UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Survey of household hazardous waste generation and collection preferences in the City of Vancouver, British… Jones, Evan Lewis 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A7 J66.pdf [ 16.71MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0062804.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0062804-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0062804-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0062804-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0062804-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0062804-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0062804-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0062804-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0062804.ris

Full Text

SURVEY OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND COLLECTION PREFERENCES IN THE CITY OF VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA By Evan Lewis Jones B.A.Sc, The University of British Columbia, 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF MASTERS OF APPLIED SCIENCE in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES Department of Civil Engineering We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July, 1990 ® Evan Lewis Jones, 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of c - U V ) l _ g A i c S I M g ^ R \ A O < ^ The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date ^ T ^ K B e R . X[ , W O DE-6 (2/88) Abstract The potential hazards to the environment and to human health posed by several types of household hazardous wastes (HHW) and waste products are discussed in this paper. This discussion serves to lead into an evaluation of the design and operating parameters of a collection program for these wastes, and the influence that various design parameters may have on the ability of the collection program to remove the wastes from uncontrolled waste stream. A review of existing HHW collection programs and of surveys regarding HHW's is presented. A survey of over 200 households in Vancouver was conducted to determine stored quantities and generation characteristics of specific household hazardous wastes. Respondents were also asked to identify their preferences and concerns regarding the design of a collection program for these wastes. The results were used to estimate the quantities of HHW disposed of annually, and the quantities and profiles of wastes that could be received at a typical depot collection program in the City. Different operating parameters for both depot collection programs and household collection programs were compared. Public willingness to participate in different collection programs was evaluated, and the collection needs of different residential areas was assessed. Significant differences in waste generation and storage practices were indicated to exist between types of dwellings, and between areas of differing economic status. Examples include the result that as many or more apartments residents generated HHW's as did detached dwelling residents, but in significantly smaller quantities, especially for liquid HHW's. Apartment residents also tended to store less HHW than detached dwelling residents. Between upper income and lower income detached dwelling areas, the composition of HHW's was significantly different, with automotive products more prevalent in the lower income area and paints more prevalent in the upper income area. Other differences between dwelling type and income level differentiated areas were also noted. Further observations included the difference in the willingness of respondents to participate in various types of collection programs, and the disposal practices for different waste types. Also, concerns of the respondents with regard to the issue of HHW in general and to each type of collection program in specific were solicited and discussed. Recommendations were made to assist in the design of an effective HHW collection program for the City of Vancouver. ii Table of Contents Abstract » Table of Contents »i List of Tables vii List of Figures i* Acknowledgments x 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Literature Review 3 2.1 Households as Generators of Hazardous Waste 3 2.2 Impact of HHW's 3 2.2.1 HHW's in Landfills 5 2.2.2 HHW's in Sewers 9 2.2.3 Worker Exposure to HHW's 10 2.3 Other Surveys Regarding HHW's H 2.3.1 Marin County, CA, and New Orleans, LA, USA 11 2.3.2 Metro Seattle, WA, USA 12 2.3.3 King County, WA, USA 13 2.3.4 Clark and Skamania Counties, WA, USA 14 2.3.5 Association of Bay Area Governments, CA, USA 15 2.3.6 Massachusetts, USA 1 6 2.3.7 Waste Characterization Surveys 17 2.4 HHW Collection Programs 1 8 2.4.1 B.C. Regional Special Waste Storage Program 19 iii 2.4.2 Chilliwack, B.C 1 9 2.4.3 Association of Bay Area Governments, CA, USA 20 2.4.4 Alberta 2 0 2.4.5 Seattle/King County, WA, USA 2 1 2.4.6 Winnipeg, Manitoba 2 2 2.4.7 Other Collection Programs 2 3 3.0 Methodology 2 4 3.1 Study Objectives 2 4 3.2 Wastes Included in This Study 2 4 3.3 Study Design and Data Collection Program 2 6 3.3.1 Questionnaire Design 2 6 3.3.2 Respondent Selection 3 0 3.3.3 Questionnaire Completion 3 2 3.3.4 Interpretation Methods and Analysis of Data 3 3 3.4 Confirmation of Data 3 ^ 3.4.1 Wasteload Dissection 3 6 3.4.2 Other Surveys 3 6 3.4.3 Collection Programs 3 6 3.4.4 Data Extrapolations 3 ^ 4.0 Results 3 8 4.1 Participation Levels 3 8 4.2 Part I Results 3 8 4.3 Part II Results 4 2 4.3.1 Question 1: Existing Wastes 4 2 iv 4.3.2 Question 2: Generation Rates 5 0 4.3.3 Disposal Practices 56 4.4 Part III Results 6 0 4.4.1 Collection Preferences 60 4.4.1.1 Individual Collection 6 4 4.4.1.2 Depot Collection 7 0 4.4.2 Cost Recovery 7 8 4.5 Garbage Load Dissections 8 3 5.0 Data Analysis and Discussion 8 7 5.1 HHW Quantity Calculations 8 7 5.1.1 Existing HHW Quantities 8 7 5.1.2 Annual Generation of HHW 88 5.1.2.1 Data Correction for Incomplete Responses 89 5.1.2.2 Annually Generated Quantities 91 5.1.2.3 Percentages of Waste Streams 93 5.1.3 Collection Events Quantity Estimates 94 5.1.4 Lower Mainland Quantities 95 5.2 Data Verification 9 7 5.2.1 HHW Quantities and Composition 97 5.2.2 Disposal Quantities 1 0 1 5.2.3 Operating Parameters 101 5.2.4 Respondent Bias 1 0 3 5.3 Discussion of Results 1 0 3 5.3.1 HHW Quantity Estimates 1 0 3 5.3.2 Comments on the Potential Environmental Impact of HHW's 108 v 5.3.3 Addressing Public Needs and Concerns 110 5.3.3.1 Individual Collection Programs 110 5.3.3.2 Depot Collection Programs 110 5.3.3.3 Other Issues 112 5.3.4 Accuracy of Data 112 6.0 Summary and Conclusions 115 References 122 Appendix A: Questionnaire and Flyer 125 Appendix B: Questionnaire, Apartment Versions 138 Appendix C: Telephone Script 153 Appendix D: Data Summary 155 Appendix E: Quantile Plots, Existing Wastes and Generation Rates 210 vi List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Some HHW's and Their Hazardous Properties 4 Table 2: Summary of Other HHW's 5 Table 3: Summary of Waste Characterization Studies 18 Table 4: HHW Categories Used in Survey 25 Table 5: Characteristics of Zones 31 Table 6: Classification of Questions by Question Type 35 Table 7: Respondent Information 40 Table 8: Comparison of Zones in Part 1 42 Table 9: Duration of Occupancy, by Zone 42 Table 10: Existing Wastes, All Zones 43 Table 11: Existing Zone A Wastes 44 Table 12: Existing Zone B Wastes 45 Table 13: Existing Zone C Wastes 46 Table 14: Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U Test Comparisons of Existing Liquid HHW 49 Table 15: Annual Generation Rates, All Zones 51 Table 16: Annual Generation Rates, Zone A 52 Table 17: Annual Generation Rates, Zone B 53 Table 18: Annual Generation Rates, Zone C 54 Table 19: Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U Test Comparisons of Liquid HHW Generation Rates . 56 Table 20: Summary of HHW Disposal Practices 57 Table 21: HHW Disposal Practices by Waste Type, Corrected for Recycle 59 Table 22: Summary of HHW Disposal Practices, Corrected for Recycle 59 Table 23: Results of Collection Alternatives Ranking 61 Table 24: Results of Friedmans Analysis on Collection Alternative Ranking 63 vii Table 25: Preferred Collection Frequencies 66 Table 26: Analysis of Collection Frequency Preferences by Zone 66 Table 27: Concerns Identified by Respondents Regarding Individual Collection of HHW's 69 Table 28: Respondents Willingness to Travel to a Collection Depot 70 Table 29: Convenience of Operating Hours for Depot Collection 74 Table 30: Concerns Identified by Respondents Regarding Depot Collection of HHW's 75 Table 31: Annual Amount Respondents Willing to Pay for HHW Collection 78 Table 32: Summary of Observations from Garbage Load Dissections 84 Table 33: Estimation of the Total Existing HHW in Vancouver 88 Table 34: Adjustment of Average Annual Generation Data to Include Incomplete Responses, Per Respondent Basis 90 Table 35: Determination of Adjustment Factors for Waste Types 90 Table 36: Adjusted Annual Generation Rates by Zone, Per Respondent Basis 91 Table 37: Estimation of the Total Annual Generation of HHW in Vancouver 92 Table 38: Estimation of Amount of HHW Collected in a First-Time Depot Collection Program in Vancouver 95 Table 39: Estimation of Amount of HHW Collected in an On-Going Depot Collection Program in Vancouver 96 viii List of Figures Figure 1: Respondent Information 39 Figure 2: Length of Occupancy 41 Figure 3: HHW Disposal Practices 58 Figure 4: Collection Option Responses 62 Figure 5: Preferred Collection Frequencies 65 Figure 6: Ranking of Concerns Regarding Individual Collection of HHW's 68 Figure 7: Willingness to Travel to Collection Depot 71 Figure 8: Preferred Operating Hours for Depot Collection 73 Figure 9: Ranking of Concerns Regarding Depot Collection of HHW's 77 Figure 10: Willingness to Pay for Collection of HHW's 79 Figure 11: Average and Range of Specified Payment Levels 80 Figure 12: Ranking of Payment Methods for H H W Collection 82 ix Acknowledgements The author would like to thank those people and institutions that provided support in the performance of this work and in the development of the thesis. Financial support was obtained from the National Science and Engineering Research Council, the City of Vancouver, and the Province of British Columbia, for which the author is grateful. The administrative and clerical staff of the Civil Engineering department at the University of British Columbia are thanked for their cooperation during the preparation and receipt of questionnaire forms. The surveyors are to be thanked for their assistance in a task that was never easy and often miserable. The reviewers of this paper provided many comments of a nature indicating their careful and reasoned consideration of the contents. Research support was provided by staff at the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and at Seattle Metro. 1.0 Introduction The handling and transport of waste materials possessing hazardous properties, such as flammability, toxicity, explosivity, or corrosivity, are regulated federally in Canada by the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act. In British Columbia, the Special Wastes Regulations of the Waste Management Act applies to the storage, handling and disposal of these materials. Other jurisdictions and provinces have similar disposal regulations, most using the term "Hazardous Wastes" to describe these materials. The application of these regulations to a great number of diverse sources of small quantities of wastes is difficult. Therefore, within all of these regulations, there is at present an exemption for generators of small quantities of these wastes. The only generators normally qualifying for this exemption are small commercial operations and households. In B.C., any refuse collected by or on behalf of a municipality from residential premises is exempt from regulation. Therefore, despite the existence of the regulations, some proportion of hazardous type wastes are still being disposed of in an uncontrolled manner. Concern over the safety of municipal landfills and the quality of wastewater treatment effluent and stormwater has necessitated closer examination of the disposal of these unregulated wastes. Regulations regarding the composition of materials acceptable for municipal landfills (such as the R C R A regulations in the United States) also may affect these disposal practices. As a consequence, more and more jurisdictions in Canada and the United States are developing or already providing separate, voluntary collection programs for wastes from small quantity generators. The most common program is one aimed at collecting household hazardous waste (HHW). In the City of Vancouver, B.C., a program for H H W collection is in the initial stages of implementation. The design of an effective collection program must be based on information regarding the types and relative quantities of HHW's present in the homes, the patterns and rates of generation of these wastes, and the issues 1 and factors in the collection program that most affect the public's willingness to participate. The objective of this thesis is to provide sufficient background information that a collection program for Vancouver or other similar areas may be designed to optimize their effectiveness and address the public's concerns regarding HHW's . Data collected from a survey of Vancouver residents forms the basis of this thesis. Information on HHW's from respondents was collected with the following objectives: • to provide an estimate of the amount of HHW currently being stored and awaiting collection in Vancouver, • to estimate the amount of HHW produced annually, • to determine current disposal methods, • to determine public acceptance of, and concerns regarding, different methods of collecting these wastes including: individual household collection; neighbourhood depots for HHW collection; and, centrally located depot collection, • to determine what operating parameters affect the amount of waste that can be collected by any of these collection methods. 2 2.0 Literature Review 2.1 Households as Generators of Hazardous Wastes Mitchell et al., 1986, Pope-Reid Assoc., 1988, and Ridgley, 1982, researched and reviewed a wide selection of household products and their ingredients which might be considered hazardous. These studies were intended to illustrate how some wastes coming from residences may be considered hazardous and worthy of attention in efforts to regulate discharges of such compounds to the environment. Table 1 summarizes the major types of HHW's and their hazardous properties as discussed by these authors. As this table is an amalgamation of these author's works, some nomenclature variances and overlap is present. In addition to these major categories, many other products may be considered HHW's when discarded. Table 2 presents a less detailed list of some of these other waste types, taken from the same sources as Table 1. It is not possible to itemize every household waste type that may be considered hazardous; also, some of the waste categories listed here may include certain brands within those categories that are non-hazardous. These lists are intended to provide an overview of the range of wastes that may be considered hazardous in order to facilitate investigating the problem of HHW's as a whole, and therefore some of these discrepancies are overlooked. In the discussion of the results from this thesis work, further comments on other HHW's will be presented. 2.2 Impact of HHW's The disposal of HHW's without the use of a special collection program is accomplished by whatever means the householder (the generator) sees fit to use. This typically results in these wastes becoming part of either 3 Table 1: Summary of Some HHWs and Their Hazardous Properties (adapted from Mitchell et al, 1986; Ridgley, 1982; Pope-Reid Assoc., 1988) Waste Tvpe Ingredients of Concern Reason for Concern Household Cleaners/ Polishes Aliphatic, Aromatic, and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons; Acids and Bases; Surfactants; Fungicides; Propellants; Ammonia; Oils Human health; Aquatic Toxicity; Flammable; Combustible; Ozone Depletion; Corrosivity; Incompatibilities Drain Openers Sodium and Potassium Hydroxide; Lye; Caustic Soda; Sulphuric Acid; Muriatic Acid; Hydrochloric Acid; Hydrogen Chloride Human Health; Aquatic Toxicity; Corrosivity; Incompatibilities; Dangerous Gases Household Paints Resins (acrylic, vinyl, urethane, styrene); Pigments (fillers, metal oxides); Solvents (alcohols, hydrocarbons, ketones, esters, other halogenated solvents) Toxic vapours; Aquatic Toxicity; Flammable; Incompatibilities Wood Preservatives Pentachlorophenol; Copper or Zinc Naphthenate; Creosote; Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons Human Health; Aquatic Toxicity; Toxic vapour; Incompatibilities; Combustible Paint Thinners and Strippers Mineral Spirits; Acetone; Toluene; Ketones; Alcohols; Petroleum Distillates; Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons Human Health; Aquatic Toxicity; Toxic vapour; Incompatibilities; Combustible Adhesives Methyl Ethyl Ketone; Mineral Spirits; Acetone; Butyl Acetate; Xylene; Toluene; Hexanes; Formaldehyde; Ethylene Dichloride Human Health; Aquatic Toxicity; Toxic vapour; Incompatibilities; Combustible; Ignitable Pesticides Insecticides (organophosphates, carbamates organochlorines); Herbicides (arsenicals, chlorophenoxy acids, chlorophenols, nitrophenols); Fungicides (dicarboximides, triazines); Rodenticides Human Health; Aquatic Toxicity; Toxic to wildlife and insects; Persistent Batteries Sulphuric Acid; Mercury; Lead; Sodium and Potassium Hydroxide Human Health; Aquatic Toxicity; Dangerous Gases; Corrosive; Incompatibilities Petroleum Products (Oil, Fuels, Greases, Additives) Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons; Benzene; Amines; Petroleum Distillates; Mineral Spirits; Alcohols; Acetone; Xylene; Toluene; Ketones; Tetraethyl Lead; Heavy Metals Human Health; Aquatic Toxicity; Dangerous Gases; Toxic Vapours; Ignitable; Combustible 4 Table 2: Summary of Other HHWs Product/Waste Ingredients of Concern Swimming Pool Chemicals Sodium Dichloro-s-triazinetrione Antifreeze and Flushes Ethylene Glycol Methanol Metals Acids Nail Polish, Removers Acetone Aromatic Hydrocarbon Solvents Ethyl and Butyl Acetate Photographic Chemicals Metals (Silver, Selenium) Sulphuric Acid Heptane Mothballs Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons Napthalene Inks Glycols Alcohols Wood Putty Ketones Toluene Rust Preventers Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Potassium Dichromate Smoke Detectors Radioactive Components Prescription Drugs Pharmaceutical Ingredients Biomedical Hazards (eg: syringes) Other Chemical Products Acids and Bases Chemistry Kits Hobby Chemicals Glazes Home Business Wastes Refrigerant Coolants Fibreglass Resins/Hardeners the existing liquid or solid domestic waste streams, being stored indefinitely, or being disposed of on private or public lands. Therefore, these wastes pose potential threats to the environment, to workers handling the existing waste streams, and to others who may become exposed to the wastes. The following sections review literature reporting on the potential threats posed by HHW's when disposed of in an unregulated manner. 2.2.1 HHW's in Landfills When disposed of in conjunction with regular household garbage, HHW's will most often end up in landfills, and subsequently in landfill leachates and gases. No studies have been done which distinguish between residential and commercial sources of hazardous wastes found in landfill discharges. However, King County, 1989, identified a list of contaminants found in samples of leachate from two landfills that "could have come from consumer products", including; phenol, phthalates, isophorone, methylene chloride, toluene, trichloroethylene, ethylbenzene, PCB's, DDE, aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin aldehyde. Also without being able to identify the generators of the contaminants, Purin et al., 1984, summarized other studies of observed environmental problems related to municipal landfills as follows: • In eleven northeastern states of the USA, sixty cases of groundwater contamination were due to landfill leachate of which HHW's were likely contributors • "Undesirable organic chemicals" similar to those used in the manufacture of household products were found to be leaching into groundwater from a municipal landfill in Oklahoma. The study concluded that "the decomposition and/or leaching of such manufactured products...would appear most likely to account for the introduction of industrial organic pollutants into groundwater in and near this landfill, even though it had received virtually no industrial solid waste per se". Thus, the presence of hazardous organic chemicals in landfill leachate could be due to the breakdown of manufactured goods, and not necessarily the disposal of household hazardous wastes. • The discovery of volatile organic chemicals in landfill leachate of California's central valley region (where hazardous wastes are not allowed to be landfilled) was postulated to be due to either illegal dumping activities, or chemical reactions occurring in the municipal solid waste. The uncertainty of the source of the chemicals in the landfill leachate as discussed in this study is a common problem of such studies. To quantify the effect of HHW's alone would require the elimination of all other sources of similar chemicals that may be in a landfill environment. Many reports have cited contaminated leachate and odorous emissions from landfills, which may be due in part to HHW's (Mitchell et al., 1986; King County, 1988; King County, 1989). In Mitchell et al., 1986, it is pointed out that 12 Superfund sites in the 6 USA are former municipal waste landfills. However, they also note that past activities at these cites may have included industrial waste disposal, and thus HHW can not be proven to be the only pollutants. The difficulties in estimating or verifying the effect of HHW's alone does not appear to have been overcome. The fate of hazardous wastes disposed of in landfills has been reported on in the literature. Parker, 1983, suggested as the major fates of organics in landfills that adsorption attenuates their movement, and volatilization may significantly reduce concentrations where possible. Biodegradation of many organics also occurs, but none of these fates can account for all of the waste, as detectable concentrations are still found in the leachates. Parker, 1983, also noted that many metals, if existing in soluble forms in the landfill or under acidic environments, will also be mobile and detectable in the leachate. The normal microbial processes in landfills, however, typically lead to an increase and buffering of the pH in a landfill environment following placement of the wastes. Miller, 1988, summarized the anaerobic process occurring in landfills as an increase in buffering capacity and pH resulting from the mineralization of substrate, starting with a conversion to volatile fatty acids. When methanogenic activity begins, consuming these volatile fatty acids, more organic acids are consumed and the pH rises further. In a study of potential landfill sites for the Vancouver region, a summary of Richmond, Coquitlam, and Vancouver landfills determined a mean pH in landfill leachate for the areas to be 7.0, and the maximum to be 8.5. Despite this, there were still enough mobile heavy metals to exceed Level BB Objectives for municipal waste discharges in BC for certain metals, cadmium included (Landfills Committee, 1984). Atwater, 1980, reported the mean pH value at large landfills in the same region, both open and closed, to be 7.0 or greater. Atwater also noted that most trace metals were present in leachates at low concentrations, at or below detection limits. Possible reasons for these low levels included low mobility due to raised pH levels, the formation of metal precipitates, and the possible low biological activity resulting from high infiltration rates. Atwater concluded that trace metals leaching from landfills were not a major source of metals in the Lower Fraser River, with the possible exception of iron, manganese, zinc, and aluminum. However, he also noted that a large portion of the metals in leachates are dissolved or present as chelates, and are more readily available for biological uptake than other forms. Other studies of landfill 7 leachates in the Vancouver area have found the pH range to vary from 5.6 to 7.6, and metals to be generally low except for iron, manganese, and occasionally cadmium (Peddie, 1986; EVS, 1975). Landfill leachates are typically high in COD and total organic carbon, primarily composed of the organic products of microbial action within the landfill. The organic constituents in landfill leachate that are the result of the disposal of hazardous wastes from household sources are not easily identified, for reasons previously discussed. Peddie, 1986, in a study of a Vancouver area landfill leachate, found organics including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and o-, m-, and p-xylenes. He noted that many of these organics may be found in solvent and paint products, and suggested that they are very mobile and easily find their way into leachates. Purin et al., 1984, noted that volatile organics are highly mobile in landfills, and suspected of increasing clay permeability. Lu et al., 1985, noted that some organics containing nitrogen, oxygen, and sulphur may form soluble complexes with metals and promote leaching. Mitchell et al., 1986, suggests that landfills may be good environments for reducing the effects of HHW's, through dispersion among other non-hazardous wastes, evaporation, and accelerated chemical or biological activity. However, they also note that some waste types are long-lived in the environment, and potential candidates for migration into air, surface water, and ground water. The mobility of the gases could result in air pollution in the local areas, or in water contamination through air/water phase transfer of certain components of the landfill gases. The literature relevant to hazardous wastes in landfills has identified many metals and organics which are present, and many mechanisms by which these pollutants may be retarded or mobilized in leachate. The movement of these compounds through a landfill is dependent on too many factors (waste composition, water table, landfill construction, infiltration, etc.) to be easily understood. Therefore, the significance of one potential source of contamination (households) can not be determined with the current level of knowledge. It must be sufficient at this point to note that there is potential for landfills to release environmentally harmful substances, and that one important source of these substances in landfills is household waste. 