weight) of the waste
stream and was mainly comprised of Major Appliances, Ferrous Scrap Metal, and Non-
ferrous Scrap Metal.
• Furniture and Mattresses represented about 10 percent by volume but only 4 percent
by weight of the waste stream.
• Organics comprised about 5 percent by volume and 9 percent by weight.
• Paper and Plastic represented only about 1 percent each by weight of the waste stream.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 5: WCS Visual Audit Results
55
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Table 5-4: Composition of Mixed Dumpsters from Visual Audits
Material Category
Weighted
Average
(% by volume)
90% Confidence
Interval Average
Density
(lbs./cy)
Weighted
Average
(% by weight)
Lower
Bounds
Upper
Bounds
Treated Wood 43.4% 23.9% 62.9% 169 40.3%
Untreated Wood 1.0% -1.7% 3.8% 169 1.0%
Carpet and Padding 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% 105 0.2%
Drywall 1.0% -0.9% 2.8% 467 2.5%
Roofing Shingles 1.4% -1.0% 3.7% 731 5.5%
Concrete 0.1% -0.2% 0.5% 860 0.6%
Asphalt 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 773 0.0%
Rock 0.3% -0.6% 1.2% 999 1.7%
Brick and Masonry 1.2% -0.7% 3.2% 860 5.8%
Fines and Grit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 417 0.0%
Fiberglass - Insulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17 0.0%
Fiberglass - Rigid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50 0.0%
Tile and Porcelain 0.3% -0.6% 1.3% 860 1.6%
Linoleum and Vinyl 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 416 0.0%
Paned Glass 0.9% -0.9% 2.8% 380 1.9%
Bagged C&D Debris 1.5% -0.5% 3.5% 150 1.2%
Total C&D Debris 51.6% 31.3% 71.9% 62.3%
Furniture 8.4% -3.4% 20.1% 80 3.7%
Mattresses 1.4% -1.4% 4.1% 80 0.6%
Total Furniture 9.7% -4.7% 24.2% 4.3%
Corrugated Cardboard 5.1% -5.7% 16.0% 53 1.5%
Other Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 323 0.0%
Total Paper 5.1% -5.7% 16.0% 1.5%
Film 2.7% -0.3% 5.7% 35 0.5%
Polystyrene Foam 0.5% -0.5% 1.4% 32 0.1%
Rigid Plastics 1.1% -0.4% 2.6% 50 0.3%
PVC Pipe 0.1% -0.1% 0.2% 50 0.0%
Total Plastic 4.4% 1.1% 7.6% 0.9%
Major Appliances 3.7% 0.9% 6.5% 145 2.9%
HVAC Ducting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 47 0.0%
Ferrous Scrap Metal 2.8% -0.1% 5.6% 225 3.4%
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal 2.5% -4.9% 9.8% 225 3.0%
Total Metal 8.9% 1.4% 16.3% 9.4%
Yard Waste 3.5% -2.9% 9.9% 250 4.8%
Soil 0.6% -1.2% 2.4% 929 3.1%
Bagged Yard Waste 0.6% -1.2% 2.4% 250 0.8%
Total Organic 4.7% -3.4% 12.9% 8.8%
E-waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 438 0.0%
HHW 0.4% -0.3% 1.0% 150 0.3%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 225 0.0%
Textiles 0.6% 0.0% 1.1% 150 0.5%
Bagged Household Waste 8.0% 2.1% 13.8% 150 6.6%
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW 6.6% 2.9% 10.4% 150 5.5%
Total Other Material 15.5% 6.2% 24.8% 12.8%
Total 100% 100%
Note: Columns may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 5: WCS Visual Audit Results
56
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 5-5: Composition of Mixed Dumpsters (% by volume)
Figure 5-6: Composition of Mixed Dumpsters (% by weight)
Note: For these figures, the following categories have been combined:
• All Other C&D includes the categories Carpet & Padding, Drywall, Concrete, Asphalt, Rock, Brick and Masonry, Fines and Grit,
Fiberglass – Insulation, Fiberglass – Rigid, Tile and Porcelain, Linoleum/Vinyl Paned Glass, and Bagged C&D Debris.
• All Metals includes the categories Major Appliances, HVAC Ducting, Ferrous Scrap Metal, and Non-ferrous Scrap Metal.
• All Yard Waste includes the categories of Yard Waste and Bagged Yard Waste.
• All Other Materials includes the categories of Other Paper, Film, Polystyrene Foam, PVC Pipe, Soil, E-waste, Hazardous
Waste, Tires, Textiles, and Mixed Residue/Loose MSW.
Treated Wood, 43.4%
Untreated Wood, 1.0%
Roofing Shingles, 1.4%All Other C&D, 5.8%Furniture, 8.4%
Mattresses, 1.4%
Corrugated Cardboard,
5.1%
Rigid Plastics, 1.1%
All Metals, 8.9%
All Yard Waste, 4.1%
Bagged Household
Waste, 8.0%
All Other Materials,
11.4%
Treated Wood, 40.3%
Untreated Wood, 1.0%
Roofing Shingles, 5.5%All Other C&D, 15.5%
Furniture, 3.7%
Mattresses, 0.6%
Corrugated Cardboard,
1.5%
Rigid Plastics, 0.3%
All Metals, 9.4%
All Yard Waste, 5.7%
Bagged Household
Waste, 6.6%
All Other Materials,
10.0%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
57
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Section 6
Discussion of Findings
6.1 Regional Aggregate Waste Composition
Table 6-1 and Figure 6-1 shows the total composition of all waste sampled throughout the
region. This is calculated by applying the composition of each generator sector to the relative
tonnage generated by each (as shown in Table 2-9).
Key Findings:
• Almost 14 percent of the waste stream consisted of Program Recyclables (i.e., materials
mostly accepted for recovery and processing throughout the region).
o Program Recyclable Paper made up about 10 percent of the MSW, primarily
Mixed Recyclable paper (6.7 percent) and Corrugated Cardboard (3.5 percent).
o The remaining 7 percent consisted of Program Recyclable Containers, mostly
PET Bottles (#1).
• Drop-off Location Materials represented approximately 8 percent of the overall waste
steam.
o Textiles and Shoes (3.5 percent), Unacceptable Metals (1.9 percent), and Glass
Bottles and Jars (1.5 percent) accounted for majority of this material category.
• Potential Recoverables represented approximately 5 percent of the waste stream.
o All material categories within the Potential Recoverables grouping represented
less than 1 percent of the waste stream.
• Potential Compostables made up 20 percent of the waste stream.
o Food Waste (13.8 percent) was the largest single material category, found
entirely in hand-sorted waste.
o Compostable Paper and Yard Waste each represented about 4 percent.
• C&D Debris accounted for over 26 percent of the waste stream almost entirely found in
the visual audits.
o Roofing Shingles made up approximately 14 percent of the waste stream.
o Other major components included Mixed C&D Waste (4.7 percent), Treated
Wood (3.3 percent), and Untreated Wood (3.3 percent).
• Nearly 27 percent of the waste stream consisted of Other Materials.
o All Other Garbage, comprising small items of mixed materials and/or materials
not falling in other categories, accounted for almost 10 percent.
o Non-rigid plastic film made up nearly 6 percent, mostly observed during hand-
sorting.
o Over 3 percent of the waste was Disposable Diapers, found exclusively in hand-
sorted waste.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 6: Discussion of Findings
58
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Note: Dashes represent that the material was not individually targeted in either the hand sort or visual audit. Columns may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.
Table 6-1: Composition of Regional Waste (% by weight)
Material Category
BMSWD
Residential BMSWD C&D
BMSWD
Mixed
Dumpsters
BMSWD
General Public
Fayetteville
Residential
Fayetteville
MF & Comm. Combined
Corrugated Cardboard 2.9% 0.0% 1.5% 0.5% 3.1% 7.0% 3.4%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.4% 8.1% 6.1%
Total Program Recyclable Paper 11.9% 0.0% 1.5% 0.5% 14.5% 15.1% 9.6%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Clear (#1) 2.5% - - - 1.7% 1.5% 1.2%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Op/Pigment (#1) 0.3% - - - 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 1.0% - - - 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.7% - - - 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%
Tin/Steel Cans 1.6% - - - 0.8% 0.6% 0.6%
Aluminum Cans 1.5% - - - 1.1% 1.1% 0.8%
Total Program Recyclable Containers 7.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 4.0% 3.3%
Unacceptable Metals 0.6% 3.1% 9.4% 3.6% 1.4% 0.7% 2.0%
Glass Bottles and Jars 4.1% - - - 1.2% 2.0% 1.5%
Textiles and Shoes 3.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 6.3% 4.4% 3.2%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.9% 0.0% 0.3% 0.9% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5%
Batteries 0.0% - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.8% 0.6%
Sharps 0.1% - - - 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%
Total Drop-off Location Materials 10.1% 3.3% 10.1% 8.5% 10.4% 8.3% 8.8%
Aseptic Containers 0.6% - - - 0.5% 1.2% 0.6%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.2% - - - 0.4% 0.1% 0.1%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% - - - 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle – Clear (#1) 0.1% - - - 0.4% 0.3% 0.2%
Other PET Non-bottle – Op/Pigment. (#1) 0.1% - - - 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
HDPE Non-Bottle Containers (#2) 0.1% - - - 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#5) 0.2% - - - 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.1% - - - 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.6% - - - 0.8% 0.6% 0.4%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.2% - - - 0.5% 0.2% 0.2%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.1% - - - 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% - - - 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Other Sm. Rigid Pkg. Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.2% - - - 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.7% 0.6%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.7% 1.0% 0.7%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.4% - - - 0.7% 0.3% 0.3%
Mattresses - 0.0% 0.6% 0.1% - - 0.1%
Total Potential Recoverables 5.1% 0.3% 1.0% 0.5% 6.2% 5.2% 3.8%
Compostable Paper 4.6% - - - 4.6% 3.9% 2.8%
Food Waste 21.5% - - - 14.7% 23.4% 13.4%
Yard Waste 4.8% 0.0% 8.8% 1.3% 6.4% 0.5% 2.8%
Total Potential Compostables 31.0% 0.0% 8.8% 1.3% 25.8% 27.8% 19.0%
Treated Wood - 12.2% 40.3% 6.1% - - 3.8%
Untreated Wood - 41.3% 1.0% 1.1% - - 2.6%
Drywall - 27.9% 2.5% 2.4% - - 2.2%
Roofing Shingles - 9.0% 5.5% 61.4% - - 15.8%
Other C&D - 0.0% 11.8% 0.9% - - 0.7%
Mixed C&D Waste 3.9% 1.2% 1.2% 3.4% 1.8% 9.7% 4.9%
Total C&D 3.9% 91.6% 62.3% 75.3% 1.8% 9.7% 30.0%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.4% - - - 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
Non-recyclable Paper 4.1% - - - 4.0% 3.0% 2.3%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 1.3% - - - 2.0% 0.7% 0.8%
Plastic Garbage Bags 2.4% - - - 2.5% 2.8% 1.7%
Non-rigid Plastic Film 5.0% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 9.6% 6.6% 4.9%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, & Porcelain 0.4% - - - 0.6% 0.7% 0.4%
Large Items & Furniture 1.0% 0.0% 3.7% 1.0% 2.1% 3.4% 2.0%
Disposable Diapers 5.3% - - - 4.2% 4.1% 2.9%
All Other Garbage 9.3% 4.0% 12.0% 12.3% 11.1% 7.1% 9.5%
Liquids 1.2% - - - 0.3% 1.4% 0.7%
Total Other Materials 30.4% 4.7% 16.2% 13.8% 36.6% 29.9% 25.4%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Annual Tons 12,458 4,805 3,666 21,629 17,813 27,875 88,245
Source Fraction 14.1% 5.4% 4.2% 24.5% 20.2% 31.6% 100.0%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 6: Discussion of Findings
59
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Figure 6-1: Composition of Regional Waste (% by weight)
Note: For this figure, the following categories have been combined:
• Program Recyclable Paper includes Corrugated Cardboard and Mixed Recyclable Paper.
• Program Containers includes PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Clear (#1), PET Bottles Jugs, Jars –
Opaque/Pigmented (#1), Natural HDPE Bottles (#2), Colored HDPE Bottles (#2), Tin/Steel Cans and
Aluminum Cans
• Other Drop-off Location Materials includes Glass Bottles and Jars, Textiles and Shoes, Hazardous/Special
Waste, Batteries, E-Waste & Small Appliances, and Sharps.
• Other Potential Recoverables includes Aseptic Containers, PET Clamshells (#1), PET Drink Cups (#1), Other
PET Non-bottle (#1) - Clear, Other PET Non-bottle (#1) – Colored, HDPE Non-bottle Containers (#2), PP
Bottles (#5), PP Clamshells (#5), PP Tubs (#5), PP Drink Cups (#5), Other PP Non-bottle (#5), Plastic Drink
Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7), Other Plastic Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7), Expanded Polystyrene, Bulky Rigid Plastics,
Aluminum Foil and Trays, and Mattresses.
• All Other C&D includes Other C&D and Mixed C&D.
• All Other Materials includes Soiled Pizza Boxes, Non-recyclable Paper, Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and
Porcelain, Large Items & Furniture, All Other Garbage, and Liquids
Program Recyclable
Paper, 9.6%
Program Recyclable
Containers, 3.3%
Unacceptable Metals,
2.0%
Other Drop Off
Location Matrials,
5.9%
Tires, 1.0%
Other
Potential
Recoverables,
3.8%
Food Waste, 13.4%
Yard Waste, 2.8%
Compostable
Paper, 2.8%Treated Wood, 3.8%Untreated Wood, 2.6%Drywall, 2.2%
Roofing Shingles, 15.8%
All Other C&D, 5.6%
Garbage Bags and
Other Film, 6.6%
Large Items &
Furniture, 2.0%
Diapers, 2.9%
All Other Garbage,
13.9%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 6: Discussion of Findings
60
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
6.2 Potential Opportunities
WCS results reveal multiple opportunities for recovery and source reduction from a variety of
material streams across the BMSWD operating region. These opportunities may increase
diversion and reduce the final tonnages requiring landfill disposal. While a comprehensive
analysis is beyond the scope of work for this project, KCI provides the following preliminary
opportunities based on our knowledge of the region and industry experience.
6.2.1 BMSWD
Results from the BMSWD WCS demonstrate the potential to recover over 82 percent of the
current waste stream that is transported for landfill disposal. Of this, over 12 percent are
potentially recoverable with existing infrastructure. Table 6-2 identifies material groups and
percent of the total composition that are potentially recoverable.
Table 6-2: Potentially Recoverable Materials in the Total Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Stream
Material Category/Group
Percentage in Total
Mixed Garbage
Program Recyclable Paper1 3.9%
Program Recyclable Containers1 2.3%
Drop-off Location Materials2 7.5%
Potential Recoverables3 1.9%
Potential Compostable 10.5%
C&D Debris4 55.1%
Total 82.2%
1Materials currently accepted in recyclable programs throughout the area.
2Materials currently accepted at drop-off locations in the area.
3Materials that are not currently accepted but could be accepted with modifications to facilities and marketing (i.e., mixed rigid
plastics, ferrous metals, etc.).
4Material that could be diverted for C&D processing and recovery with final disposal to a C&D landfill.
Overall BMSWD Recovery Opportunities
Identification of in-bound material streams.
• As presented to BMSWD in the WCS Phase I results, implementation of an on-site scale
house attendant and a card reader system at the scale house could offer multiple
opportunities for the identification of material loads, understanding of material streams
being tipped, and assurance that they are tipped at the proper location, as well as the
generation of reports that may prove helpful to tracking high volume users, as well as
repeat haulers carrying mixed loads. Note: While materials are not typically identified
by generator stream, KCI, working closely in coordination with BMSWD staff, was able to
label over 90 percent of material arriving to the transfer station into the categories
utilized herein.
Separation of waste from C&D debris.
• At over 55 percent, C&D debris is the largest material stream being accepted,
transported, and disposed within the BMSWD operating region. For communities with
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 6: Discussion of Findings
61
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
this scale of C&D debris, requirement for the separation of C&D from waste and the
development of a C&D processing facility could prove extremely advantageous to
reducing the total tonnages managed and disposed of within the region. This may
extend landfill life, foster new job growth through the processing and end-markets, and
retain materials at their best and highest use.
Improving recovery of Potential Compostables.
• Potential Compostables accounted for over 10 percent of the waste stream. With
proper separation systems (i.e., Yard Waste from MSW) and potential new composting
infrastructure the BMSWD operating region could significantly reduce their landfill
disposal. Additionally, implementation and enhancement of food recovery systems for
this region could reduce tonnages while working toward solutions for food insecurity
needs of the region.
Modifying recycling programing to include recovery of Potential Recoverables.
• While current materials such as mixed rigid plastics and ferrous metals are not currently
identified as Program Recyclables, commodity markets do exist. Through proper
separation or inclusion into any recyclables processing contracts, BMSWD could recover
this material at almost 4 percent of the total waste stream.
The single-family residential waste stream for SMWD is significantly different than the overall
disposal stream identified above. Table 6-3 reveals that over 66 percent of the total tonnages
disposed could be recovered with almost 30 percent of this potential under existing recyclables
processing infrastructure.
Table 6-3: Potentially Recoverable Materials in the Single-Family Residential Garbage Stream
Material Category/Group
Percentage in Total
Mixed Garbage
Program Recyclable Paper1 12.2%
Program Recyclable Containers1 9.3%
Drop-off Location Materials2 8.4%
Potential Recoverables3 6.3%
Potential Compostable 30.6 %
Total 66.8%
1Materials currently accepted in recyclable programs throughout the area.
2Materials currently accepted at drop-off locations in the area.
3Materials that are not currently accepted but could be accepted with modifications to facilities and marketing (i.e.,
mixed rigid plastics, ferrous metals, etc.).
BMSWD Single-family Residential Recovery Opportunities
Improving the capture of Program Recyclable Paper and Containers.
• BMSWD has an opportunity to recover over 21 percent of its single-family waste
disposal stream with existing recyclables processing systems. Measures identified in the
Northwest Arkansas Regional Waste Reduction & Recycling Optimization Study such as
developing collection and processing specifications for use in all recyclables contracting
across the region can standardize targeted recyclable materials and ensure greater
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 6: Discussion of Findings
62
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
capture, as well as improve reporting to help jurisdictions understand the tonnages of
materials being recovered. Additionally, BMSWD may consider other strategies
identified in the study such as region-wide implementation of curbside recycling and
implementing a branding and outreach campaign to foster awareness of collection
systems and the targeted recyclable materials contractually defined for collection by
authorized haulers.
Understand recyclables capture rates by performing a future BMSWD Capture Study to help
inform targeted material outreach and other regional programming.
• To further understand the amount of recyclables currently being recovered versus those
identified here for disposal, BMSWD could conduct a future capture study. This study
would analyze both the waste and recycling streams, to gain insights into disposal and
recycling rates. This could inform targeted outreach efforts to address materials with
low recycling capture rates, such as plastics, which may be under collected due to
confusion about accepted items.
6.2.2 City of Johnson
Results from the City of Johnson WCS demonstrate the potential to recover over 69 percent of
the current waste stream that is transported for landfill disposal. Of this, over 30 percent are
potentially recoverable with existing infrastructure. Table 6-4 identifies material groups and
percent of the total composition that are potentially recoverable.
Table 6-4: Potentially Recoverable Materials in the Single-Family Residential MSW
Material Category/Group
Percentage in Total
Mixed Garbage
Program Recyclable Paper1 14.3%
Program Recyclable Containers1 6.3%
Drop-off Location Materials2 9.7%
Potential Recoverables3 6.0%
Potential Compostable 33.0%
Total 69.3%
1Materials currently accepted in recyclable programs throughout the area.
2Materials currently accepted at drop-off locations in the area.
3Materials that are not currently accepted but could be accepted with modifications to facilities and marketing (i.e.,
mixed rigid plastics, ferrous metals, etc.).
City of Johnson Single-family Residential Recovery Opportunities
Mandate single family residential recycling.
