The document provides a summary of a materials analysis conducted by Community Environmental Services for Georgia Pacific. Twelve analyses were conducted on commercial landfill-bound waste from various routes and facilities. The analyses found that 45.25% of the waste was considered desirable, 47.88% was acceptable, and 6.87% was not desirable. The document also summarizes the findings of individual analyses, including routes serving various business types and a load from a materials recovery facility.

1. Georgia Pacific
Materials Analysis
Prepared for Georgia Pacific
Moonrose Doherty Operations Manager
Ashley Donald Project Lead
Erin Lorene Anderson Project Lead
May 22, 2015
Community Environmental Services
Portland State University
PO Box 751—CES
Portland, OR 97207

3. Contents
Section 1: Background and Methods 1
Section 2: Findings 2
Types of Businesses (Routes 1-10) 2
Routes 1-10 3
MRF Load 4
Semiconductor Manufacturer Load 5
Appendix A: Individual Route Findings 6
Route 1 6
Route 2 7
Route 3 8
Route 4 9
Route 5 10
Route 6 11
Route 7 12
Route 8 13
Route 9 14
Route 10 15

4. Georgia Pacific: Materials Analysis 1
Section 1: Background and Methods
Georgia Pacific (GP) contacted Community Environmental Services (CES) to conduct a
material analysis of commercial landfill-bound waste.
CES conducted four (4) materials analyses on April 20th
, April 22nd
, and April 23rd
, 2015, for
a total of twelve (12) analyses. All material analyses were conducted at Republic Service’s
Willamette Resources, Inc. (WRI) transfer station in Wilsonville, OR. Ten (10) analyses were
routes of landfill-bound waste collected from various businesses in the Portland metro
region. One (1) analysis was conducted on materials sent to Republic Services from a
materials recovery facility (MRF) consisting of unacceptable materials. One (1) additional
analysis was conducted on a load delivered to Republic Services from a local semiconductor
manufacturer that was not originally intended for our analysis however, Georgia Pacific
expressed an interest in the material composition of the load for the purposes of data
collection.
Each landfill-bound load was analyzed individually. Approximately 200 pounds of materials
were sorted from each load. A qualitative assessment of materials found in the entire load
was performed by a CES staff member to ensure accurate reporting on anomalies and
trends of the composition, which may not be apparent in the smaller sample. To ensure
diversification and representation of the entire load, Republic Services utilized a front load
and skid loader to prepare a smaller sample from which CES analyzed the 200 pounds.
For each analysis, materials were hand sorted by CES staff into the categories detailed
below and individually weighed to the nearest hundredth of a pound:
 Cardboard  Liquid  Mixed metals
 Mixed paper  PET plastics  Waxed cardboard
 Plastic-coated paper  Aluminum  Large rigid plastics
 Food-soiled fibers  General mixed plastics  Wood
 Restroom waste  Food  Glass bottles and jars
For all analyses, additional categories were added based on the load composition that were
later combined with the above categories or were deemed essential new categories. (See
individual analyses for additional material categories). Based on GP’s analysis criteria,
materials categories were latter deemed to one of three classifications: Desirable,
Acceptable, and Not Desirable. Findings will therefore be represented by such classifications.

5. Community Environmental Services 2
Section 2: Findings
The proceeding pages provide the composition findings for each analysis presented in the
following tables and figures:
 Routes 1-10, Table 2.1 and Figure 2.2
 MRF Load, Table 2.2 and Figure 2.3
 Semiconductor Manufacturer Load, Table 2.3 and Figure 2.4
Types of Businesses (Routes 1-10)
For the ten landfill-bound waste analyses from commercial routes, Republic Services shared
route details providing information on the businesses where the waste was generated.
Figure 2.1 below provides the types of businesses represented for the ten commercial
routes combined. Majority of the businesses serviced were categorized as business offices
(31%) which included office buildings of various sizes. Restaurants (14%) included full scale
and fast food businesses, and retail (11%) included individual businesses as well as
shopping centers with multiple retail shops. Multifamily (7%) businesses include apartment
complexes as well as shelters and transitional housing. Recreation (4%) included a golf
course, fitness centers, and museums.
Greater detail of business categorization by route as well as individual route data can be
found in Appendix A.
Figure 2.1: Business types for Routes 1-10
4
21
126
17
10
7
21
22
13
27
3
4
18
57
45
18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Assisted Living
Automotive
Business office
Food Manufacturer
Grocery
Hardware store
Hotel
Manufacturer
Medical
Multifamily
Parking structure
Prison
Recreation
Restaurant
Retail
School