8 2.2.2 HHW's in Sewers The presence of organic chemicals that do not easily degrade in domestic sewage flows may be in part attributed to the disposal of hazardous wastes by households (King County, 1988; Hannah et al., 1986). King County, 1988, reviewed USEPA reports on domestic sewage composition, and found that the average national residential contribution of total priority pollutants in the influent of municipal treatment plants was 7.5 percent. They also found that 19.4 percent of total hazardous metals was from domestic sources. Several other studies reviewed in the same report found that households were "significant" or "substantial" sources of both metals and organics in sewer systems. King County, 1988, presents data from studies done on municipal wastewaters in Seattle that are of particular relevance to Vancouver as both areas have unusually soft, and therefore corrosive, water supplies. The studies in the Seattle area show that residential wastewaters accounted for 7 percent of the metals in the waste streams, but that they were particularly significant sources of iron, manganese, mercury and nickel. They suggest that the nickel may be due to the use of soaps, detergents, and cleaners, while the mercury and other metals may be found in food or any number of products that are disposed of in sewers (eg: dyes, inks, paints, cosmetics). High copper and zinc levels in the wastewaters are likely the result of piping corrosion due to the soft water. Gurnham et al., 1979, identified an extensive list of potential household sources for 7 metals (cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc) that includes all kinds of toiletries, cleaners, and dyes. Residential wastewaters were found to be a significant source of organic priority pollutants in Seattle Metro treatment plants (King County, 1988). Phenols, napthalene, phthalates and many volatiles were the primary chemicals present. Possible sources were suggested to include disinfectants, ointments, cleaners, deodorants, cosmetics, paints, thinners, and solvents. In the study mentioned earlier where the USEPA found 7.5 percent of priority pollutants in wastewaters to be from residential areas, the primary compounds found were 9 methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene, benzene, and napthalene, with phenol and chloroform of lesser importance. 2.2.3 Worker Exposure to HHW's Several incidents of workers sustaining injuries from hazardous wastes disposed of in municipal garbage have been recorded (Purin et al., 1984; Mitchell et al., 1986; King County, 1989). A partial list of some of the reported statistics and events is given below: • Between February 1, 1980, and November, 1987, forty trash collectors in the City of Los Angeles experienced chemical burns, 50 inhaled noxious fumes, and 120 came in contact with unidentified chemicals (King County, 1989) • Elemental sodium disposed of in municipal waste exploded when it contacted the damp fill at a landfill in the presence of air (Purin et al., 1984) • Waste chlorine caused a fire in the collection truck, resulting in noxious odours, nausea, and eye irritation (Purin et al., 1984) • Numerous incidents have been reported of corrosive material squirting out of containers when crushed by heavy equipment at the landfills, with resulting injuries to the operators (Purin et al., 1984) • Reports of eye irritations and loss of vision in incidents involving swimming pool chemicals, motor oil, and paint thinner are common (Mitchell et al., 1986) • Three injuries per month have been reported where exploding aerosol cans are to blame (Mitchell et al., 1986) While the source of the wastes causing these incidents can not be determined, the activities of handling, loading, unloading, transferring and compacting household wastes have all been suggested as potentially dangerous when HHW's are a component of the waste stream (Mitchell et al., 1986). Unlike sewer or landfill 10 disposal problems with HHW's, these effects may in most cases be directly attributed to HHW's rather than a combination of HHW and commercial wastes. 2.3 Surveys Regarding HHW's HHW's have been the subject of several surveys looking at public opinion and responsiveness. Most of these surveys require the respondents to provide some indication of their anticipated response or of their current waste generation and disposal practices, and other factors which may be perceived as reflections on the image of the respondent. Platek et al., 1985, discuss many of the factors that may affect the answers given to questions of this nature. They suggest that respondents will tend to chose answers that are most favourable to their self-esteem, and that they think will make them look intelligent, thoughtful, or in accord with social norms. Also, a tendency to be polite or cooperative may make respondents slant their answers towards the response that they feel the interviewer wants to hear. These factors may become significant in the responses given to questions of current social awareness or issues that arose strong feelings. Platek reports issues such as birth control, smoking, drinking, and abortion are particularly susceptible to these affects. Also, a related bias Platek identified occurs when respondents are overly optimistic about future behaviour plans in response to hypothetical situations. Platek suggests the responses these kinds of questions yield are seldom indicative of the actual respondent behaviour once the situation actually comes to pass. Of relevance to a Vancouver area HHW survey are several similar studies that have been performed on the west coast of the United States in Washington and California states. Summaries of these surveys are presented here, along with other surveys and data from other countries. 2.3.1 Marin County, CA, and New Orleans, LA, USA 11 Rathje et al., 1987, studied the amount of HHW disposed of in domestic garbage in residential areas of Marin County, California, and New Orleans, Louisiana. These researchers sorted through a total of 26.8 tons of garbage from single family detached dwellings, and recorded the weight of all household items containing hazardous wastes excluding empty contaminated containers. A summary of some of the findings is given below: • The predominant waste type by weight in both areas was household maintenance items, including paints, thinners, stains, and glues, at 25.85 grams per household per week in New Orleans and 15.52 grams per week in Marin County (43.4 and 27.8 percent of the total HHW respectively) • In the number of items, batteries and electrical equipment were the predominant waste types in both areas, followed by selected cosmetics • In the New Orleans area (of lower economic status than Marin County), the second largest waste type by weight was automotive maintenance wastes, at 12.9 grams per household per week (21.2 percent of the total HHW). In Marin County, the second most predominant waste by weight was batteries and electrical equipment, at 26.6 percent of the total. • Pesticides comprised 8.3 percent of the HHW found in Marin County wastes, but only 1.0 percent of New Orleans garbage. • Other wastes, such as household cleaners, prescription drugs, and miscellaneous wastes, were similar between areas in the amount and percent of the total HHW they represent. 2.3.2 Metro Seattle, WA, USA In a telephone survey of area residents, Galvin et al., 1982, researched public awareness of HHW's and the preferences of the respondents towards different collection methods for HHW's. Five hundred and fourteen respondents residing in single family detached dwellings were interviewed. The proportion of homes that contained some specific toxic substances, as either products or as wastes, was determined to be: 12 Cleaners - 98% Polishes - 80% Paints or Thinners - 78% Motor Oil - 59% Pesticides - 56% Fertilizers - 56% Chemical Drain Openers - 55% Weed Killers - 49% Antifreeze - 41% Wood Preservatives - 34% Also reported were the following conclusions: • About half of the respondents change their own motor oil or antifreeze. • Only 28 percent of the respondents had disposed of any of the toxic substances, however, with the remainder being stored or used to completion. • Most wastes were thrown out with household garbage; in descending order of popularity, other disposal methods included sewer, ground application, and special waste disposal facilities. When given a choice of six options for disposing of HHW's, respondents indicated the greatest preference for a permanent neighbourhood collection site with no cost for disposal. Second was a neighbourhood "Dump Day", providing collection for one or two days at a temporary site, and third was a household collection program where the service would come to respondents houses. Services that charged for their use were the least popular. 2.3.3 King County, WA, USA King County, 1989, reported on a telephone survey of King County area residents in respect to their awareness of HHW's and their preferences for collection of these wastes. The survey found a low public awareness of what may constitute a HHW. Over half of the respondents could not name a hazardous material in their house, yet over 90 percent had at least one item on a list of hazardous materials stored in their house. When 13 respondents were asked about their collection preferences and their willingness to pay for collection, the following results were obtained: • 74 percent of respondents indicated they would be likely to utilize a curbside collection program for HHW's. This was a higher percentage than those who indicated they would use either special collection events in their neighbourhood (65%) or a permanent collection depot (58%). • When asked how much they would be willing to pay for collection, almost three quarters (74%) responded with less than $5 or nothing. • Roughly half of the respondents would be willing to travel up to ten miles to get to a collection depot; a further one third of respondents would only travel up to two miles. 2.3.4 Clark and Skamania Counties, WA, USA In the development of a Moderate Risk Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Sturdevant et al., 1989, conducted a survey of 678 area residents regarding their generation of HHW's, including empty containers of hazardous products. Most respondents lived in single detached dwellings, with only 4 percent in apartments. In addition, some of the respondents (12 percent) reported they operated a home business or farm operation. Some of the relevant conclusions are summarized below: • 98 percent of respondents possessed some form of hazardous material in their home or on their property • 86 percent generated some form of HHW • Non-urban respondents tended to generate more automotive wastes than urban areas • Fewer apartment dwellers generated HHW's than did detached dwelling respondents • The most prevalent waste types (including empty containers) were motor oils (47 percent of the total quantity in weight), antifreeze (12 percent), batteries (9 percent), paints/solvents (9 percent), and household cleaners (6 percent). Other waste types include gasoline, pesticides, 14 fertilizers, and miscellaneous wastes with less than 1 percent of the total each. • 64 percent of respondents indicated they would dispose of HHW's in garbage, with a further 35 percent using transfer stations or self-hauling to a landfill. • About a quarter of the respondents indicated they use household drains for HHW disposal. Similarly, as many respondents said they use their yard for waste disposal. Thirty two percent use some form of recycling for HHW's, and three percent use storm sewers. • In a comparison of collection methods, respondents were asked whether they would use a service if it (a) were free, (b) were $5 or less, and (c) were more than $5. More respondents were willing to pay for individual household collection of HHW's than were willing to pay for either drop-off stations or collection days. 2.3.5 Association of Bay Area Governments, CA, USA Russell and Meiorin, 1985, report on a survey of small quantity generators (including households and businesses generating less than 1000 kg of hazardous waste per month) in three regions of the Bay Area of California. The objectives of the survey were to: (1) identify residual amounts of HHW's disposed of; (2) identify types of HHW's disposed of; (3) identify the means by which respondents dispose of HHW's; (4) determine the level of concern of respondents regarding HHW's; and, (5) to evaluate the willingness of respondents to participate in various HHW collection programs. In the household section of this work, a total of 295 telephone interviews were conducted in the three cities involved (100 in San Francisco, 100 in San Rafael, and 95 in Hayward). Respondents in each of the three areas were mixed in terms of education, income, and type of residence (apartment and detached dwellings were included together). The definition of HHW in this survey included empty containers that once contained HHW's; respondents were asked to estimate the residual content of containers as well. A summary of the major findings follows: 15 Most households used some of products on the list of hazardous products, with household cleaners the most prevalent at 93 percent of respondents possessing some About one in seven households were currently storing HHW's for future disposal Among the containers disposed of, the most numerous were motor oil containers, household cleaner containers, and, except in San Francisco, pool chemical containers. The waste types with the largest amount of residual in disposed containers were motor oil, paints, thinners, cleaners, antifreeze, and radiator flushes. In total, the average amount of HHW's disposed of was 1.8 to 3.5 gallons per household per year. The most common disposal methods for HHW's was throwing out with the regular garbage (90 to 100 percent of most waste were disposed of this way). The second most popular method was disposal in sewers. Recycling, storage, and storm drain disposal methods were not used except for motor oils and antifreeze. In two of the three cities, respondents in apartments discarded fewer containers than those in houses; in the third, the number of containers was similar. Residual volumes of waste were higher in the two apartment areas, however. Of the three collection options for all HHW's (community dump day, permanent community collection site, and household collection service), respondents suggested they would use the permanent facility to the highest degree, with the household collection a close second. The community dump day was third, but a majority of respondents still would use it. The majority of respondents would be willing to pay $2 or less for the use of a collection facility. In rural areas, respondents would be willing to travel less than 20 miles to get to a facility, while in San Francisco, this distance dropped to less than 10 miles. Massachusetts 16 Masley, 1987, summarized the findings of a survey conducted by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering which looked at public opinion on the issue of the disposal of HHW's. The overall conclusion of the study was that public concern over this issue had grown to the extent where the public was willing to support additional spending to provide collection services. Some of the specific results of the survey were: • In a depot collection system, the majority of respondents from urban areas would be willing to travel less than 5 miles to get to a depot. Respondents from rural areas would be willing to travel slightly farther. • The average respondent would travel to a depot twice a year. • Most respondents preferred not to pay for collection, but if forced the most popular payment method was through sales tax. The amount they would be willing to pay was less than 2 percent. • The method of collection that received the highest preference from the most respondents was curbside collection, closely followed by a temporary neighbourhood collection day. However, the average overall support for a temporary depot collection program was higher. Second in average overall support was a permanent neighbourhood depot system. 2.3.7 Waste Characterization Surveys Studies have been performed which look at the percentage and composition of HHW's in existing waste streams, primarily solid waste destined for landfills. Table 3 summarizes the results of three of these studies. Many other jurisdictions have used this and similar data to estimate the total HHW load entering municipal landfills (Russell and Meiorin, 1985; Pope-Reid Assoc., 1988; King County, 1989). In general, depending on whether empty containers are included as wastes or not, the per capita estimates based on this data seem to range from negligible quantities (Pope-Reid Assoc., 1988) to 3.5 pounds per year (Mitchell et al., 1986) and 17 Table 3: Summary of Waste Characterization Studies Ref.' s Location Details and Findings 1,2 Los Angeles, California - looked for empty and full containers of HHW's at landfills - 0.0045% of total garbage estimated to be HHW - in mixed commercial/residential loads, 0.28% was hazardous - this breaks down as follows: 46% oil and lubricants; 29% paint and building supplies; 20% gasoline and solvents; 5% other wastes. - this total includes some commercial wastes 1 Berkeley, California - survey at landfill suggested 16.2% of waste loads had some hazardous waste - of this, paint or paint cans comprised 53%, oil or oil cans 32%, pesticides 8%, and light ballasts 7% 2 Puget Sound, Washington - residential, commercial, industrial, and self-haul solid wastes sampled at landfill - self-haul wastes contained highest percent of hazardous wastes, especially solvents and pesticides - HHW's, and the estimated annual generation in tons per year, were: oils (346.8); cleaners (297.2); paints (254.0); batteries (220.2); cosmetics (80.9); medicine (33.2); pesticides (19.2); adhesives (18.4); aerosols (17.9); and others at 15 tons/year or less each * References: 1 - Association of Bay Area Governments, 1985 2 - Pope-Reid Associates, 1988 as high as 3.5 gallons per year (Russell and Meiorin, 1985), and from 0.0045 percent of the solid waste stream to one percent (Russell and Meiorin, 1985; Pope-Reid Assoc., 1988). The most common types of HHW's found in all studies included household cleaners, motor oils, paints, thinners, batteries, medicines, cosmetics, pesticides, and aerosols, although not in any consistent order. The most consistently prevalent waste type was motor oil. 2.4 HHW Collection Programs 18 2.4.1 B.C. Regional Special Waste Storage Program Currently in British Columbia HHW's are collected through a province-wide network of eight depots operated by the provincial government (Ward, 1985). Special wastes are received by appointment with trained staff, and are packed and sealed in 205 litre steel drums before being stored until transported to a suitable licensed disposal facility. Wastes are transported from these storage sites to disposal facilities in Oregon, Idaho, or Ontario between once and three times per year. No publicity of these facilities is made, as the cost of operation is high and must be covered out of the normal Ministry budget (Goldberg, 1987). The amount and types of wastes collected by this operation are therefore not representative of the province as a whole, as the sample population from which they collect is biased towards those concerned enough with the issue of HHW to have contacted the Ministry. 2.4.2 Chilliwack HHW Collection A collection day for HHW's was held in Chilliwack in the fall of 1989. A single, temporary depot was used for one day to provide a free disposal of hazardous wastes for the public, although no measures were taken to screen out small quantity commercial generators of hazardous wastes. Wastes received were classified according to Transport of Dangerous Goods classifications, and included: (O'Byrne, 1989) • 840 litres of Corrosive Liquid • 100 kg of Corrosive Solid • 1470 litres of Poisonous Liquid • 700 kg of Poisonous Solid • 100 kg of Flammable Solid • 1470 litres of Flammable Liquid • 150 kg of waste aerosols • 50 kg of articles containing PCB's 19 • 1000 litres of Miscellaneous Environmentally Hazardous Substances Also received were 10 pallets of waste paints, 15 205-litre drums of lubricants, 3 pallets of batteries (presumably lead/acid), and one pallet of propane tanks. Cars arrived at the depot prior to opening and remained in lineups. An unabated steady flow of traffic was reported until closing of the depot eight hours later. Five hundred vehicles were estimated to have arrived at the depot. 