• Standardize recycling across the city by requiring all single-family residential units to
utilize curbside recycling under a set contractual structure with clearly identified
program recyclables consistent with materials currently accepted for processing in the
region.
Improving the capture of Program Recyclable Paper and Containers.
• Review current collection contracts and hauler permit processes to ensure a
standardized list of program recyclable paper and containers and partner with BMSWD
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 6: Discussion of Findings
63
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
in the education and outreach on the importance of proper recycling, as well as enhance
reporting requirements to track and inform the city on percentages of materials being
recovered.
Ensure no mixing of material streams upon collection.
• Ensure curbside collection contracts or hauler permits require separation of material
streams between garbage, recycling, and yard waste, and require no mixing of material
streams in loads.
6.2.3 City of Fayetteville
The City of Fayetteville recycling stream showed minimal contamination, but there is still room
for improvement to capture recyclables within the waste stream. Results from the City of
Fayetteville Capture Study demonstrate the potential to recover over 63 percent of the current
waste stream that is transported for landfill disposal. Of this, over 48 percent are potentially
recoverable with existing or expanded infrastructure. Table 6-5 identifies material groups and
percent of the total composition that are potentially recoverable. Appendix K depicts the overall
composition of materials discarded in the City for single family residential and commercial in
2023 based on tonnage data provided by City staff and results of the Capture Study. It includes
materials that were recycled, composted, and disposed.
Table 6-5: Potentially Recoverable Materials in the Single-family Residential MSW
Material Category/Group
Percentage in Total
Mixed Garbage
Program Recyclable Paper1 14.5%
Program Recyclable Containers1 6.0%
Potential Recyclable Material2 0.2%
Drop-off Location Materials3 1.5%
Potential Recoverables4 15.4%
Potential Compostable 25.8%
Total 63.4%
1Materials currently accepted in the City’s recyclable program.
2Materials not currently accepted in the City’s recycling program but accepted elsewhere (i.e., PP bottles #5).
3Materials currently accepted at drop-off locations in the area.
4Materials that are not currently accepted but could be accepted with modifications to facilities and marketing (i.e.,
mixed rigid plastics, ferrous metals, etc.).
City of Fayetteville Single-family Residential Recovery Opportunities
Improve capture of Program Recyclable Paper and Containers.
• Over 20 percent of waste being disposed could be recovered with exiting recyclables
processing infrastructure for Program Recyclable Paper and Containers. Current data
shows that more recyclables are ending up in the trash rather than in the recycling
stream. A deeper look at the issues contributing to this low capture rate, such as low
customer participation and an inefficient collection process, is necessary. The
breakdown of materials being discarded, as outlined in this report, could help shape
targeted messaging aimed at improving overall recycling capture.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study – Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
Section 6: Discussion of Findings
64
Boston Mountain AR\Report\2024 BMSWD Waste Characterization Study
Improve capture of Potential Compostables.
• Expansion of the existing composting facility to accommodate Potential Compostables
from the single-family residential sector could potentially reduce waste disposed by
almost 26 percent. This could be through a full-scale expansion, on a pilot scale, or
under regional partnership for a new region-wide facility.
Results also revealed opportunities for increasing capture rates in the Commercial and Multi-
family sector that is currently being landfilled. As presented in Table 6-6, over 50 percent could
be diverted with existing (or expanded, as tonnages may require) recyclables processing and
composting infrastructure.
Table 6-6: Potentially Recoverable Materials in the Commercial and Multi-Family MSW
Material Category/Group
Percentage in Total
Mixed Garbage
Program Recyclable Paper1 15.1%
Program Recyclable Containers1 6.0%
Potential Recyclable Material2 0.1%
Drop-off Location Materials3 1.2%
Potential Recoverables4 20.0%
Potential Compostable 27.8%
Total 70.2%
1Materials currently accepted in the City’s recyclable program.
2Materials not currently accepted in the City’s recycling program but are accepted elsewhere (i.e., PP bottles #5).
3Materials currently accepted at drop-off locations in the area.
4Materials that are not currently accepted but could be accepted with modifications to facilities and marketing (i.e.,
mixed rigid plastics, ferrous metals, etc.).
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix A - Capture Study Hand Sort Material Categories
Appendix A:
City of Fayetteville
2024 Capture Study
Hand Sort Material Categories
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix A: Capture Study Hand Sort Material Categories
A-2
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix A - Capture Study Hand Sort Material Categories
# Material Categories Description of Categories
1 Corrugated
Cardboard
Uncoated cardboard boxes with a wavy core, (no plastic liners, waxy coatings).
Examples include shipping and moving boxes and packaging boxes. Includes clean
pizza boxes (less than 50% coated with grease or food). Does not include waxy or
contaminated cardboard.
2 Mixed Recyclable
Paper
Printed or unprinted recyclable paper including white, colored, coated, and
uncoated papers, envelopes, index cards, file folders, magazines, telephone books,
catalogs, paperboard, chipboard, Kraft paper, brown paper bags, mail, paperback
books, blueprints, and other printed material on glossy and non-glossy paper. Also
includes newspaper (loose or tied) including other paper normally distributed
inside newspaper such as ads, flyers, etc. and other items made from newsprint
such as advertising guides. Does not include shredded, contaminated, waxy, or
metallic paper.
3
Wet Paper and
Cardboard
(Recyclables Only)
Corrugated cardboard or mixed paper that is waterlogged or has lost structural
integrity due to moisture. Does not include damp or contaminated cardboard or
paper.
4 Aseptic Boxes and
Gable Top Cartons
Aseptic Containers: poly-coated fiber and foil containers (e.g., Tetra Pak®)
designed for shelf-stable packaging, most often containing juice drinks, coconut
waters, and dairy substitutes including soy, almond, rice milk, etc. May also include
soups, broths, sauces, and liquid refills. Cartons: poly-coated containers with a
gable shaped top, most often containing refrigerated juice drinks, dairy products,
and dairy substitutes. May also contain other foods (e.g., eggs, sugar, molasses,
crackers, candies, etc.). Does not include Chinese take-out cartons, ice cream
cartons, or similar items.
5 Compostable Paper
Low grade paper that is not recyclable, as well as paper contaminated with food or
water-saturated paper. Examples include paper towels, uncoated paper
plates/cups/bowls, fiber egg cartons, and tissues. Does not include non-recyclable
paper contaminated with food.
6 Soiled Pizza Boxes Pizza boxes with more than 50% coated with grease or food.
7 Non-recyclable
Paper
Includes paper products with a plastic coating. Also includes items that are
predominantly paper with other materials attached (e.g., orange juice cans and
spiral notebooks) and other hard to recycle paper items such as carbon copy
paper, receipts, hardcover books, and photographs. The items may be clean or
food soiled. Does not include contaminated paper or Corrugated Cardboard.
8 PET Bottles, Jugs,
Jars - Clear (#1)
Clear or light tinted translucent green/blue polyethylene terephthalate (PET #1)
bottles, jars, and jugs. Examples include bottled water, other bottled beverages,
salad dressing, food sauce, and some household cleaning products. Also includes
jars or canisters, such as for peanut butter, that are blow molded or injection blow
molded. Caps/lids left on if attached.
9
PET Bottles, Jugs,
Jars -
Opaque/Pigmented
(#1)
Opaque/pigmented PET #1 bottles, jars, and jugs. Examples include non-
transparent bottled beverages, salad dressing, food sauce, and some household
cleaning products. Also includes jars or canisters, such as for peanut butter, that
are blow molded or injection blow molded. Caps/lids left on if attached.
10 PET Clamshells (#1) Clamshell-style to-go containers made from PET #1 of any color.
11 PET Drink Cups (#1) Plastic single-use drinking cups made from PET #1 of any color.
12
Other PET Non-
bottle Rigids - Clear
(#1)
Other clear or translucent plastic single-use rigid containers that do not fit in other
PET categories above, such as tubs, non-drinking cups, fruit or vegetable platters
and frozen food trays, made of PET #1.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix A: Capture Study Hand Sort Material Categories
A-3
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix A - Capture Study Hand Sort Material Categories
# Material Categories Description of Categories
13
Other PET Non-
bottle Rigids -
Opaque/Pigmented
(#1)
Other opaque/pigmented plastic single-use rigid containers that do not fit in other
PET categories above, such as tubs, non-drinking cups, fruit or vegetable platters
and frozen food trays, that are not transparent and are made of PET #1.
14 Natural HDPE Bottles
(#2)
Clear/natural plastic bottles coded high-density polyethylene (HDPE #2). Examples
include milk jugs, vinegar bottles, and gallon water bottles. Does not include loose
caps and lids.
15 Colored HDPE
Bottles (#2)
Opaque, pigmented plastic bottles coded HDPE #2. Examples include detergent
and shampoo bottles. Does not include loose caps and lids.
16 Non-bottle HDPE
Containers (#2)
Wide-mouthed tubs and containers coded HDPE #2. Examples include large plastic
coffee containers and plastic chip tubes, including lids.
17 PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs
(#5)
Polypropylene (PP #5) screw top bottles such as tea and juice beverages, syrup
bottles, shampoo/personal care product, prescription bottles and storage bottles
or jars of any color. Caps/lids left on if attached.
18 PP Clamshells (#5) Clamshell-style to-go containers made from PP #5.
19 PP Tubs (#5)
Clear or opaque/pigmented, round or squarish tubs made from PP #5, such as to-
go soup containers, yogurt, and sour cream tubs. Includes smaller yogurt and fruit
sauce cups.
20 PP Drink Cups (#5) Plastic single-use drinking cups made from PP #5.
21 Other PP Non-bottle
Rigids (#5)
Plastic single-use rigid containers that do not fit in other PP categories above made
of PP #5.
22 Other Plastic Drink
Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7)
Plastic single-use drinking cups that do not fit in other categories above. Examples
include polystyrene (not foam) drinking cups.
23
Other Small Rigid
Packaging
Containers (#3, #4,
#6, #7)
All single resin plastic containers coded #3, #4, #6, or #7 that do not fit in any
categories above.
24 Expanded
Polystyrene Foam
Food service polystyrene, polystyrene packaging, and packaging “peanuts.” Any
expanded foam product labeled #6.
25 Bulky Rigid Plastics
Non-container rigid plastic items such as clothes hangers, plastic drums, crates,
buckets, baskets, toys, refuse totes, lawn furniture, flowerpots, laundry
baskets, and other large plastic items. Does not include electronic or electric toys,
or bulky items consisting of mixed material.
26 Unacceptable Rigid
Plastics
All other rigid plastics not categorized elsewhere. Examples include loose caps/lids
(less than 2” in diameter), and predominately plastic with other materials attached
such as disposable razors, pens, lighters, fast food lids and straws, toothbrushes,
plastic cutlery, and 3-ring binders.
27 Tin/Steel Cans Tin-plated steel cans, usually food containers, including labels. Includes steel caps.
Does not include paint cans.
28 Aluminum Cans Aluminum soft drink, beer, and food cans.
29 Aluminum Foil and
Trays
Aluminum foil and food trays, such as disposable pie plates and catering trays.
30 Unacceptable Metals
All ferrous/magnetic and nonferrous/non-magnetic metal products such as wire
hangers and metal scrap such as window frames and cookware, including stainless
steel, empty and punctured tanks for liquid and gaseous fuels, oil filters, metal car
parts, and all other items containing a mixture of metals, or metals and other
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix A: Capture Study Hand Sort Material Categories
A-4
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix A - Capture Study Hand Sort Material Categories
# Material Categories Description of Categories
materials, whose weight is derived significantly from the metal portion of its
construction.
31 Glass Bottles and
Jars
Any color soda, liquor, wine, juice, beer, and food bottles, jars, and containers, as
well as broken container glass pieces ½” or greater in size.
32
Unacceptable Glass,
Ceramics, and
Porcelain
Window glass, light bulbs (except fluorescent tubes), mirrors, and glassware. Also
includes finished ceramic or porcelain products such as dishware, toilets, etc.
33 Food Waste All loose or containerized food waste.
34 Yard Waste
Shrub and brush prunings, household bedding plants, weeds, leaves, grass
clippings, and other landscaping and gardening wastes. Includes planting media
(soil, compost, peat moss, etc.).
35 Textiles and Shoes
Clothing, rags, and accessories made of natural and synthetic textiles such as
cotton, wool, silk, woven nylon, rayon, polyester, leather, and other materials.
Examples include pants, shirts, fabric purses, bed sheets, towels, and shoes.
Includes carpet and carpet padding.
36
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
Waste
Dimensional lumber, pallets/crates, treated/contaminated wood, gypsum,
insulation, rock/concrete/bricks, asphalt shingles/roofing, other construction
debris, and mixed fine building material scraps.
37 Hazardous/Special
Waste
Paints and solvents, glues, and adhesives, caulking compounds and grouts,
hazardous cleaners and household chemicals, pesticides/herbicides, oil/gas/fuel
tanks, and any substances or products containing potentially hazardous chemicals.
Also includes non-hazardous soaps, cleaners, medicines, cosmetics, fire
extinguishers, and other household chemicals.
38 Batteries All small household batteries including single-use alkaline, lithium, button cell, or
coin cell batteries and rechargeable Ni-MH, Ni-Cd, and lithium-ion batteries.
39 Sharps All syringes or other kinds of injection devices.
40 E-waste & Small
Appliances
Electronics and household appliances primarily composed of mixed materials
(plastic, metal, and glass), such as coffee makers, microwaves, fans, irons, hair
dryers, electrical kitchen ware, and salvageable items such as machinery.
41 Bulky Items Includes items like furniture or other large materials that do not fit in other
categories above.
42 Tires Truck or car tires.
43 Tanglers
(Recyclables Only)
Any materials that could potentially be tanglers during processing, such as hoses,
extension cords, and Christmas lights.
44 Bagged Recyclables
(Recyclables Only)
Any bagged material with less than 20% non-recyclables.
45 Bagged Waste
(Recyclables Only)
Any bagged material with more than 20% non-recyclables or heavily contaminated
recyclables. Does not include clean, bagged recyclables.
46 Disposable Diapers Disposable baby diapers and adult protective undergarments.
47
Other Contaminants
(Recyclables) / All
Other Garbage
(Trash)
Materials not included in the other categories, including composite materials,
interlocked products that cannot be separated, pet waste, full containers of liquids
(more than 25% full) (Recyclables Only), film-wrapped paper (Recyclables Only),
and grit/fines (any material that fall through the ½” screen).
48 Liquids All liquids in containers (Trash Only). Liquids in container less than 25% full
(Recyclables Only).
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix A: Capture Study Hand Sort Material Categories
A-5
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix A - Capture Study Hand Sort Material Categories
# Material Categories Description of Categories
49 Single Resin PE
(Polyethylene) Film
All PE (principally LDPE #4 but also LLDPE #4 and HDPE #2) film and related
materials. Examples include retail carryout sacks (not used for trash disposal),
outer mail pouch made from polyethylene plastic, air cushion pillows, bubble
wrap, LDPE component bags, product overwrap (paper towels, napkins, disposable
cups and dinnerware), case wrap (e.g., film over cases of bottled water), bread
bags (bread, muffins, bagels, tortillas), ice bags, bulk produce bags (apples,
potatoes, excludes cherries & grapes), lay flat rice & sweeteners (not crinkly &
glossy), food storage bags (e.g., Ziploc®), single use produce bag (found on rolls in
produce aisles), cereal box liners (unless it tears like paper), frozen vegetable
pillow bags, produce wrap (shrink-wrapped individual peppers, cucumbers),
polybags (e.g., clothing overwrap bags), dry-cleaner bags, newspaper bags,
furniture and electronic wrap, wet or gooey monolayer PE film (e.g., Saran Wrap®
that has come into contact with food but no longer contains food).
50 Single Resin PP
(Polypropylene) Film
All PP film and related materials. Examples include salad bags (prepared salads,
greens), pre-wrapped vegetables, fruit bags with #5 resin identification code
(cherries, grapes), any transparent flexible packaging with a #5 resin identification
code (e.g., LEGO® bags), woven, large pet food bags, salty snack food bags without
a silver inner lining, clear frozen food bag wrappers for meals packaged in a
paperboard outer box, and pasta bags.
51 Multi-material
Laminated Packaging
Lay flat packaging, some with an inner silver lining. Examples include chip bags
(potato chips, corn chips) with or without a silver inner lining, cookie packaging
outer wrap (with silver inner lining), ramen bags, meat wraps, including deli meat,
hot dogs, etc., cheese wraps, microwaveable food packaging, cake mix and other
dry powder box liners (if it tears like paper).
52 Stand-up Pouches
Flexible packaging in a stand-up pouch format, including resealable stand-up
pouches and those with a rigid plastics closure. Combined stand-up pouches from
single resin PE, single resin PP, and multi-material laminated packaging as defined
above. Examples include baby food pouches, yogurt pouches, stand-up resealable
pouches for granola, snacks, sugar, rice, baking mixes, frozen seafood, etc., juice
pouches (like Capri Sun™), pet food pouches, crouton or other kinds of dry good
pouches, coffee bags , and any other product example that comes in a 3D
stand-up pouch.
53 Plastic Garbage Bags Plastic garbage bags, including single-use shopping bags reused as garbage bags.
54 Large, Film Bags
Thick film bags associated with landscaping and products with typically outdoor
uses. Examples include heavy gauge bags such as mulch, soils, compost, pellets,
and winter salt.
55 Unknown Film Type
An “all other” category that falls outside of any of the above or is considered too
small for capture (<2” in any direction). Examples include lay flat rice & sweeteners
(if crinkly & glossy), meat top-wrap, frozen food bags (excluding veggie pillow
bags), small candy and granola bar wrappers, compostable packaging, popsicle
bags, cheese stick bags, six-pack rings (has an oxo-biodegradable additive), any
film marked as compostable, sachets (small packets for single use ketchup,
shampoo, etc.), and torn or broken pieces of larger packaging that
cannot be identified.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix B - Waste Characterization Study Material Categories
Appendix B:
Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
2024 Waste Characterization Study
WCS Hand Sort Material Categories
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study
Appendix B: WCS Hand Sort Material Categories
B-2
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix B - Waste Characterization Study Material Categories
# Material Categories Description of Categories
1 Corrugated
Cardboard
Uncoated cardboard boxes with a wavy core, (no plastic liners, waxy coatings).
Examples include shipping and moving boxes and packaging boxes. Includes clean
pizza boxes (less than 50% coated with grease or food). Does not include waxy or
contaminated cardboard.
2 Mixed Recyclable
Paper
Printed or unprinted recyclable paper including white, colored, coated, and
uncoated papers, envelopes, index cards, file folders, magazines, telephone books,
catalogs, paperboard, chipboard, Kraft paper, brown paper bags, mail, paperback
books, blueprints, and other printed material on glossy and non-glossy paper. Also
includes newspaper (loose or tied) including other paper normally distributed inside
newspaper such as ads, flyers, etc. and other items made from newsprint such as
advertising guides. Does include fiber egg cartons. Does not include shredded,
contaminated, waxy, or metallic paper.
3 Aseptic Boxes and
Gable Top Cartons
Aseptic Containers: poly-coated fiber and foil containers (e.g., Tetra Pak®) designed
for shelf-stable packaging, most often containing juice drinks, coconut waters, and
dairy substitutes including soy, almond, rice milk, etc. May also include soups,
broths, sauces, and liquid refills. Cartons: poly-coated containers with a gable
shaped top, most often containing refrigerated juice drinks, dairy products, dairy
substitutes. May also contain other foods (e.g., eggs, sugar, molasses, crackers,
candies, etc.). Does not include Chinese take-out cartons, ice cream cartons, or
similar items.
4 Compostable Paper
Low grade paper that is not recyclable, as well as paper contaminated with food or
water-saturated paper. Examples include paper towels, uncoated paper
plates/cups/bowls, and tissues. Does not include non-recyclable paper
contaminated with food.
5 Soiled Pizza Boxes Pizza boxes with more than 50% coated with grease or food.
6 Non-recyclable
Paper
Includes paper products with a plastic coating. Also includes items that are
predominantly paper with other materials attached (e.g., orange juice cans and
spiral notebooks) and other hard to recycle paper items such as carbon copy paper,
receipts, hardcover books, film-wrapped paper and photographs. The items may be
clean or food soiled. Does not include contaminated paper or Corrugated
Cardboard.