6. Georgia Pacific: Materials Analysis 3
45.25% 47.88% 6.87%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Desirable Acceptable Not Desirable
Routes 1-10
Table 2.1: Detailed material composition of landfill-bound waste from Routes 1-10
Classification Material Category Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 9 Route 10
Desirable Aluminum 0.73% 0.47% 0.80% 1.08% 0.52% 0.69% 0.47% 0.90% 1.13% 0.57%
Desirable Cardboard 5.68% 1.32% 3.44% 1.63% 2.80% 2.05% 13.21% 5.78% 1.94% 5.69%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 13.22% 18.40% 25.39% 12.03% 9.06% 9.48% 8.50% 8.83% 14.67% 15.01%
Desirable Mixed paper + aseptic 14.12% 9.92% 4.19% 22.53% 9.66% 9.84% 15.41% 23.99% 15.52% 9.72%
Desirable PET plastics 1.76% 2.20% 1.09% 1.35% 1.82% 1.35% 1.03% 1.87% 1.88% 3.52%
Desirable Plastic-coated paper 4.69% 4.37% 4.92% 6.94% 3.12% 6.62% 2.38% 4.69% 3.90% 5.15%
Desirable Restroom waste 7.71% 11.33% 4.06% 7.72% 3.88% 5.02% 18.35% 1.90% 7.48%
Acceptable Styrofoam 0.53% 0.41% 2.62% 0.25% 0.22% 0.86% 0.18% 0.06% 0.39%
Acceptable Food 13.27% 22.13% 22.07% 21.88% 21.92% 42.71% 15.18% 17.27% 28.52% 21.60%
Acceptable Garbage 5.07% 5.89% 6.76% 3.10% 5.80% 3.09% 12.16% 2.86% 6.02% 4.96%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 8.37% 5.54% 7.08% 7.40% 4.55% 5.26% 3.68% 4.95% 3.51% 5.00%
Acceptable Large rigid plastics 1.58% 3.66% 2.11% 0.30% 0.43% 0.29% 1.10% 1.91%
Acceptable Liquid 5.77% 1.24% 0.71% 2.46% 1.09% 2.44% 1.94% 1.55% 2.07% 5.39%
Acceptable Mixed metals 2.23% 2.27% 1.22% 0.39% 0.70% 0.07% 0.98% 0.91% 1.14% 0.50%
Acceptable Plastic film 6.92% 10.76% 9.36% 8.82% 6.46% 11.00% 11.35% 5.54% 9.23% 9.78%
Not Desirable Electronics 3.56% 0.01% 3.30% 21.84% 0.11% 0.09% 0.56%
Not Desirable Filters 0.90%
Not Desirable Glass bottles and jars 1.78% 1.89% 1.23% 1.36% 0.65% 2.53% 0.82% 3.83% 2.00%
Not Desirable Textiles 3.01% 0.07% 5.69% 0.11% 1.17% 0.21% 3.08% 1.12% 3.01% 1.30%
Not Desirable Waxed cardboard 1.40%
Not Desirable Wood 0.07% 0.15% 0.03% 1.76% 0.04%
Figure 2.2: General material composition (by weight in pounds)