2.4.3 Association of Bay Area Governments, CA, USA The Association of Bay Area Governments in California represents several cities in the area who perform special HHW collection events at temporary depots. In a summary report of 40 separate collection events, Meiorin, 1987, calculated participation rates (number of households participating divided by the total number of households serviced) for these events to vary from 0.09 percent to 1.55 percent. The amount of HHW collected was measured in terms of the packaged, drummed waste (205-litre drums) ready for shipment to a licensed disposal facility. This amount of waste varied from 0.18 to 1.24 drums per household participating. While the amount of waste collected per participant was relatively constant, the participation rate was notably higher in smaller communities than in larger ones. This was suggested to be due to the shorter travel distances, the better communications, and the greater community spirit that may be found in the smaller areas. Of repeat collection programs in the area, the trend seemed to be towards an increasing participation rate and an increasing generation rate. The types of wastes collected at one representative collection program were, in percent by volume; 31.87% oil-based paints, 15.38% solvents, 12.09% latex paints, 9.89% pesticides, 8.79% empty oil cans, 8.24% cleaners, 4.95% waste oil, 4.40% acids/bases, 1.65% petroleum products, and 2.75% other waste types. 2.4.4 Alberta 20 Within Alberta there are several different collection programs for HHW's, all of which take advantage of the disposal facility situated in the province. In the City of Edmonton, special HHW collection days run at temporary depots are used to collect the wastes (Jacob, 1989; Cuts, 1989). As well, certain days at the hazardous waste transfer station located in the city are open for public to bring in their HHW for sorting, packaging, and transfer to the disposal facility. In recent collection events the City has reduced the amount of HHW collected by providing an area or a separate event where unwanted paints may be brought and exchanged with other participants (Jacob, 1989). The City of Calgary provides HHW collection at all fire stations for designated one-day events (Jacob, 1989; Cuts, 1989). These wastes are then transferred to a central depot where they are sorted and prepared for transport to ultimate disposal. Also, collection is provided on an ongoing basis at the regional dump, where households may deliver their own wastes. Other features worth noting about the Alberta collection programs include (Cuts, 1989): • Publicity of upcoming collection events is provided by volunteer groups and private companies. The effectiveness of the publicity is thought to be the single largest factor in determining the amount of waste that will be collected. • No wastes are refused at the collection programs even if they are not hazardous, in order to maintain public support and avoid bad publicity • The largest quantity of wastes received is paint, although waste types are not individually inventoried to keep costs down. • Special door-to-door collection of HHW was tried in Edmonton by Chem-Security Ltd., but was found to be too expensive. 2.4.5 Seattle/King County, WA, USA Washington State is serviced by a wide variety of HHW collection services operated by private firms, cities, 21 and fire departments. ChemPro, 1989, summarized the collections performed in three areas of Seattle-King County in the spring of 1989. The events were temporary depot collections, and all types of HHW's were accepted. Some of the wastes received, and their drummed weights, are as follows (ChemPro, 1989): • Oil-based Paints: 25,500 kg in labpacks, 170 kg in bulk drum • Latex Paints: 18,800 kg in labpacks, 1200 kg in bulk drums • Solvents: 11,000 kg in bulk drums • Motor Oil: 6,100 kg in bulk drums • Acids/Bases: 2,700 kg in labpacks Other waste types collected included PCP's (840 kg), PCB's (270 kg), Ni-Cad batteries (150 kg), and asbestos (1,200 kg). In total, 174,320 kilograms of HHW's were collected. King County has also contracted for a private company to provide a mobile HHW collection service to smaller areas in the county through the use of two specially designed trailers. Initial reception to this program has been positive beyond expectations (King County, 1989a). 2.4.6 Winnipeg, Manitoba Winnipeg provides annual collection of HHW's through temporary, single depot collection programs, and has done so since 1986. In 1986, the number of participants was 286, and a total of 12,275 litres of waste was accepted (Thompson, 1986). Of the wastes received, the majority in both 1986 and 1987 was paint and associated products (1567 and 1478 litres respectively) (Manitoba, 1988; Thompson, 1986). Second was motor oils, with 1364 litres in 1986 and 357 litres in 1987. Other wastes received included all those typically seen in other collections. Of note in the Winnipeg collection programs were some of the operating parameters, particularly (Thompson, 22 1986): • Wastes that could be recycled were separated by the staff, and included car batteries and lube oil. • Wastes received in unopened condition, such as a large number of cleaners, were set aside for the staff to remove if desired. • When wastes were bulked, the empty containers were discarded in a bin destined for the local landfill. Other suitable liquid wastes were flushed down a local manhole with copious quantities of water. 2.4.7 Other Collection Programs The list of HHW collection programs currently being performed is long, with 530 events having occurred in the United States prior to November, 1986 (Mattheis, 1987). The majority of these programs are single day collections, although many are becoming permanent operations (Goldberg, 1987). In a growing number of instances, individual household collections are being performed as both trial and permanent programs, particularly in California (Jacob, 1989). An example of this is a small-scale program of curbside collection of HHW's established and currently operating in Los Angeles to gather data for the design of a full-scale program. In San Diego, householders with HHW to dispose of call the county and are screened for the kinds of wastes they have, with unacceptable, recyclable, or reusable wastes being referred to other, more suitable programs. Any HHW that is acceptable to the county is then picked up by appointment at a later date. Another option involves special vehicles responding to calls from residents with wastes to dispose of coupled with monthly curbside collection as is the case in Pinneberg, West Germany (Goldberg, 1987). 23 3.0 Methodology 3.1 Study Objectives As HHW collection is relatively new to most areas and has not yet been practised in Vancouver, the objectives of this research are wide in outlook and intended to provide a basis for more detailed investigations of specific issues. The subject areas of this research include an investigation of the basis for developing a collection program for HHW's in Vancouver, and an evaluation of the manner in which the success of the collection program is influenced by the operating parameters. Specifically, the topics investigated are: • the quantity of HHW that is generated • the reasons for collecting HHW's, including environmental impact, public and worker safety, and public awareness • the effect of various scenarios for collection facility operation on the amount of wastes collected • the importance and validity of public concerns regarding HHW collection programs 3.2 Wastes Included in This Study The various products and wastes that may be considered household hazardous wastes are discussed in Section 2.1. For the purposes of this study, it is necessary to define HHW as designated wastes/products that may be used in residential dwellings, and that would likely be.considered hazardous/special wastes were they generated either by industry or in sufficient quantity to be regulated by existing Special Waste Regulations (B.C. Reg.63/88). Subsequently, the wastes included in this study are those listed in Table 4 below. For wastes that were not anticipated to be in typical household waste streams, and for any materials that may otherwise 24 Table 4: HHW Categories Used in Survey 1) CLEANERS AND POLISHES: • tub, tile, window, floor, and sink cleaners; oven cleaners; wood and metal polishes; disinfectants. 2) DRAIN OPENERS OR CLEANERS: • products to unclog or clean drains 3) L A T E X PAINTS: • water based paints, cans or sprays 4) OIL-BASE PAINTS: • waterproof paints, cans or sprays 5) WOOD PRESERVERS: • weather protectors, fencepost preservers, creosote 6) PAINT THINNERS: • paint strippers, solvents, thinners, and brush cleaners, used or old and unwanted 7) ADHESIVES: • contact cements; water and solvent based glues. 8) PESTICIDES: • herbicides, fungicides, insecticides; rat poisons, slug bait; weed killers. 9) USED BATTERIES: • regular household batteries, dry cells 10) LEAD/ACID BATTERIES: • car, truck, or motorcycle batteries 11) MOTOR OIL, OIL FILTERS: • used car, truck, or other engine oil, and filters 12) ANTIFREEZE AND COOLANT: • radiator fluids from draining or flushing of radiators 13) FUELS: • non-refillable propane/butane cylinders; gas, diesel fuel; kerosene; camp stove gas; lighter or barbeque fluids. 14) P E T R O L E U M PRODUCTS: • greases, lubricants; starting fluids, gas additives; carburettor cleaners; brake, transmission, power steering fluids; mixing oils, chain oils. 15) SWIMMING POOL CHEMICALS: • chlorine, other cleaners or maintenance products 16) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS 17) ACIDS AND BASES: • hydrochloric, muriatic acids; brick cleaners; lye. 18) SMOKE DETECTORS 19) MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICALS: • pure chemical products, chemistry kits; hobby or craft chemicals, glazes, wine making chemicals; photographic chemicals; refrigerant coolants; fibreglass resins or hardeners. 20) OTHER MISCELLANEOUS: • any wastes felt to deserve careful handling or special consideration in disposal 25 concern respondents, two general categories (Miscellaneous Chemicals, and Other Miscellaneous) were included. This list may not include all possible HHW's, and may include categories where a certain generic brand is not hazardous; the intention, however, was to cover as many areas as possible without including too much detail. It was assumed that being too specific in the waste categories would result in a loss of interest on behalf of the respondents, and a decrease in the quality of the data collected. Also, for the purposes of this study, "liquid" wastes were assumed to include all but batteries (ie: dry cells), lead/acid batteries, prescription drugs, and smoke detectors. Some exceptions to this were propane gas in compressed cylinders and some solid pesticides, but the number of these exceptions was assumed to be small in relation to the total amount of the waste types. The significance of this assumption is small as it is intended to assist in totalling the reported quantities of wastes, and does not affect the total reported quantity. 3.3 Study Design and Data Collection Program The data required for this study was collected through the distribution and completion of questionnaire forms in three areas throughout Vancouver. The study areas were selected to differentiate between types of residence (apartment versus detached dwellings), and income level or economic status. Data was substantiated where possible by the inspection of waste loads containing HHW's, and through reviews of literature detailing collection programs and similar surveys. The following sections discuss the details of the methods employed in these procedures. 3.3.1 Questionnaire Design A draft version of the questionnaire form was developed through reviewing pertinent literature, determining what questions could produce the desired information to meet the study objectives, and consultation with advisors. This draft was tested on eight volunteer respondents, with varied backgrounds and levels of exposure 26 to hazardous wastes issues. The ability of the respondents to correctly interpret the questions was assessed, and changes were made to correct for ambiguity. A second draft version was produced and tested on a further six respondents, and was also shown to previous reviewers and the study's sponsors. Comments arising from this process were again incorporated into the questionnaire, and a final version was developed and submitted for approval by the University of British Columbia Ethics Committee. This final version was then distributed in the study. The final questionnaire used in this study consisted of a covering letter and three sections of questions, referred to as Parts I, II, and III. A copy of the covering letter and the three questionnaire sections are included in Appendix A. The questions included in each section, and the reasons for including them, are discussed below. Part I: Part I consisted of the following questions: Does someone at your house or in your apartment 1) perform house maintenance? (house painting, for example) 2) perform yard or garden maintenance? 3) keep a car or truck at ,the residence? If yes, does someone at the residence do their own oil changes on the car or truck? How long have you lived at your residence? The questions in Part I were intended to provide a means by which the respondents could be separated into groups depending on the activities they perform which may generate HHW's. These activities included the use of paints and paint thinners, pesticides, lead/acid batteries, petroleum products, and waste motor oils. The additional question of duration of residence was included to determine if this affects the amount of stored wastes the respondents may have. Part II: Part II dealt with the inventory of HHW's, the rate of generation of HHW's, and the methods of Yes No years 27 disposal currently being used by generators. A list similar to Table 4 was provided, with instructions that it be used in answering questions in Part II. Questions 1 and 2 are shown below, complete with the explanatory preamble: (Question 2 had an example response that is not shown here, but may be seen in Appendix A) Examples of the types of wastes included under each heading are shown on the previous page, which may be detached. This section requires that you estimate the amount of waste you have or produce, which may require some checking in your cupboards or workshop. Please use weights or volumes as shown on the container labels, if possible. NOTE: Please include only materials you wish to dispose of in these answers. Many of these materials are useful products, and are only "wastes" if they are old or unused and you want to get rid of them. Other materials, such as dead batteries, are truly wastes. 1) How much of the following household materials do you currently have that you want to dispose of? < LIST O F WASTE TYPES > 2) How often do you think you would have these kinds of wastes to throw out or dispose of? (Choose the answer closest to your response, and estimate how much waste you might have) Frequency Options: 0 - never, do not have this kind of waste 1 - once a month (or more often) 2 - once a year 3 - once every two years 4 - once only < LIST OF WASTE TYPES > Question 1 was designed to determine how much waste of each waste class exists at the respondents house at the time of the survey, either as stored wastes or as wastes currently generated. Question 2 asked the respondent to review the same list of HHW classes, and to estimate their generation rate for these wastes by choosing a frequency period and a quantity generated during that period (the example response was provided for further clarification). Question 3 asked the respondent to assume they had these wastes, and to indicate their probable disposal 28 method. Question 3 is shown below: 3) Assume you did have wastes like these: what method of disposal would you use, given that no collection system currently exists? (mark the appropriate disposal option, using the following list of options:) Disposal Options: 1 - store 2 - throw out with garbage 3 - pour down drain 4 - pour or drain onto the ground 5 - recycling or collection facility 6 - into street drain or storm drain < LIST OF WASTES > Part III: The questions in Part III dealt with the different collection scenarios that could be used for HHW's. Respondents were asked to assume that they had wastes of the kind listed on Table 4. The questionnaire text is shown in Appendix A. Collection options investigated in this section included individual household collection, central depot collection, and neighbourhood depot collection. Examples of all three collection methods were provided in the questionnaire. Question 1 was intended to determine the respondents likelihood of using each of the collection systems. Question 2 was a three part question dealing with the individual household collection option only. Question 3 dealt with depot collection programs, both neighbourhood and central. Question 4 was a two-part question dealing with cost recovery, and the willingness of the respondent to pay for HHW collection. The final question, Question 5, asked if respondents were aware of the collection facility currently provided by the provincial Ministry of Environment. The intent was to determine if this program is effective. In total, three versions of the questionnaire were used. A complete version like that in Appendix A was used 29 for all single detached dwellings, as it was possible to meet with the respondents and assist them in the completion of the forms. Two partial versions were used for most apartment dwellers, as it was necessary to drop off the questionnaires at random addresses without the ability to contact the individual residents due to access restrictions. These versions of the questionnaire consisted of a cover letter, Part I as described above, and either Part II or Part III but not both. This approach was used because it was felt that recipients would be less likely to respond to the questionnaire in its full, relatively long form without the assistance and influence of the interviewers. These two versions of the questionnaire are included in Appendix B. As the nature of the questionnaire was that of a preliminary investigation, no allowances were made in the analysis of the data for any influence the use of two versions may have had on the data. 3.3.2 Respondent Selection Respondents were selected from three areas in Vancouver, chosen to allow comparison of factors that may affect HHW generation. An additional factor, for ease of follow-up garbage load dissections, was that each of the three areas be within the area serviced by a single garbage collection route. Table 5 summarizes census data for each of the three zones selected for the survey. Zone A was located in the Kitsilano area, bounded on the north by Cornwall, the south by Fourth Avenue, and by Trafalgar and Maple to the west and east respectively. Respondents in this zone were apartment dwellers only. Zone B was located in the Dunbar-Southlands area, between Blenheim and Camosun Streets on 36th, 37th, and 38th Avenues. This area consists of only single, detached dwellings, and is well above the city average in both property value and average household income. 30 Table 5: Characteristics of Zones Zone Dwelling Tvpe Dwelling Value Average Income Language A 1% Detached 99% Apartment $141,967 $30,214 97% English B 95% Detached 5% Apartment $196,294 $54,736 94% English C 82% Detached 18% Apartment $108,044 $33,927 74% English City Average 53% Detached 46% Apartment 1% Other $127,311 $36,086 89% English Note: Data from 1986 Census Records Zone C was located in the Renfrew-Collingwood area, bound to the east by Boundary Road and to the west by Rupert, on 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th Avenues. This zone was also solely single, detached dwellings, but of lower than average property value and household income. In the detached dwellings zones (B and C), respondents were selected by the following process: 1) Distribution of a flyer by hand-delivery to all homes in the zone, describing the survey (see Appendix A). The flyer mentioned that a gift of an informative wheel device regarding HHW's would be given to any participants. 2) Contact residents of zone randomly by telephone during the day and evening, asking if they are interested in participating in the survey. A copy of the telephone script used is included in Appendix C. Two people were employed in this task, each taking responsibility for one of the two detached dwelling zones. 3) Appointments were made with between 55 and 60 interested residents to either complete the questionnaire with an interviewer or for sections of the questionnaire to be dropped off with them, to be picked up later. The zones were divided up between the same two people who 31 placed the phone calls asking for participants. In the initial contact by telephone, confirmation of the respondents address was made. Due to the personal attention of the interviewers in questionnaire delivery, completion, and collection, it was not necessary to ensure contact with the "head" of the household as most if not all of the residents of each household were aware of the survey by the time it was collected. In the apartment zone, a similar procedure to the single detached dwellings met with failure due to an inability to gain access to the buildings during the day, for the dropping off or collecting of questionnaires. Therefore, a random distribution of shorter questionnaire forms was used (see Section 3.3.1 and Appendix B), complete with self-addressed envelopes for respondents to return the completed forms. Respondents were provided with a telephone number should they require assistance. Two people were used to drop off these questionnaires at the apartments. 3.3.3 Questionnaire Completion In zone A, the majority of the questionnaires were completed by the respondents without assistance or direction from an interviewer. Once completed, the questionnaire was mailed by the respondent to the University offices. In these cases, the respondents interpretation of the questions was a result of the phrasing and clarity of the written question alone. In zones B and C, respondents were given three options for completing the forms, as outlined below: 1) Parts I and II would be dropped off with willing respondents, and Part III would be completed with a survey worker when they collect the completed sections. 2) All three parts of the questionnaire would be dropped off, and collected at once with the opportunity to assist the respondent at that time. 32 3) A survey worker would complete the forms with the respondents, asking the questions orally and showing the respondent lists of appropriate responses for multiple choice questions. The reason for the lack of uniformity in questionnaire completion methods was that not all respondents were available for interview sessions. It was felt that less bias would be introduced in this manner than by only using respondents who were at home during the day. The two people who contacted the respondents initially and who dropped off the questionnaires were also the people who assisted in the questionnaire completion and collection. Each set of questionnaire forms required less than one half hour to complete. The time required for the distribution and collection of all questionnaire forms in the two detached dwelling zones was roughly one month, with a further week for data entry. The apartment zone required two random distributions, each less than one day in duration. The majority of mail-in forms were received within two weeks of the distribution date, although some were received up to one month following distribution. 3.3.4 Interpretation Methods and Analysis of Data All data collected was loaded into a database file using the program DBase III+. The people who collected the questionnaires also entered the data. One person entered all data from completed forms that were mailed in. Results were tabulated and counted using DBase commands. A translated copy of the database was used as a Lotus 123 spreadsheet, where some data selection and editing was performed. Statistical analysis was performed both by Lotus and by using the statistical package Systat. All computer work was performed on a personal computer. Interpretation methods for the data collected depended on the nature of the data. Four main question types 33 were used in this survey, and the method of analysis was different for each type. The question types used are defined below: 1) Single Response Questions: These include all questions to which only "yes" or "no" responses are applicable, and multiple choice questions to which only one response is applicable. 