7 PET Bottles, Jugs,
Jars - Clear (#1)
Clear or light tinted translucent green/blue polyethylene terephthalate (PET #1)
bottles, jars, and jugs. Examples include bottled water, other bottled beverages,
salad dressing, food sauce, and some household cleaning products. Also includes
jars or canisters, such as for peanut butter, that are blow molded or injection blow
molded. Caps/lids left on if attached.
8
PET Bottles, Jugs,
Jars -
Opaque/Pigmented
(#1)
Opaque/pigmented PET #1 bottles, jars, and jugs. Examples include non-
transparent bottled beverages, salad dressing, food sauce, and some household
cleaning products. Also includes jars or canisters, such as for peanut butter, that are
blow molded or injection blow molded. Caps/lids left on if attached.
9 PET Clamshells (#1) Clamshell-style to-go containers made from PET #1 of any color.
10 PET Drink Cups (#1) Plastic single-use drinking cups made from PET #1 of any color.
11
Other PET Non-
bottle Rigids - Clear
(#1)
Other clear or translucent plastic single-use rigid containers that do not fit in other
PET categories above, such as tubs, non-drinking cups, fruit or vegetable platters
and frozen food trays, made of PET #1.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study
Appendix B: WCS Hand Sort Material Categories
B-3
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix B - Waste Characterization Study Material Categories
# Material Categories Description of Categories
12
Other PET Non-
bottle Rigids -
Opaque/Pigmented
(#1)
Other opaque/pigmented plastic single-use rigid containers that do not fit in other
PET categories above, such as tubs, non-drinking cups, fruit or vegetable platters
and frozen food trays, that are not transparent and are made of PET #1.
13 Natural HDPE Bottles
(#2)
Clear/natural plastic bottles coded high-density polyethylene (HDPE #2). Examples
include milk jugs, vinegar bottles, and gallon water bottles. Does not include loose
caps and lids.
14 Colored HDPE
Bottles (#2)
Opaque, pigmented plastic bottles coded HDPE #2. Examples include detergent and
shampoo bottles. Does not include loose caps and lids.
15 Non-bottle HDPE
Containers (#2)
Wide-mouthed tubs and containers coded HDPE #2. Examples include large plastic
coffee containers and plastic chip tubes, including lids.
16 PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs
(#5)
Polypropylene (PP #5) screw top bottles such as tea and juice beverages, syrup
bottles, shampoo/personal care product, prescription bottles and storage bottles or
jars of any color. Caps/lids left on if attached.
17 PP Clamshells (#5) Clamshell-style to-go containers made from PP #5.
18 PP Tubs (#5)
Clear or opaque/pigmented, round or squarish tubs made from PP #5, such as to-go
soup containers, yogurt, and sour cream tubs. Includes smaller yogurt and fruit
sauce cups.
19 PP Drink Cups (#5) Plastic single-use drinking cups made from PP #5.
20 Other PP Non-bottle
Rigids (#5)
Plastic single-use rigid containers that do not fit in other PP categories above made
of PP #5.
21 Other Plastic Drink
Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7)
Plastic single-use drinking cups that do not fit in other categories above. Examples
include polystyrene (not foam) drinking cups.
22
Other Small Rigid
Packaging
Containers (#3, #4,
#6, #7)
All single resin plastic containers coded #3, #4, #6, or #7 that do not fit in any
categories above.
23 Expanded
Polystyrene Foam
Food service polystyrene, polystyrene packaging, and packaging “peanuts.” Any
expanded foam product labeled #6.
24 Bulky Rigid Plastics
Non-container rigid plastic items such as clothes hangers, plastic drums, crates,
buckets, baskets, toys, refuse totes, lawn furniture, flowerpots, laundry
baskets, and other large plastic items. Does not include electronic or electric toys, or
bulky items consisting of mixed material.
25 Unacceptable Rigid
Plastics
All other rigid plastics not categorized elsewhere. Examples include loose caps/lids
(less than 2” in diameter), and predominately plastic with other materials attached
such as disposable razors, pens, lighters, fast food lids and straws, toothbrushes,
plastic cutlery, and 3-ring binders.
26 Plastic Garbage Bags Plastic garbage bags, including single-use shopping bags reused as garbage bags.
27 Non-rigid Plastic Film
Loose and bagged plastic retail bags, garbage bags, shrink wrap, re-sealable bags,
plastic sheeting, Saran™ wrap, visqueen, etc. Also includes disposable gloves. Does
not include foil lined plastic film (e.g., chip bags).
28 Tin/Steel Cans Tin-plated steel cans, usually food containers, including labels. Includes steel caps.
Does not include paint cans.
29 Aluminum Cans Aluminum soft drink, beer, and food cans.
30 Aluminum Foil and
Trays
Aluminum foil and food trays, such as disposable pie plates and catering trays.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study
Appendix B: WCS Hand Sort Material Categories
B-4
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix B - Waste Characterization Study Material Categories
# Material Categories Description of Categories
31 Unacceptable Metals
All ferrous/magnetic and nonferrous/non-magnetic metal products such as wire
hangers and metal scrap such as window frames and cookware, including stainless
steel, empty and punctured tanks for liquid and gaseous fuels, oil filters, metal car
parts, and all other items containing a mixture of metals, or metals and other
materials, whose weight is derived significantly from the metal portion of its
construction.
32 Glass Bottles and
Jars
Any color soda, liquor, wine, juice, beer, and food bottles, jars, and containers, as
well as broken container glass pieces ½” or greater in size.
33
Unacceptable Glass,
Ceramics, and
Porcelain
Window glass, light bulbs (except fluorescent tubes), mirrors, and glassware. Also
includes finished ceramic or porcelain products such as dishware, toilets, etc.
34 Food Waste All loose or containerized food waste.
35 Yard Waste
Shrub and brush prunings, household bedding plants, weeds, leaves, grass clippings,
and other landscaping and gardening wastes. Includes planting media (soil,
compost, peat moss, etc.).
36 Textiles and Shoes
Clothing, rags, and accessories made of natural and synthetic textiles such as
cotton, wool, silk, woven nylon, rayon, polyester, leather, and other materials.
Examples include pants, shirts, fabric purses, bed sheets, towels, and shoes.
Includes carpet and carpet padding.
37
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
Waste
Dimensional lumber, pallets/crates, treated/contaminated wood, gypsum,
insulation, rock/concrete/bricks, asphalt shingles/roofing, other construction
debris, and mixed fine building material scraps.
38 Hazardous/Special
Waste
Paints and solvents, glues, and adhesives, caulking compounds and grouts,
hazardous cleaners and household chemicals, pesticides/herbicides, oil/gas/fuel
tanks, and any substances or products containing potentially hazardous chemicals.
Also includes non-hazardous soaps, cleaners, medicines, cosmetics, fire
extinguishers, and other household chemicals.
39 Batteries All small household batteries including single-use alkaline, lithium, button cell, or
coin cell batteries and rechargeable Ni-MH, Ni-Cd, and lithium-ion batteries.
40 Sharps All syringes or other kinds of injection devices.
41 E-waste & Small
Appliances
Electronics and household appliances primarily composed of mixed materials
(plastic, metal, and glass), such as coffee makers, microwaves, fans, irons, hair
dryers, electrical kitchen ware, and salvageable items such as machinery.
42 Bulky Items Includes items like furniture or other large materials that do not fit in other
categories above.
43 Tires Car and truck tires.
44 Disposable Diapers Disposable baby diapers and adult protective undergarments.
45 All Other Garbage Materials not included in the other categories, including composite materials,
interlocked products that cannot be separated, and pet waste.
46 Liquids All liquids in containers.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix C - Waste Characterization Study Visual Audit Material Categories
Appendix C:
Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
2024 Waste Characterization Study
Visual Audit Material Categories
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study
Appendix C: Visual Audit Material Categories
C-2
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix C - Waste Characterization Study Visual Audit Material Categories
Group Material Category
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
D
e
b
r
i
s
Treated Wood
Untreated Wood
Carpet and Padding
Drywall
Roofing Shingles
Concrete
Asphalt
Rock
Brick and Masonry
Fines and Grit
Fiberglass - Insulation
Fiberglass - Rigid
Tiles and Porcelain
Linoleum and Vinyl
Paned Glass
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
Furniture
Mattresses
Pa
p
e
r
Corrugated Cardboard
Other Paper
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
Film
Polystyrene Foam
Rigid Plastics
PVC Pipe
Me
t
a
l
Major Appliances
Ferrous Scrap Metal
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal
HVAC Ducting
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
Yard Waste
Soil
Ba
g
g
e
d
Wa
s
t
e
Household Waste
C&D Debris
Yard Waste
Ot
h
e
r
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
E-waste
Household Hazardous Waste
Tires
Textiles
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix D - Capture Study Individual Sample Compositon
TECHNICAL MEMORANDU
Appendix D:
City of Fayetteville
2024 Capture Study
Individual Capture Study Sample Results
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix D: Individual Capture Study Sample Results
D-2
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix D - Capture Study Individual Sample Compositon
Table D-1: Recycling Samples (percent by weight)
Monday: Route
35
Monday: Route
33
Monday: Route
37
Tuesday: Route
33
Tuesday: Route
37
Tuesday: Route
31
Material Categories sample # 1 2 3 6 7 8
Corrugated Cardboard 58.6% 58.5% 58.6% 58.3% 58.2% 56.6%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 11.3% 11.2% 11.4% 11.3% 11.3% 11.4%
Wet Paper and Cardboard 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%
Compostable Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
Non-recyclable Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigment.(#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HDPE Bottles (#2) 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Plastic Garbage Bags 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4%
Tin/Steel Cans 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%
Aluminum Cans 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Unacceptable Metals 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Glass Bottles and Jars 20.8% 20.7% 20.7% 20.6% 20.5% 19.9%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Food Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Textiles and Shoes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Bulky Items 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tanglers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bagged Recyclables 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bagged Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Contaminants 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.5%
Liquids 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Load Weights (tons) 1.1 1.26 1.53 1.15 1.03 0.96
Annual Tons 849.54 574.88
Total Households 5735 7515
Generation Rate (lb/HH/year) 296.27 153.00
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix D: Individual Capture Study Sample Results
D-3
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix D - Capture Study Individual Sample Compositon
Table D-1: Recycling Samples (percent by weight) (Continued)
Wednesday:
Route 36
Wednesday:
Route 38
Wednesday:
Route 34
Thursday:
Route 35
Thursday:
Route 31
Thursday:
Route 37
Material Categories sample # 9 10 11 13 14 17
Corrugated Cardboard 58.6% 56.8% 58.6% 58.7% 58.9% 58.3%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 11.3% 11.1% 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 11.3%
Wet Paper and Cardboard 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Compostable Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Non-recyclable Paper 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) 3.2% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigment.(#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HDPE Bottles (#2) 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Plastic Garbage Bags 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
Tin/Steel Cans 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8%
Aluminum Cans 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Unacceptable Metals 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Glass Bottles and Jars 20.7% 20.1% 20.7% 20.8% 20.8% 20.5%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Food Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Textiles and Shoes 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bulky Items 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tanglers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bagged Recyclables 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Bagged Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Contaminants 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5%
Liquids 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Load Weights (tons) 1.05 0.34 0.82 1.18 1.07 1.01
Annual Tons 574.74 667.79
Total Households 8237 7105
Generation Rate (lb/HH/year) 139.55 187.98
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix D: Individual Capture Study Sample Results
D-4
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix D - Capture Study Individual Sample Compositon
Table D-1: Recycling Samples (percent by weight) (Continued)
Monday:
Multi-Family
Monday:
Multi-Family
(Reserves/South
Yard/Garden
Park)
Wednesday:
Multi-Family
(Garden
Park/Uptown/
Mountain
Ranch)
Wednesday:
Multi-Family
(Garden
Park/Uptown/
Mountain
Ranch)
Wednesday:
Multi-Family
(Garden
Park/Uptown/
Mountain
Ranch)
Wednesday:
Multi-Family
(Garden
Park/Uptown/
Mountain
Ranch)
Material Categories sample # 4 5 12 15 16 18
Corrugated Cardboard 0.0% 17.6% 28.3% 25.3% 22.4% 65.0%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 71.1% 49.6% 36.7% 46.1% 23.4% 21.7%
Wet Paper and Cardboard 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2%
Compostable Paper 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.6% 0.5% 0.3%
Non-recyclable Paper 0.3% 0.3% 1.2% 0.2% 1.7% 0.0%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Clear (#1) 3.7% 5.2% 6.4% 4.0% 4.1% 2.1%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars - Opaque/Pigmented (#1) 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigment.(#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 2.7% 1.4% 2.1% 1.8% 1.9% 0.3%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 5.0% 0.6% 1.9% 1.2% 1.9% 0.6%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.1% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.6% 2.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 0.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4%
Plastic Garbage Bags 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 0.1% 5.6% 0.8% 2.3% 0.1% 0.6%
Tin/Steel Cans 2.4% 0.7% 2.1% 9.2% 3.9% 0.6%
Aluminum Cans 5.9% 1.8% 6.1% 3.4% 2.9% 2.8%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Unacceptable Metals 1.5% 0.1% 3.0% 2.7% 1.8% 0.1%
Glass Bottles and Jars 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%
Food Waste 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.9%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Textiles and Shoes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bulky Items 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tanglers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bagged Recyclables 2.3% 1.3% 4.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Bagged Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.5% 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Contaminants 0.3% 11.5% 3.0% 0.0% 13.7% 3.6%
Liquids 0.5% 0.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix D: Individual Capture Study Sample Results
D-5
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix D - Capture Study Individual Sample Compositon
Table D-2: Trash Samples (percent by weight)
Residential:
Monday,
4063
Residential:
Monday,
4076
Residential:
Monday,
4056
Residential:
Tuesday,
4050
Residential:
Tuesday,
4063
Residential:
Tuesday,
4057
Material Categories sample # 4 5 6 10 11 12
Corrugated Cardboard 3.2% 1.4% 3.4% 2.5% 6.5% 2.1%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 8.4% 8.6% 9.5% 6.5% 13.5% 8.3%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.6% 0.4% 2.5% 0.1% 0.4% 0.6%
Compostable Paper 4.9% 2.3% 5.1% 3.9% 3.7% 3.6%
Non-recyclable Paper 3.2% 1.4% 3.0% 6.4% 6.9% 4.6%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) 0.8% 1.6% 2.7% 2.8% 2.0% 1.4%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.2% 0.8% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigment.(#1) 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0%
HDPE Bottles (#2) 1.0% 0.4% 0.5% 2.4% 1.0% 0.4%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
PP Clamshells (#5) 1.0% 0.4% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0%
PP Tubs (#5) 1.2% 0.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.4%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 1.8% 0.3% 1.1% 0.4% 2.5% 0.5%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.8% 0.5% 0.0% 4.4% 0.2% 0.0%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 2.3% 1.7% 4.1% 2.9% 1.0% 0.7%
Plastic Garbage Bags 3.9% 3.8% 3.7% 2.6% 2.1% 2.1%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 15.7% 11.2% 2.4% 16.2% 13.9% 4.6%
Tin/Steel Cans 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 1.1% 0.8% 0.4%
Aluminum Cans 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 1.4% 1.2% 0.9%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.2% 0.3% 1.3% 0.3% 1.0% 1.2%
Unacceptable Metals 0.0% 4.2% 0.2% 1.7% 0.6% 0.8%
Glass Bottles and Jars 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.8% 1.4% 2.7%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Food Waste 12.6% 25.6% 14.7% 14.1% 9.1% 18.6%
Yard Waste 3.5% 0.3% 21.9% 0.0% 16.7% 3.9%
Textiles and Shoes 3.6% 9.2% 2.2% 6.5% 1.0% 3.3%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 10.4% 1.1% 3.8% 0.8% 2.3% 0.6%
Hazardous/Special Waste 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%
Batteries 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0.2% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2%
Bulky Items 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.6%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 4.0% 4.0% 0.2% 6.9% 3.6% 8.1%
All Other Garbage 10.7% 16.5% 12.8% 12.1% 6.2% 5.7%
Liquids 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Load Weights (tons) 10.82 11.27 9.22 9.41 13.91 12.89
Annual Tons 4,082.79 4,556.33
Total Households 5,735 7,515
Generation Rate (lb/HH/year) 1,423.82 1,212.60
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix D: Individual Capture Study Sample Results
D-6
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix D - Capture Study Individual Sample Compositon
Table D-2: Trash Samples (percent by weight) (Continued)
Residential:
Wednesday,
4076
Residential:
Wednesday,
4053
Residential:
Wednesday,
4063
Residential:
Thursday,
4076
Residential:
Thursday,
4065
Residential:
Thursday,
4057
Material Categories sample # 16 17 18 22 23 24
Corrugated Cardboard 3.3% 3.0% 0.8% 9.5% 2.6% 0.0%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 11.5% 12.9% 19.9% 10.4% 14.3% 9.4%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.8%
Compostable Paper 5.3% 2.8% 3.9% 4.4% 6.8% 8.3%
Non-recyclable Paper 4.4% 6.7% 3.8% 1.6% 2.1% 2.9%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.6% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) 3.6% 1.2% 0.6% 1.2% 1.7% 2.4%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.0% 0.9% 0.1% 0.2% 1.1% 0.5%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.9% 0.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.2% 0.7%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigment.(#1) 0.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.7% 1.1% 1.4% 1.3% 0.4% 1.1%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Tubs (#5) 1.8% 1.0% 0.7% 0.7% 1.2% 0.8%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.3% 2.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.4%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.4% 0.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.8% 0.1%
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 1.0% 0.6% 0.7% 1.2% 2.0% 1.0%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.4% 0.9% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 0.7%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 1.8% 2.2% 3.4% 1.4% 1.2% 1.8%
Plastic Garbage Bags 3.7% 2.4% 1.4% 0.8% 2.3% 1.8%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 10.1% 11.2% 7.4% 7.1% 9.1% 6.9%
Tin/Steel Cans 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 0.3% 2.2% 0.5%
Aluminum Cans 2.0% 1.0% 1.3% 0.6% 1.7% 1.1%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.5% 1.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6%
Unacceptable Metals 2.2% 1.3% 2.1% 0.3% 0.2% 2.1%
Glass Bottles and Jars 0.9% 0.0% 1.5% 1.0% 3.3% 1.5%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.2% 0.0% 3.0%
Food Waste 14.1% 10.3% 14.9% 15.4% 13.9% 13.7%
Yard Waste 6.5% 8.4% 1.1% 7.3% 0.2% 8.8%
Textiles and Shoes 9.7% 11.6% 5.7% 11.3% 2.7% 10.1%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 1.0% 0.5% 1.2%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
Sharps 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0.0% 2.5% 5.2% 0.4% 0.0% 2.3%
Bulky Items 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 1.7% 2.4% 3.4% 3.7% 8.1% 4.1%
All Other Garbage 10.1% 9.1% 11.1% 11.5% 19.0% 10.2%
Liquids 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Load Weights (tons) 12.35 7.77 12.35 7.54 9.00 9.73
Annual Tons 4,950.90 4,222.82
Total Households 8,237 7,105
Generation Rate (lb/HH/year) 1,202.11 1,188.69
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix D: Individual Capture Study Sample Results
D-7
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix D - Capture Study Individual Sample Compositon
Table D-2: Trash Samples (percent by weight) (Continued)
Commercial -
MF Links:
Monday,
4059
Commercial -
MF:
Monday,
4071
Multi-Family
Dumpster:
Thursday,
The Cliffs
Multi-Family
Dumpster:
Friday,
Mountain
Ranch
Multi-Family
Dumpster:
Friday, Clear
Creek
Material Categories sample # 1 3 25 26 27
Corrugated Cardboard 13.6% 3.5% 2.3% 10.1% 1.3%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 8.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.9% 5.3%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.4% 0.8% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3%
Compostable Paper 4.7% 2.6% 1.4% 5.9% 2.6%
Non-recyclable Paper 2.0% 1.4% 0.3% 1.2% 0.9%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Clear (#1) 3.6% 2.3% 2.0% 3.5% 1.0%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars - Opaque/Pigmented (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 0.7%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigment.(#1) 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.7% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.7% 0.3% 0.5% 1.0% 0.8%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.7% 0.6% 0.4% 1.5% 0.5%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 5.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 1.3% 0.8%
Plastic Garbage Bags 4.1% 2.3% 1.1% 1.7% 1.1%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 5.4% 2.8% 2.6% 3.6% 3.9%
Tin/Steel Cans 2.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8%
Aluminum Cans 2.3% 1.3% 2.6% 0.4% 0.8%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 0.2%
Unacceptable Metals 0.5% 3.9% 0.1% 1.0% 0.0%
Glass Bottles and Jars 1.1% 3.0% 2.7% 7.1% 2.2%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.7% 0.4%
Food Waste 18.6% 12.7% 18.5% 23.1% 21.4%
Yard Waste 0.2% 0.8% 0.2% 0.9% 0.0%
Textiles and Shoes 11.9% 3.6% 0.8% 3.2% 7.6%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.0% 29.0% 21.6% 0.0% 0.0%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0%
Batteries 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 1.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.9% 0.1%
Bulky Items 0.0% 10.4% 0.0% 0.0% 20.5%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 0.0% 1.0% 8.6% 3.6% 11.7%
All Other Garbage 5.1% 3.0% 22.6% 15.6% 11.5%
Liquids 2.0% 1.8% 0.0% 2.7% 1.4%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Load Weights (tons) 9.17 8.15 5.65 4.02 11.69
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix D: Individual Capture Study Sample Results
D-8
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix D - Capture Study Individual Sample Compositon
Table D-2: Trash Samples (percent by weight) (Continued)
Commercial:
Monday,
4060
Commercial:
Tuesday,
4062
Commercial:
Tuesday,
4061
Commercial:
Tuesday,
4049
Commercial:
Wednesday,
4060
Commercial:
Wednesday,
4059
Commercial:
Wednesday,
4049
Material Categories sample # 2 7 8 9 13 14 15
Corrugated Cardboard 8.2% 10.9% 1.5% 0.8% 16.6% 16.4% 5.6%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 9.6% 14.2% 13.5% 10.6% 6.1% 1.5% 6.5%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.1% 1.7% 0.3% 5.4% 0.1% 0.6% 0.2%
Compostable Paper 4.0% 2.7% 6.7% 7.4% 1.7% 1.6% 2.9%
Non-recyclable Paper 1.6% 4.3% 3.8% 9.8% 1.6% 0.3% 3.3%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Clear (#1) 1.4% 2.2% 0.6% 0.5% 0.9% 0.6% 2.3%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars - Opaque/Pigmented (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigment.(#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.3% 0.6% 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.3% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.6%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.6% 1.1% 0.1% 0.7% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.7% 0.4% 1.2% 0.2% 0.3% 1.3% 1.3%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.3% 0.4% 0.9% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 3.0%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 1.4% 1.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.2% 1.1%
Plastic Garbage Bags 2.4% 5.8% 3.2% 4.5% 2.8% 0.5% 3.5%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 5.7% 2.6% 18.8% 10.9% 10.3% 1.6% 5.6%
Tin/Steel Cans 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.6%
Aluminum Cans 0.8% 2.8% 0.2% 0.9% 0.4% 0.2% 1.2%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Unacceptable Metals 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3%
Glass Bottles and Jars 2.2% 2.1% 0.0% 2.0% 0.1% 0.5% 7.1%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6%
Food Waste 27.0% 17.3% 35.7% 35.4% 9.6% 23.0% 21.4%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2%
Textiles and Shoes 8.3% 1.8% 0.0% 3.1% 10.1% 1.2% 2.2%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.0% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 46.3% 6.7%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 5.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%
Bulky Items 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.5% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 3.8% 3.5% 0.8% 0.0% 22.5% 0.0% 3.4%
All Other Garbage 9.9% 6.4% 6.1% 2.4% 8.7% 1.1% 5.0%
Liquids 0.9% 5.9% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.1%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Load Weights (tons) 7.69 8.86 10.92 13.60 5.36 10.93 4.65
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix E - Capture Study Detailed Generation Rate Results
Appendix E:
City of Fayetteville
2024 Capture Study
Capture Study Single-Family Residential
Detailed Generation Rate Results
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix E: Detailed Generation Rate Results
E-2
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix E - Capture Study Detailed Generation Rate Results
Table E-1: Single-Family Residential Recycling Generation (pounds/household/year)
Material Category Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Citywide Corrugated Cardboard 173.51 88.37 81.42 110.27 108.89
Mixed Recyclable Paper 33.46 17.36 15.71 21.22 21.07
Total Program Recyclable Paper 206.97 105.73 97.13 131.49 129.96
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) 9.52 4.91 4.45 6.04 5.99
HDPE Bottles (#2) 5.42 2.79 2.52 3.37 3.38
Tin/Steel Cans 5.35 2.75 2.53 3.43 3.38
Aluminum Cans 5.69 2.89 2.67 3.63 3.57
Glass Bottles and Jars 61.38 31.17 28.79 38.93 38.47
Total Program Recyclable Containers 87.36 44.51 40.96 55.40 54.79
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00
Total Potential Recyclable Materials 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.07 0.25 0.08 0.05 0.12
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.05
Other PET Non-bottle Rigid – Clear (#1) 0.03 0.15 0.04 0.01 0.06
Other PET Non-bottle Rigid – Opaque/Pigmented (#1) 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
HDPE Non-bottle Containers (#2) 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
PP Tubs (#5) 0.24 0.21 0.14 0.08 0.16
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03
Other PP Non-bottle Rigid (#5) 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01
Other Small Rigid Packaging Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01
Unacceptable Metals 0.12 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.07
Non-processable Recyclable Materials 0.61 1.04 0.35 0.18 0.54
Wet Paper and Cardboard 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.11 0.17 0.19 0.09 0.14
Compostable Paper 0.30 0.19 0.02 0.06 0.13
Non-recyclable Paper 0.06 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.06
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Styrofoam 0.02 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.04
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.10 0.03 0.09 0.00 0.05
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.03 0.08
Plastic Garbage Bags 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 0.24 0.27 0.10 0.09 0.17
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Food Waste 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.03
Yard Waste 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Textiles and Shoes 0.00 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.05
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.02
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02
Batteries 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sharps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01
Bulky Items 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.09
Tires 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tanglers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bagged Recyclables 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.04
Bagged Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposable Diapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Contaminants 0.13 0.40 0.11 0.37 0.26
Contaminants 1.31 1.72 1.11 0.90 1.26
Total 296.27 153.00 139.55 187.98 186.55
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix E: Detailed Generation Rate Results
E-3
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix E - Capture Study Detailed Generation Rate Results
Table E-2: Single-Family Residential Trash Generation (pounds/household/year)
Material Categories Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Citywide
Corrugated Cardboard 37.71 47.45 27.18 43.11 38.58
Mixed Recyclable Paper 124.90 119.39 180.87 135.19 142.13
Total Program Recyclable Paper 162.61 166.84 208.05 178.29 180.71
PET Bottles (#1) 23.53 23.83 22.75 21.69 22.93
HDPE Bottles (#2) 8.92 13.85 12.72 10.76 11.77
Tin/Steel Cans 6.37 9.01 12.99 12.27 10.44
Aluminum Cans 8.19 13.99 18.04 13.82 13.95
Glass Bottles and Jars 4.99 20.67 11.11 23.39 15.45
Total Program Recyclable Containers 51.99 81.35 77.62 81.95 74.53
Hazardous/Special Waste 15.86 1.50 0.35 0.00 3.68
Batteries 1.04 0.18 0.00 1.24 0.56
Sharps 0.09 0.10 0.52 0.65 0.35
E-Waste & Small Appliances 9.74 1.55 30.91 11.66 14.16
Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Materials 26.73 3.33 31.78 13.55 18.76
Compostable Paper 57.46 45.04 50.41 79.22 57.57
Food Waste 254.64 166.83 161.93 169.61 183.73
Yard Waste 110.61 94.64 59.02 64.20 80.02
Total Potential Compostables 422.71 306.51 271.36 313.03 321.31
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 1.91 1.14 5.41 1.32 2.57
Total Potential Recyclable Materials 1.91 1.14 5.41 1.32 2.57
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 15.71 4.43 3.70 5.88 6.84
PET Clamshells (#1) 6.51 3.64 3.09 7.49 5.01
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.36 0.77 0.00 1.30 0.60
Other PET Non-Bottle – Clear (#1) 1.62 1.92 7.74 6.20 4.60
Other PET Non-Bottle - Opaque/Pigmented (#1) 1.13 1.07 4.29 0.16 1.78
HDPE Non-Bottle Containers (#2) 1.36 1.14 0.59 1.65 1.15
PP Clamshells (#5) 9.26 2.23 0.27 0.00 2.52
PP Tubs (#5) 10.11 5.53 14.40 10.77 10.30
PP Drink Cups (#5) 3.02 3.38 11.47 4.79 5.99
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.80 3.53 5.57 2.57 3.33
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.56 1.04 0.53 4.22 1.58
Other Small Rigid Packaging Containers (#3, #4, #6, #7) 1.60 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.52
Bulky Rigid Plastics 6.83 14.66 5.85 6.26 8.46
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 14.76 15.18 9.75 16.77 13.93
Unacceptable Metals 22.07 11.62 23.54 10.81 16.95
Aluminum Foil and Trays 8.27 10.85 8.12 6.53 8.47
Textiles and Shoes 74.10 39.39 103.48 93.77 78.33
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 72.84 15.93 2.01 10.68 22.03
Tires 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Potential Recoverables 250.92 136.31 205.10 189.86 192.42
Non-Recyclable Paper 35.60 72.25 56.94 26.96 49.23
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.00 1.66 4.83 2.75 2.51
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 37.04 17.00 29.87 17.71 24.90
Plastic Garbage Bags 53.91 26.65 30.44 20.17 31.60
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 144.96 135.38 112.15 91.35 119.67
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.88 1.08 11.74 14.04 7.33
Bulky Items 0.00 93.15 0.00 7.33 26.31
Disposable Diapers 41.00 73.56 30.37 63.81 52.16
All Other Garbage 191.27 91.53 123.02 161.53 138.00
Liquids 2.30 4.84 3.44 5.05 3.98
All Other Materials 506.96 517.11 402.80 410.69 455.70
Totals 1423.82 1212.60 1202.11 1188.69 1246.00
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix F - Capture Study Individual Sample Results
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Appendix F:
City of Fayetteville
2024 Capture Study
Single-Family Individual Capture Study
Sample Results
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix F: Individual Sample Results
F-2
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix F - Capture Study Individual Sample Results
Table F-1: Recycling Samples (sample weights – pounds)
Monday: Route
35
Contamination
Monday: Route
33
Contamination
Monday: Route
37
Contamination
Tuesday: Route
33
Contamination
Tuesday: Route
37
Contamination
Tuesday: Route
31
Contamination
Material Categories sample # 1 2 3 6 7 8
Corrugated Cardboard 0.15 0 0.75 2.05 1.15 4.50
Mixed Recyclable Paper 1.30 0.55 3.55 3.65 4.45 11.25
Wet Paper and Cardboard 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.95 1.55 0.35 0.55 2.00 4.30
Compostable Paper 0.30 0.15 4.9 0.40 6.85 0.55
Non-recyclable Paper 0.65 0.50 0.35 0.20 0.45 3.70
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0 0 0 0 0 0
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) 0.55 0.10 0.25 0.45 0.30 2.95
PET Clamshells (#1) 1.2 0.40 0.20 3.40 1.60 5.40
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0 0.50 0.10 1.80 0.50 4.70
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.3 0.05 0.35 1.70 0.60 3.90
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigment.(#1) 0 0.40 0 0.20 0 0.05
HDPE Bottles (#2) 1.65 2.45 0.2 0.55 0.65 3.45
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0 0 0.20 0.75 0.20 0
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.15 0 0 0 0 0
PP Clamshells (#5) 0 0.20 0.50 0.50 0 0
PP Tubs (#5) 0.85 3.70 0.90 2.25 3.00 3.40
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.45 0.40 0 0.85 0.15 0.65
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0 0 0.25 0 0.45 0
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0 0 0.25 0.10 0 0.20
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0 0.30 0 0.95 0.20 0
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.05 0.25 0.20 0.20 1.00 2.80
Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.25 1.30 0 0 0.45 0.60
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 1.20 1.35 0.30 0.55 0.80 3.70
Plastic Garbage Bags 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 0.65 4.70 0.65 2.20 0.45 7.00
Tin/Steel Cans 0 0 0.10 0 0 1.35
Aluminum Cans 0.55 0.45 0.10 0 0 0.80
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.75 0.30 0 1.20 0 0
Unacceptable Metals 1.40 1.80 0 0.30 0.15 4.80
Glass Bottles and Jars 1.35 0 0 0 0 0
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0 0 0 0 0 0
Food Waste 0.90 0 0 0.75 1.00 1.50
Yard Waste 0 0 2.00 0 0 0
Textiles and Shoes 0 0 0 0 0 5.20
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.65 0 0 0 0 0.50
Hazardous/Special Waste 0 0 0.85 0 2.40 0
Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sharps 0 0 0 0 0 0
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0 0 0 0 1.15 0
Bulky Items 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tires 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tanglers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bagged Recyclables 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bagged Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disposable Diapers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Contaminants 0.20 0 2.25 4.50 2.65 9.40
Liquids 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 17.45 21.00 22.15 30.05 32.60 86.65
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix F: Individual Sample Results
F-3
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix F - Capture Study Individual Sample Results
Table F-1: Recycling Samples (sample weights – pounds) (Continued)
Wednesday:
Route 36
Contamination
Wednesday:
Route 38
Contamination
Wednesday:
Route 34
Contamination
Thursday:
Route 35
Contamination
Thursday:
Route 31
Contamination
Thursday:
Route 37
Contamination
Material Categories sample # 9 10 11 13 14 17
Corrugated Cardboard 0 0 0.50 0 0 7.05
Mixed Recyclable Paper 1.70 1.30 0.65 0.85 0.60 3.70
Wet Paper and Cardboard 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.50 3.10 2.30 1.55 1.20 0.30
Compostable Paper 0.50 0 0.15 0.15 0 2.10
Non-recyclable Paper 0.45 0.40 0.05 0.65 0.25 1.10
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0 0 0 0 0 0
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) 0 0 0 0.10 0 0.75
PET Clamshells (#1) 1.40 0.55 0.45 0.90 0.20 0.70
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0 0 0 0.10 0 0.20
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.55 0.30 0.45 0.15 0.15 0.10
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigment.(#1) 0 0 0 0 0 0
HDPE Bottles (#2) 1.00 0.85 0 1.15 0 0
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0 0 0 0 0 0
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.20 0 0
PP Clamshells (#5) 0 0 0 0.15 0 0
PP Tubs (#5) 1.80 1.75 0.75 0.75 0.65 1.30
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.50 0.20 0.15 0 0.15 0.05
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0 0.15 0 0 0 0.20
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0 0.35 0.25 0.15 0 0
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.10 0 0 0 0 0
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0 0.40 0.55 0 0.10 0.55
Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.40 1.55 0 0 0 0
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 0.45 0.65 1.35 0 0.50 0.50
Plastic Garbage Bags 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 1.20 0.90 0.95 1.70 0 1.20
Tin/Steel Cans 0.45 0.10 0 1.15 0 0
Aluminum Cans 0.05 0.60 0.05 0.70 0.45 0.50
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.05 0.05 0 1.20 0 0
Unacceptable Metals 0 0.05 1.35 0 0 0.35
Glass Bottles and Jars 0 0 0 0 0 0.75
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0 0 0 0 0 0.35
Food Waste 0 0 0 0 0.30 0
Yard Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0
Textiles and Shoes 0 0.70 1.50 0 0 0
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0 0 1.60 0 0 0
Hazardous/Special Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0
Batteries 0 0 0 0.10 0 0
Sharps 0 0 0 0 0 0
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bulky Items 0 10.35 0 0 0 0
Tires 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tanglers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bagged Recyclables 0 0.40 0 0 0 4.55
Bagged Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disposable Diapers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Contaminants 2.30 1.10 0.15 1.35 0.25 11.10
Liquids 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 14.45 25.85 13.30 13.05 4.80 37.40
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix F: Individual Sample Results
F-4
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix F - Capture Study Individual Sample Results
Table F-2: Trash Samples (sample weights – pounds)
Residential:
Monday,
4063
Residential:
Monday,
4076
Residential:
Monday,
4056
Residential:
Tuesday,
4050
Residential:
Tuesday,
4063
Residential:
Tuesday,
4057
Material Categories sample # 4 5 6 10 11 12
Corrugated Cardboard 6.75 2.20 8.10 4.80 16.40 4.55
Mixed Recyclable Paper 17.40 13.10 22.40 12.20 34.20 17.80
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 1.30 0.60 6.00 0.15 0.90 1.25
Compostable Paper 10.25 3.45 12.20 7.35 9.40 7.65
Non-recyclable Paper 6.75 2.15 7.00 12.10 17.50 9.80
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0 0 0 0 0.90 0
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) 1.60 2.45 6.5 5.25 5.00 2.90
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.45 1.25 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.85
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.15 0 0 0 0.20 0.20
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.35 0 0.45 0.85 0 0.25
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigment.(#1) 0.05 0.30 0 0.30 0.20 0.10
HDPE Bottles (#2) 2.05 0.55 1.25 4.45 2.50 0.90
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0 0.30 0.20 0 0.40 0.20
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.30 0.25 0.20 0 0.40 0.20
PP Clamshells (#5) 2.05 0.60 1.35 0.45 0.80 0
PP Tubs (#5) 2.55 0 2.30 0.95 1.10 0.95
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.65 0.15 0.55 0.85 0.30 0.70
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0 0 0.45 0.25 0.70 0.90
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.05 0 0.25 0.50 0 0.10
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.25 0.30 0 0 0 0
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 3.65 0.40 2.70 0.85 6.20 1.15
Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.75 0.80 0 8.35 0.40 0
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 4.70 2.60 9.70 5.50 2.60 1.50
Plastic Garbage Bags 8.10 5.75 8.70 4.90 5.20 4.40
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 32.70 17.05 5.75 30.65 35.00 9.75
Tin/Steel Cans 1.10 0.75 0.70 2.05 2.10 0.85
Aluminum Cans 1.75 0.65 1.05 2.65 3.00 2.00
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.50 0.45 3.15 0.60 2.60 2.50
Unacceptable Metals 0 6.35 0.40 3.20 1.60 1.65
Glass Bottles and Jars 0.35 0.50 1.40 1.45 3.60 5.72
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0 0 0.50 0.65 0 0
Food Waste 26.10 39.05 34.75 26.65 22.90 39.70
Yard Waste 7.30 0.50 51.80 0 42.20 8.30
Textiles and Shoes 7.45 14.05 5.20 12.20 2.50 7.15
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 21.55 1.70 9.10 1.50 5.80 1.35
Hazardous/Special Waste 6.70 0 0 0.90 0 0
Batteries 0.15 0.15 0.10 0 0.10 0
Sharps 0 0 0.05 0 0 0.05
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0.35 2.65 0 0 0.40 0.40
Bulky Items 0 0 0 0 0 46.15
Tires 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disposable Diapers 8.35 6.10 0.40 13.05 9.20 17.25
All Other Garbage 22.30 25.20 30.35 22.80 15.6 12.25
Liquids 0 0 1.30 0 0 2.40
Totals 207.80 152.35 237.00 189.0 252.40 213.85
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix F: Individual Sample Results
F-5
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix F - Capture Study Individual Sample Results
Table F-2: Trash Samples (sample weights – pounds) (Continued)
Residential:
Wednesday,
4076
Residential:
Wednesday,
4053
Residential:
Wednesday,
4063
Residential:
Thursday,
4076
Residential:
Thursday,
4065
Residential:
Thursday,
4057
Material Categories sample # 16 17 18 22 23 24
Corrugated Cardboard 7.60 6.40 1.55 19.95 4.05 0
Mixed Recyclable Paper 26.62 27.70 39.20 21.85 22.20 19.35
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.30 0.75 1.60
Compostable Paper 12.35 6.00 7.75 9.25 10.55 17.05
Non-recyclable Paper 10.20 14.35 7.55 3.45 3.20 6.05
Soiled Pizza Boxes 1.45 0 0.85 0 1.05 0
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars (#1) 8.30 2.60 1.25 2.60 2.70 4.85
PET Clamshells (#1) 0 1.95 0.20 0.50 1.65 1.10
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0 0 0 0.80 0 0
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 2.10 0 1.55 1.50 0.25 1.45
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigment.(#1) 0.35 0 1.55 0.10 0 0
HDPE Bottles (#2) 1.60 2.45 2.70 2.75 0.60 2.20
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.30 0 0 0.10 0.20 0.45
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.20 0.10 2.10 0.35 0 0.35
PP Clamshells (#5) 0 0.20 0 0 0 0
PP Tubs (#5) 4.25 2.15 1.35 1.45 1.90 1.60
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.75 5.70 1.00 0.60 0.80 0.80
Other PP Non0bottle Rigids (#5) 0.85 0.65 1.30 0 0 1.20
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.20 0.10 0 0.30 1.30 0.15
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0 0 0.30 0 0 0
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 2.35 1.30 1.45 2.55 3.10 2.10
Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.00 1.85 0.60 2.00 0 1.40
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 4.10 4.80 6.60 2.90 1.85 3.80
Plastic Garbage Bags 8.60 5.20 2.80 1.60 3.60 3.80
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 23.35 24.05 14.55 14.80 14.10 14.15
Tin/Steel Cans 2.80 2.45 1.80 0.70 3.35 1.10
Aluminum Cans 4.65 2.20 2.55 1.20 2.65 2.30
Aluminum Foil and Trays 1.20 2.90 0.80 1.00 0.85 1.25
Unacceptable Metals 5.15 2.70 4.20 0.65 0.25 4.25
Glass Bottles and Jars 2.10 0 3.00 2.15 5.10 3.05
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0 0 5.05 0.40 0 6.25
Food Waste 32.65 21.95 29.30 32.25 21.60 28.25
Yard Waste 15.20 18.00 2.10 15.20 0.30 18.05
Textiles and Shoes 22.45 24.80 11.15 23.60 4.20 20.70
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.75 0.40 0 2.00 0.75 2.55
Hazardous/Special Waste 0 0 0.15 0 0 0
Batteries 0 0 0 0 0.35 0.15
Sharps 0 0.30 0.05 0.20 0 0.15
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0 5.35 10.20 0.85 0 4.80
Bulky Items 0 0 0 4.50 0 0
Tires 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disposable Diapers 3.90 5.20 6.75 7.85 12.65 8.35
All Other Garbage 23.45 19.45 21.80 24.10 29.55 20.95
Liquids 0.80 0 0.80 3.10 0 0
Totals 232.20 213.90 196.65 209.45 155.45 205.60
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix G - Capture Study Detailed Recyclables Generation and Capture Results
TECHNICAL MEMORANDM
Appendix G:
City of Fayetteville
2024 Capture Study
Capture Study Single-Family Residential
Detailed Generation and Capture Results
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix G: Detailed Generation and Capture Results
G-2
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix G - Capture Study Detailed Recyclables Generation and Capture Results
Table G-1: Single-family Citywide Program Recyclables and Capture Rate
Material Category
Generation (lb/hh/year)
Capture
Rate Recycling Trash Total
Corrugated Cardboard 108.89 38.58 147.47 73.8%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 21.07 142.13 163.21 12.9%
Total Program Recyclable Paper 129.96 180.71 310.67 41.8%
PET Bottles (#1) 5.99 22.93 28.91 20.7%
HDPE Bottles (#2) 3.38 11.77 15.15 22.3%
Tin/Steel Cans 3.38 10.44 13.81 24.4%
Aluminum Cans 3.57 13.95 17.52 20.4%
Glass Bottles and Jars 38.47 15.45 53.92 71.4%
Total Program Recyclable Containers 54.79 74.53 129.32 42.4%
Total Program Recyclables 184.75 255.24 439.99 42.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix H - Capture Sudy Film Material Categories
TECHNICAL MEMORANDU
Appendix H:
City of Fayetteville
2024 Capture Study
Film Material Categories
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix H: Detailed Film Results
H-2
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix H - Capture Sudy Film Material Categories
Table H-1: Film Categories
Material
Categories Descriptions and Examples
Single Resin PE
(Polyethylene)
Film
All PE (principally LDPE #4 but also LLDPE #4 and HDPE #2) film and related materials. Examples
include retail carryout sacks (not used for trash disposal), outer mail pouch made from
polyethylene plastic, air cushion pillows, bubble wrap, LDPE component bags, product overwrap
(paper towels, napkins, disposable cups and dinnerware), case wrap (e.g., film over cases of
bottled water), bread bags (bread, muffins, bagels, tortillas), ice bags, bulk produce bags (apples,
potatoes, excludes cherries & grapes), lay flat rice & sweeteners (not crinkly & glossy), food
storage bags (e.g., Ziploc®), single use produce bag (found on rolls in produce aisles), cereal box
liners (unless it tears like paper), frozen vegetable pillow bags, produce wrap (shrink-wrapped
individual peppers, cucumbers), polybags (e.g., clothing overwrap bags), dry-cleaner bags,
newspaper bags, furniture and electronic wrap, wet or gooey monolayer PE film (e.g., Saran Wrap®
that has come into contact with food but no longer contains food.