7. Community Environmental Services 4
15.20%
21.20%
63.60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MRF Load
Findings from an observational analysis of the entire load gave evidence of the following
significant materials: clothing, plastic film, shredded paper, and pet food bags. These
materials were either consistently observed or deemed an anomaly.
*We estimate residuals to be comprised of (50%) shredded paper, (30%) broken glass,
(10%) plastic pieces, (5%) metal pieces, and (5%) dirt/rocks.
Table 2.2: Detailed material composition of MRF load
Classification Material Category LBS %
Desirable Aluminum 0.52 0.29%
Desirable Cardboard 1.99 1.12%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 1.16 0.65%
Desirable Mixed paper+ aseptic 22.16 12.50%
Desirable PET plastics 0.81 0.46%
Desirable Restroom waste 0.31 0.17%
Acceptable Styrofoam 1.27 0.72%
Acceptable Food 1.78 1.00%
Acceptable Garbage 1.85 1.04%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 9.61 5.42%
Acceptable Large rigid plastics 2.52 1.42%
Acceptable Mixed metals 5.33 3.01%
Acceptable Plastic film 15.21 8.58%
Not Desirable Concrete block 3.16 1.78%
Not Desirable Electronics 0.41 0.23%
Not Desirable Glass bottles and jars 1.41 0.80%
Not Desirable Hose 12.54 7.07%
Not Desirable Linoleum 1.75 0.99%
Not Desirable Residuals* 67.75 38.22%
Not Desirable Shoes 1.63 0.92%
Not Desirable Textiles 15.43 8.71%
Not Desirable Wood 8.65 4.88%
Total 177.25 100.00%
Figure 2.3: General material composition of
MRF load (by weight in pounds)
Desirable: 26.95 lbs.
Acceptable: 37.57 lbs.
Not Desirable: 112.73 lbs.

8. Georgia Pacific: Materials Analysis 5
Semiconductor Manufacturer Load
Findings from an observational analysis of the entire load gave evidence of the following
significant materials: clean bags of Styrofoam and film, bags comprised of only coffee cups,
and bags representative of a break room (e.g. garbage, food, food soiled fibers, and
garbage). These materials were either consistently observed or deemed an anomaly.
Classification Material Category LBS %
Desirable Aluminum 0.32 0.17%
Desirable Cardboard 0.86 0.45%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 15.34 8.01%
Desirable Mixed paper+ aseptic 16.96 8.86%
Desirable PET plastics 1.44 0.75%
Desirable Plastic-coated paper 12.19 6.37%
Desirable Restroom waste 15.19 7.93%
Acceptable Styrofoam 17.86 9.33%
Acceptable Food 23.22 12.13%
Acceptable Garbage 13.62 7.11%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 33.01 17.24%
Acceptable Liquid 7.22 3.77%
Acceptable Mixed metals 1.12 0.58%
Acceptable Plastic film 17.09 8.93%
Not Desirable Electronics 4.06 2.12%
Not Desirable Glass bottles and jars 0.46 0.24%
Not Desirable Textiles 11.52 6.02%
Total 191.48 100.00%
Table2.3: Detailed material composition of semiconductor manufacturer
32.54%
59.09%
8.38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure 2.4: General material composition of
semiconductor manufacturer (by
percentage)
Desirable: 62.3 lbs.
Acceptable: 113.14 lbs.
Not Desirable: 16.04 lbs.