2) Quantity Response Questions: These are the questions which ask the respondent for a specific quantity or value as a response. 3) Rank Response Questions: Such questions are those where respondents are asked to rank or rate the alternative responses on a relative or specified scale. 4) Text Response Questions: These are the questions which ask respondents to write out any responses they may have. Table 6 summarizes the questions used in this survey by question type. For single response questions, analysis was based on a zone-to-zone comparison of the proportion of respondents selecting each response. This comparison was analyzed statistically using confidence intervals for the difference between two binomial parameters (Walpole and Myers, 1978). For quantity response questions where a normal distribution could be assumed, a T-test was used to compare quantity means between zones (Walpole and Myers, 1978). This analysis was limited to Part I, Question 4, as it was the only question to which a normal distribution could be applicable. Other non-normally distributed responses were analyzed by developing distribution diagrams and by non-statistical comparison of responses between zones. Where useful, the transformations provided by the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used (Wilkinson, 1987; Conover, 1980; Sachs, 1982; Randies, 1979). These tests develop Chi-Squared statistics from data transformed to ranks. However, these transformations are drastic, and the results are limited in accuracy and usefulness (Wilkinson, 1987). Rank response questions were analyzed using the non-parametric statistical method of the Friedman Test 34 Table 6: Classification of Questions by Question Type Ouestion Tvpe Single Quantity Rank Text Question Response Response Response Response Part I Q.l X Q.2 X Q.3,a-b X Q.4 X Part II Q.l X Q.2 X Q3 X Part III Q.l,a-c X Q.2a X Q.2b X Q.2c X Q.3,a-b X Q.3c X Q.3d X Q.4a X X Q.4b X Q.5 X (Conover, 1980; Siegel, 1956; Wilkinson, 1987). The type of Friedman test used was the Chi-Squared procedure, acceptable for rank-responses where the sample size is large (Siegel, 1956). Comparisons between zones were performed by multiple comparisons using the Friedman test as described in Sprent, 1989, or by comparing proportions of the respondents selecting certain options, as in the single response questions. Also, Kendals coefficient of concordance was used as a means of comparing ranked responses between zones (Wilkinson, 1987; Conover, 1980). Data was extrapolated at times to larger populations, including the City of Vancouver as a whole and the entire Lower Mainland area. This extrapolation was done based on similar dwelling types. That is, all single detached dwellings were assigned an average waste quantity based on the average of those surveyed, and all apartments were assigned an average waste quantity based on the surveyed apartments. No other differences were accounted for. 35 3.4 Confirmation of Data Data collected through this survey may be subject to error from sources such as respondent under- or over-estimation of waste quantities, and respondent unwillingness to admit to some waste disposal practices. Measures were taken in order to provide some degree of verification of the data gathered in this survey, as described here. Most of these measures are rough in nature, and are useful only as general indicators. In addition, responses to the questions in Part III of the survey may be biased not only in this survey but in other similar surveys as well, also limiting the usefulness of this as a verification measure. 3.4.1 Wasteload Dissection Each zone surveyed lies completely within separate areas serviced by single weekly routes for garbage collection vehicles. Verification of the types of HHW's discarded with the household solid waste stream were made by routing one of these weekly collection vehicles from each zone to a designated area at the regional landfill. Cross-sections of these wasteloads were then sorted through, with all HHW's being separated and typed. In this manner, the disposal practices and types of wastes that may be discarded in the solid waste stream were verified. No effort was made to accurately quantify the proportion of HHW in this waste stream. 3.4.2 Other Surveys Other surveys have been performed which look at HHW quantities, generation rates, disposal practices, and public awareness of HHW issues. From reported data for these surveys, comparisons were made with the data collected here. The verification provided by this procedure is limited due to differences in the data reporting basis and data collection techniques used in these surveys. 3.4.3 Collection Programs 36 Collection programs have been designed and performed in several jurisdictions, with many publishing data gathered such as quantities disposed of, and percentage response. Also, some collection programs require users to complete questionnaires at the time of disposing of their wastes. Such data was compared with data generated in this survey, with the restrictions due to data collection and reporting applicable here as well. 3.4.4 Data Extrapolation Data extrapolation to the City of Vancouver as a whole and the Lower Mainland area was performed through multiplying average waste quantities per respondent by the number of dwellings in the City or Lower Mainland. Averages were used for apartment dwellers and detached dwelling residents separately, with no other factors being considered. The validity of this approach is discussed further in Section 5. 37 4.0 Results A complete set of the data obtained in this survey is included in Appendix D. Section 4.1 summarizes the degree of response and the participation rates for the questionnaire survey. The subsequent three sections summarize the data obtained for each of the three parts of the questionnaire. 4.1 Participation Levels Informal records were kept of the proportion of households contacted who agreed to participate in the survey. Respondents in Zones B and C were contacted by telephone following the distribution of a notification flyer. Of those residents contacted by telephone, about one in three would agree to participate, and 90 percent of these would see the questionnaire process through to completion. Telephone contact was only established with about half of the households where such contact was attempted, due to people not being home when called or due to a lack of spoken English within the household. In total, contact was attempted with about 300 households in each of the two zones in order to get responses from at least 50 homes in each zone. In the apartment zone, initial telephone contact with about 25 respondents resulting in less than three completing the questionnaires. The use of mail-in questionnaire forms, however, met with a return of about 30 percent for the Part II questionnaire forms and about 35 percent for the Part III forms. 4.2 Part I Results Table 7 is a summary of the results to Questions 1,2 and 3 of Part I; these data are also graphically presented in Figure 1. House maintenance and garden maintenance are performed by a statistically similar (a = 0.05) proportion of 38 Figure 1: Respondent Information Percent of Respondents 100 80 H 60 H 40 H 20 i Work on House Work on Garden Own a Vehicle Change Vehicle Oil Activity of Respondents Zone A Zone B Zone C All Zones Table 7: Respondent Information Zone Maintain Dwelling Percentage of Respondents Who: Maintain Own Garden Vehicle Change Oil A B C 45% 73% 76% 28% 83% 90% 83% 87% 86% 13% 17% 31% All Zones 60% 61% 85% 19% the respondents in both of the single detached dwelling zones (B and C), with about 75 percent performing house maintenance and 85 percent performing garden maintenance in both zones. Respondents in Zone A, consisting of only apartment dwellings, perform these tasks significantly less (a = 0.05). Only 45 percent of Zone A respondents maintain their own dwelling, while 28 percent perform garden maintenance. Vehicle ownership is statistically similar between zones at a = 0.05. The proportion of respondents who change their own oil, while only 20 percent overall, is almost twice as high in Zone C as it is in Zone A. At a = 0.10, Zones A and B both change their own oil less frequently than Zone C; at a = 0.05, however, only Zone A is different from Zone C. The results of the statistical comparisons of the responses to the Part I questions from the three zones are summarized in Table 8. The last question in Part I dealt with the length of time the respondents had been occupying the dwelling. Results to this question are shown in Table 9, and presented graphically in Figure 2. At a significance level of 0.05, the length of occupancy of respondents in Zone A is lower than that of respondents in Zones B and C, but there is no significant difference between Zones B and C. The questions comprising Part I were unambiguous to virtually all respondents. 40 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Figure 2: Length Of Occupancy Years of Occupancy Zone A Zone B Zone C All Zones Zone I Standard Deviation ~3r Mean Table 8: Comparison of Zones in Part I Different at Significance Level: A vs. B B vs C A vs. C Question 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 House Maintenance? Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Garden Maintenance? Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Own Vehicle? No No No No No No Change Oil? No No No Yes Yes Yes Table 9: Duration of Occupancy, by Zone Number of Number of Years at Residence Zone Respondents Average Standard Deviation A 97 4.42 4.90 B 52 19.27 15.35 C 51 16.67 13.19 4.3 Part II Results 4.3.1 Question 1: Existing Wastes Question 1 of Part II dealt with the amount of wastes that respondents had available for disposal at the time of questioning, either recently generated or stored from past use. Results to this question are summarized in Tables 10, 11, 12, and 13. The results are presented in two forms, both on a "per respondent" basis (the quantity of each waste type reported divided by the total number of respondents) and on a "per generator" basis (the quantity reported divided by the number of respondents reporting that waste type). All quantities are expressed in litres, except for the solid wastes (batteries, lead/acid batteries, and smoke detectors) which are expressed in number of items, and prescription drugs, which is expressed as the number of respondents with any amount of drugs to dispose of. Similarly, the total quantities of HHW's (under the heading of "All Waste Types") only include the liquid wastes. 42 Table 10: Existing Wastes. All Zones (166 Respondents) Waste Type Total Percent Per Respondent Per Generator Reported Generating Average St.Dev. Average St.Dev. Cleaners 7.5 5.4 0.05 0.25 0.83 0.74 Drain Openers 2.6 3.0 0.02 0.10 0.52 0.25 Latex Paints 257.5 27.7 1.55 4.27 5.60 6.64 Oil-Based Paints 166.1 22.3 1.00 3.08 4.49 5.26 Wood Preservers 24.6 6.0 0.15 0.87 2.46 2.78 Paint Thinners 25.5 9.6 0.15 0.76 1.59 1.97 Adhesives 11.7 6.6 0.07 0.45 1.06 1.42 Pesticides 38.1 11.4 0.23 1.60 2.01 4.44 Batteries 187.0 25.3 1.13 2.29 4.45 2.46 Lead/Acid Batteries 21.0 8.4 0.13 0.45 1.50 0.65 Motor Oil 132.0 9.6 0.80 3.07 8.25 6.22 Antifreeze 25.0 0.6 0.15 1.93 25.00 0.00 Fuels 97.5 4.8 0.59 3.74 12.19 13.02 Petroleum Products 11.5 2.4 0.07 0.70 2.87 4.09 Pool Chemicals 20.0 0.6 0.12 1.55 20.00 0.00 Prescription Drugs 28.0 19.6 0.17 n/a n/a n/a Acids and Bases 24.0 3.0 0.14 1.16 4.80 5.31 Smoke Detectors 8.0 4.2 0.05 0.24 1.14 0.38 All Liquid Wastes * 843.6 46.4 5.08 10.01 10.96 12.34 * Liquids reported as Litres, Solids as Number of Items (Solids includes Batteries, Lead/Acid Batteries, Prescription Drugs, and Smoke Detectors) 43 Table 11: Existing Zone A Wastes (63 Respondents) Waste Type Total Percent Per Respondent Per Generator Reported Generating Average St.Dev. Average St.Dev. Cleaners 2.4 7.9 0.04 0.15 0.48 0.33 Drain Openers 0.5 1.6 0.01 0.06 0.50 0.00 Latex Paints 39.5 17.5 0.63 3.45 3.59 7.87 Oil-Based Paints 3.2 9.5 0.05 0.19 0.53 0.40 Wood Preservers 1.0 1.6 0.02 0.12 1.00 0.00 Paint Thinners 3.3 6.3 0.05 0.22 0.83 0.35 Adhesives 0.2 3.2 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.00 Pesticides 1.1 1.6 0.02 0.14 1.10 0.00 Batteries 63.0 25.4 1.00 2.00 3.94 2.24 Lead/Acid Batteries 1.0 1.6 0.02 0.02 1.00 0.00 Motor Oil 8.0 1.6 0.13 1.00 8.00 0.00 Antifreeze 0.0 0.0 0.00 n/a n/a n/a Fuels 0.0 0.0 0.00 n/a n/a n/a Petroleum Products 0.5 1.6 0.01 0.06 0.50 0.00 Pool Chemicals 0.0 0.0 0.00 n/a n/a n/a Prescription Drugs 9.0 14.3 0.14 n/a n/a n/a Acids and Bases 1.0 1.6 0.02 0.12 1.00 0.00 Smoke Detectors 2.0 3.2 0.03 0.17 1.00 0.00 All Liquid Wastes * 60.7 25.4 0.96 3.64 3.79 6.57 * Liquids reported as Litres, Solids as Number of Items (Solids includes Batteries, Lead/Acid Batteries, Prescription Drugs, and Smoke Detectors) 44 Table 12: Existing Zone B Wastes (52 Respondents) Waste Type Total Percent Per Respondent Per Generator Reported Generating Average St.Dev. Average St.Dev. Cleaners 4.0 3.8 0.08 0.38 2.00 0.00 Drain Openers 1.0 3.8 0.02 0.10 0.50 0.00 Latex Paints 155.5 38.5 2.99 5.56 7.78 6.61 Oil-Based Paints 89.5 32.7 1.72 4.23 5.26 6.09 Wood Preservers 11.1 9.6 0.21 0.88 2.22 2.12 Paint Thinners 9.2 11.5 0.18 0.84 1.53 2.21 Adhesives 10.3 9.6 0.20 0.79 2.06 1.79 Pesticides 28.0 21.2 0.54 2.78 2.55 5.82 Batteries 73.0 30.8 1.40 2.36 4.56 1.90 Lead/Acid Batteries 4.0 7.7 0.08 0.27 1.00 0.00 Motor Oil 43.0 13.5 0.83 2.54 6.14 4.10 Antifreeze 25.0 1.9 0.48 3.47 25.00 0.00 Fuels 36.0 7.7 0.69 3.13 9.00 8.21 Petroleum Products 1.0 1.9 0.02 0.14 1.00 0.00 Pool Chemicals 20.0 1.9 0.38 2.77 20.00 0.00 Prescription Drugs 9.0 17.3 0.17 n/a n/a n/a Acids and Bases 14.0 5.8 0.27 1.67 4.67 6.35 Smoke Detectors 2.0 3.8 0.04 0.19 1.00 0.00 All Liquid Wastes * 447.6 63.5 8.61 11.47 13.56 11.85 * Liquids reported as Litres, Solids as Number of Items (Solids includes Batteries, Lead/Acid Batteries, Prescription Drugs, and Smoke Detectors) 45 Table 13: Existing; Zone C Wastes (51 Respondents) Waste Type Total Percent Per Respondent Per Generator Reported Generating Average St.Dev. Average St.Dev. Cleaners 1.1 3.9 0.02 0.14 0.55 0.64 Drain Openers 1.1 3.9 0.02 0.13 0.55 0.49 Latex Paints 62.5 29.4 1.23 3.31 4.17 5.10 Oil-Based Paints 73.4 27.5 1.44 3.38 5.24 4.73 Wood Preservers 12.5 7.8 0.25 1.29 3.13 3.97 Paint Thinners 13.0 11.8 0.25 1.04 2.17 2.40 Adhesives 1.2 7.8 0.02 0.10 0.30 0.23 Pesticides 9.0 13.7 0.18 0.59 1.29 1.15 Batteries 51.0 19.6 1.00 2.53 5.10 3.51 Lead/Acid Batteries 16.0 17.6 0.31 0.73 1.78 0.67 Motor Oil 81.0 15.7 1.59 4.72 10.13 7.75 Antifreeze 0.0 0.0 0.00 n/a n/a n/a Fuels 61.5 7.8 1.21 5.96 15.38 17.36 Petroleum Products 10.0 3.9 0.20 1.27 5.00 5.66 Pool Chemicals 0.0 0.0 0.00 n/a n/a n/a Prescription Drugs 10.0 19.6 0.20 n/a n/a n/a Acids and Bases 9.0 2.0 0.18 1.25 9.00 0.00 Smoke Detectors 4.0 5.9 0.08 0.33 1.33 0.58 All Liquid Wastes * 335.3 54.9 6.57 11.97 11.98 14.09 * Liquids reported as Litres, Solids as Number of Items (Solids includes Batteries, Lead/Acid Batteries, Prescription Drugs, and Smoke Detectors) 46 Table 10 shows the quantity of HHW on-hand, as reported by all respondents from all zones. The single largest volume liquid waste was latex paints (257.5 litres of a total liquid volume of 843.6 litres), with oil-based paints second at 166.1 litres. Motor oil (132 litres) and fuels (97.5 litres) also account for significant volumes of total liquid waste. Other liquid waste types account for five percent of the total liquid volume or less each. Of the solid wastes, batteries are the largest in number (187 in total) while lead/acid batteries are the largest in volume (21 in total). Of a total of 166 respondents completing Part II, 104 (62.7 percent) wanted to dispose of at least one of the waste types listed in Table 4. Paints (latex and oil-based) were the most common wastes, with three other waste types being generated by at least ten percent of the respondents. Less than one percent of the respondents had either pool chemicals or antifreeze on-hand for disposal. The average and standard deviation figures indicate that, while the variation between respondents is high, some wastes are present in greater quantity on a per generator basis than others. For example, antifreeze and pool chemical wastes are present only rarely, but are in large quantity when present. On a zone by zone basis, several differences become apparent: • More respondents in the detached-dwelling zones had at least one of these HHW's on-hand than in the apartment zone (73.1 and 70.6 percent for Zones B and C versus 47.6 percent in Zone A). • The average volume of liquid waste, both on a per respondent and a per generator basis, is much higher in the detached dwelling areas than in the apartment zone. • The profile of existing wastes in Zone A is different than that of Zones B and C. In Zone A, batteries are the most common waste type, with latex paints the only other waste type generated by more than 10 percent of respondents. In Zones B and C, seven and eight waste types respectively were present in at least ten percent of the respondents households, with latex paint the most prevalent waste type in both cases. 47 • Between Zones B and C, Zone B had more existing HHW in general, and more latex paint in particular. • Zone C had a greater amount of automotive wastes such as motor oil, lead/acid batteries, and petroleum products (except for antifreeze) than both Zones A and B. In general, the apartment zone had far fewer existing HHW's than did the detached-dwelling zones, with the exception of batteries, prescription drugs, and smoke detectors. Zone B had more waste in total than the other zones, with only a few waste types present in larger quantity in Zone C than in Zone B. This comparison is only of wastes on-hand (stored or recently generated materials that would be disposed) at the time of the survey, and may reflect disposal and storage practices of the respondents rather than generation rates of the wastes. Distribution diagrams for the wastes reported in this survey, in the form of quantile plots generated by Systat, are included in Appendix E. These plots are presented both on a per-respondent basis and a per-generator basis. The nature of the data distribution is heavily skewed as most respondents had no waste of a particular type. Standard statistical methods which compare population means and variations in order to analysis differences and similarities between the populations are based on normal distributions and equal variances, and therefore not applicable to these data. Certain data transformations may be used to evaluate these data, however, such as the transformation of quantities to ranks as performed in the Kruskal-Wallis test, or the Mann-Whitney U test. As this transformation is drastic, it is only used here to discuss differences between zones for total liquid wastes only; the number of generators of each individual waste type is too small to provide meaningful results. Table 14 summarizes the differences between zones in the quantity of existing liquid HHW's. For the three zone comparison, the Kruskal-Wallis test is used. For the two zone comparisons, the Mann-Whitney U test is used. From this, it may be seen that Zone A respondents had significantly less total liquid HHW on-hand than did 48 respondents in Zones B and C (at a = 0.05). Table 14: Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U Test Comparisons of On-Hand Liquid HHW (a = 0.05) Zones in Quantity of On-Hand Liquid HHW Comparison All Respondents Generators Only A vs. B vs. C Different Different A vs. B Different Different B vs. C Similar Similar A vs. C Different Different Overall respondent comprehension of question 1 was good, although most respondents only needed to mark the "no waste" option. The most likely misinterpretation would occur when respondents interpret the question as "how much of these products do you have?" without regarding them as wastes. This does not seem to have occurred, as the reported quantities would likely have been much higher and more waste types would have been reported by each respondent. The respondents that had "miscellaneous wastes" or "other wastes" in this question were few, with only six in total that could not be otherwise classified. These responses were: • 100 lbs. of scrap metal, including iron, zinc, cadmium, and chromium, all from one respondent • 11 litres of photographic chemicals from another respondent • mercury from one broken thermometer • one old chemistry kit • 1 litre each of benzene and styrene • an unspecified quantity of refrigerator coolant 49 4.3.2 Question 2: Generation Rates Annual generation rates for HHW's were determined by multiplying the "amount" response to question 2 by an appropriate factor for the "frequency" response to the same question to convert the data to an annual basis. These results thus represent an estimation of the respondents annual generation of HHW based on the respondent's approximations. Tables 15, 16, 17, and 18 summarize this information for all respondents and for each zone, on both a per-respondent basis and a per-generator basis. Certain outlying data points have been identified, and results for data with these points excluded are shown in parentheses. These data follow similar distribution curves as the existing waste data, with most respondents indicating that they do not feel they generate the waste types listed, and a heavy skewing of the data among generators to the lower generation rates. Appendix E shows quantile plots produced using the Systat statistical package for all waste types. An error in this question was the inclusion of "once only" as a generation frequency option, as this was equivalent to the question asked in Part II Question 1 for many respondents. The data from respondents selecting this option has therefore been excluded. Trends in HHW generation shown in response to question 1 (existing HHW's) are upheld in the responses to question 2. Latex and oil-based paints, batteries, and prescription drug wastes are the HHW's that the greatest number of respondents felt they generated, with paint thinners and cleaners close behind. The waste types with the lowest number of potential generators are swimming pool chemicals, smoke detectors, and acids or bases. Five waste types (drain openers, latex paints, paint thinners, prescription drugs, and smoke detectors) had responses felt to be outliers. One value in each case was so far above other values, and above practical estimates, that it was felt to be an error in the respondents interpretation or answering of the question. In Tables 15, 16, 17, and 18, these values may be seen by comparing the uncorrected and corrected (in 50 Table 15: Annual Generation Rates. All Zones (166 Respondents) Waste Type Percent Per Respondent Per Generator Maximum* Minimum* Generating Average* St.Dev. Average* St.Dev. (>0.00) Cleaners 19 0.27 1.39 1.46 2.98 12.0 0.05 Drain Openers * * 11 0.12(0.05) 0.95(0.21) 1.00(0.42) 2.64(0.51) 12(2.0) 0.05 Latex Paints * * 28 1.72(0.42) 16.78(1.27) 6.08(1.51) 31.35(2.05) 216(10) 0.05 Oil-Based Paints 22 0.39 1.20 1.73 2.06 10.0 0.05 Wood Preservers 6 0.04 0.21 0.58 0.68 2.3 0.05 Paint Thinners * * 18 0.50(0.21) 3.79(0.78) 2.67(1.15) 8.55(1.52) 48(7.0) 0.05 Adhesives 9 0.03 0.13 0.33 0.32 1.0 0.05 Pesticides 10 0.09 0.41 0.90 0.96 4.0 0.05 Batteries 33 4.90 14.09 14.79 21.40 84.0 0.50 Lead/Acid Batteries 8 0.05 0.17 0.57 0.18 1.0 0.50 Motor Oil 11 1.20 6.30 10.50 16.15 60.0 0.50 Antifreeze 8 0.46 2.67 5.47 7.81 25.0 0.10 Fuels 5 0.17 1.08 3.08 3.70 12.0 0.25 Petroleum Products 4 0.03 0.19 0.68 0.83 2.3 0.05 Pool Chemicals 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a 0.00 Prescription Drugs * * 23 0.27(0.19) 0.99(0.37) 1.13(0.84) 1.80(0.24) 12(1) 0.50 Acids and Bases 1 0.00 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.3 0.25 Smoke Detectors * * 2 0.08(0.01) 0.93(0.07) 3.38(0.50) 5.75(0.00) 12(0.5) 0.50 All Liquid Wastes * * 52 5.01(3.35) 19.3(8.29) 9.67(6.46) 26.01(10.63) 220(66.8) 0.10 * Liquids reported as Litres/Year, Solids as Items/Year (Solids includes Batteries, Lead/Acid Batteries, Prescription Drugs, and Smoke Detectors) * * value in brackets indicates parameter corrected for outlying data 51 Table 16: Annual Generation Rates. Zone A (63 Respondents) WasteType Percent Per Respondent Per Generator Maximum* Minimum' Generating Average* St.Dev. Average* St.Dev. Cleaners 29 0.14 0.36 0.47 0.55 2.0 0.05 Drain Openers 17 0.03 0.08 0.16 0.13 0.5 0.05 Latex Paints 32 0.20 0.47 0.63 0.67 2.3 0.05 Oil-Based Paints 21 0.18 0.70 0.85 1.38 5.0 0.05 Wood Preservers 5 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.3 0.05 Paint Thinners 17 0.09 0.27 0.54 0.44 1.2 0.05 Adhesives 8 0.01 0.07 0.15 0.20 0.5 0.05 Pesticides 5 0.04 0.20 0.90 0.96 4.0 0.05 Batteries 37 4.52 12.37 12.37 18.16 72.0 1.00 Lead/Acid Batteries 6 0.03 0.12 0.50 0.00 n/a n/a Motor Oil 8 0.32 1.29 4.00 2.74 8.0 1.00 Antifreeze 8 0.64 2.95 8.00 7.84 20.0 1.00 Fuels 2 0.00 0.03 0.25 0.00 n/a n/a Petroleum Products '. 