Single Resin PP
(Polypropylene)
Film
All PP film and related materials. Examples include salad bags (prepared salads, greens), pre-
wrapped vegetables, fruit bags with #5 resin identification code (cherries, grapes), any transparent
flexible packaging with a #5 resin identification code (e.g., LEGO® bags), woven, large pet food
bags, salty snack food bags without a silver inner lining, clear frozen food bag wrappers for meals
packaged in a paperboard outer box, and pasta bags.
Multi-material
Laminated
Packaging
Lay flat packaging, some with an inner silver lining. Examples include chip bags (potato chips, corn
chips) with or without a silver inner lining, cookie packaging outer wrap (with silver inner lining),
ramen bags, meat wraps, including deli meat, hot dogs, etc., cheese wraps, microwaveable food
packaging, cake mix and other dry powder box liners (if it tears like paper).
Stand-up
Pouches
Flexible packaging in a stand-up pouch format, including resealable stand-up pouches and those
with a rigid plastics closure. Combined stand-up pouches from single resin PE, single resin PP, and
multi-material laminated packaging as defined above. Examples include baby food pouches, yogurt
pouches, stand-up, resealable pouches for granola, snacks, sugar, rice, baking mixes, frozen
seafood, etc., juice pouches (like Capri Sun), pet food pouches, crouton or other kinds of dry good
pouches, coffee bags, and any other product example that comes in a 3D stand-up pouch.
Large, Film Bags Thick film bags associated with landscaping and products with typically outdoor uses. Examples
include heavy gauge bags such as mulch, soils, compost, pellets, and winter salt.
Unknown Film
Type
An “all other” category that falls outside of any of the above or is considered too small for capture
(<2” in any direction). Examples include lay flat rice & sweeteners (if crinkly & glossy), meat top-
wrap, frozen food bags (excluding veggie pillow bags), small candy and granola bar wrappers,
compostable packaging, popsicle bags, cheese stick bags, six-pack rings (has an oxo-biodegradable
additive), any film marked as compostable, sachets (small packets for single use ketchup, shampoo,
etc.), and torn or broken pieces of larger packaging that cannot be identified.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix I - Waste Characterization Study Individual Sample Compositon
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Appendix I:
Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
2024 Waste Characterization Study
Individual WCS Sample Results
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study
Appendix I: Individual WCS Sample Results
C-2
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix I - Waste Characterization Study Individual Sample Compositon
APPENDIX I: INDIVIDUAL WCS SAMPLE RESULTS
Table I-1: Trash Samples (percent by weight)
Murray:
Monday
Skywalker
Disposal:
Monday
Murray:
Monday
Trash Away:
Monday
Neighbors
NWA:
Tuesday
Courtesy
Sanitation:
Tuesday
Material Categories sample # 1 2 3 4 7 8
Corrugated Cardboard 0.0% 4.2% 3.2% 5.4% 1.0% 2.3%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 10.6% 7.3% 11.4% 4.7% 13.8% 11.2%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 1.2% 0.1%
Compostable Paper 5.5% 2.3% 6.5% 5.2% 4.7% 5.9%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Non-recyclable Paper 6.9% 3.3% 3.9% 4.2% 3.9% 1.8%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Clear (#1) 3.4% 3.2% 2.8% 2.7% 1.0% 1.5%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Opaque/Pigmented (#1) 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.3% 0.2% 0.7% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigmented (#1) 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.7% 0.8% 1.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.8% 1.2% 1.3% 0.0% 0.9% 0.5%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.4% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.1%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
PP Tubs (#5) 1.0% 0.7% 1.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.3%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0%
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 0.8% 0.3% 0.5%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 4.4% 0.8% 1.5% 0.9% 1.3% 1.4%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 0.6% 1.0% 0.6% 1.8% 0.8% 1.2%
Plastic Garbage Bags 2.1% 5.3% 3.7% 0.5% 1.2% 1.3%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 7.7% 9.0% 5.6% 5.6% 3.5% 2.1%
Tin/Steel Cans 1.5% 2.2% 5.5% 2.6% 1.4% 0.6%
Aluminum Cans 2.4% 0.7% 1.8% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% 0.7% 0.2%
Unacceptable Metals 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8% 0.8%
Glass Bottles and Jars 4.4% 5.8% 2.1% 4.3% 0.9% 1.8%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7%
Food Waste 20.5% 22.7% 22.3% 20.9% 29.9% 23.8%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.6%
Textiles and Shoes 3.8% 5.4% 0.6% 7.6% 3.3% 6.7%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 5.2% 0.0% 0.2% 2.5% 1.6% 0.7%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
Batteries 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 1.7% 0.4% 0.5% 3.6% 0.6% 1.1%
Bulky Items 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 4.7% 6.3% 9.5% 2.1% 10.1% 3.4%
All Other Garbage 6.9% 11.8% 7.7% 14.6% 11.1% 24.5%
Liquids 2.3% 0.0% 1.4% 4.4% 1.2% 0.2%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Load Weights (tons) 1.29 0.71 0.56 1.33 1.24 1.17
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study
Appendix I: Individual WCS Sample Results
C-3
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix I - Waste Characterization Study Individual Sample Compositon
Table I-1: Trash Samples (percent by weight) (Cont.)
Trash Away:
Tuesday
Courtesy
Sanitation:
Tuesday
Northwest
Sanitation:
Wednesday
Trash Away:
Wednesday
Northwest
Sanitation:
Wednesday
Trash Away:
Wednesday
Material Categories sample # 9 10 14 15 16 17
Corrugated Cardboard 2.7% 0.6% 6.6% 3.3% 2.1% 4.9%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 8.0% 18.5% 9.4% 8.6% 9.6% 6.1%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.4% 0.7% 3.4% 0.0% 1.0% 2.7%
Compostable Paper 4.5% 10.0% 5.0% 7.1% 5.6% 6.2%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 1.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Non-recyclable Paper 3.2% 2.4% 3.8% 4.1% 6.9% 1.4%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Clear (#1) 2.0% 2.8% 3.0% 4.8% 3.8% 2.7%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Opaque/Pigmented (#1) 0.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.8%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 0.3% 0.5% 0.2%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigmented.(#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 3.2% 0.7% 0.8% 6.2% 0.3% 1.8%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 2.2% 0.5% 1.1% 0.9% 1.0% 1.1%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.4% 1.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.7%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.9% 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.3% 1.2% 1.4% 1.3% 0.7% 0.6%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.7% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.6%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 0.6% 0.4% 1.3% 2.3% 1.2% 0.9%
Plastic Garbage Bags 2.1% -1.5% 2.5% 2.9% 1.4% 3.9%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 3.7% 1.2% 5.3% 6.6% 5.9% 6.8%
Tin/Steel Cans 1.2% 1.4% 2.6% 1.9% 1.6% 1.2%
Aluminum Cans 1.5% 0.9% 2.3% 2.9% 2.0% 1.2%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%
Unacceptable Metals 0.4% 1.6% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Glass Bottles and Jars 1.4% 1.8% 7.7% 2.0% 2.1% 4.5%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 1.1% 1.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%
Food Waste 21.8% 23.0% 18.0% 17.0% 23.4% 18.9%
Yard Waste 10.6% 0.0% 1.7% 2.3% 0.0% 0.1%
Textiles and Shoes 1.1% 3.8% 5.3% 1.5% 3.1% 0.3%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
Hazardous/Special Waste 1.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% 1.5%
Batteries 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Sharps 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 2.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bulky Items 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.2%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 5.3% 13.7% 4.5% 9.5% 2.6% 5.4%
All Other Garbage 11.0% 11.0% 5.2% 7.9% 18.3% 7.0%
Liquids 1.3% 0.1% 0.7% 3.8% 3.9% 1.4%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Load Weights (tons) 5.33 0.94 1.16 1.53 0.84 1.71
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study
Appendix I: Individual WCS Sample Results
C-4
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix I - Waste Characterization Study Individual Sample Compositon
Table I-1: Trash Samples (percent by weight) (Cont.)
Waste
Management:
Wednesday
Waste
Management
Wednesday
Waste
Management:
Thursday
City of Prairie
Grove:
Wednesday
City of Prairie
Grove:
Tuesday
City of Prairie
Grove:
Tuesday
Material Categories sample # 11 12 25 13 5 6
Corrugated Cardboard 6.0% 1.0% 1.1% 2.5% 1.1% 9.7%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 6.9% 5.9% 10.0% 10.1% 6.2% 7.6%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.2% 0.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1%
Compostable Paper 3.4% 4.6% 5.0% 1.9% 3.3% 2.1%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0%
Non-recyclable Paper 3.9% 3.2% 6.0% 2.4% 2.6% 1.5%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Clear (#1) 1.3% 2.1% 3.0% 1.7% 1.2% 2.4%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Opaque/Pigmented (#1) 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigmented (#1) 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 4.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.0%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
PP Tubs (#5) 1.0% 1.4% 0.7% 1.0% 0.4% 0.2%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 1.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 1.2% 0.4% 0.9% 0.1% 0.6% 0.7%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 10.5% 0.0% 1.3%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 0.8% 1.0% 1.6% 1.8% 2.7% 0.1%
Plastic Garbage Bags 1.3% 1.9% 2.8% 3.4% 2.4% 1.6%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 1.3% 4.6% 6.3% 3.4% 3.6% 2.5%
Tin/Steel Cans 0.6% 0.2% 1.5% 0.9% 1.6% 3.2%
Aluminum Cans 0.3% 0.5% 1.6% 1.3% 1.3% 2.1%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 1.9% 0.4% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2% 0.6%
Unacceptable Metals 0.1% 0.2% 0.9% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1%
Glass Bottles and Jars 1.5% 5.1% 4.7% 0.2% 6.4% 6.9%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.9%
Food Waste 32.9% 31.2% 21.3% 21.0% 21.6% 23.7%
Yard Waste 0.0% 9.5% 6.3% 0.1% 3.4% 7.2%
Textiles and Shoes 2.8% 0.9% 3.9% 3.4% 5.6% 1.6%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.0% 0.9% 4.3% 11.9% 0.0% 2.6%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.0% 0.8% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7%
Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Sharps 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%
Bulky Items 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 4.2% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 14.7% 3.4% 4.1% 0.1% 10.7% 5.1%
All Other Garbage 4.9% 8.0% 6.9% 14.3% 14.2% 8.2%
Liquids 3.5% 7.8% 0.5% 1.4% 1.2% 0.5%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Load Weights (tons) 0.08 0.13 3.73 5.81 7.07 9.44
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study
Appendix I: Individual WCS Sample Results
C-5
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix I - Waste Characterization Study Individual Sample Compositon
Table I-1: Trash Samples (percent by weight) (Cont.)
LRS / City of
Johnson:
Thursday
LRS / City of
Johnson:
Thursday
LRS / City of
Johnson:
Thursday
LRS / City of
Johnson:
Thursday
LRS / City of
Johnson:
Thursday
LRS / City of
Johnson:
Thursday
Material Categories sample # 19 20 21 22 23 24
Corrugated Cardboard 5.0% 1.8% 9.0% 12.1% 0.0% 0.9%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 10.3% 7.7% 9.2% 10.0% 9.7% 10.2%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 2.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5%
Compostable Paper 8.6% 5.7% 6.3% 4.7% 5.0% 3.8%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Non-recyclable Paper 5.6% 4.6% 6.1% 2.4% 3.6% 2.8%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Clear (#1) 3.9% 1.6% 2.3% 1.1% 2.3% 1.6%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Opaque/Pigmented (#1) 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 0.2%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigmented (#1) 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.2%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 1.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 1.1% 0.9% 1.9% 0.7% 1.1% 0.6%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.7%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 2.4% 0.6% 1.1% 0.7% 3.2% 0.5%
Plastic Garbage Bags 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 2.4% 2.0% 1.8%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 4.6% 5.4% 5.9% 4.4% 5.6% 5.6%
Tin/Steel Cans 3.8% 1.1% 1.7% 1.7% 1.4% 1.3%
Aluminum Cans 0.8% 1.9% 1.7% 0.7% 1.7% 1.6%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.4% 0.7% 1.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6%
Unacceptable Metals 0.9% 0.3% 1.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Glass Bottles and Jars 4.5% 12.2% 1.1% 3.3% 2.7% 5.0%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%
Food Waste 23.9% 20.7% 25.1% 27.8% 21.8% 30.6%
Yard Waste 0.0% 3.9% 6.6% 0.0% 0.4% 2.9%
Textiles and Shoes 1.8% 5.6% 0.9% 7.5% 0.7% 2.4%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 0.8% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Batteries 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Sharps 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 1.2% 1.1%
Bulky Items 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 1.7% 13.1% 1.7% 7.1% 20.0% 8.9%
All Other Garbage 6.2% 4.8% 4.4% 6.2% 6.7% 8.0%
Liquids 1.0% 0.6% 1.5% 0.1% 5.8% 2.7%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Load Weights (tons) 4.86
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Characterization Study
Appendix I: Individual WCS Sample Results
C-6
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix I - Waste Characterization Study Individual Sample Compositon
Table I-1: Trash Samples (percent by weight) (Cont.)