9. Community Environmental Services 6
Appendix A: Individual Route Findings
Route 1
Findings from an observational analysis of the entire load gave evidence of the following
significant materials: large pieces of cardboard, large metal parking sign, a sink, a cooler,
bags of shredded paper, textiles, textbooks, materials consistent with hotels (e.g. mini
soaps, small bottles of shampoo, and an iron). These materials were either consistently
observed or deemed an anomaly. In general, throughout the sort, one material did not
stand out as a majority material category.
Business Composition: Business office (65%), Restaurant (13%), Hotel (10%), Recreation
(6%), Parking Structure (3%), School (3%).
Classification Material Category LBS %
Desirable Aluminum 1.36 0.73%
Desirable Cardboard 10.64 5.68%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 24.75 13.22%
Desirable Mixed paper + aseptics 26.43 14.12%
Desirable PET plastics 3.29 1.76%
Desirable Plastic-coated paper 8.78 4.69%
Desirable Restroom waste 14.44 7.71%
Acceptable Styrofoam 0.99 0.53%
Acceptable Food 24.83 13.27%
Acceptable Garbage 9.49 5.07%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 15.66 8.37%
Acceptable Large rigid plastics 2.96 1.58%
Acceptable Liquid 10.80 5.77%
Acceptable Mixed metals 4.17 2.23%
Acceptable Plastic film 12.95 6.92%
Not Desirable Electronics 6.66 3.56%
Not Desirable Glass bottles and jars 3.34 1.78%
Not Desirable Textiles 5.63 3.01%
Total 187.17 100%
Table A.1: Detailed material composition of Route 1 and Figure A.1: General material composition of Route 1
47.92%
43.73%
8.35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not Desirable
Acceptable
Desirable

10. Georgia Pacific: Materials Analysis 7
Route 2
Findings from an observational analysis of the entire load gave evidence of the following
significant materials: tree limbs, rolls of used carpet, oil canisters, and a significant
presence of waste from a food manufacturer, both in liquid form and discarded product that
failed quality measures. These materials were either consistently observed or deemed an
anomaly.
Business Composition: Manufacturer (19%), Business Office (14%), Multifamily (14%),
Food Manufacturer (10%), School (9%), Prison (7%), Assisted Living (5%), Hardware Store
(5%), Recreation (5%), Retail (5%), Automotive (3%), Grocery (3%).
Classification Material Category LBS %
Desirable Aluminum 0.79 0.47%
Desirable Cardboard 2.21 1.32%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 30.75 18.40%
Desirable Mixed paper + aseptics 16.58 9.92%
Desirable PET plastics 3.68 2.20%
Desirable Plastic-coated paper 7.30 4.37%
Desirable Restroom waste 18.93 11.33%
Acceptable Styrofoam 0.68 0.41%
Acceptable Food 36.98 22.13%
Acceptable Garbage 9.85 5.89%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 9.26 5.54%
Acceptable Large rigid plastics 6.12 3.66%
Acceptable Liquid 2.07 1.24%
Acceptable Mixed metals 3.80 2.27%
Acceptable Plastic film 17.98 10.76%
Not Desirable Electronics 0.02 0.01%
Not Desirable Textiles 0.11 0.07%
Total 167.11 100%
Table A.2: Detailed material composition of Route 2 and Figure A.2: General material composition of Route 2
48.02%
51.91%
0.08%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not Desirable
Acceptable
Desirable

11. Community Environmental Services 8
Route 3
Findings from an observational analysis of the entire load gave evidence of the following
significant materials: automobile tires, mattress, several pillows, and a microwave. These
materials were either consistently observed or deemed an anomaly.
Business Composition: Route data not available.
Classification Material Category LBS %
Desirable Aluminum 1.99 0.80%
Desirable Cardboard 8.55 3.44%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 63.18 25.39%
Desirable Mixed paper + aseptics 10.43 4.19%
Desirable PET plastics 2.71 1.09%
Desirable Plastic-coated paper 12.25 4.92%
Acceptable Food 54.91 22.07%
Acceptable Garbage 16.81 6.76%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 17.61 7.08%
Acceptable Large rigid plastics 5.25 2.11%
Acceptable Liquid 1.76 0.71%
Acceptable Mixed metals 3.04 1.22%
Acceptable Plastic film 23.28 9.36%
Not Desirable Electronics 8.20 3.30%
Not Desirable Filters 0.00%
Not Desirable Glass bottles and jars 4.71 1.89%
Not Desirable Textiles 14.15 5.69%
Total 248.83 100%
Table A.3: Detailed material composition of Route 3 and Figure A.3: General material composition of Route 3
39.83%
49.29%
10.87%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not Desirable
Acceptable
Desirable