5 0.01 0.05 0.20 0.13 0.3 0.05 Pool Chemicals 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a n/a Prescription Drugs 24 0.19 0.36 0.80 0.25 1.0 0.50 Acids and Bases 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a n/a Smoke Detectors 3 0.02 0.09 0.50 0.00 n/a n/a All Liquid Wastes 57 1.66 3.99 2.90 4.95 28.0 0.20 * Liquids reported as Litres/Year, Solids as Items/Year (Solids includes Batteries, Lead/Acid Batteries, Prescription Drugs, and Smoke Detectors) 52 Table 17: Annual Generation Rates. Zone B (52 Respondents) Waste Type Percent Per Respondent Per Generator Maximum* Minimum* Generating Average* St.Dev. Average* St.Dev. Cleaners 12 0.35 1.70 3.00 4.46 12.0 0.50 Drain Openers ** 10 0.27(0.04) 1.67(0.17) 2.82(0.53) 5.14(0.37) 12(1.0) 0.10 Latex Paints 33 0.72 1.73 2.21 2.47 10.0 0.25 Oil-Based Paints 31 0.64 1.67 2.09 2.50 10.0 0.25 Wood Preservers 8 0.04 0.16 0.50 0.35 1.0 0.25 Paint Thinners * * 18 1.13(0.21) 6.66(0.67) 6.27(1.18) 14.85(1.23) 48(4.0) 0.15 Adhesives 6 0.03 0.15 0.50 0.43 1.0 0.25 Pesticides 17 0.18 0.61 1.02 1.19 4.0 0.05 Batteries 29 6.41 17.59 22.23 27.40 84.0 0.50 Lead/Acid Batteries 2 0.01 0.07 0.50 0.00 n/a n/a Motor Oil 6 0.15 0.67 2.67 1.16 4.0 2.00 Antifreeze 4 0.08 0.39 2.00 0.00 n/a n/a Fuels 10 0.27 0.95 2.80 1.64 5.0 1.00 Petroleum Products 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a n/a Pool Chemicals 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a n/a Prescription Drugs * * 23 0.43(0.44) 1.68(0.40) 1.88(0.96) 3.19(0.15) 12(1.0) 0.50 Acids and Bases 2 0.01 0.04 0.25 0.00 n/a n/a Smoke Detectors ** 2 0.23(0.00) 1.66(0.00) 12.00(0.00) 0.00 n/a n/a All Liquid Wastes ** 46 3.86(2.71) 9.48(4.43) 8.36(5.86) 12.64(4.92) 60.5(20.0) 0.10 * Liquids reported as Litres/Year, Solids as Items/Year (Solids includes Batteries, Lead/Acid Batteries, Prescription Drugs, and Smoke Detectors) * * value in brackets indicates parameter corrected for outlying data 53 Table 18: Annual Generation Rates. Zone C (51 Respondents) Waste Type Percent Per Respondent Per Generator Maximum* Minimum* Generating Average* St.Dev. Average* St.Dev. Cleaners 14 0.37 1.81 2.68 4.47 12.0 0.05 Drain Openers 8 0.08 0.34 1.03 0.78 2.0 0.10 Latex Paints *" 18 4.62(0.39) 30.2(1.36) 23.55(2.17) 67.67(2.66) 216(9.0) 0.50 Oil-Based Paints 16 0.38 1.09 2.41 1.70 5.0 0.25 Wood Preservers 6 0.07 0.34 1.13 1.06 2.3 0.15 Paint Thinners 20 0.36 1.19 ' 1.81 2.23 7.0 0.05 Adhesives 14 0.05 0.17 0.38 0.33 1.0 0.05 Pesticides 10 0.07 0.32 0.75 0.79 2.0 0.10 Batteries 33 3.83 12.09 11.50 19.05 72.0 1.00 Lead/Acid Batteries 18 0.11 0.25 0.61 0.22 1.0 0.50 Motor Oil 22 3.36 11.02 15.59 19.95 60.0 0.50 Antifreeze 14 0.64 3.51 4.66 9.00 25.0 0.10 Fuels 6 0.27 1.68 4.50 6.50 12.0 0.50 Petroleum Products 6 0.07 0.34 1.17 1.01 2.3 0.25 Pool Chemicals 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a n/a Prescription Drugs 24 0.19 0.36 0.79 0.26 1.0 0.50 Acids and Bases 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a n/a Smoke Detectors 2 0.01 0.07 0.50 0.00 n/a n/a All Liquid Wastes * * 51 10.33(6.09) 32.74(13.23) 20.26(11.95) 43.98(16.65) 220(66.75) 0.10 * Liquids reported as Litres/Year, Solids as Items/Year (Solids includes Batteries, Lead/Acid Batteries, Prescription Drugs, and Smoke Detectors) * * value in brackets indicates parameter corrected for outlying data 54 parentheses) data in the Maximum columns. Responses such as 216 litres of latex paint and 12 smoke detectors discarded per year were considered to fall into the outlier category. Further discussion will not include these five data points. Quantities of HHW generated as estimated by the respondents vary from no waste generated (for swimming pool chemicals) to 60 litres of motor oil per year for one respondent. Motor oil was the largest in volume of the generated wastes, at 1.20 litres per year per respondent, with antifreeze second at 0.46 litres per year per respondent. Latex and oil-based paints were third and forth in volume (0.42 and 0.39 litres per year per respondent respectively). In total, 3.35 litres of liquid wastes per year per respondent were estimated. Among the solid wastes, batteries were the largest in number, at 4.90 per year per respondent. Prescription drugs were estimated at 0.19 per year per respondent, lead/acid batteries at 0.05, and smoke detectors at 0.01. On a per generator basis, similar results may be seen, but with larger quantities as only those respondents with wastes are included. An average liquid waste volume of 6.46 litres per year per generator was estimated, where a generator is considered to be anyone who generates any liquid waste at all. Between zones, some generation characteristics for HHW become apparent. As with question 1 of Part II, the statistical analysis of these data is limited by the experimental design, specifically the randomness of sampling and the number of generators of each individual waste type. The use of rank-transformations in the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests was again applied here to the total liquid waste only, with the results summarized in Table 19. From this analysis, it appears that the average generation of liquid HHW's is similar on a per-respondent basis in all zones. However, the rate of generation on a per-generator basis is significantly less (at a = 0.05) in Zone A (the apartment dwellings) than in Zones B and C (the detached dwellings). This may be interpreted to suggest that more respondents in the apartment area generate liquid HHW's, but these generators produce lower volumes than generators in detached dwellings. 55 Table 19: Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U Test Comparisons of Liquid HHW Generation Rates (a = 0.05) Zones in Comparison Rate of Liquid HHW Generation All Respondents Generators Only A vs. B vs. C Similar Similar Similar Similar Different Different Similar Different A vs. B B vs. C A vs. C The number of respondents who misinterpreted this question regarding generation rates was larger than in question 1, evidenced in part by the number of outlying data points. This may be due to the more complex answering format, requiring two entries on the page for each waste type. Also, some respondents may not be as accurate at estimating quantities and frequencies as others. The problem of respondents indicating "once only" as a generation frequency was handled by omitting these responses. Some respondents indicated only a frequency option, without specifying a quantity to accompany it. These data could not be incorporated in the study, as it would require conjecture. Therefore, while the proportion of waste types generated in relation to each other may be accurate, the actual amount of generated wastes shown in Tables 15 to 18 is likely an underestimate of the true value. No respondents indicated regular generation of "miscellaneous" or "other" wastes. 4.3.3 Disposal Practices Question 3 of Part II asked the respondents to indicate how they would be inclined to dispose of each type of HHW if they were faced with the problem. A complete breakdown of the results by waste type and zone is given in Appendix D. Table 20 summarizes the results for total HHW, both solid and liquid combined. Figure 3 shows these data graphically. The disposal options are discussed in Section 3.3.1. The disposal option of "Recycle" was used for many wastes by a significant proportion of the respondents. 56 / Table 20: Summary of HHW Disposal Practices Zone Percentage of Respondents Using Disposal Method House Ground Storm Store Garbage Drain Applic. Recycle Sewer A 15 65 4 1 14 1 B 13 47 5 4 28 3 C 12 64 7 2 13 1 All 13 59 5 2 18 2 Realistically, however, the recycle option is only available for used motor oils and antifreeze, through local garages or recycling centres. Lead/acid batteries may also be recycled, although the status of the recycling operation is uncertain at the time of writing. Some respondents interpreted this question to mean "what disposal option would you use were all options available", which was not the intent. Therefore, the recycle response for waste types other than motor oils and antifreeze was discounted. In some of the mail-out questionnaires, this difficulty was removed by stating that recycle options existed only for motor oil and antifreeze. Table 21 shows the results for each waste type using this corrected data for all respondents, and Table 22 shows the total HHW summary by zone. Figure 3 presents the corrected data in addition to the original data. The predominant method of HHW disposal chosen by respondents was inclusion of the wastes in regular garbage. This option was the most popular for all types of wastes, and in all zones (see Appendix D for detailed results). House drain disposal for drain openers and prescription drugs was also popular, with 26 percent and 25 percent (respectively) of the total respondents indicating this option for the two waste types. Eleven percent of the respondents indicated they would dispose of waste fuels in house drains. Motor oil would be recycled by 42 percent of respondents, and antifreeze by 24 percent. Storage of HHW's would be practised by between 6 and 24 percent of the respondents, depending on the waste type. Other than these exceptions, only inclusion with the garbage would be used by more than ten percent of the respondents for any given waste type. 57 Figure 3: HHW Disposal Practices Uncorrected for Recycle Percent of Respondents 100 -fl 8 0 -Store Qarbage Sewer /Dra in Ground Recycle Storm Drain Appl icat ion Disposal Method CUB Zone A S§3 Zone B 823 Zone C H All Zones Corrected for Recycle Percent of Respondents 1 Store Qarbage Sewer /Ora in Ground Recycle Storm Drain Appl icat ion Disposal Method LUTD Zone A £§S Zone B Zone C H i All Zones 58 Table 21: HHW Disposal Practices by Waste Type, Corrected for Recycle Waste Type Percentage of Respondents Using Disposal Method House Ground Storm Store Garbage Drain Applic. Recycle Sewer Cleaners 19 77 3 0 0 1 Drain Openers 14 58 26 1 0 1 Latex Paint 18 76 3 1 0 2 Oil-Base Paint 18 78 1 1 0 2 Wood Preservers 20 73 1 2 0 3 Paint Thinners 24 58 7 9 0 2 Adhesives 17 83 0 0 0 0 Pesticides 20 77 1 2 0 1 Batteries 7 93 0 0 0 0 Lead/Acid Batteries 15 84 0 0 0 1 Motor Oil 6 46 2 3 42 1 Antifreeze 10 46 8 6 24 5 Fuels 24 59 6 8 0 3 Petroleum Products 22 67 4 4 0 4 Pool Chemicals 18 64 11 3 0 5 Prescription Drugs 9 64 25 1 0 1 Acids and Bases 17 64 8 5 0 5 Smoke Detectors 11 88 0 0 0 1 Table 22: Summary of HHW Disposal Practices, Corrected for Recycle Zone Percentage of Respondents Using Disposal Method House Ground Storm Store Garbage Drain Applic. Recycle Sewer A 17 73 4 1 4 1 B 17 62 7 5 6 4 C 14 72 8 2 3 1 All 16 69 6 3 4 2 When the disposal practices of the zones are compared, little difference is detected. Using the statistical tests described in Section 3.3.4 (differences in proportions using binomial test) the percentage of respondents in each zone using each disposal option was compared. For a confidence level of 95 percent, the difference between zones was not detected using both corrected and uncorrected data. At a confidence level of 90 percent using uncorrected data, Zone B appeared to use garbage disposal less than Zones A and C, and to recycle HHW's more than both other zones. However, using corrected data, this difference disappears. The 59 only detectable difference would then appear to be a greater inclination to misinterpret the question in Zone B than in the other zones. The majority of respondents interpreted this question correctly. About ten to twenty percent of the respondents indicated recycle options where they did not exist, but when these responses were removed there was little reason for error in the responses. Of the disposal methods not addressed here, only garbage incineration in apartment buildings may be a significant method, both in terms of quantity and in terms of potential environmental impact. 4.4 Part III Results 4.4.1 Collection Preferences The first question of Part III dealt with the respondents inclination to use different collection programs. Ranks from 1 to 5 were used to represent the proportion of the HHW the respondent generates which they would likely dispose of in special collection programs of various natures. A rank of 1 indicated the respondents would dispose of all of their HHW's through the particular collection program; a rank of 5 indicated they would not dispose of HHW's using the program. Ranks 2 to 4 corresponded to intermediate proportions of their total HHW quantity being disposed of in the program. Table 23 summarizes the overall results for this question, which are presented in full in Appendix D. These results may be used to estimate the ability of a collection program to maximize the amount of HHW removed from other waste streams. As waste quantities were not discussed, the parameter to be evaluated must be the anticipated response to the collection programs in terms of the percentage of generators using each program. This may be estimated by setting an answer rating of 1 ("all of waste") to correspond to a response factor of 1.00, an answer rating of 2 ("most of waste") to correspond to a factor of 0.75, a rating of 60 Table 23: Results of Collection Alternatives Ranking Collection Method Ranking (Percent of Respondents'! 1 2 3 4 5 Individual Household Collection 73 14 4 5 5 Central Depot Collection • Open Year-round 21 22 12 16 30 • Special Events Only 16 13 13 22 36 Neighbourhood Depot Collection • Open Year-round 46 26 7 6 15 • Special Events Only 27 21 10 19 24 3 ("half of waste") to correspond to 0.50, a rating of 4 ("few of wastes") to correspond to 0.25, and a rating of 5 ("none of waste") to correspond to 0.00. The total response may then be estimated by multiplying the percent of respondents indicating each answer rating by the corresponding response factor, and summing the resulting corrected percentages for each collection alternative. For example, if all respondents would dispose of all of their HHW in one of the collection program alternative, the total response would be said to be 100%. If 50 percent of the respondents would dispose of all of their HHW in the collection alternative, and the other 50 percent would only dispose of half their wastes in this manner, the total response would be determined in the following calculation: [(50%) x (1.0)] + [(50%) x (0.5)] = 75% response Figure 4 shows the percentages of total response to each of the five collection options estimated in this manner. The individual household collection alternative resulted in the highest response, at 88.2 percent of the total available. Second was local year-round collection, such as a daily operation at all firehalls, with 67.3 percent. The local special event collection option gathered 47.3 percent of the total response. Central collection, with one depot serving large sections of the city, was less popular, and a central depot open only for special events was the very least accepted with 33.5 percent of the total response. 61 Figure 4: Collection Option Responses Percent of Total Response (All Zones) 100% Individual Household Central Year-Round Central Event Local Year-Round Local Event Collection Method Postive Response Negative Response A comparison of the ranked data from the zones may be made using the Friedmans test. The data may be compared between collection options, to determine if any collection option would collect a significant amount more HHW than another collection option. Table 24 summarizes the results of such a comparison, where significantly different collection options (at a = 0.05) are separately underlined and similar options are underlined together on a scale of preference. Table 24: Results of Friedmans Analysis on Collection Alternative Ranking Zone Response Scale Grouping of Similar Collection Options Most Response < > Least Response A •Individual "Local Depot, "Local Depot, "Central Depot, "Central Depot, Collection Year-round Special Event Year-round Special Event B "Individual "Local Depot, "Local Depot, "Central Depot, "Central Depot Collection Year-round Special Event Year-round Special Event C "Individual "Local Depot, "Local Depot, "Central Depot, "Central Depot Collection Year-round Special Event Year-round Special Event A l l "Individual "Local Depot, "Local Depot, "Central Depot, "Central Depot Collection Year-round Special Event Year-round Special Event From these data, it can be seen that the response to individual collection is significantly greater than the response to the other collection alternatives on an overall basis, as well as in Zone A alone. In Zones B and C, the detached dwellings, the year-round local depot was similar in response to the individual collection alternative. In Zones A and C the special event local depot was similar in response to the local year-round depot option. The overall implication is that individual collection is favoured, but in detached dwellings areas a year-round local depot is equally effective. Among the other options, a special event local depot may be as effective as a year round local depot in some areas, and should be similar to a year-round central depot in all areas. The two alternatives for central depots may be equally effective. 63 These figures do not take into account the level and effectiveness of publicity, particularly as it may differ in effect on special event collection programs and year-round depots. Other influential factors such as weather, time of year, and cost of collection are also not considered. Overall respondent interpretation of the question was good. In the initial version of the questionnaire, several respondents misunderstood the question to be asking how often they would use a collection program of each kind, rather than how much of their H H W would be disposed of in each program. Because of this, respondents with little or no HHW were rating each option with high scores although they may be inclined to use the programs for all HHW's they generate. The question was rephrased to reduce this misinterpretation, making the influence of this factor less significant. Another factor in the respondents rating may have been the examples included to illustrate each collection option. When central depot collection is represented as being located at the municipal dump, some respondents may not rate it as highly as they would a central depot located at the city recycling yard, for example. Local depots at firehalls may be well received by residents living near firehalls; alternatively, the proximity of such facilities to their houses may be a deterrent. Such factors are going to affect the responses to this question. 4.4.1.1 Individual Collection Question 2 of Part III consisted of three parts ("a" through "c") dealing with the collection option of individual household or residence pickup. In question 2(a), respondents were asked to indicate how often they felt HHW collection on an individual basis would be necessary. The results to this question are shown in Table 25 and presented in Figure 5. In total, 145 respondents answered this question. For all respondents combined, the collection frequency felt to be most appropriate was the monthly option with 41 percent of respondents favouring it. However, 38 percent favoured a collection frequency of twice a year, indicating that a frequency somewhere between these 64 Figure 5: Preferred Collection Frequencies Percent of Respondents Weekly Zone A Monthly Twice per Year Collection Frequency ^ Zone B H Zone C Yearly All Zones Table 25: Preferred Collection Frequencies Percent of Respondents Preferring Collection: Zone Weeklv Monthly Twice/Year Once/Year A 24 45 24 6 B 6 32 48 14 C 0 46 41 13 All 10 41 38 11 two options may the optimum. Ten and 11 percent of the respondents favoured weekly and annual collection respectively. Although space was provided for respondents to list other collection frequencies, only five chose to do so. Three of these suggested quarterly collection, and the remaining two suggested once every two years would be sufficient. Between zones, the preferred collection frequencies vary significantly. Using the confidence interval test for differences in two binomial parameters, these deviations were analyzed. Table 26 shows the results of these tests at confidence levels of 90 and 95 percent. Table 26: Analysis of Collection Frequency Preferences by Zone Comp arison of Level of Approval Between Zones Collection Confidence Higher Median Lower Frequency Level Approval Approval Approval Weekly 90 percent Zone A Zone B Zone C 95 percent Zone A Zones B,C Monthly 90 percent Zones A,B,C 95 percent Zones A,B,C Twice per 90 percent Zones B,C Zone A Year 95 percent Zone B Zone C Zone A Once per 90 percent Zones A,B,C Year 95 percent Zones A,B,C 66 The apartment area, Zone A, has a significant preference for more frequent collection of HHW's than either of the detached dwelling areas. However, their is no difference between zones in their preference for monthly collection. Zones B and C are similar in their preferences at the 95 percent confidence level. Question 2(b) asked respondents to list any concerns they may have regarding the collection of HHW's in an individual collection program. Respondents phrased their concerns in different manners, but a total of fifteen specific concerns could be identified. These are listed in Table 27, along with the number of respondents identifying each concern. The greatest concern was the risk associated with leaving the wastes on the curb while awaiting collection, due to the potential for spillage, exposure to children or pets, and vandalism. Second was concern regarding the ultimate disposal method to be used for the wastes, and the safety and permanence of this disposal. The third largest concern was the cost that would be associated with this degree of service. Several concerns tied for fourth, including the level of public education, the storage space required (especially in Zone A), and the details of the collection program itself. Less common concerns included the safety of transportation, the location and safety of any required storage facilities, and the cleanliness or pollution associated with the collection process. Some respondents were concerned that all recyclable HHW's be handled separately from those destined for disposal. Question 2(c) listed five concerns that were felt to be potential issues for the public regarding individual collection of HHW's, and asked respondents to rank them in order of importance with "1" being the most important. Figure 6 shows the percentage of respondents assigning each of the five ranks for each concern, and the distribution of ranks for each concern. Friedmans test for ranked scores was used to analyze these results at a significance level of a = 0.05. The risk 67 Figure 6: Ranking of Concerns Regarding Individual Collection of HHW's Percent of Respondents 60 i 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned Rank Rank 1 Rank 5 Nature of Concern 0 Truck In Accident — B - Location of Station — W a s t e s Left on Curb A Traffic Increase s Effort Required • Highest Concern > • Lowest Concern Table 27: Concerns Identified by Respondents Regarding Individual Collection of HHWs General Concern Identified Number of Respondents 1) Safety of HHW's while on curb awaiting collection 18 2) Ultimate disposal method for HHW's 16 3) Cost of Collection 10 4) Adequately informed public regarding what are HHW's, proper packaging, proper storage 7 5) Storage space required while awaiting collection 7 6) Scheduling and consistency of collection service, reliability and timing 7 7) Collection staff training and safety 7 8) Safety of accumulating in house/apartment 5 9) Safety during transportation of HHW's 4 10) Recycling of some wastes if possible 4 11) Location of storage facility for collected wastes while awaiting disposal 2 12) Safety of the storage facility 2 13) Cleanliness of collection process 2 14) Noise and pollution of collection vehicles 1 of leaving the wastes on the curb awaiting collection was found to be ranked as a significantly greater concern than the other four. The need to locate a storage station in the neighbourhood and the risk of an accident involving a collection vehicle were found to generate similar degrees of concern, and to be second highest overall. Tied for third most important were the increase in neighbourhood traffic due to the collection vehicles, and the extra effort involved in packaging and labelling the wastes. As well as the Friedman test statistic, a Kendall coefficient of concordance among rankings of 0.351 was calculated for all zones combined, indicating a reasonable degree of agreement between the respondents. On an individual zone basis, the Kendall coefficients for respondents in Zones A, B, and C were 0.375, 0.340, and 69 0.374 respectively, with similar ordering of concerns, indicating little difference between zones. Despite rephrasing this question in an attempt to make completion simple and unambiguous, some respondents misunderstood the question to be asking for a rating from 1 to 5 for each concern, rather than to rank the five concerns in order of importance. Therefore, some respondents had assigned two or more of the concerns to the same rank. These responses were not included in the analysis of the data, and were too small in number to analyze separately. Some respondents indicated that they felt none of the concerns listed were significant, and as a consequence they did not rate them. Despite these two situations, 110 respondents correctly completed the question. No obvious indications of other errors or misinterpretations were detected. 