CARDS:
Thursday
Material Categories sample # 18
Corrugated Cardboard 3.6%
Mixed Recyclable Paper 5.9%
Aseptic Boxes and Gable Top Cartons 0.2%
Compostable Paper 3.4%
Soiled Pizza Boxes 0.1%
Non-recyclable Paper 1.8%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Clear (#1) 1.8%
PET Bottles, Jugs, Jars – Opaque/Pigmented (#1) 0.1%
PET Clamshells (#1) 0.1%
PET Drink Cups (#1) 0.0%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Clear (#1) 0.1%
Other PET Non-bottle Rigids – Op./Pigmented (#1) 0.1%
Natural HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.3%
Colored HDPE Bottles (#2) 0.3%
Non-bottle HDPE Containers (#2) 0.2%
PP Bottles, Jars, Jugs (#5) 0.1%
PP Clamshells (#5) 0.1%
PP Tubs (#5) 0.3%
PP Drink Cups (#5) 0.2%
Other PP Non-bottle Rigids (#5) 0.1%
Other Plastic Drink Cups (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.3%
Other Sm. Rgd. Packaging Cont. (#3, #4, #6, #7) 0.0%
Expanded Polystyrene Foam 0.7%
Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.7%
Unacceptable Rigid Plastics 1.1%
Plastic Garbage Bags 1.8%
Other Plastic Film/Flexibles 3.9%
Tin/Steel Cans 0.6%
Aluminum Cans 0.8%
Aluminum Foil and Trays 0.3%
Unacceptable Metals 1.1%
Glass Bottles and Jars 3.1%
Unacceptable Glass, Ceramics, and Porcelain 0.6%
Food Waste 11.3%
Yard Waste 9.1%
Textiles and Shoes 3.1%
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste 25.9%
Hazardous/Special Waste 0.2%
Batteries 0.1%
Sharps 0.0%
E-Waste & Small Appliances 1.5%
Bulky Items 0.3%
Tires 0.0%
Disposable Diapers 3.5%
All Other Garbage 9.1%
Liquids 1.1%
Totals 100.0%
Load Weights (tons) 3.73
Note: Columns may not appear to correctly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix J - Individual Visual Audit Results
Appendix J:
Boston Mountain Solid Waste District
2024 Waste Composition Study
Individual Visual Audit Results
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Composition Study
Appendix J: Individual Visual Audit Results
J-2
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix J - Individual Visual Audit Results
Table J-1: Individual General Public Waste Visual Audit Results (% by volume)
Vehicle Type Dump
Trailer
Dump
Trailer
Dump
Trailer
Dump
Trailer Roll Off
Estimated Load Volume (cy) 100 90 100 100 90
Sample Number 2 4 6 7 8
Pa
p
e
r
Corrugated Cardboard 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Other Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
Film 5.0% 20.0% 10.0% 5.0% 2.0%
Polystyrene Foam 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rigid Plastics 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.0%
PVC Pipe 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Me
t
a
l
Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HVAC Ducting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous Scrap Metal 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0%
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0%
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Soil 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
C&
D
D
e
b
r
i
s
Treated Wood 45.0% 20.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0%
Untreated Wood 10.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Carpet and Padding 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Drywall 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Roofing Shingles 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0%
Concrete 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Asphalt 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Brick and Masonry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fines and Grit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - insulation 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - rigid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tile and Porcelain 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Linoleum and Vinyl 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Paned Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
Furniture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.0%
Mattresses 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ba
g
g
e
d
Wa
s
t
e
Household Garbage 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0%
C&D Debris 0.0% 25.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0%
Ot
h
e
r
E-Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Household Hazardous Waste 0.0% 15.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Textiles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW 0.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Composition Study
Appendix J: Individual Visual Audit Results
J-3
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix J - Individual Visual Audit Results
Table J-1: Individual General Public Waste Visual Audit Results (% by volume) (cont.)
Vehicle Type Trailer Trailer Dump
Trailer
Dump
Trailer
Dump
Trailer
Estimated Load Volume (cy) 100 80 100 85 50
Sample Number 15 18 19 21 22
Pa
p
e
r
Corrugated Cardboard 10.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
Film 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 3.0% 5.0%
Polystyrene Foam 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rigid Plastics 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%
PVC Pipe 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Me
t
a
l
Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HVAC Ducting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0%
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0%
Soil 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%
C&
D
D
e
b
r
i
s
Treated Wood 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 5.0% 35.0%
Untreated Wood 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%
Carpet and Padding 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Drywall 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Roofing Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.0% 0.0%
Concrete 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Asphalt 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Brick and Masonry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fines and Grit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - insulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - rigid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tile and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Linoleum and Vinyl 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Paned Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
Furniture 0.0% 86.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mattresses 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ba
g
g
e
d
Wa
s
t
e
Household Garbage 65.0% 10.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0%
C&D Debris 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.0%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ot
h
e
r
E-Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Household Hazardous Waste 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%
Textiles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW 20.0% 0.0% 70.0% 2.0% 10.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Composition Study
Appendix J: Individual Visual Audit Results
J-4
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix J - Individual Visual Audit Results
Table J-1: Individual General Public Waste Visual Audit Results (% by volume) (cont.)
Vehicle Type Trailer Dump
Trailer Trailer Dump
Trailer Trailer
Estimated Load Volume (cy) 100 100 25 100 100
Sample Number 24 25 28 31 32
Pa
p
e
r
Corrugated Cardboard 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 1.0% 0.0%
Other Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
Film 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 8.0% 0.0%
Polystyrene Foam 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rigid Plastics 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%
PVC Pipe 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Me
t
a
l
Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HVAC Ducting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0%
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Soil 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
C&
D
D
e
b
r
i
s
Treated Wood 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 3.0% 55.0%
Untreated Wood 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Carpet and Padding 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Drywall 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Roofing Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 86.0% 0.0%
Concrete 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Asphalt 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Brick and Masonry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fines and Grit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - insulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - rigid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tile and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Linoleum andVinyl 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Paned Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
Furniture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mattresses 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ba
g
g
e
d
Wa
s
t
e
Household Garbage 50.0% 0.0% 55.0% 0.0% 0.0%
C&D Debris 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 41.0%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ot
h
e
r
E-Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Household Hazardous Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Textiles 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW 20.0% 0.0% 15.0% 0.0% 2.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Composition Study
Appendix J: Individual Visual Audit Results
J-5
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix J - Individual Visual Audit Results
Table J-1: Individual General Public Waste Visual Audit Results (% by volume) (cont.)
Vehicle Type Dump
Trailer
Dump
Trailer
Dump
Trailer
Dump
Trailer Truck Bed
Estimated Load Volume (cy) 100 95 100 80 100
Sample Number 33 36 37 39 40
Pa
p
e
r
Corrugated Cardboard 1.0% 3.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0%
Other Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
Film 3.0% 0.0% 5.0% 3.0% 0.0%
Polystyrene Foam 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rigid Plastics 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PVC Pipe 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Me
t
a
l
Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HVAC Ducting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
Yard Waste 0.0% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Soil 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
C&
D
D
e
b
r
i
s
Treated Wood 40.0% 22.0% 0.0% 5.0% 32.0%
Untreated Wood 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Carpet and Padding 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Drywall 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 49.0%
Roofing Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 85.0% 85.0% 0.0%
Concrete 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Asphalt 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Brick and Masonry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fines and Grit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - insulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - rigid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tile and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Linoleum and Vinyl 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Paned Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
Furniture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mattresses 0.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ba
g
g
e
d
Wa
s
t
e
Household Garbage 7.0% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.0%
C&D Debris 22.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ot
h
e
r
E-Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Household Hazardous Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Textiles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW 7.0% 16.0% 6.0% 6.0% 0.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Composition Study
Appendix J: Individual Visual Audit Results
J-6
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix J - Individual Visual Audit Results
Table J-2: Individual Construction & Demolition (C&D) Debris Visual Audit Results (% by volume)
Hauler Latco Ayers First Star
Construction Latco Dirty Deeds
Vehicle Type Dump
Trailer
Dump
Trailer
Dump
Trailer Roll Off Dump
Trailer
Estimated Load Volume (cy) 100 60 75 80 60
Sample Number 1 5 13 14 23
Pa
p
e
r
Corrugated Cardboard 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
Film 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0%
Polystyrene Foam 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rigid Plastics 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0%
PVC Pipe 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Me
t
a
l
Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HVAC Ducting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Soil 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
C&
D
D
e
b
r
i
s
Treated Wood 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 45.0%
Untreated Wood 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Carpet and Padding 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Drywall 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Roofing Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Concrete 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Asphalt 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Brick and Masonry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fines and Grit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - insulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - rigid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tile and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Linoleum and Vinyl 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Paned Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
Furniture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mattresses 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ba
g
g
e
d
Wa
s
t
e
Household Garbage 0.0% 0.0% 15.0% 0.0% 10.0%
C&D Debris 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ot
h
e
r
E-Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Household Hazardous Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Textiles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0%
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW 0.0% 0.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Composition Study
Appendix J: Individual Visual Audit Results
J-7
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix J - Individual Visual Audit Results
Table J-2: Individual Construction & Demolition (C&D) Debris Visual Audit Results (cont.)
Hauler TCS TRUSS
(Summit) Latco Dirty Deedz Latco GNA
Vehicle Type Roll Off Roll Off Dump
Trailer Roll Off Dump
Trailer
Estimated Load Volume (cy) 100 100 75 90 75
Sample Number 27 30 34 35 38
Pa
p
e
r
Corrugated Cardboard 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%
Other Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
Film 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 35.0%
Polystyrene Foam 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rigid Plastics 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%
PVC Pipe 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Me
t
a
l
Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HVAC Ducting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.0%
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Soil 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
C&
D
D
e
b
r
i
s
Treated Wood 20.0% 0.0% 85.0% 0.0% 10.0%
Untreated Wood 60.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Carpet and Padding 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Drywall 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Roofing Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 28.0%
Concrete 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Asphalt 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Brick and Masonry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fines and Grit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - insulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - rigid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tile and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Linoleum and Vinyl 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Paned Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
Furniture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mattresses 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ba
g
g
e
d
Wa
s
t
e
Household Garbage 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
C&D Debris 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ot
h
e
r
E-Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Household Hazardous Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Textiles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW 10.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 6.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Composition Study
Appendix J: Individual Visual Audit Results
J-8
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix J - Individual Visual Audit Results
Table J-3: Individual Mixed Dumpsters Visual Audit Results (% by volume)
Hauler Dumpster
Dudez
Dumpster
Dudez Golden Rule Hogbox Ozark
Vehicle Type Roll Off Roll Off Roll Off Roll Off Roll Off
Estimated Load Volume (cy) 100 100 100 100 75
Sample Number 3 9 10 11 12
Pa
p
e
r
Corrugated Cardboard 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0%
Other Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
Film 0.0% 2.0% 5.0% 0.0% 10.0%
Polystyrene Foam 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rigid Plastics 0.0% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PVC Pipe 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Me
t
a
l
Major Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HVAC Ducting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
Yard Waste 35.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Soil 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
C&
D
D
e
b
r
i
s
Treated Wood 0.0% 65.0% 75.0% 100.0% 45.0%
Untreated Wood 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.0%
Carpet and Padding 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Drywall 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0%
Roofing Shingles 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Concrete 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Asphalt 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rock 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Brick and Masonry 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fines and Grit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - insulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - rigid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tile and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0%
Linoleum and Vinyl 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Paned Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
Furniture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mattresses 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ba
g
g
e
d
Wa
s
t
e
Household Garbage 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
C&D Debris 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ot
h
e
r
E-Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Household Hazardous Waste 0.0% 2.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Textiles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW 3.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 3.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: Columns may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Waste Composition Study
Appendix J: Individual Visual Audit Results
J-9
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix J - Individual Visual Audit Results
Table J-3: Individual Mixed Dumpsters Visual Audit Results (% by volume) (cont.)
Hauler Dumpster
Divers
Dumpster
Divers Ozark Dumpster
Dudez Golden Rule
Vehicle Type Roll Off Roll Off Roll Off Roll Off Roll Off
Estimated Load Volume (cy) 100 100 100 100 100
Sample Number 16 17 20 26 29
Pa
p
e
r
Corrugated Cardboard 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0%
Other Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
Film 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.0%
Polystyrene Foam 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rigid Plastics 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PVC Pipe 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Me
t
a
l
Major Appliances 5.0% 5.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HVAC Ducting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 15.0% 0.0%
Non-ferrous Scrap Metal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0%
Soil 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
C&
D
D
e
b
r
i
s
Treated Wood 15.0% 0.0% 25.0% 47.0% 15.0%
Untreated Wood 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Carpet and Padding 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Drywall 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0%
Roofing Shingles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0%
Concrete 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Asphalt 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Brick and Masonry 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fines and Grit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - insulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fiberglass - rigid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tile and Porcelain 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Linoleum and Vinyl 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Paned Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0%
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
Furniture 15.0% 65.0% 3.0% 5.0% 0.0%
Mattresses 0.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ba
g
g
e
d
Wa
s
t
e
Household Garbage 15.0% 10.0% 30.0% 0.0% 2.0%
C&D Debris 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0%
Yard Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ot
h
e
r
E-Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Household Hazardous Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Textiles 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mixed Residue/Loose MSW 20.0% 5.0% 15.0% 8.0% 3.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix K - City of Fayetteville Overall Disposal
Appendix K:
City of Fayetteville
2024 Capture Study
Overall Citywide Disposal
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
2024 Capture Study
Appendix K: Overall Citywide Disposal
K-2
Boston Mountain AR\Report\Appendix K - City of Fayetteville Overall Disposal
Figure K-1: Composition of Residential Disposal
Figure K-2: Composition of Commercial Disposal
Trash, 46.5%
Recyclables, 10.9%
Yard Waste, 8.2%
Bulk, 0.9%
Recyclables in
Trash, 16.3%
Yard Waste in
Trash, 5.1%
Food Waste in Trash, 11.7%Food Waste Collection, 0.4%
Trash, 48.9%
Recyclables, 2.9%Food Waste, 0.9%
Other Food
Waste, 3.0%
Recyclables in
Trash, 18.9%
Yard Wastes in
Trash, 4.5%
Food Waste in
Trash, 20.9%
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Line #Description QTY UOM Unit Extended
1 Processing Fee (PF) = $XX per ton 2500 TON
$140.00 $350,000.00
______________________________________________________________________________
Kenny Fitch, Sr. Procurement Agent
CARDSNWA
BID TABULATION
Bid 26-28, Recyclables Processing Services
DEADLINE: Thursday, March 26th, 2026 at 2:00 PM
______________________________________________________________________________
Trevel Young, Procurement Agent
Total
AWARDED
$350,000.00
* NOTICE: Bid award is contingent upon vendor meeting minimum specifications and formal authorization by City Officials.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Bid 26-28 Addendum 3
CARDSNWA
Supplier Response
Event Information
Number: Bid 26-28 Addendum 3
Title: Recyclables Processing Services
Type: Invitation to Bid
Issue Date: 3/1/2026
Deadline: 3/26/2026 02:00 PM (CT)
Notes: The City of Fayetteville is seeking bids from qualified bidders for its
recyclable processing program. Any questions concerning the bidding
process should be addressed to Trevel Young, City of Fayetteville
Procurement Agent, at tyoung@fayetteville-ar.gov or by calling
(479)575-8289.
Contact Information
Contact: Trevel Young
Address: Purchasing
Room 306
City Hall
113 West Mountain Street - Room 306
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Phone: 1 (479) 575 8289
Fax: (479) 757 8257
Email: tyoung@fayetteville-ar.gov
Vendor: CARDSNWA Bid 26-28 Addendum 3Page 1 of 4 pages
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
CARDSNWA Information
Contact: Kody Yandell
Address: 4208 Johnson Rd
Springdale, AR 72762
Phone: (501) 607-4898
Email: kyandell@cardsrecycling.com
By submitting your response, you certify that you are authorized to represent and bind your company.
Kody Yandell kyandell@ecowastesol.com
Signature Email
Submitted at 3/26/2026 11:19:13 AM (CT)
Requested Attachments
Experience Bid 26-28 Experience
Document.pdf
Please upload documentation verifying a minimum of four (4) years of experience operating a facility that recovers
and markets the Program Recyclables.
Reference Form Bid 26-28 Completed Reference
Form.pdf
be considered for this service. Failure to submit a complete form may result in the Bid being deemed non-responsive.
Bid Attributes
1 Arkansas Secretary of State Number
811586093
2 Attribute deleted as part of an Addendum
3 Attribute deleted as part of an Addendum
4 Check Yes or No:
boycott Israel and will not boycott Israel during any time in which they are entering into, or while in contract,
Israel, the contractor must notify the contracted public entity in writing.
Yes
No
Vendor: CARDSNWA Bid 26-28 Addendum 3Page 2 of 4 pages
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
5 Check Yes or No:
Pursuant Arkansas Code Annotated
boycott Energy,
Fossil Fuel, Firearms, and Ammunition Industries during any time in which they are entering into, or while in
contract, with any
public entity as defined in
Fossil Fuel,
Firearms, and/or Ammunition Industries, the contractor must notify the contracted public entity in writing.
Yes
No
6 Addendum Acknowledgement:
By selecting "I agree", you acknowledge that you have read and understand any addendums that have been issued
for this bid.
I agree
7 Name of Firm
Purchase Order/Payments shall be issued to this name
Ecowaste Solutions, Inc.
8 D/B/A or Corporation Name
CARDS Holdings dba Ecowaste Solutions, Inc.
9 Tax ID Number
84-2599859
10 Business Address
1513 N Old Missouri Rd Springdale, AR 72764
11 Contact Phone Number and Email Address
479-973-9295 kyandell@ecowastesol.com
12 Submitter's Name & Title
Kody Yandell (Regional Municipal Manager)
13 Conflict of Interest
Bidder shall disclose any possible conflict of interest with the City of Fayetteville, including, but not limited to, any
relationship with any City of Fayetteville employee.
N/A
14 If a conflict exists, please explain
No response
Bid Lines
Vendor: CARDSNWA Bid 26-28 Addendum 3Page 3 of 4 pages
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
1 Processing Fee (PF) = $XX per ton
Quantity:2500 UOM:TON Price:$140.00 Total:$350,000.00
Supplier Notes:
USA first post of the month.
Sorted Residential Papers (56) will be considered Mixed Paper (54)
will be included in the AMV ($/ton) Total
Response Total: $350,000.00
Vendor: CARDSNWA Bid 26-28 Addendum 3Page 4 of 4 pages
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Ecowaste Solutions, Inc. Bid 26-28
City of Springdale
Colby Fulfer (Chief of Staff)
Springdale AR 72764
479-750-8114 cfulfer@springdalear.gov
201 Spring St.
12/1/2023 11/30/2028 X
X
6,148.67
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Ecowaste Solutions, Inc. Bid 26-28
X
X
City of Cave Springs
479-248-1040
Cave Springs AR 72718
464.54
7/1/2021 6/30/2026
134 N Main St.
Mayor Randall Noblett
randall.noblett@cavespringsar.gov
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
X
X
Springdale AR 72764
X
1513 N Old Missouri Rd.
Springdale MRF
N/A
Cassville, MO Richard Asbill
417-847-4441 50.26 1/1/2024- Current
1513 N Old Missouri Rd.
Springdale AR 72764
Springdale Transfer Station (Contaminated Loads Only)
150,000 12,063
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
X
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A N/A
X
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
To Whom It May Concern,
This letter is to certify that the bidder, CARDS Holdings dba Ecowaste Solutions Inc. and Total
Recycling LLC/AMMCO, has successfully operated a facility that recovers and markets Program
Recyclables similar to those outlined in this competitive solicitation for a minimum of four (4)
years.
Total Recycling LLC/AMMCO is currently operating the CARDS Holdings dba Ecowaste
Solutions, Inc. Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). The company has demonstrated consistent
experience, operational capability, and expertise in the processing, recovery, and marketing of
recyclable materials in a manner aligned with the requirements of this solicitation.
Company Information:
Legal Name: Total Recycling LLC/AMMCO
Arkansas Secretary of State Filing Number: 8114003
Date Filed: February 15, 2019
Based on the above, Total Recycling LLC/AMMCO meets and exceeds the minimum experience
requirement of four (4) years in operating a recycling facility that handles Program Recyclables
comparable to those specified.
If additional information is required, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kody Yandell
Regional Municipal Manager
Ecowaste Solutions Inc.
479-973-9295
kyandell@ecowastesol.com
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
AGREEMENT
RECYCLABLES PROCESSING AND MARKETING SERVICES
between
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
(CITY)
and
CARDS Holdings, LLC d/b/a Ecowaste Solutions
(CONTRACTOR)
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
ii
AGREEMENT FOR RECYCLING PROCESSING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this __ day of ______ 2026, (“Effective Date”),
by and between the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, a political subdivision of the State of Arkansas (“CITY”), with
offices located at 113 W. Mountain St., Fayetteville, AR 72701 and CARDS Holdings, LLC d/b/a Ecowaste
Solutions, Inc., an Arkansas limited liability corporation, (“CONTRACTOR”) with offices located at 1513 N
Old Missouri Rd., Springdale, AR 72764and duly authorized to conduct business in the State of Arkansas.
CITY and CONTRACTOR are collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually as “Party.”