12. Georgia Pacific: Materials Analysis 9
Route 4
Findings from an observational analysis of the entire load gave evidence of the following
significant materials: bulk food packaging, luggage, approximately sixteen (16) air filters,
and large plastic totes. These materials were either consistently observed or deemed an
anomaly.
Business Composition: Business Office (26%), Retail (26%), Restaurant (22%), Medical
(7%), Automotive (4%), Grocery (4%), School (4%), Assisted Living (2%), Multifamily
(2%), Recreation (2%).
Table A.4: Detailed material composition of Route 4 and Figure A.4: General material composition of Route 4
Classification Material Category LBS %
Desirable Aluminum 1.71 1.08%
Desirable Cardboard 2.59 1.63%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 19.09 12.03%
Desirable Mixed paper + aseptics 35.76 22.53%
Desirable PET plastics 2.14 1.35%
Desirable Plastic-coated paper 11.01 6.94%
Desirable Restroom waste 6.44 4.06%
Acceptable Styrofoam 4.15 2.62%
Acceptable Food 34.72 21.88%
Acceptable Garbage 4.92 3.10%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 11.75 7.40%
Acceptable Liquid 3.91 2.46%
Acceptable Mixed metals 0.62 0.39%
Acceptable Plastic film 13.99 8.82%
Not Desirable Filters 1.43 0.90%
Not Desirable Glass bottles and jars 1.95 1.23%
Not Desirable Textiles 0.18 0.11%
Not Desirable Waxed cardboard 2.22 1.40%
Not Desirable Wood 0.11 0.07%
Total 158.69 100%
49.62%
46.67%
3.71%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not Desirable
Acceptable
Desirable

13. Community Environmental Services 10
Route 5
Findings from an observational analysis of the entire load gave evidence of the following
significant materials: significant amounts of paper towels, a bench seat from a vehicle, and
several bags of rotten food waste. These materials were either consistently observed or
deemed an anomaly.
Business Composition: Business Office (39%), Hotel (20%), Restaurant (20%), Retail (7%),
Medical (4%), Recreation (4%), Automotive (3%), Parking Structure (3%), Multifamily
(1%).
Classification Material Category LBS %
Desirable Aluminum 1.22 0.52%
Desirable Cardboard 6.59 2.80%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 21.34 9.06%
Desirable Mixed paper + aseptics 22.74 9.66%
Desirable PET plastics 4.29 1.82%
Desirable Plastic-coated paper 7.35 3.12%
Desirable Restroom waste 18.18 7.72%
Acceptable Styrofoam 0.59 0.25%
Acceptable Food 51.62 21.92%
Acceptable Garbage 13.66 5.80%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 10.72 4.55%
Acceptable Liquid 2.57 1.09%
Acceptable Mixed metals 1.65 0.70%
Acceptable Plastic film 15.21 6.46%
Not Desirable Electronics 51.42 21.84%
Not Desirable Glass bottles and jars 3.21 1.36%
Not Desirable Textiles 2.75 1.17%
Not Desirable Wood 0.35 0.15%
Total 235.46 100%
Table A.5: Detailed material composition of Route 5 and Figure A.5: General material composition of Route 5
34.70%
40.78%
24.52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not Desirable
Acceptable
Desirable