4.4.1.2 Depot Collection Question 3 of Part III dealt with issues concerning collection of HHW's using depot systems, both locally situated and centrally situated, and consisted of four sections. In question 3(a) respondents were asked to indicate the amount of time they would be willing to spend in travel time to get to a depot for the collection of HHW's. Table 28 summarizes the results to this question, and Figure 7 shows the cumulative distribution curve for each zone and the total respondent population. Table 28: Respondents Willingness to Travel to a Collection Depot Percent of Respondents Willing to Travel for: 0 to 15 16 to 30 31 to 45 over 45 Zone Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes A 46 43 4 7 B 37 49 14 0 C 51 43 4 2 All 44 45 8 3 70 Figure 7: Willingness to Travel to Collection Depot 1 0 0 % 80% 60% 40% -20% 0% 0 to 15 Percent of Respondents Willing 16 to 30 31 to 45 Travel Time (min.) • ° - Zone A - B - Zone B Zone C over All Zones The total response is principally split between the 0 to 15 minute option and the 16 to 30 minute option. Only 15 percent of the respondents indicated a willingness to travel for greater than 30 minutes, and only four percent of the total would travel for longer than 45 minutes. In the extra space provided for respondents to indicate specific times they would be willing to travel, only two respondents did so, and only one was for a period of time longer than one hour. A total of 144 respondents answered this question. Between zones, analysis of the proportion of respondents favouring each collection option was performed using the binomial test referred to previously. At the 95 percent confidence level, no differences are apparent between zones in their preference for each travel time option. At the 90 percent confidence level, Zone B appears more willing to travel 31 to 45 minutes than either Zone A or C, and more willing to travel over 45 minutes than Zone A. The respondents had no difficulty interpreting and answering this section of question 3, and no errors due to comprehension or misunderstanding are likely to be a factor in the results. Question 3(b) asked respondents to indicate, for each of five options for operating hours of a collection depot, whether or not they would find the hours convenient. The results to this question are summarized in Table 29 and presented in Figure 8. One hundred and forty nine respondents correctly answered this question. The options that appear to be the most convenient are weekday evenings and weekend days, with greater than 70 percent of the total respondent population finding these convenient. Weekend evenings and weekdays from 9:00 to 5:00 are also convenient for over half of the respondents. The option of one day per week was the least convenient, with only 38 percent of the total finding it convenient. However, this question was poorly phrased, as many respondents felt their answer was dependent on which day of the week it would be. Therefore, the responses to this option are likely misleading, and should not be considered useful. 72 Figure 8: Preferred Operating Hours for Depot Collection Percent Finding Hours Convenient Weekdays 9 to 5 Weekdays evenings Weekends 9 to 5 Operating Hours Weekends evenings One Day per Week Zone A Zone B Zone C All Zones Table 29: Convenience of Operating Hours for Depot Collection Operating Percent of Respondents Finding Hours Convenient Hours Zone A Zone B Zone C All Zones Weekdays, 9 to 5 40 65 49 52 Weekdays, evenings 86 58 71 71 Weekends, 9 to 5 83 69 67 73 Weekends, evenings 66 44 53 53 One Day per Week 27 48 37 38 From an analysis of the differences between the proportion of each zones' respondents finding the operating hours convenient, some significant contrasts are apparent. At a confidence level of 95 percent, respondents in Zone B would find weekdays from 9:00 to 5:00 more convenient than would respondents in Zone A. However, the reverse is true for weekday evenings, when Zone A respondents would find the hours more convenient than Zone B respondents. Weekends during the day are equally convenient between zones, but weekend evenings are more convenient in Zone A than in Zone B. Zone C respondents do not significantly differ from the other respondents in any of the options at the 95 percent confidence level, although at 90 percent confidence they tend to side with respondents from Zone B. All respondents completed this question without trouble, except for the final option of one day per week as discussed earlier. There is value in knowing whether one day a week would be convenient to respondents, but the question should have been phrased so as to allow the respondents to distinguish between one weekday or one day on a weekend. Otherwise, little misinterpretation is suspected. Respondents were asked to list any concerns regarding the depot collection of HHW's in the third section of this question. As in question 2, respondents were free to phrase their concerns in any manner, but several 74 Table 30: Concerns Identified by Respondents Regarding Depot Collection of HHWs General Concern Identified Number of Respondents 1) Adequate safety precautions against accidents within the depot 24 2) Security of depot against vandals, trespassing by children 16 3) Adequate training, supervision, and protection for depot staff 14 4) Adequately informed public regarding labelling, packaging, and mixing of wastes 10 5) Convenience 8 6) Duration of holding time of wastes at depot 5 7) Cleanliness and odour of depot 5 8) Proximity of depot to housing 5 9) Cost 4 10) Ultimate disposal method 4 11) Safety during transport to depot 1 12) Concentrating the wastes in one area 1 13) Recycling of some wastes rather than disposal 1 concerns were common among respondents. Table 30 lists all of the concerns expressed, and the number of times they recurred. The concerns identified by the most respondents dealt with safety precautions at the depot, both to protect against accidents and to protect against vandals or children gaining access to the site. Adequate training and supervision of the depot staff was also a concern, generally to prevent against mixing or disposing of wastes in an unsuitable manner. As with individual collection, the need for adequate education of the public with respect to the proper labelling and packaging of the wastes was cited by several of the respondents. Fewer respondents were concerned with the convenience of the location and hours of operation of the depot. However, a similar number of respondents were concerned with the converse issue of not wanting the depot 75 too close to housing. The length of time that the wastes would be held at the depot was an issue with some of the respondents as well. Less frequently mentioned concerns included the appearance of the depot, the chance of recycling some wastes, and the cost of the program. The ultimate disposal of the wastes was not mentioned as frequently in relation to this method of collection as it was regarding individual collection. Question 3(d) listed four concerns thought to be potential issues for respondents, and asked them to rank them in order of importance with "1" being the most important. Figure 9 shows the percentage of respondents assigning each of the four ranks for each concern, and the distribution of the ranks for each concern. Friedmans test for ranked scores was used in the analysis of these results, at a significance level of a = 0.05. From this, the concern of storing HHW's in a depot near the respondents house was identified as the largest concern, together with the risk of vandalism at the depot. Second in order of importance was the need to carry the wastes in the respondents car, and last was the additional traffic that would occur in the neighbourhood of the depot. A Kendall coefficient of concordance was calculated for the total response as being 0.160, indicating somewhat less agreement between respondents than was seen in the concerns regarding individual collection. Within the zones, Kendall coefficients of 0.203, 0.186, and 0.209 were determined for Zones A, B, and C respectively. This decrease in the level of agreement between respondents in this question may also be seen in Figure 9, where none of the concerns is noticeably biased to either a high rank or a low rank, but all are distributed among the ranks with only a slight favouring of one end or the other. This question was misunderstood in the same manner as question 2(c) of this part, as some respondents rated each concern from 1 to 4 rather than ranked the four concerns in order. Again, these responses were not included in the analysis, and were not sufficiently large in number to analyze separately. Also, a few of the respondents did not answer this question as they felt that none of the concerns were large enough the warrant discussion. A total of 116 respondents answered this question correctly. 76 Figure 9: Ranking of Concerns Regarding Depot Collection of HHW's 50% Percent of Respondents 1 2 3 4 Assigned Rank Nature of Concern ° Carrying in Car D Traffic Increase 0 Depot Near House A Vandalism Rank 1 • Highest Concern Rank 4 • Lowest Concern 4.4.2 Cost Recovery In the two sections comprising question 4, respondents were asked how much they would be willing to pay for collection of HHW's and how they felt the cost should best be collected. One hundred and forty-one respondents answered this question, and the results are summarized in Table 31. Figure 10 shows these results in a cumulative distribution format, and Figure 11 shows the average and range for each zone where specific amounts were indicated by respondents. Table 31: Annual Amount Respondents Willing to Pay for HHW Collection Collection Percentage of Respondents Willing to Pay Zone Method Nothing <$5 S5-S10 S11-S20 >$20 A Individual 14 10 33 29 14 Depot 17 14 43 19 7 B Individual 5 7 34 24 29 Depot 7 21 30 19 23 C Individual 10 20 27 27 16 Depot 22 24 30 13 11 All Individual 10 13 31 27 19 Depot 15 20 34 17 14 The majority of respondents are willing to pay in the neighbourhood of five to ten dollars per year for either collection method, although the distribution is fairly wide over the range of possible responses. The difference between the distributions for individual and household collection is that the individual collection distribution is offset to the higher end of the scale, although the distribution shape is roughly the same. In an analysis of the differences between the proportion of respondents in each zone preferring each payment level, only two differences were apparent. At the 95 percent confidence level, more Zone C respondents than Zone B respondents indicated that they would not want to spend anything for collection. Also at the 95 percent confidence level, more Zone B respondents than Zone A respondents were willing to pay more than 78 Figure 10: Willingness to Pay for Collection of HHW's Percent Willing to Pay 0% H 1 1 1 1 0 <$5 $5-$10 $11-$20 >$20 Annual Cost Collection Method Individual - 1 3 - Depot Figure 11: Average and Range of Specified Payment Levels $ 1 2 0 $ 1 0 0 $80 $60 $40 $ 2 0 $ 0 Annual Payment Zone A individual Zone A Depot Zone B Individual Zone B Depot Zone C Individual Zone C Depot Collection Method I Range -£ Average twenty dollars per year for collection. No other differences were apparent at either 95 or 90 percent confidence levels. For those 51 respondents who specified the amount they would be willing to pay, the range of values covers one dollar to one hundred dollars per year. The average specified value overall was $23.37 per year for individual collection, and $18.97 per year for depot collection. Zone B was the highest of all zones for both the maximum value and the average value, with Zones A and C similar to each other. Not all respondents completed the section of the questionnaire asking for a specific value they would be willing to pay, and many of those that did were respondents who chose the ">$20" option and wished to clarify the amount further. This would tend to skew the values substantially to the upper end of the range, and therefore decrease the value of the results. Otherwise, respondents had little difficulty completing the question and no misinterpretations were apparent. The last part of question 4 asked respondents to rank from 1 to 5 the five alternatives for paying for collection, with "1" being their preferred payment method. The results for this question are presented in terms of the percentage of respondents assigning each rank and are shown in Figure 12. Only two respondents indicated they would not be willing to pay for collection by any means, both from Zone B. From a Friedmans analysis of the rest of the ranked data, no clear preferences emerged. The only difference detected at a level of significance of a = 0.05 was that the option of payment through provincial tax was less popular than payment by flat rate user fees or municipal tax increases. However, all other options were equal in popularity. The Kendall coefficient of concordance for all data combined was 0.016, suggesting very low agreement between respondents. For each of Zones A, B, and C, this coefficient was 0.082, 0.079, and 0.014 respectively, suggesting that even within zones there was little agreement. The apparent randomness of the curves in Figure 12 bears out this lack of a trend in payment method preferences. 81 Figure 12: Ranking of Payment Methods for HHW Collection Percent of Respondents 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned Rank Payment Method User Fee, Flat Rate-^3-- User Fee, Per Item — M u n i c i p a l Taxes Provincial Taxes — * - Purchase Taxes Rank 1 • High Preference Rank 5 • Low Preference This question was misunderstood in the same manner as the other rank questions, where some respondents rated rather than ranked the options. A total of 96 respondents correctly completed the question. More respondents than usual chose not to rank the options, either through lack of an opinion, lack of understanding the question, or fatigue from completing the earlier sections of the questionnaire. Question 5 of Part III concerned respondent awareness of the existing HHW depot located in Surrey and being operated by the B.C. Ministry of Environment. In total, 18 respondents (eleven percent) claimed to be aware of the depot, with three of them from Zone A, seven from Zone B, and eight from Zone C. In an analysis of these proportions, no significant differences between zones become apparent at the 90 percent confidence level. Some confusion may have occurred in this question with respondents mistaking the recycling depots for the HHW depot, resulting in an overestimate of the awareness levels. An addition to this question that should have been included would be to ask respondents if they had ever used the Surrey depot. 4.5 Garbage Load Dissections One load of garbage collected from each of the three zones surveyed was intercepted and inspected. A load from Zone B was dissected on September 13, 1989, and loads from Zones A and C were dissected on September 15 and 16 respectively. The findings from the waste load dissections are summarized in Table 32. From the representative cross-sections of the piles of garbage that were dissected, observations were made regarding: • the presence and quantity of HHW's as defined in Table 4 • the different types of HHW's discarded and the varying quantities of HHW's from each of the three zones • the presence of any materials that may constitute a household hazardous waste and that were not included in Table 4 83 Table 32: Summary of Observations From Garbage Load Dissections Zone Observations A • primary components in order of volume were kitchen wastes, plastics, paper, other household wastes • dimensions were 24' by 12', 5' high • sampled approx. one eighth of the pile • waste was well compacted, difficult to dissect • items found included: 1) unlabelled container of liquid, probably paint thinner 2) adhesives including "krazy" glue, household cement 3) cylinder of propane, possibly full 4) partially full container of camp fuel 5) 1 litre of motor oil, full 6) ruptured antifreeze container 7) many ruptured household cleaner containers and drain openers 8) 13 household batteries 9) cosmetics such as hydrogen peroxide, hair colouring, nail polish removers 10) prescription drugs, vitamins, and medicinals 11) three paint cans and one aerosol paint can 12) three syringes, empty • other items of possible concern included construction materials, primer putty, cement, liquid paper, aerosol dog repellant, fertilizers, photocopying chemicals, disposable diapers, many aerosol cans of toiletries, and a garbage bag full of what appears to be incinerator ash from an apartment building Table 32 continued... Some of most of the waste types listed in Table 4 were found, although in the case of household cleaners and other liquids packaged in crushable containers, it was not possible to determine if their was any significant amount of the original contents remaining when the material was discarded. The largest in volume of the waste types found was paint, with well over half of the total volume being in this class. Crushed containers of household cleaners were common waste types, although most of these were likely discarded empty. Several containers of waste motor oil were found, both full and ruptured. Paint thinners, camp fuels, adhesives, and propane cylinders were also found. Pharmaceuticals and full containers of prescription drugs were also common. A total of four syringes were found. In comparing the waste types and volumes found between zones, some trends suggested in the survey results 84 Table 32 continued... Zone Observations B • principal components in order of volume were yard clippings, paper, kitchen wastes, plastics, and other assorted household wastes • dimensions were 12' by 30' across, and 8' high at centre • two swaths dissected, 5' wide each • items found included: 1) approx. 20 cans of paint, up to half full, filled with sawdust sorbent and partially dried 2) contents of medicine cabinet, primarily vitamins with some prescriptions as well 3) several tubes of oil paints, empty and full 4) broken thermometer, still with contents 5) insect sting kit with full syringe included 6) 5 gallon open top drum with oily water contents 7) cosmetics, many nail polishes 8) ruptured containers of household cleaners, drain openers • other items of potential concern included many disposable diapers, borax-based "ant hotels", spray cans of toiletries • majority of the HHW in the waste volume sampled was paint, apparently from one household source, suggesting the sample may have been non-representative of the waste load as a whole Table 32 continued... were observed. For example, Zone C was by far the largest generator of waste motor oil containers, and Zone A discarded many household batteries. Zone B was the largest generator of waste paints, although this may be an isolated incident as most of these wastes seemed to occur in one area of the garbage pile, suggesting one generator.The waste types that were found and that were not included as part of the survey included primarily disposable diapers, some construction materials, some fertilizers, office supplies such as typewriter correction fluid and photocopy toner, and any of several containers with unknown liquid contents. Several other wastes that were not included in the survey but may be disposed of by some of the public in HHW collection programs included empty aerosol cans, cosmetics, and empty cleaner or chemical containers. The relative volume of the materials that could be called HHW's was small, typically in the area of three to five percent if paints were included and less than one percent if paints were handled separately. The largest components by volume in the garbage seemed to be yard clippings, paper articles, and plastics. Waste food 85 Table 32 continued., Zone Observations C • primarily yard clippings, kitchen wastes, construction material, paper, plastics, furniture and appliances, cardboard • dimensions are 20' by 20', 5' high • sampled about one sixth of the total garbage • items found included: 1) two aerosol cans of pesticides (brand names Raid and Sendran) 2) adhesives such as childrens glue, and a gallon pail of contact adhesive, half full 3) cosmetics and prescriptions as in other zones 4) ruptured containers of household cleaners 5) about 12 ruptured 1-litre containers of motor oil, with two used oil filters 6) brake fluid 7) one litre propane cylinder, full 8) lacquer thinner 9) three paint cans, one full, and an aerosol paint can 10) three containers of unknown liquids • other items of possible concern include spray cans of toiletries, disposable lighters , disposable diapers products were also a large part of the garbage, as were old clothes, furniture, construction items, and appliances. Of the potential HHW's not included in the survey, disposable diapers were the largest in volume by quite a significant amount. Cosmetics may also be a significant omission. 