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §8-9-203, CITY is responsible for implementing a recyclable
materials recycling program to meet the needs of all incorporated areas of the CITY; and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR operates recycled materials processing facilities designed to process
and market CITY’s defined curbside collected recyclables; and
WHEREAS, CITY publicly announced an Invitation to Bid seeking to negotiate and retain a qualified
CONTRACTOR to render Services, as more fully described in Article 3 of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement is a result of CONTRACTOR’S submission in response to Invitation to
Bid No. 26-28, and CITY’s competitive selection process in accordance with Arkansas law and the City of
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances and purchasing policies; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONTRACTOR successfully negotiated the terms and conditions of this
Agreement by which CONTRACTOR will provide program recyclables processing services, as more fully
described herein and pursuant to Invitation to Bid No. 26-28.
NOW, THEREFORE, the CITY and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants,
promises, and representations contained herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Parties hereto agree as follows:
19 May
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Article 1. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 1
Article 2. TERM ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2
Article 3. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4
Article 4. CITY’S RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................................................ 4
Article 5. CONTRACTOR’s RESPONSIBILITIES (“Services”) ............................................................................ 4
Article 6. RECORDS AND DOCUMENT RETENTION ....................................................................................... 7
Article 7. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................... 7
Article 8. COMPENSATION ............................................................................................................................ 8
Article 9. PERFORMANCE.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
Article 10. INDEMNIFICATION ..................................................................................................................... 10
Article 11.NOTICES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11
Article 12. NO CONFLICT ............................................................................................................................. 11
Article 13. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................ 11
Article 14. SOLICITATION OF AGREEMENT ................................................................................................. 11
Article 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING ..................................................................................... 11
Article 16. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE ........................................................................................................... 12
Article 17. PROVISION FOR OTHER AGENCIES ............................................................................................ 12
EXHIBIT A: Fee Schedule ............................................................................................................................. 14
EXHIBIT B: Calculation of Annual Rate Adjustment .................................................................................... 15
EXHIBIT C: Sample AMV of Program Recyclables and Revenue Share Calculations ................................... 16
EXHIBIT D: City of Fayetteville Program Recyclables .................................................................................. 19
EXHIBIT E: Insurance and Bond Requirements ........................................................................................... 20
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
1
ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meanings unless
otherwise specifically stated herein:
Applicable Law means all applicable federal and State of Arkansas laws, local (municipal and county)
ordinances, and the rules and regulations of all authorities having jurisdiction over any part of the
services provided under this Agreement.
Average Market Value (AMV) is a market index used to determine the estimated current value of a ton
of Program Recyclables based on monthly fluctuations in the commodity market. A sample AMV is
provided in Exhibit C.
Commencement Date means the date on which CONTRACTOR commences to accept, process, and market
Program Recyclables in accordance with this Agreement. The Commencement Date shall be June 1, 2026.
Contaminates or Contamination or Contaminated Recyclable Material means that portion of the
Recyclable Materials stream that does not consist of materials included in the definition of Program
Recyclables.
Contract Manager means the person designated by CITY to manage this Agreement. The Contract
Manager may identify a designee for certain tasks.
CONTRACTOR means the awarded proposer with whom the CITY has entered into this Agreement.
Designated Recycling Facility or Designated Facility means the facility designated by CONTRACTOR and
approved by CITY for the processing of Single Stream Program Recyclables collected pursuant to this
Agreement.
Effective Date means the date upon which this Agreement is fully executed by the Fayetteville City Council
and CONTRACTOR.
End Market means any mill, reprocessor, manufacturer, or other facility that purchases or receives
processed recyclable commodities derived from Program Recyclables for the purpose of incorporating
those materials into a manufacturing or reprocessing operation. Where CONTRACTOR sells or transfers
materials to a broker or intermediary, the End Market shall be the facility to which the broker or
intermediary transfers the materials, when known to CONTRACTOR.
Holiday means those holidays on which CITY does not provide Solid Waste collection services, unless
otherwise designated by the Contract Manager. Currently, holidays include New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving
(Observed), and Christmas Day.
Multi-family Developments means customer classified under Residential Customer but identified by the
CITY as a multi-family development, as determined by the CITY in accordance with the City of Fayetteville
Code of Ordinances Title V-Public Works, Chapter 50- Recycling and Trash Collection, as amended.
Program Recyclables or Recyclables means Recyclables collected commingled in a single container that is
included in CITY’S recycling program. Program Recyclables shall include materials identified in Exhibit C,
which may be amended by CITY and CONTRACTOR as markets develop for additional materials. Program
Recyclables include incidental amounts of non-designated materials as can normally be expected as part
of recyclables collection.
Recovered Materials means metal, paper, glass, plastic, textile, or rubber materials that have known
recycling potential, can be feasibly recycled, and have been diverted and source separated or have been
removed from the solid waste stream for sale, use, or reuse as raw materials, whether or not the materials
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
2
require subsequent processing or separation from each other, but the term does not include materials
destined for any use that constitutes disposal. Recovered Materials as described are not solid waste.
Recyclable Materials or Recyclables means those materials which are capable of being recycled and that
would otherwise be processed or disposed of as solid waste.
Residential Customer means any single-family dwelling or multi-family dwelling that accumulates solid
waste for regular curbside collection.
Residue or Residuals means the portion of the Recyclable Materials stream, other than Contamination,
accepted by CONTRACTOR that is not converted to Recovered Materials due to breakage and/or
transportation or processing limitations or inefficiencies.
Service Agreement or Agreement means this Service Agreement between CITY and CONTRACTOR,
together with all exhibits and other documents that are expressly incorporated by reference.
Single Stream means a recycling process that allows for Recyclables to be collected commingled with no
sorting required by generators, collectors, or haulers.
Solid Waste means all non-hazardous Garbage, Rubbish, and/or C&D that can legally be received at the
Transfer Station and Disposal Facility. The term “Solid Waste” specifically excludes Unacceptable Waste..
For the purposes of this Agreement, the following are not considered Solid Waste: sludge, Recyclables,
Recovered Materials, Residential Special Waste, and Yard Trash.
Tons means a unit of weight equal to 2,000 pounds, also referred to as a short ton.
ARTICLE 2. TERM
2.1. Effective and Commencement Dates
The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date the Agreement is executed by both
CONTRACTOR and the CITY. The Commencement Date is June 1, 2026.
2.2. Initial Term
The initial term of this Agreement shall be for a period of two (2) years from the Commencement
Date ending at 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2028.
2.3. Renewal Option
CITY may renew this Agreement upon the mutual concurrence of the CITY and CONTRACTOR
under the same terms and conditions for up to two (2) additional one (1) year terms.
2.4. Termination of Agreement
2.4.1. Termination for Cause
CITY shall have the right, by written notice to CONTRACTOR, to
terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, for failure to
substantially comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement,
to include:
a. Failure to provide Services that comply with the specifications herein
or that fail to meet CITY’S performance standards;
b. Failure to perform the Services within the time specified in this
Agreement; or
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
3
c. Not being able to accept recyclables at Designated Recycling Facility
or Designated Facility for a period longer than 5 consecutive days .
2.4.1.2 Prior to termination for default, CITY shall provide adequate written notice
to CONTRACTOR, affording CONTRACTOR the opportunity to cure the
deficiencies or to submit a specific plan to resolve the deficiencies within ten
(10) days (or the period specified in the notice) after receipt of the notice.
Failure to adequately cure the deficiency may result in termination action.
2.4.1.3 Such termination may also result in suspension or debarment of
CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall be liable for any damage to CITY resulting
from CONTRACTOR’S default of the Agreement.
2.4.1.4 In the event of termination of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall be liable
for any damage to CITY resulting from CONTRACTOR’S default of this
Agreement. This liability includes any increased costs incurred by CITY in
completing performance under this Agreement.
2.4.1.5 In the event of termination by CITY for any cause, CONTRACTOR shall not
have any right or claim against CITY for lost profits or compensation for lost
opportunities. After a receipt of CITY’S Notice of Termination and except as
otherwise directed by CITY, CONTRACTOR shall:
a. Stop the Services on the date and to the extent specified;
b. Terminate and settle all orders and subcontracts relating to
the performance of the terminated Services;
c. Transfer all work in process, completed work, and other
materials related to the terminated Services as directed by
CITY; and
d. Continue and complete all parts of the Services that have not
been terminated.
2.4.2 Termination Without Cause. CITY may terminate this Agreement without cause. CITY
shall provide CONTRACTOR a written “Notice of Intent to Terminate” sixty (60) days
prior to the date of termination. If this Agreement is terminated by CITY without
cause, CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to payment for all Services performed to the
satisfaction of the CITY and all expenses incurred under this Agreement prior to
termination, less any costs, expenses, or damages due to the failure of the
CONTRACTOR to properly perform pursuant to this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall
not be entitled to any other compensation, including anticipated profits on
unperformed Services.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
4
ARTICLE 3. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
3.1. The parties agree that the following documents are incorporated into and are made a part of
the Contract as if their terms and conditions were set forth herein:
a. Appendix A: RFP 26-28, Recyclables Processing Services and its appendices that were
issued by the City (" RFP")
b. Appendix B: CARDSNWA bid submittal
c. Appendix C: City Issued Bid
ARTICLE 4. CITY’S RESPONSIBILITIES
4.1 CITY shall appoint an individual to serve as the “Contract Manager.” The Contract Manager shall have
the authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the policy of CITY and
make decisions pertinent to the Services. CITY reserves the right to designate a different Contract
Manager, if necessary.
4.2 Beginning on the Commencement Date, CITY shall deliver, or direct to be delivered, all Program
Recyclables collected from Residential and Multi-Family Developments to the Designated Recycling
Facility during the scheduled receiving hours specified herein.
4.3 CITY shall make available, at no cost to CONTRACTOR, information relative to the Services and this
Agreement, to assist in CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services.
4.4 CITY shall provide prompt notice to CONTRACTOR whenever CITY observes or otherwise becomes
aware of any defect in the performance of the Services.
ARTICLE 5. CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES (“SERVICES”)
5.1 Designated Facility
5.1.1 CONTRACTOR shall ensure that the Designated Facility is always operated in full
compliance with all Applicable Law, and that all Services provided herein are in
compliance with all Applicable Law.
5.1.1 CONTRACTOR shall maintain and provide verification of its Solid Waste Recovery Facilities
Permits, as applicable, from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
throughout the term of this Agreement.
5.1.2 The Designated Facility must have a certified scale that is tested, at least semi-annually,
by a scale company registered with the Arkansas Bureau of Standards (Arkansas
Department of Agriculture) and a system capable of tracking and recording inbound
materials delivered to the facility. CONTRACTOR shall provide the Contract Manager with
a copy of the scale certification prior to the Commencement Date, and a copy of all
following scale test reports.
5.1.3 The Contract Manager shall have the right to inspect both the operating and
maintenance practices of the facility during normal operating hours. Operating
practices shall include, but are not limited to, the receipt, separation, processing,
loading, storage, and transport of Recyclables and Recovered Materials. CONTRACTOR
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
5
shall reasonably accommodate the Contract Manager’s inspection rights described
herein, provided it does not create a safety hazard.
5.1.4 The Designated Facility may be changed only with prior written approval by the
Contract Manager.
5.2 Materials Acceptance
5.2.1 Beginning on the Commencement Date, CONTRACTOR shall accept deliveries of CITY’S
Program Recyclables during the scheduled receiving hours specified in this Agreement.
CITY makes no assurances or guarantees as to the quantity or quality of Recyclables to
be delivered.
5.2.2 The Designated Facility shall be open and available to receive Program Recyclables
between 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday, except for
observed CITY Holidays. CONTRACTOR shall be available to open the Designated Facility
for extended hours, Saturdays, or on Holidays on an as-needed basis, at the request of
the Contract Manager at no added cost to the CITY.
5.2.3 CONTRACTOR shall assume ownership of Program Recyclables upon acceptance of
materials at the Designated Facility except for materials rejected pursuant to Section
4.3 of this Agreement.
5.2.4 CONTRACTOR shall accept deliveries of Program Recyclables by CITY, or its designee, at
the Designated Facility from a variety of different vehicles.
5.2.5 The Contract Manager reserves the right to add or delete Recyclable Materials as part
of CITY’S Program Recyclables if the contracting parties agree it is technically feasible.
CITY will negotiate Average Market Value (AMV) terms with CONTRACTOR based on
any material additions or deletions and current market value.
5.2.6 CONTRACTOR shall not dispose of or landfill any Recyclables or Recovered Materials
processed pursuant to this Agreement, without prior written authorization of the
Contract Manager. CONTRACTOR shall not knowingly, or without reasonable
assumption, sell such Recyclables or Recovered Materials to another agent that landfills
or disposes of material other than through recycling, without prior written
authorization of the Contract Manager. This prohibition does not apply to
Contamination and Residue.
5.2.7 CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for and shall bear all costs associated with
acceptance, processing, and marketing of all Recyclables delivered by CITY, or its
agents, to the Designated Facility pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited
to, all aspects of the management, operations, and maintenance of the Designated
Facility.
5.2.8 CONTRACTOR shall have a backup plan in place in the event the Designated Facility is
unable to accept Program Recyclables for any reason. Backup plan must be submitted
within thirty (30) calendar days following the Execution Date and be approved by the
Contract Manager.
5.2.9 At any time during the Agreement, should CONTRACTOR be unable to accept, process,
or market materials due to CONTRACTOR’S fault, CONTRACTOR shall be liable to CITY
for all hauling, processing, transportation, disposal charges, and any other related costs
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
6
in excess of payments that would have been made under this Agreement, which may
be incurred by CITY.
5.3 Material Rejection
5.3.1 CONTRACTOR shall have the right to reject loads of Program Recyclables that contain
more than twenty percent (20%) Contamination by volume or that contain any amount
of Hazardous Waste. CONTRACTOR shall immediately notify the Contract Manager if a
load is rejected and shall keep the entire load segregated from other materials for
inspection.
5.3.2 If upon a visual inspection the Contract Manager or designee concurs with CONTRACTOR
that the load in question contains more than thirty percent (30%) Contamination by
volume, CONTRACTOR shall dispose of the entire load at a legally permitted disposal
facility and shall charge CITY the per-ton disposal fee for the inbound weight of the load
deemed to be excessively contaminated. CONTRACTOR must provide proof of the tip fee
paid for disposal of contaminated materials to be reimbursed, and at no time shall such
fee to be reimbursed exceed the current transport and disposal tip fee rate of the CITY.
Alternatively, if the material has not yet been unloaded from the recycle truck, then the
CITY may take the contaminated recyclables to its facility.
5.3.3 If upon a visual inspection the Contract Manager determines that such load does not
contain twenty percent (20%) Contamination by volume, CONTRACTOR will process the
materials. The Contract Manager or their designee shall provide the final determination
as to whether the load contains more than twenty percent (20%) Contamination by
volume.
5.3.4 If Hazardous Waste is detected in any Program Recyclables delivered to the Designated
Facility, in addition to immediately notifying the Contract Manager, CONTRACTOR shall
note the incident by taking a photograph of the Hazardous Waste Load and the truck,
including the truck number delivering the Hazardous Waste. CITY shall be responsible for
removing and disposing of the Hazardous Waste.
5.4 Disposal
5.4.1 CONTRACTOR is solely responsible for the transportation and disposal of all non-
recycled materials, including Contamination and Residue, generated because of
processing Recyclables, inclusive of all associated costs.
5.4.2 Contamination and Residue must be disposed of at a legally permitted and licensed
facility.
5.5 Personnel
5.5.1 CONTRACTOR shall cooperate with CITY in every reasonable and proactive way to
facilitate the successful completion of the activities and Services contemplated in this
Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall assign a qualified person as a point of contact to
oversee CONTRACTOR’S operations by the Effective Date. CITY shall have direct access
to CONTRACTOR’S point of contact, and CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY’s Contract
Manager with CONTRACTOR’s point of contact’s contact information in writing on or
before the Commencement Date. CITY’S point of contact shall be the Contract
Manager. Alternates may be designated by either party upon written notification.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
7
5.5.2 CONTRACTOR shall comply with all Applicable Laws relating to wages, hours, overtime,
disability, and all other matters relating to the employment and protection of
employees, now or hereafter in effect. CITY encourages the hiring of local labor and
residents who are from and live in the Northwest Arkansas region.
5.5.3 CONTRACTOR shall devote sufficient personnel, time, and attention to its operations
under this Agreement to ensure that it will meet all required performance
measurements.
5.5.4 CONTRACTOR shall use competent, qualified, sober personnel to provide services
pursuant to this Agreement.
5.5.5 CONTRACTOR shall implement and maintain a drug-free workplace program.
5.5.6 CONTRACTOR shall provide appropriate operating and safety training for all personnel,
including meeting training requirements and all Applicable Laws. Each of
CONTRACTOR’S vehicle operators shall always carry a valid Arkansas driver’s license for
the type of vehicle/equipment that is being driven.
5.6 Education and Outreach
5.6.1 Any form of communication regarding CITY’S Recycling programs including, but not
limited to, electronic, written audio, video, graphics, logos, shall be reviewed and
approved in writing by the Contract Manager prior to disseminating or presenting
publicly.
5.6.2 CONTRACTOR shall partner with CITY in the development and implementation of
outreach programs intended to increase public trust and participation in CITY’S
recycling program and to reduce the amount of Contaminated Recyclable Material.
Such programs shall primarily include CONTRACTOR making public tours or a City
conducted video of the MRF available.
6 RECORDS AND DOCUMENT RETENTION
6.1 Record Keeping
CONTRACTOR shall follow all Public Records regulations pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated
§14-2-201 and 14-2-203. At a minimum, CONTRACTOR shall retain all records related to this
Agreement for a period of three (3) years.
6.2 Freedom of Information Act
CONTRACTOR agrees and understands that this Agreement and documents submitted to the
CITY pursuant hereto are subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. If a Freedom of
Information Act request is presented to the City of Fayetteville requesting such documents,
CONTRACTOR will do everything possible to provide the documents in a prompt and timely
manner as prescribed in the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (A.C.A. §25-19-101 et seq.).
Only legally authorized photocopying costs pursuant to the FOIA may be assessed for this
compliance.
7 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
7.1 Reporting: CONTRACTOR shall electronically submit a monthly report, no later than the
fifteenth (15th) day of each month, to the Contract Manager in a format pre-approved by the
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
8
Contract Manager, containing the following information for services provided during the
previous month:
a. Tonnage of Program Recyclables: CONTRACTOR shall provide tare records of Program
Recyclables received at the Designated Facility, by day and by truck number.
b. Tonnage of Rejects: CONTRACTOR shall provide records of monthly tonnages of
Contamination derived from Program Recyclables.
c. Rejected loads: CONTRACTOR shall provide record of rejected loads, including date and
weights for each load to include pictures or videos.
d. Education and Outreach Activities (E&O): CONTRACTOR shall provide records identifying
E&O activities planned or conducted, dates, and time of activity, entity for which activities
were provided, and a summary of activities.
7.2 CONTRACTOR is required to notify CITY of any Notices of Violation (NOV) received for any
violations of Applicable Laws occurring at the Designated Facility within three (3) calendar days
following receipt of such NOV. CONTRACTOR’s written notice to CITY shall include a copy of the
NOV and the corrective action taken or scheduled to be taken.
7.3 End Market Transparency: CONTRACTOR acknowledges that CITY is committed to providing the
public with information about its recycling programs, including end market information, in
support of the transparency goals of Fayetteville City Council Resolution 19-11. To support this
commitment, on a quarterly basis, CONTRACTOR shall provide the Contract Manager with a list
of mills and end market facilities used by CONTRACTOR for the disposition of Program
Recyclables during the preceding calendar year. The list shall include, for each end market:
a. The commodity type(s) accepted (e.g., fiber, plastics, metals, glass);
b. The name of the mill or end market facility; and
c. The location of the facility (city and state, or country if materials are exported).
7.4 CONTRACTOR shall provide any additional information or reports as requested by the Contract
Manager to monitor this Agreement, or to assist the CITY in managing its Solid Waste and
Recycling programs. These reports will be provided to the Contract Manager within five (5)
calendar days, unless an alternative timeframe is approved in writing by Contract Manager.