14. Georgia Pacific: Materials Analysis 11
Route 6
Findings from an observational analysis of the entire load gave evidence of the following
significant materials: liquid waste, large rigid plastics, drywall, a make-up counter display,
rolls of used carpet, plastic film, microwave, and large automotive scraps. These materials
were either consistently observed or deemed an anomaly.
Business Composition: Business Office (23%), Restaurant (20%), Retail (14%), Automotive
(13%), Food Manufacturer (11%), Manufacturer (10%), School (4%), Recreation (3%),
Grocery (1%), Hardware Store (1%), Medical (1%).
Classification Material Category Route 6 %
Desirable Aluminum 1.12 0.69%
Desirable Cardboard 3.32 2.05%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 15.32 9.48%
Desirable Mixed paper + aseptics 15.90 9.84%
Desirable PET plastics 2.19 1.35%
Desirable Plastic-coated paper 10.70 6.62%
Desirable Restroom waste 6.27 3.88%
Acceptable Styrofoam 0.36 0.22%
Acceptable Food 69.03 42.71%
Acceptable Garbage 4.99 3.09%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 8.50 5.26%
Acceptable Large rigid plastics 0.48 0.30%
Acceptable Liquid 3.95 2.44%
Acceptable Mixed metals 0.11 0.07%
Acceptable Plastic film 17.78 11.00%
Not Desirable Electronics 0.17 0.11%
Not Desirable Glass bottles and jars 1.05 0.65%
Not Desirable Textiles 0.34 0.21%
Not Desirable Wood 0.05 0.03%
Total 161.63 100%
Table A.6: Detailed material composition of Route 6 and Figure A.6: General material composition of Route 6
33.92%
65.09%
1.00%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not Desirable
Acceptable
Desirable

15. Community Environmental Services 12
Route 7
Findings from an observational analysis of the entire load gave evidence of the following
significant materials: plastic laundry baskets, large cardboard pieces, wood, automotive
waste, and rolls of used carpet. These materials were either consistently observed or
deemed an anomaly.
Business Composition: Route data not available.
Classification Material Category LBS %
Desirable Aluminum 0.96 0.47%
Desirable Cardboard 26.83 13.21%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 17.28 8.50%
Desirable Mixed paper + aseptics 31.32 15.41%
Desirable PET plastics 2.10 1.03%
Desirable Plastic-coated paper 4.84 2.38%
Desirable Restroom waste 10.20 5.02%
Acceptable Styrofoam 1.75 0.86%
Acceptable Food 30.85 15.18%
Acceptable Garbage 24.70 12.16%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 7.48 3.68%
Acceptable Large rigid plastics 0.88 0.43%
Acceptable Liquid 3.95 1.94%
Acceptable Mixed metals 1.99 0.98%
Acceptable Plastic film 23.06 11.35%
Not Desirable Glass bottles and jars 5.15 2.53%
Not Desirable Textiles 6.26 3.08%
Not Desirable Wood 3.58 1.76%
Total 203.18 100%
Table A.7: Detailed material composition of Route 7 and Figure A.7: General material composition of Route 7
46.03%
46.59%
7.38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not Desirable
Acceptable
Desirable

16. Georgia Pacific: Materials Analysis 13
Route 8
Findings from an observational analysis of the entire load gave evidence of the following
significant materials: several wooded pallets and bags of food waste only. These materials
were either consistently observed or deemed an anomaly.
Business Composition: Business Office (32%), Retail (16%), Restaurant (11%), Automotive
(9%), Medical (7%), Multifamily (5%), Recreation (5%), Food Manufacturer (4%),
Hardware Store (4%), School (4%), Grocery (2%), Hotel (2%), Manufacturer (2%).
Classification Material Category LBS %
Desirable Aluminum 1.76 0.90%
Desirable Cardboard 11.31 5.78%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 17.27 8.83%
Desirable Mixed paper + aseptics 46.94 23.99%
Desirable PET plastics 3.65 1.87%
Desirable Plastic-coated paper 9.18 4.69%
Desirable Restroom waste 35.90 18.35%
Acceptable Styrofoam 0.36 0.18%
Acceptable Food 33.79 17.27%
Acceptable Garbage 5.60 2.86%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 9.69 4.95%
Acceptable Large rigid plastics 0.56 0.29%
Acceptable Liquid 3.04 1.55%
Acceptable Mixed metals 1.78 0.91%
Acceptable Plastic film 10.83 5.54%
Not Desirable Electronics 0.18 0.09%
Not Desirable Glass bottles and jars 1.60 0.82%
Not Desirable Textiles 2.20 1.12%
Total 195.64 100%
Table A.8: Detailed material composition of Route 8 and Figure A.8: General material composition of Route 8
64.41%
33.56%
2.03%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not Desirable
Acceptable
Desirable