86 5.0 Data Analysis and Discussion 5.1 HHW Quantity Calculations The quantities of HHW that are existing and that are being generated annually in Vancouver may be extrapolated from the data collected Part I of this survey. The following sections present this extrapolation. Also, the data may be used to estimate the percentage of the municipal solid waste stream that HHW's represent, and to estimate the amount of HHW that may be collected in depot collection programs. These calculations are also presented below. In order to make these estimates, many assumptions and simplifications must be made; these assumptions, and their effects, are discussed in Section 5.3.3, Accuracy of Data. 5.1.1 Existing HHW Quantities Question 1 of Part II of this survey developed estimates of the average amount of existing HHW's that respondents in the three zones had. To extrapolate the data to the City of Vancouver as a whole, the average quantity of existing HHW per respondent may be used to estimate the average quantity of HHW for similar households in the City. This quantity may then be multiplied by the number of households of each type in the City to give a total estimate of the existing HHW. Table 33 shows the calculations involved in this estimation. The assumption that waste types such as fuel and pesticides were primarily liquid, and could be included with the liquid HHW group, was in general terms borne out by the results. Although a few respondents indicated they had propane tanks for disposal, and one indicated they had a bag of pesticide, the majority of respondents indicated their waste volume using the unit of litres. These results indicate that there is roughly 650,000 litres of liquid HHW currently stored or awaiting disposal in Vancouver City dwellings. The composition of the total liquid wastes is similar to the proportions of 87 existing wastes discussed in Section 4.2.1, where paints comprise the majority of the liquids and motor oil and fuels are also significant components. Roughly 200,000 dry cell batteries and 16,000 lead/acid batteries are present as existing wastes. Almost 30,000 unwanted prescriptions are awaiting disposal, as are nearly 8,000 smoke detectors. Between the detached and apartment dwellings, the most significant differences in existing HHW quantities may be seen when the liquid wastes are compared, and when the lead/acid battery quantities are compared. Detached dwelling residents have far more liquid wastes and lead/acid batteries than do apartment residents. Otherwise, the quantity of prescriptions, batteries, and smoke detectors was fairly similar between dwelling types. Table 33: Estimation of the Total Existing HHW in Vancouver Dwelling Aver, per Number of Total** Type Waste Type Household Households Quantity Detached* Liquid 7.60 70,505 535,838 Batteries 1.20 84,606 Lead/Acid Batt. 0.19 13,396 Prescriptions 0.18 12,691 Smoke Detectors 0.06 4,230 Apartments Liquid 0.96 115,660 111,034 Batteries 1.00 115,660 Lead/Acid Batt. 0.02 2,313 Prescriptions 0.14 16,192 Smoke Detectors 0.03 3,470 Total Liquid 186,165 646,872 Batteries 200,266 Lead/Acid Batt. 15,709 Prescriptions 28,883 Smoke Detectors 7,700 * Average values for Zone B and Zone C combined ** Liquids reported as litres/year, solids as itemsA'ear 5.1.2 Annual Generation of HHW The amount of HHW's generated on an annual basis may be estimated in a similar manner, using data from question 2 of Part II of the questionnaire. The average annually generated quantity for each type of dwelling i 88 area multiplied by the number of households in the City of each dwelling type will give an estimation of the annual City generation rates of HHW's. However, the data for the average annual generated quantities may be inaccurate due to the number of respondents who incorrectly completed the question (giving only a generation frequency without indicating an amount generated in that frequency). Assuming that because they indicated a generation frequency, these respondents did in fact generate some of these wastes, to exclude them would result in an underestimate of the total amount generated. In order to lessen the influence of this error, those respondents who only indicated a frequency without indicating a quantity have been assigned a quantity of waste equal to the average quantity of those respondents who correctly answered the question. The following sections describe both this adjustment process and the resulting calculations. 5.1.2.1 Data Correction for Incomplete Responses The data collected in Part II Question 2 was adjusted upwards to reflect incomplete responses. No attempt was made to determine if the proportion of respondents incorrectly answering question 2 of Part II was different between zones. That is, an overall adjustment factor for all zones was developed rather than correction factors for each zone. This factor was then applied to the per respondent generation rates for each zone. The process followed for determining this adjustment factor was as follows: • the number of respondents for each waste type who did not complete the "quantity" section of the question, but who did indicate a generation frequency, was recorded, • each of these incomplete responses was assigned a generated waste quantity equal to the average of the correct responses for each waste type, • a new percentage of generators and a new average waste quantity (on a per respondent basis) for each waste type was calculated, which included the responses with assigned quantity values, • an adjustment factor for the generated quantities of wastes was determined by dividing the adjusted data by the unadjusted data. Table 34 shows the adjusted percentage of generators and the new waste quantities which incorporate the 89 incomplete responses. Table 35 uses these data to determine the adjustment factors. For simplicity, adjustment factors were determined for each of the solid wastes and for the liquid wastes as a whole. Table 34: Adjustment of Average Annual Generation Data to Include Incomplete Responses, Per Respondent Basis Unadjusted Data Adjusted Data Percent Average Percent Average Waste Type Generating Ouantitv* Generating Ouantitv* Cleaners 19 0.27 22 0.32 Drain Openers 11 0.05 13 0.06 Latex Paints 28 0.42 34 0.51 Oil-Base Paints 22 0.39 27 0.47 Wood Preservatives 6 0.04 9 0.05 Paint Thinners 18 0.21 21 0.25 Adhesives 9 0.03 13 0.04 Pesticides 10 0.09 13 0.12 Batteries 33 4.90 39 5.70 Lead/Acid Batt. 8 0.05 10 0.06 Motor Oil 11 1.20 16 1.75 Antifreeze 8 0.46 10 0.56 Fuels 5 0.17 6 0.19 Petroleum Products 4 0.03 7 0.05 Pool Chemicals 0 0.00 0 0.00 Prescription Drugs 23 0.19 23 0.19 Acids/Bases 1 0.00 3 0.01 Smoke Detectors 2 0.01 3 0.02 All Liquid Wastes 52 3.35 65 4.22 * liquids reported as litres/year, solids as items/year Table 35: Determination of Adjustment Factors for Waste Types Unadjusted Adjusted Adjustment Waste Type Quantity* Quantity* Factor Liquid Wastes 3.35 4.22 1.26 Batteries 4.90 5.70 1.20 Lead/Acid Batt. 0.05 0.06 1.20 Prescription Drugs 0.19 0.19 1.00 Smoke Detectors 0.01 0.02 2.00 * Liquids reported as litres^ear, solids as items/year In order to determine the adjusted waste generation rate per respondent on a zonal basis, the factors in Table 35 must be used to multiply the old annual generation rates for each zone. As the number of incorrect 90 responses to the question in each zone was relatively similar, the overall adjustment factors from Table 35 may be applied to each of the three zones separately. Table 36 shows the results of this adjustment for each zone. The estimates of the relative proportion of HHW's generated in each zone remain unchanged, while the actual quantity generated annually per respondent increases in all zones. Also shown in Table 36 is an averaged value of HHW generation rates for both detached dwelling areas, Zones B and C. Table 36: Adjusted Annual Generation Rates by Zone, Per Respondent Basis Zone B B and C (Average) Liquids reported as litresA/ear, solids as itemsA/ear Unadjusted Adjusted Waste Tvpe Quantity* Ouantitv* Liquid 1.66 2.09 Batteries 4.52 5.24 Lead/Acid Batt. 0.03 0.04 Prescriptions 0.19 0.19 Smoke Detectors 0.02 0.04 Liquid 2.71 3.41 Batteries 6.41 7.44 Lead/Acid Batt. 0.01 0.01 Prescriptions 0.22 0.22 Smoke Detectors 0.00 0.00 Liquid 6.09 7.67 Batteries 3.83 4.44 Lead/Acid Batt. 0.11 0.13 Prescriptions 0.19 0.19 Smoke Detectors 0.01 0.02 Liquid 4.38 5.52 Batteries 5.13 5.95 Lead/Acid Batt. 0.06 0.07 Prescriptions 0.21 0.21 Smoke Detectors 0.01 0.02 5.1.2.2 Annually Generated Quantities With the adjusted data in Table 36, the total annual amount of HHW generated in Vancouver may be estimated. Multiplying the adjusted average generation rate by the number of dwellings of each type, as in the calculations for the existing wastes, gives an estimate of this value. Table 37 presents this calculation. 91 Table 37: Estimation of the Total Annual Generation of HHW in Vancouver Dwelling Aver, per Number of Total Tvpe Waste Tvpe Household Households Quantity** Detached* Liquid 5.52 70,505 389,188 Batteries 5.95 419,505 Lead/Acid Batt. 0.07 4,935 Prescriptions 0.21 14,806 Smoke Detectors 0.02 1,401 Apartments Liquid 2.09 115,660 241,729 Batteries 5.24 606,058 Lead/Acid Batt. 0.04 4,626 Prescriptions 0.19 21,975 Smoke Detectors 0.04 4,626 Total Liquid 186,165 630,917 Batteries 1,025,563 Lead/Acid Batt. 9,561 Prescriptions 36,781 Smoke Detectors 6,027 * Average values for Zone B and Zone C combined ** Liquids reported as litres/year, solids as items/year Table 37 shows that the liquid waste generated annually in detached dwellings are greater in volume than the liquid wastes generated in apartment dwellings. For solid wastes, the differences between dwelling types are not as great. Overall, roughly 630,000 litres of liquid HHW's are generated annually in the city, and slightly over 1,000,000 dry cells are consumed. Ten thousand waste lead/acid batteries are generated annually, as are 37,000 prescriptions and 6,000 smoke detectors. It is important to remember that the data shown here represents only those wastes generated in the home, and disposed of or stored there. Some wastes such as motor oils and other automotive wastes will not be generated by many residents at their homes (see Section 4.1, Respondent Information). These same residents will contribute to the total waste generated by having this work performed elsewhere, however, and the disposal of these wastes from the outside services is not considered here. 92 5.1.2.3 Percentages of Waste Streams The primary mechanism for H H W disposal is inclusion with regular household solid wastes that are collected and disposed of at regional landfills. Annual loads of garbage heading to the Burns Bog landfill are estimated to be 100,000 tonnes from single detached dwellings, and a further 120,000 tonnes coming from private carriers collecting from both apartments and commercial sources (McLewin, 1990). An additional 10,000 tonnes comes from self-haul transfer station wastes. To roughly estimate the total load of residential solid waste delivered to the landfill, the detached dwelling generation rate may be assumed to be similar to the apartment generation rate. Therefore, the total load equals: [(Detached Dwelling Load) + (Transfer Station Load)] x (Number of Residences) = Total Load (Number of Detached Dwellings) [(100,000) + (10,000)] x (186,165) = 290.500 Tonnes/year (70,505) The total values of HHW indicated in Table 36 are difficult to translate into tonnes. For liquid wastes, an average specific gravity among all liquid waste types together of 1.0 may be assumed. This assumed specific gravity may be high for oils, fuels and oil-based paints, but the result will be a conservative overestimate if this is significant. As liquids constitute the majority of the HHW, a rough estimate of the percent of the total landfilled waste, neglecting solid HHW's, would be: [(633,000 1)(1 T/1000 l)/(290,500 T)] x 100% = 0.2 percent If allowances are made for the solid HHW's also disposed of in this manner, this may climb closer to 0.3 percent. Other surveys and waste stream examinations of municipal solid wastes report similar percentages, typically varying from 0 to 1 percent of the total weight (Rathje et al, 1987, found 0.35% and 0.40%; King County, 1988, report percentages ranging from 0.3% to 0.4%; Mattheis, 1987, reports studies finding 0.09%). 93 5.1.3 Collection Events Quantity Estimates The development and planning of HHW collection programs requires estimations be made regarding the amount of HHW that will be collected. A simple process for estimating this quantity is to multiply the total quantity of HHW generated annually by a participation factor which reflects the public's willingness to dispose of their wastes through the collection program. For depot collection programs, a review of participation rates found that between 0.6 and 1.3 percent of the number of dwellings served typically participated in HHW collection programs, with the average participation being 0.8 percent (Meiorin, 1987). If a conservative estimate of one percent participation is assumed for the City of Vancouver, the amount of waste collected annually by a HHW depot collection program may be estimated by multiplying this number of dwellings by the average annual generation of HHW (as determined on a per-generator basis, as all participants would only be generators). Tables 38 and 39 present this calculation for both a first-time collection program and for an on-going collection program. In the first-time collection quantity estimate (Table 38), the average quantity of HHW used in the calculation is the value determined in Part II Question 1, where respondents indicated the amount of HHW the currently had. Table 39 uses the average amount of HHW the respondents felt they would generate in a year, and is therefore the amount that may be collected annually and not just in one collection event. These two estimates reflect the changes in waste composition that are likely to occur over time as wastes that are presently being stored in households are removed in the first few collections. Values shown in these two tables, except for the generation quantities, have been rounded to the nearest unit value. There are several differences apparent between the estimated quantities of HHW that could be collected in a first-time collection program and in an on-going program. These differences could largely be attributed to the differences in storage versus disposal practises of respondents. For example, the estimated quantity of paints that would be collected in a first-time collection program is much greater than the estimated quantity 94 Table 38: Estimation of Amount of HHW Collected in a First-Time Depot Collection Program in Vancouver Average Percent of Number of * Quantity per Total ** Waste Type Generators Participants Generator Ouantitv Cleaners 5 101 0.83 84 Drain Openers 3 56 0.52 29 Latex Paint 28 516 5.60 2890 Oil-Base Paint 22 415 4.49 1863 Wood Preservers 6 112 2.46 276 Paint Thinners 10 179 1.59 285 Adhesives 7 123 1.06 130 Pesticides 11 212 2.01 426 Batteries 25 471 4.45 2096 Lead/Acid Batteries 8 156 1.50 234 Motor Oil 10 179 8.25 1477 Antifreeze 1 11 25.00 275 Fuel 5 89 12.19 1085 Petroleum Products 2 45 2.87 129 Pool Chemicals 1 11 20.00 220 Prescriptions *** 20 365 1.00 365 Acids/Bases 3 56 4.80 269 Smoke Detectors 4 78 1.14 89 * Calculated assuming 1% of generators participate and that the total number of households served is 186,165 ** Liquids reported in litres, solids in number of units (solids include batteries, lead/acid batteries, drugs, smoke detectors) *** Quantity of prescriptions is reported as number of respondents having any quantity to dispose of that would be collected by an on-going program. Similarly, paint thinners, wood preservers, pesticides, lead/acid batteries, and acid/bases would appear in greater quantities in a first-time collection. Other wastes, notably cleaners, drain openers, batteries (dry cells), motor oil, antifreeze, and fuel, follow the opposite pattern and would be less likely to appear in a first-time collection program than in an on-going program. 5.1.4 Lower Mainland Quantities The area investigated in this survey was limited to dwellings within the City of Vancouver. It is probable that the data collected in this area may be applicable to other municipalities in the Lower Mainland comprised of similar dwellings. An estimate of the total HHW generated in the Lower Mainland area may therefore be accomplished by increasing the previously calculated quantities in direct proportion to the increased number 95 Table 39: Estimation of Annual Amount of HHW Collected in an On-Going Depot Collection Program in Vancouver Adjusted Average Total ** Percent of Number of * Quantity per Annual Waste Tvpe Generators Participants Generator Ouantitv Cleaners 22 410 1.46 599 Drain Openers 13 242 0.42 102 Latex Paint 34 663 1.51 956 Oil-Base Paint 27 503 1.73 870 Wood Preservers 9 168 0.58 97 Paint Thinners 22 410 1.15 472 Adhesives 13 242 0.33 80 Pesticides 13 242 0.90 218 Batteries 39 726 14.79 10,738 Lead/Acid Batteries 10 186 0.57 106 Motor Oil 15 279 10.50 2,930 Antifreeze 10 186 5.47 1,017 Fuel 6 112 3.08 345 Petroleum Prods. 7 130 0.68 88 Pool Chemicals 0 0 0.00 0 Prescriptions 23 428 0.84 360 Acids/Bases 3 56 0.25 14 Smoke Detectors 3 56 0.50 28 * Calculated assuming 1% of generators participate and the total number of households served is 186,165 ** Liquids reported in litres, solids in number of units (solids include batteries, lead/acid batteries, drugs, smoke detectors) of dwellings. If 1986 census data is used, a total of 532,225 dwellings are in the Lower Mainland, 283,535 (53 percent) of which are detached dwellings. Assuming the remaining 248,690 to be apartment residences, an estimate of the overall HHW both existing and generated annually may be made. The determination of the scale-up factors for these estimates are shown below: 283.535 Detached in L.Mainland = 4.0 70,505 Detached in Vancouver 248,690 Apartment in LMainland = 2.2 115,660 Apartment in Vancouver The total amount of HHW being generated by detached dwellings in the Lower Mainland may therefore be approximated as roughly four times more than in the City of Vancouver alone, and the amount generated by apartments is roughly 2.2 times more than in Vancouver alone. In total, this means that the annual generation of HHW in the Lower Mainland is approximately (values for Vancouver City shown are taken from Table 37): 96 Liquids: (4 x 389,188) + (2.2 x 241,729) = 2.1 million litres/year Batteries: (4 x 419,505) + (2.2 x 606,058) = 3.0 millionA/ear Lead/Acid Batteries: (4 x 4,935) + (2.2 x 4,626) = 29,900A/ear Prescriptions: (4 x 14,806) + (2.2 x 21,975) = 107,600/year Smoke Detectors: (4 x 1,401) + (2.2 x 4,626) = 15,800A/ear 5.2 Data Verification The nature of this survey was that of an initial investigation, intentionally broad in scope with the objective of identifying areas of significance for HHW collection programs. With such a broad objective, it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the data collected here. In addition, most of the information gathered here required some degree of speculation or estimation on behalf of the respondents in respect to scenarios that do not at present exist (eg: willingness to participate in various collection programs). This kind of information can not be verified as the scenarios are hypothetical. However, some measures were taken to establish if the data collected here was within reasonable limits of accuracy. This section discusses these verification measures. 5.2.1 HHW Quantities and Composition Verification of the data collected regarding the quantities of HHW both generated and currently existing is only practically performed through comparison with other, similar studies. Direct comparison of the findings of this study with those in the Literature Review is made difficult by the different waste classification and waste quantification methods employed. Following is a comparison in general terms of data collected here and the findings of those studies reviewed in Section 2.3: • The waste class of Household Maintenance items (paints, thinners, stains, and glues), used by Rathje et al., 1987, in a study of domestic garbage in Marin County, CA, and New Orleans, ( L A , was reported to be the predominant waste type comprising up to 43.3 percent of HHW's 97 found. In this study, although these items were treated separately, as a group they were generated by the most respondents and in the largest quantities per respondent. Rathje et al. also suggested that automotive wastes were more predominant in areas of lower economic status that in other areas, and that other waste types such as pesticides were more predominant in higher economic status areas. Similar observations were made in this study. Galvin et al., 1982, reported on the number of households containing products which could become HHW's. Most prevalent among the potential HHW items were cleaners, polishes, paints, motor oil, pesticides and fertilizers. The quantity of the products was not reported. Galvin et al. also did not estimate the quantity or proportion of these materials that actually became wastes. The results of the work done in this study are not directly comparable, but in general terms the products Galvin et al. identify as prevalent are similar to the more common waste types. King County, 1989, found that over 90 percent of respondents to a telephone survey had at least one item of hazardous materials stored in their house, although the nature and quantity of these wastes were not determined. Although King County, 1989, reported on products rather than wastes, the percentage of respondents in this study who either stored or generated HHW's was also large (for liquid HHW's, 46.4 and 52 percent respectively among all zones together). Sturdevant et al., 1989, reported that automotive products were the most prevalent HHW type, followed by antifreeze, batteries, and paints/thinners. Also, it was reported that apartment dwellers generated less HHW than detached dwelling respondents. However, empty containers were included in the waste quantities, and the quantity was determined by the number of items. As products such as paints are generally contained in larger packages than motor oils and batteries, the number of items does not relate directly to the volumetric quantity as measured in this study. However, the principal waste types found by Sturdevant et al. were similar to the principal waste types found in this study. Russell and Meiorin, 1985, studied the number of containers of HHW's disposed of and the 98 residual volumes in these containers. Motor oils, cleaners, and swimming pool containers were the most numerous containers, while containers that held motor oils, paints, thinners, cleaners, and antifreeze tended to have the most residual contents. An average of 8 to 16 litres per year of HHW's were disposed of per household as container residuals. This value is significantly higher than the average found in this study (3.35 litres), except for Zone C results which reported 6.09 litres per respondent. Possible reasons include the presence of swimming pool chemicals in Russell and Meiorin's results, which were not reported in this study, and a potential inclination of respondents to underestimate the quantity of waste they generate. However, the method of reporting is different enough to make a direct comparison of the data difficult. Russell and Meiorin's results were the largest HHW quantity estimates of any of the studies reviewed in Section 2.3. • Other studies found varying quantities of HHW's, from negligible quantities to the values reported in Russell and Meiorin's work. As a percentage of the total solid waste stream, HHW's account for between 0.0045 percent and 1 percent. The amount of non-domestic solid waste included in these estimates is not clear, nor is it consistent between these studies. In this study, the volume values calculated fall in the middle or slightly lower standing of this range. The following general observations may be made regarding these comparisons: • The relative proportion of each type of waste found in this study was similar to the relative proportions of wastes in other studies. In most studies, the predominant HHW's were either paints (latex and/or oil-base) or motor oils and lubricants. In this study, paints were the most predominant and motor oil was the second most prevalent waste types among existing wastes. Among the wastes generated annually, this study found that motor oils, antifreeze, and paints were the most frequently generated. Other studies, depending on their reporting basis and definition of waste used in the study, found results with essentially the same trends. • The proportion of the total household waste represented by HHW's was calculated from data 99 collected here to be roughly 0.2 to 0.3 percent. Other studies looking at similar waste types found the proportions to vary from 0 to 1 percent, with 0.3 being roughly typical. Again, the reporting basis and waste definition used will influence these figures. The inspection of wastes included with regular household garbage performed in this study was used to ascertain if all wastes that may be considered hazardous had been included in the study, and if all wastes included could be found in garbage streams. In the three inspections performed, wastes from most of the waste groups were found, including most kinds of liquids, and most solids except lead/acid batteries and smoke detectors. Also found were wastes such as nail polishes and syringes that could have been included in this study as HHW's. The differences between the waste generation profiles in different types of residential areas was examined in only a few other studies, as discussed in Section 2.3. A comparison between an upper and a lower income area (Rathje, 1987) indicated that the lower income area generated more automotive wastes than did the upper income area. A similar result was found in this study. Russell and Meiorin, 1985, reported that apartment areas generated less HHW than detached dwelling areas, a statistic that was also observed in this study. Not enough data is available in other works to compare with the more specific findings of differences between dwelling areas that were made in this study. v. A simple and quick method for estimating if the data may be representative is to look at the results from the perspective of a typical household and to see if the estimated values seem reasonable. For example, the generation of 10.5 litres of motor oil per generator in one year is the rough equivalent of two oil changes per year; this amount of generation is typically what would be expected for many vehicles. Batteries (dry cells) were estimated to be thrown out at a rate of 15 per year by generators of these wastes, which is also a reasonable figure given typical consumption rates. The generation of other waste materials, such as adhesives, is not as easily corroborated. However, these generation rates on the whole do not seem out of proportion when compared with those wastes with verifiable generation rates. 