8 COMPENSATION
8.1 Monthly Invoice
No later than the fifteenth (15th) Day of each month, CONTRACTOR shall electronically submit an
invoice to CITY for services provided pursuant to this Agreement during the previous month
together with the monthly report detailed in Section 6.1. The monthly processing services invoice
shall include the revenue share calculation as provided in Exhibit A, attached hereto, which
includes the following:
a. Quantity of tared inbound Program Recyclables, as measured by certified inbound scales,
received at the Designated Facility during the month being invoiced.
b. Calculation of Liquidated Damages, rejected load payments, interest on overdue
payments or proration determined in accordance with the compensation requirements
herein.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
9
c. Processing Fee as provided in Exhibit A. The Processing Fee shall be adjusted annually
according to Section 8.3.
d. AMV of Program Recyclables for the month being invoiced. A sample AMV calculation is
provided in Exhibit C.
e. Revenue Share, as provided in Exhibit A.
Payments to be remitted to CONTRACTOR shall be submitted within forty-five (45) calendar days
of CONTRACTOR’S invoice date.
8.2 Compensation Structure
Processing Fee with Revenue Share
The compensation structure for the acceptance, processing, and marketing of Program
Materials shall be defined under Exhibit A. Annual Rate Adjustment.
8.3 Annual Rate Adjustment
The Processing Fee shall remain the same through December 31, 2027. Beginning January 1, 2028,
CONTRACTOR may request, in writing, an adjustment based on the percentage change in the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the previous calendar year, with a cap of
five percent (5%) increase annually. Adjustment of the Processing Fee shall be approved by both
Parties in writing. The annual CPI-U adjustment shall be calculated as outlined in Exhibit B
attached hereto.
8.4 Change in Average Market Value (AMV)
Modifications to the list of Program Recyclables in Exhibit D made by Contract Manager and
CONTRACTOR, in agreement, shall include an adjustment to the calculation of AMV. The AMV
may also be adjusted based on the results of a recycling composition study as outlined in Exhibit
C.
8.5 Audit-Based AMV Adjustment Rectification
In accordance with the AMV adjustment identified in Exhibit C (c), a new Total AMV Calculation
of Recyclables shall be defined based upon results of the recycling composition study to be
conducted between four (4) and six (6) months following the Commencement Date. This new
Total AMV Calculation of Recyclables shall be used to conduct a retroactive payment-audit for any
payment discrepancy submitted to Contractor from the Commencement Date to the date of the
AMV adjustment. The following rectification process shall be utilized in conducting the audit:
a. The new Total AMV Calculation of Recyclables resulting from the recycling composition study
conducted under provision Exhibit C(c) shall be applied retroactively to each month’s
reported tonnage from Commencement Date to the AMV adjustment under the same terms
and calculation formulas identified in Exhibit C.
b. The Contractor shall be notified in writing within thirty (30) days of the audit results. To
ensure full transparency, the City shall include all calculations utilized during the audit.
c. If the audit reveals an underpaid amount due to Contractor, a one-time retroactive payment
shall be submitted to Contractor in the next monthly compensation cycle following the thirty
(30) day written notice.
d. If the audit reveals an unpaid amount due to the City, the amount shall be reflected as a credit
to the City under the next payment cycle
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
10
9 PERFORMANCE
9.1 Liquidated Damages
CONTRACTOR shall cure all failures to provide service immediately or within any time limits set
forth in this Agreement. The Contract Manager may assess the following Liquidated Damages
pursuant to this section monthly in connection with this Agreement.
Performance Standard Violation Liquidated Damages
Landfilling of Recyclables or Recovered Materials without prior
approval by the Contract Manager.
$1,000 per occurrence
Failure to accept Recyclables delivered to the Designated Facility
during scheduled receiving hours.
$1,000 per occurrence
Failure to test scales during specified timeframe. $5,000 per occurrence
Failure to meet any reporting or notification requirement of the
contract by the specified date unless approved by the Contract
Manager.
$50 per report or notification
per Day for every Day after due
date
The Contract Manager shall notify CONTRACTOR of its decision to assess liquidated damages. If
CONTRACTOR desires to challenge the decision, it must do so in writing within seven (7) calendar days
after receipt of notice from Contract Manager. The request shall specify the grounds upon which
CONTRACTOR objects to the assessment of Liquidated Damages by Contract Manager. The matter shall
be referred to CITY’s Purchasing Official who shall rule on CONTRACTOR’S challenge. CITY’s Purchasing
Official’s decision shall constitute a final determination of the matter. CONTRACTOR shall compensate
CITY within thirty (30) calendar days following CONTRACTOR’S receipt of a written assessment of
Liquidated Damages.
10 INDEMNIFICATION
CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, keep, save and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, officials and
employees, from and against all suits, actions, claims, demands, costs, penalties, fines, judgements or
liability, including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred in connection with this
Agreement, and/or to the extent arising out of or related to CONTRACTOR’s Services. This indemnity
provision shall remain enforceable subsequent to the termination of this Agreement and shall continue
until such time as any and all claims arising under this Agreement have been finally settled or adjudicated,
regardless of when such claims are made. The indemnification obligations under this Article shall not be
construed to negate, abridge, or reduce any other rights or remedies which otherwise may be available
to CITY, or deemed to affect the rights, privileges, or immunities of CITY as set forth in Arkansas Code §
21-9-301 or under any other law.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
11
11 NOTICES
All notices, requests and authorizations provided herein shall be in writing and shall be delivered by
hand or mailed through the U.S. Mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: City of Fayetteville
Attn: Peter Nierengarten (Environmental Director)
113 W Mountain St.,
Fayetteville, AR 72701
To CONTRACTOR: CARDSNWA
Attn: Kody Yandell (Regional Municipal Manager)
1513 N Old Missouri Rd
Springdale, AR 72764
12 NO CONFLICT
By accepting award of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR, which shall include its directors, officers, and
employees, represents that it presently has no interest in and shall acquire no interest in any business or
activity which would conflict in any manner with the performance of its duties or Services required
hereunder.
13 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
CONTRACTOR recognizes that in rendering the Services, CONTRACTOR is working for the residents of
Fayetteville, Arkansas, subject to public observation, scrutiny and inquiry; and based upon said
recognition CONTRACTOR shall, in all of its relationships with CITY pursuant to this Agreement, conduct
itself in accordance with all of the recognized applicable ethical standards set by any related national
societies, and the reasonable traditions to perform the Services. CONTRACTOR shall be truthful in its
communications with CITY personnel regarding matters pertaining to this Agreement and the Services
rendered to CITY.
14 SOLICITATION OF AGREEMENT
CONTRACTOR warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person other than a bona
fide employee working solely for CONTRACTOR to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that it has not
paid or agreed to pay any company or person other than an employee working solely for CONTRACTOR,
any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, contingent fee, or any other consideration
contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this
warranty, CITY shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability, or at its discretion, to deduct
from this Agreement price or consideration or otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission,
percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or contingent fee.
15 ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING
CONTRACTOR shall not assign or transfer any right or duty under this Agreement to any other Party
without the prior written consent of CITY. In the event CONTRACTOR asserts it is necessary to utilize the
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
12
services of third parties to perform any of the Services, CONTRACTOR shall first obtain prior written
approval of CITY.
Approval to utilize any third party shall not relieve CONTRACTOR from any direct liability or responsibility
to CITY pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, or obligate CITY to make any payments other than
payments due to CONTRACTOR as outlined in this Agreement. All terms and conditions of this Agreement
shall extend to and be binding on any approved purchaser, assignee, or other successor in interest.
Assignment, pledging, sale, transfer or encumbering of any interest or rights under this Agreement, to
anyone other than the CONTRACTOR, without the prior written consent of the CITY, shall be grounds for
termination of this Agreement.
16 AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE
Each of the Parties hereto covenants to the other Party that it has lawful authority to enter into this
Agreement.
17 PROVISION FOR OTHER AGENCIES
Unless otherwise stipulated by the Proposer, the Proposer agrees to make available to all Government
agencies, departments, municipalities, and counties, the proposal prices submitted in accordance with
said proposal terms and conditions therein, should any said governmental entity desire to buy under this
proposal. Eligible users shall mean all state of Arkansas agencies, the legislative and judicial branches,
political subdivisions (counties, local district school boards, community colleges, municipalities, counties,
or other public agencies or authorities), which may desire to purchase under the terms and conditions of
the contract.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed effective as
of the date set forth above.
CARDS Holdings, LLC
By: ________________________________
Printed Name: ________________________
Title: _______________________________
Date: ________________________________
APPROVED by the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas with a quorum present and voting, on this ____
day of _________, 2026.
City of Fayetteville, a political subdivision
of the State of Arkansas
______________________________________
Molly Rawn, Mayor
Date: _________________________________
ATTEST: CITY CLERK TREASURER
By: __________________________________
Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer
Region VP
5/1/2026
Fred Winters
19
May
05/19/2026
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
14
EXHIBIT A: FEE SCHEDULE
Processing Fee and Revenue Share
PROGRAM RECYCLABLES PROCESSING SERVICES
Processing Fee (used to calculate revenue share per ton) $140 per ton
Percent Revenue Share 50 %
For the CITY’s Program Recyclables delivered to the facility located at:
CARDS Holdings, LLC
1513 N Old Missouri Rd
Springdale, AR 72764
Notes:
(1) Revenue Share shall occur when the Total AMV Calculation of Recyclables exceeds the
Processing Fee.
(2) The Processing Fee shall be adjusted annually on the anniversary of the Commencement
Date based on the CPI Adjustment procedure defined in the Agreement.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
15
EXHIBIT B: CALCULATION OF ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENT
CPI Increase. Beginning on January 1, 2028 and on each January 1 thereafter (including in any renewal
or extension terms), the Processing Fee may be adjusted by the annual percentage change in the
average that the Consumer Price Index, US City Average for All Urban Consumers (current series),
Water, Sewer, Trash Collection, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Series ID CUUR0000SEHG (“CPI”)
(https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/CUUR0000SEHG) has increased over the 12 most
recently published months compared to the average CPI for the preceding twelve-month period for
which the data has been published. If the above CPI ceases to be published, the parties agree to
substitute another equally authoritative measure of change in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar as
may be then available so as to carry out the intent of this provision.
I. The CPI published on the first Monday prior to the end of the month (or the
first business day thereafter if such Monday is a Federal Holiday) shall be
used to determine the monthly change. The annual percentage change shall
be calculated by subtracting the average CPI value for the previous 12-
months from the average CPI value for the most recent 12-month period,
the result of which shall be divided by the prior 12-month period average. A
dated example of the CPI annual increase calculation follows:
Index 2020 12-Month
Average
2021 12-Month
Average
Change Applied Percentage
Change
CPI – Water,
Sewer, Trash
252.46
261.47
9.01
3.6%
(9.01/252.46)
II. Contractor shall coordinate with the City in writing prior to any
implementation of any CPI price adjustment. Such coordination shall
include the amount of the price adjustment, documentation substantiating
the CPI published numbers, and the date the adjusted price takes effect.
The City and Contractor shall mutually agree on any increase, including
calculation accuracy on CPI or other equally authoritative measures as
applicable, prior to any price adjustment.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
16
EXHIBIT C: SAMPLE AMV OF PROGRAM RECYCLABLES AND REVENUE SHARE CALCULATIONS
CONTRACTOR acknowledges and accepts the following:
(a) The CITY conducted a recyclables composition study in 2024 on their residential dual stream bin
curb-sort collection system for which the following AMV was based. Beginning on
Commencement Date, the City will transition to a carted, automated single stream curbside
collection system. It is anticipated this transition will provide for increased recyclables capacity
and tonnages to be delivered to the CONTRACTOR. Additionally, it is anticipated this transition
will impact the composition of materials collected.
(b) To ensure transparency and accuracy under this Agreement, the CITY will conduct and pay for a
recyclables composition study on inbound single stream Program Recyclables according to the
requirements delineated below approximately four (4) months, but not more than six (6)
months, following the Commencement Date. Upon completion, the AMV composition shall be
adjusted based on the results of this study.
(c) The CITY shall conduct a recyclables composition study at CITY’s cost every year during the Term
of the Agreement (and may switch to every other year if there are term extensions). The
CONTRACTOR may request additional recyclables composition studies to be conducted at
CONTRACTOR’s cost, such request being subject to CITY approval, which shall not be
unreasonably withheld. The CONTRACTOR cannot request a study more than once annually.
(d) The material percentages used for calculating the AMV shall be revised only upon completion of
a recyclables composition study conducted that meets the requirements specified herein:
• The study entails sampling and manual sorting of inbound Program Recyclables. Inbound
Program Recyclables means materials as delivered to the MRF. If the study is requested by
the CONTRACTOR, the final methodology is subject to written approval by the Contract
Manager.
• The study shall be conducted by a qualified entity with demonstrated experience
conducting recyclables composition studies in Arkansas. If the study is requested by the
CONTRACTOR, selection of such entity is subject to written approval by the Contract
Manager.
• The City and CONTRACTOR each have the right to have a representative onsite for the
sorting event.
• Study results are subject to final approval by the Contract Manager, which shall not be
unreasonably withheld. If approved by the Contract Manager, adjustments to the
composition provided in this Exhibit shall be made and shall become effective on the first
Day of the following month and for the remainder of this Agreement, or until further
adjusted in a future composition study.
• Additional studies shall be paid for by the party requesting such study unless otherwise
agreed upon in writing.
• A study cannot be requested more than once annually.
(e) The regional average value in the Southeast United States as posted by Recyclingmarkets.net
market index first post of the month shall be used in the AMV. The market index is intended to
reflect the average value of each Recyclable included in the CITY’s Program Recyclables and is
not intended to equate to the commodity revenue received by CONTRACTOR.
(f) If at any time during the term of this Agreement, Recyclingmarkets.net no longer posts or
otherwise provides applicable market indices, then the parties shall mutually select, and
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
17
designate in writing, an appropriate replacement source from among the sources recycling
industry professionals utilize for reliable pricing information of Recovered Materials.
(g) Any and all costs associated with accepting and processing Recyclables as well as marketing and
transporting Recovered Materials derived therefrom shall be the responsibility of CONTRACTOR.
(h) The Revenue Share utilized for calculation of Payment to the City shall be fixed at 50 percent.
Sample Calculation of AMV:
City of Fayetteville AMV – April 2026
Commodity Description RCS% Index Value
April 2026
AVM ($/ton)
Mixed paper
PS 54, baled, f.o.b. 14.23% $32.50 $4.62
Cardboard OCC
PS 11, baled, f.o.b. 73.55% $72.50 $53.32
Aluminum cans
Sorted, baled, picked up 2.39% $1,850.00 $44.22
Steel cans
Sorted, baled, picked up 2.27% $180.00 $4.09
PET
Baled, picked up 4.03% $80.00 $3.22
Natural HDPE
Baled, picked up 1.59% $1,615.00 $25.68
Colored HDPE
Baled, picked up 0.68% $190.00 $1.29
Contamination
1.26% -$60.00 -$0.76
Total
100% $135.69
1 All prices are from recyclingmarkets.net Southeast USA mid-April 2026 post
2 Contamination is the percentage of Other Recyclables and Contaminants
Sample Calculation of Program Recyclables Revenue Share (i.e., Payment to the CITY)
If the Total AMV Calculation of Recyclables exceeds the Processing Fee, the balance of the AMV shall be
subject to the revenue sharing percentage calculation. A sample calculation utilizing the 2025 highest
AMV (during April) is provided below:
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
18
Value Assumptions:
• Processing Fee (PF) = $140 per ton
• Percent Revenue Share (PRS) = 50%
• Average Market Value (AMV) = $150.00per ton inbound Recyclables
(Value fluctuates monthly based on calculation specified herein)
• Inbound Program Recyclables Tons Per Month (IR) = 1,000 tons
((AMV – PF) x IR) x PRS = Revenue Share paid to CITY
((150.00 –140.00) x 1,000) x 0.50 = $5,000
Payment to the CONTRACTOR:
If the Total AMV Calculation of Recyclables is less than the Total Processing Fee, CITY shall pay
CONTRACTOR the difference between the Total Processing Fee and the AMV. There is no revenue
share. A sample calculation is provided below:
Value Assumptions:
• Processing Fee (PF)= $140 per ton
• Average Market Value (AMV) = $135.69 per ton Inbound Recyclables
(Value fluctuates monthly based on calculation specified herein)
• Inbound Program Recyclables Tons Per Month (IR) = 1,000 tons
((AMV– PF) x IR) = Program Recyclables Payment for Processing to CONTRACTOR
((135.69 – 140) x 1,000) = $4,310
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
19
EXHIBIT D: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PROGRAM RECYCLABLES
# Material Categories Description of Categories
1 Newspaper Newspaper (loose or tied) including other paper normally distributed inside
newspaper such as ads, flyers, etc. and other items made from newsprint
such as advertising guides. Does not include bagged newspaper.
2 Corrugated
Cardboard
Uncoated brown cardboard boxes with a wavy core (no plastic liners or waxy
coatings). Includes clean pizza boxes. Does not include cardboard within
shrink-wrap plastic, such as that from a case of bottled water.
3 Magazines and
Catalogs
All magazines and catalogs, including glossy magazines.
4 Mixed Recyclable
Paper
Printed or unprinted recyclable paper including white, colored, coated, and
uncoated papers, envelopes, index cards, file folders, telephone books,
paperboard, chipboard, Kraft paper, brown paper bags, mail, paperback
books, blueprints, and other printed material on glossy and non-glossy paper.
Does not include shredded, contaminated, waxy, or metallic paper.
5 PET Bottles (#1) Clear and colored bottles and jars coded polyethylene terephthalate (PET #1).
Examples include soda bottles, water bottles, food jars, etc. Does not include
loose caps and lids.
6 Natural HDPE Bottles
(#2)
Clear/natural plastic bottles coded high-density polyethylene (HDPE #2).
Examples include milk jugs, vinegar bottles, and gallon water bottles. Does
not include loose caps and lids or containers >3 gallons.
7 Colored HDPE
Bottles (#2)
Opaque, pigmented plastic bottles coded HDPE #2. Examples include
detergent and shampoo bottles. Does not include loose caps and lids or
containers >3 gallons.
8 Non-Bottle PET
Containers (#1)
Clear and colored plastic non-bottle, non-jar containers coded PET #1.
Examples include clamshell containers, fruit or vegetable platters, and some
plastic drink cups.
9 Non-Bottle HDPE
Containers (#2)
Wide-mouthed tubs and containers coded HDPE #2. Examples include large
plastic coffee containers and plastic chip tubes, including lids. Does not
include containers >3 gallons.
10 PP Containers (#5)
Clear and colored plastic containers coded polypropylene (PP) #5. Examples
include some dairy product cups and tubs, pill bottles, frozen food trays, and
plastic drink cups. Does not include loose caps and lids or containers >3
gallons.
11 Aluminum Cans Aluminum soft drink, beer, food cans, and empty aerosol cans.
12 Tin/Steel Cans Tin-plated steel cans, usually food containers and empty aerosol cans,
including labels. Includes steel caps.
Potential Future Program Recyclables1 Other Plastic
Containers (#3,4,6,7)
All plastic containers coded #3, #4, #6, or #7. Examples include some bottles,
some drink cups, some clamshells, and Arizona Iced Tea™ gallon jugs.
Glass Containers All clear, green, blue, and amber glass bottles and jars as well as broken
container glass pieces.
1Any future Program Recyclable material category shall be adopted upon written agreement between
both the City and Contractor and reflected in Revenue Share AMV calculations as set forth herein.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33
City of Fayetteville Sample Agreement Recyclables Processing Services
20
EXHIBIT E: INSURANCE AND BOND REQUIREMENTS
The CONTRACTOR shall provide a Certificate of Insurance in accordance with the following guidelines,
prior to commencement of any work: $1,000,000 Commercial Liability, Statutory Worker’s
Compensation, and General Automotive, if applicable. Such certificate shall list the City of Fayetteville as
an additional insured. Insurance shall remain valid, when applicable, throughout project completion.
Docusign Envelope ID: A450D45F-4BFE-86EF-8376-A02075E04C33