17. Community Environmental Services 14
Route 9
Findings from an observational analysis of the entire load gave evidence of the following
significant materials: yard debris, construction materials (e.g. press board and 2x4s),
microwave, and horizontal metal blinds. These materials were either consistently observed
or deemed an anomaly.
Business Composition: Business Office (26%), Retail (26%), Restaurant (22%), Medical
(7%), Automotive (4%), Grocery (4%), School (4%), Assisted Living (2%), Multifamily
(2%), Recreation (2%)
Classification Material Category LBS %
Desirable Aluminum 2.70 1.13%
Desirable Cardboard 4.62 1.94%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 34.91 14.67%
Desirable Mixed paper + aseptics 36.93 15.52%
Desirable PET plastics 4.47 1.88%
Desirable Plastic-coated paper 9.28 3.90%
Desirable Restroom waste 4.53 1.90%
Acceptable Styrofoam 0.14 0.06%
Acceptable Food 67.86 28.52%
Acceptable Garbage 14.33 6.02%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 8.36 3.51%
Acceptable Large rigid plastics 2.61 1.10%
Acceptable Liquid 4.93 2.07%
Acceptable Mixed metals 2.71 1.14%
Acceptable Plastic film 21.96 9.23%
Not Desirable Electronics 1.33 0.56%
Not Desirable Glass bottles and jars 9.11 3.83%
Not Desirable Textiles 7.17 3.01%
Total 237.95 100%
Table A.9: Detailed material composition of Route 9 and Figure A.9: General material composition of Route 9
40.95%
51.65%
7.40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not Desirable
Acceptable
Desirable

18. Georgia Pacific: Materials Analysis 15
Route 10
Findings from an observational analysis of the entire load gave evidence of the following
significant materials: pillows, sports equipment, rolls of used carpet, bag of unopened
yogurt, bag of styrofoam, construction materials, dog kennel, and wood pallet. These
materials were either consistently observed or deemed an anomaly.
Business Composition: Business Offices (32%), Multifamily (21%), Restaurant (9%), Retail
(8%), School (8%), Grocery (6%), Recreation (6%), Hotel (3%), Manufacturer (3%),
Medical (3%), Hardware Store (2%).
Classification Material Category LBS %
Desirable Aluminum 1.16 0.57%
Desirable Cardboard 11.63 5.69%
Desirable Food-soiled fibers 30.68 15.01%
Desirable Mixed paper + aseptics 19.87 9.72%
Desirable PET plastics 7.19 3.52%
Desirable Plastic-coated paper 10.53 5.15%
Desirable Restroom waste 15.28 7.48%
Acceptable Styrofoam 0.79 0.39%
Acceptable Food 44.15 21.60%
Acceptable Garbage 10.13 4.96%
Acceptable General mixed plastics 10.23 5.00%
Acceptable Large rigid plastics 3.90 1.91%
Acceptable Liquid 11.02 5.39%
Acceptable Mixed metals 1.03 0.50%
Acceptable Plastic film 19.99 9.78%
Not Desirable Glass bottles and jars 4.09 2.00%
Not Desirable Textiles 2.65 1.30%
Not Desirable Wood 0.09 0.04%
Total 204.41 100%
Table A.10: Detailed material composition of Route 10 and Figure A.10: General material composition of Route 10
47.31%
49.33%
3.35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not Desirable
Acceptable
Desirable

19. © 2015 Portland State University, all rights reserved. If any portion of the information
contained herein is used, copied, displayed, distributed or referenced, attribution of such
information shall be made to Portland State University and the College of Urban & Public
Affairs: Community Environmental Services.
This information may only be used, reproduced, published or re-published, or otherwise
disseminated by Georgia Pacific in accordance with the Service Letter of Agreement,
effective March 2015. The use of this information is intended for informational and
educational purposes only, and selling this report, information, or any portion thereof is
strictly prohibited.