100 5.2.2 Disposal Practices As with the quantity data collected here, the data collected with regard to disposal practices can be most practically verified through comparisons with other survey data. The data collected in other surveys is summarized in Section 2.3. The most prevalent method of disposal of these wastes types reported in this and other surveys by far was the inclusion of the wastes with other household garbage in the solid waste stream. While the percentage of the respondents who indicated they would dispose of their waste in this manner varied with the type of waste, for all waste types except motor oils and antifreeze it was the disposal method chosen by over half of the respondents. In studies conducted in Washington and California, as discussed in Section 2.3, between half and all HHW's were disposed of in conjunction with municipal solid wastes. The waste load dissections performed in this survey support the suggestion that most HHW's are disposed of in this manner. Other disposal practices are more difficult to verify, as they may not result in visible or separable wastes. Disposal of liquid HHW's to sanitary sewers, particularly those which collect commercial and industrial wastes, results in a mixed waste from which it is not possible to identify contaminant sources. Similarly, storm sewer disposal and land application of HHW's are not easily differentiated from other sources of these types of wastes. However, the respondents in this survey indicated the majority of the HHW's they generate would be disposed of in the more verifiable manner of inclusion with solid waste streams. 5.2.3 Operating Parameters The degree of public response to a HHW collection program was estimated from the results of this survey to be at a maximum when individual household collection was the method used, although detached dwelling neighbourhoods did not distinguish between this method and a local, permanent depot. In studies conducted in Washington, California, and Massachusetts (as referenced in Section 2.3), these two options were also the most preferred collection methods, although in varying order. Depending on the phrasing of this question, these results may be biased by the same problem in interpretation encountered here; that is, the question may 101 be interpreted as "how often would you use the collection program?" versus the correct interpretation of "would you use the collection program whenever you had HHW to dispose of?". It is possible many respondents indicated that they would not use the collection program often, although they would use it whenever they had HHW. As the studies reporting these results did not discuss this situation, the results can not be compared with certainty to those collected in this study. Regarding the number of respondents who would participate in a collection program, the question in this survey was asked in a manner that requested all respondents to assume they had HHW, rather than asking only those who actually generated these wastes. Therefore, the results of existing HHW collection programs, which indicate that less than one percent of the population actually participate in depot collection programs, can not be directly compared to the data collected here. These results suggest a much higher participation rate than one percent, but do not consider the circumstances that affect participation in such collections. Also, survey respondents tend to be overly optimistic about their participation or enthusiasm for future events, as suggested by Platek et al, 1985. The distance that the majority of respondents would be willing to travel to get to a collection depot as determined in other studies was generally less than sixteen kilometres (10 miles). In this study, travel distances were referred to in terms of time, and it was found that the majority of respondents would prefer travel times of less than 16 to thirty minutes. In terms of personal vehicle mileage, these two figures are roughly equivalent for city driving conditions. However, if alternative means of transportation are to be considered, such as bicycles, public transport, and walking, this distance is greatly reduced. As 15 percent of respondents do not own a vehicle, and more may prefer not to need to use one for this purpose, this may become a barrier to participation for several HHW generators. Other factors investigated in this study, such as public concerns regarding the various collection options, and payment method preferences for the collection programs, were not reviewed in other studies and can not therefore be verified by comparison. 102 5.2.4 Respondent Bias The respondents completing the questionnaire forms comprising this survey were instructed to complete the questions as accurately as possible. In presenting the questions, care was taken to not give the respondents the impression that there were "right" answers and "wrong" answers, or answers that more socially acceptable than others. However, it is quite likely that the responses obtained were influenced at least partially by some respondents not wanting to be perceived as being harmful or neglectful with regard to the environment. Also, some respondents may overestimate the amount of effort or money they are willing to put out in order to participate in a HHW collection program. As discussed in Section 2.3, respondents will tend to direct their responses towards those that they feel reflect well on themselves. Due to considerable recent public awareness of environmental issues, and as respondents may have felt that the interviewers were particularly aware of environmental issues, these factors could have influenced the data collected here. 5.3 Discussion of Results The results generated in this survey and data analysis have elicited several issues and factors that may be important considerations in the design of an effective program for the collection of HHW's. Of primary importance are issues such as: (1) the quantity and types of HHW that may be collected; (2) the parameters of a collection program that will most affect the ability of the program to remove HHW from uncontrolled waste streams; and, (3) the concerns and issues that the public feel to be of importance with regard to HHW collection. This section summarizes the significant findings of the survey with regard to these issues. 5.3.1 HHW Quantity Estimates Existing Wastes: The quantity of existing HHW (HHW either stored or generated at the time of the survey) was estimated for 103 the City of Vancouver from the data collected here. Most respondents interviewed had at least one of the wastes included in the questionnaires as HHW. However, the number of respondents with wastes of any particular category was generally small, and the average quantity of waste per generator was also small. The distributions of existing wastes on a per respondent basis was skewed heavily towards zero. The total estimated quantity of HHW for the city was still a large volume (about 650,000 litres of liquids, 200,000 dry cell batteries, and tens of thousands of prescriptions, lead/acid batteries and smoke detectors). Among the existing liquid wastes, the majority were paints. Respondents in apartments reported far less existing liquid wastes that did detached dwelling respondents. This result could be due to several factors, including: • apartment dwellers have less storage space for products such as paints that they do not have an immediate use for, and are therefore more likely to dispose of them rather than store them in anticipation of future use • apartment dwellers have less use for paint (the most common liquid HHW) as the do not perform dwelling maintenance to the same degree as detached dwelling residents (as seen in responses to questions in Part I of this survey) • as the average residence time of apartment residents is significantly shorter than detached dwelling residents, they will be less inclined to store materials for long periods of time, and will not build up the same volumes of stored HHW's Solid wastes are generated in similar quantities at both apartments and detached dwellings, with the exception of lead/acid batteries. This may be due to similar factors as those regarding storage of existing liquid HHW's, or also to the observation that detached dwelling residents are slightly more inclined to perform their own automobile maintenance. Between upper and lower income areas, a greater inclination to perform automotive maintenance in the lower income areas would likely account for the greater volume of automotive-related HHW's in these areas. Upper income areas store more waste paints than lower income areas, possibly due to either greater building surface areas to be painted in upper income areas or the greater purchase powers of these areas. 104 The differences in existing waste quantities among these areas should be considered in the design of permanent HHW collection programs. If recycling opportunities for the collected wastes are to be optimized, provisions should be made in lower income areas to collect recyclable automotive wastes such as motor oil. Collection facilities serving upper income areas should be prepared for the majority of wastes to be paints and related products. In apartment zones, fewer wastes may be present in initial collections as fewer wastes are stored. Annually Generated Wastes: The calculation of annually generated HHW's presented here may lose some accuracy due the need to adjust the data for incomplete responses. However, as discussed before, the data is intended to be used for the detection of trends in HHW generation, and to identify areas of importance in the design of a collection program for these wastes. Therefore, the loss of accuracy should not affect the usefulness of the data. As with the existing HHW's, most respondents generated at least one of the waste types investigated in this survey. About 630,000 litres of liquid HHW's were estimated to be generate annually in households in the city; although this quantity is similar to the existing waste quantity estimated previously, the relative composition is different. The largest volume of liquids generated annually are those associated with automotive maintenance, such as motor oils and antifreeze. While paints are still a major component of the liquid wastes, they represent less of the total than do these automotive wastes. The difference in the composition of the liquid wastes reflects the difference in disposal practices, in that respondents are more likely to directly dispose of wastes such as antifreeze than they are to collect and store them. If the disposal method for these wastes is through direct release to the environment (for example, land application or release to storm sewers), it may potentially be more of a concern than the disposal of such wastes through municipal solid waste collection where they become subject to the more tortuous release pathways of a landfill. This would appear to be the case, as the percentage of respondents disposing of these wastes to storm drains was greater than for other waste types. Apartments appear to generate almost as much waste as do the detached dwellings on an annual basis; the 105 exception to this is with liquid wastes when compared to the lower income area. Zone C generated far more liquid waste than did either A or B, primarily in the form of automotive wastes. This zone also generated more lead/acid batteries than either of the other two zones. Otherwise, the zonal differences are not as great as they are for the stored waste quantities. This implies that, although there still remain several differences in the kinds of wastes generated between dwelling types, there is an even greater difference in the willingness or ability of the residents in these areas to store the wastes. Collection Quantity Estimates The estimates of the quantity of HHW that may be collected by a depot collection program in Vancouver is based on the assumptions that one percent of residents will participate in the collection, and that all generators of HHW's are equally likely to participate. In an actual collection program, the participation rate is determined by the level and effectiveness of advertising, the ease of access to the depot, and several other less quantifiable factors. Also, the motivation for a resident with a few waste dry cell batteries versus a resident with 20 cans of old paint to participate in the collection program are quite different. While these considerations make these assumptions appear inaccurate, they do serve the purpose of providing a basis upon which to estimate the requirements of a collection program. In the results from this survey, it appears that the wastes that may be collected will reflect the following factors: • Some waste types are stored while others are discarded as they are generated, implying that the profile of the wastes collected will change over time as stored wastes are gradually removed from the waste stream. This implies that waste such as paint will become less significant and wastes such as automotive wastes will become more significant. • The majority of the wastes collected will be liquid. • Many of the wastes collected could be recycled. • Initially, wastes may be expected to arrive in relatively large volumes as they are the result of years of accumulation. As the collections progress, wastes may be brought in smaller quantities, but by a larger number of generators. 106 By comparing the existing waste (first time collection) quantities with the annually generated (or collected) quantities, an estimate of the duration of storage may be made. For example, although roughly one million dry cell batteries are generated annually, only 200,000 are present as existing wastes, implying that they are stored for only 2 or 3 months before being disposed of. On the other hand, wastes such as prescriptions are stored for between one and one and a half years. Liquid wastes as a whole are stored for roughly one year. Detached dwellings, however, store liquid wastes for about two years on average, while apartment dwellings store these wastes for slightly more than half of a year. Similarly, apartment residents will store lead/acid batteries for about half a year, while detached dwelling residents average almost three years. The effect of these factors on the design of a collection program will be to require some flexibility with time to alter the collection facility to accommodate the changing waste stream, and to allow for different generation and storage practices between areas of different dwelling types. Also, as many wastes may be arriving in small quantities in their original packaging, this will result in the need for a decision to be made regarding the choice of bulking the wastes (repackaging them in a large, common container) and disposing of the existing packaging separately, or individually packaging the wastes in the containers they arrive in (for example, in a "lab-pack" fashion). This decision affects the disposal costs of the collected materials, the labour requirements at the collection facility, and ability to recycle some of the wastes. This decision should be with consideration to the fate of the emptied packaging, the effectiveness of recycling the wastes, and the practicality of separating the wastes in the time available depending on the collection method. A factor in making this decision will be the acceptability of the emptied packaging at landfills. The total volume of wastes that may be collected is useful at this stage only as a first estimate to provide some inclination of what may be expected in a first time collection. It is the relative proportion of the total waste that each waste type represents, and how this proportion changes over time, that is of greater significance. It may be expected that an effective collection program will result in a relatively quick removal of stored wastes, and a subsequent quick transition towards a waste profile similar to the generated wastes. A less effective program could result in maintaining the profile of stored wastes for a longer period of time, as it 107 would continue to collect only those wastes more likely to be stored. At the time of writing (spring of 1990), the City of Vancouver is proceeding with the first HHW collection event in an on-going and developing program. The design of the program is a single depot serving the entire city, operating for one weekend and not involving user fees. The intention of the collection is to increase the data base from which they will design an on-going collection program. 5.3.2 Comments on the Potential Environmental Impact of HHW's To accurately quantify the environmental impact of HHW's would involve a much more detailed study of household waste streams than could be performed here. In addition, it may not be possible to differentiate between the effect of HHW's and the effect of small quantities of commercial wastes that are discharged in uncontrolled manners. For example, a small industry disposing of a single twenty litre pail of used solvents (whether intentionally illegally or not) with their regular garbage that goes to landfill will equal the solvent wastes generated by about 15 households in one year. Other sources, such as jewellery stores where watch batteries are exchanged, may generate far more of certain wastes than households do. However, some general comments may be made that provide insight into areas of greatest potential concern: • The great majority of HHW in Vancouver eventually ends up in landfills. Although the relative proportion of these materials in the solid waste stream is small, where landfill impacts on the environment are of concern, the disposal of these wastes in this manner may tip the balance of acceptable practices towards the unacceptable. • In areas serviced by solid waste disposal methods other than landfills, such as those areas serviced by waste incinerators, HHW's may be released to the environment through other mechanisms. Incinerators may also serve to concentrate the heavy metals in HHW's in the ash and flyash, resulting in further disposal problems. • As solid waste reduction and recycling continues to grow in application, and as industrial sources of wastes are more stringently regulated, the relative impact of HHW's will increase in landfill disposal and in sewers. Also, the negative impact of these wastes on the waste 108 degradation and breakdown processes many wastes undergo in landfills may increase, lowering the effectiveness of the landfill. Some of the mechanisms by which landfills retard the migration of liquid HHW's may also change with a changing waste stream. • Only a small proportion of HHW's are disposed of in storm drains, according to respondents in this survey. However, some wastes, such as antifreeze, may be disposed of primarily in uncontrolled manners such as this. The impact of these wastes will not be tempered by buffers such as those provided in landfills, and may be a first concern for reducing the overall impact of HHW's on the environment. • In sewers, the potential impact of HHW's is either directly on the environment (where primary treatment only is provided) or on the treatment process (in the case of secondary treatment facilities). In either case, the relative importance of this impact is likely small for most wastes. However, some materials, such as pesticides or metals, may accumulate in the environment and be of long-term concern. In general, not enough is known at this point to be able to state any definitive effect of HHW on the environment. From a human health perspective, the hazards posed to sanitary workers is a definable and proven impact. Also, animal health effects of wastes such as pesticides and antifreeze have been identified. Otherwise, much more detailed studies of specific concerns, such as landfill leachate composition and contaminant sources, would be required. However, the value of these studies may not be justified from a global perspective when factors such as public education and the provision of facilities for concerned residents to use are considered as well. An evaluation of environmental impacts of HHW should consider factors other than the direct effect of this relatively small amount of wastes on the environment, such as the overall affect of increasing the public's awareness of the products the buy and how they dispose of their wastes. As many of these materials are effectively disposed of in use, such as cleaners, drain openers and aerosols, a decrease in consumption of these products will augment the benefits achieved by collecting the proportion of them that are discarded as wastes. 109 5.3.3 Addressing Public Needs and Concerns 5.3.3.1 Individual Collection Programs Individual household collection programs were the most popular in terms of the potential participation. Respondents felt that collection from their residences occurring at least twice yearly and as frequently as once monthly would be required. However, they had several concerns about this collection method including the safety of the wastes while awaiting collection, the cost of the program, and the ultimate disposal method for the wastes. To address the safety concerns would require the collection program to pick up the wastes directly from residences and process them immediately into safe, transportable form. Programs such as the appointment system discussed earlier, where residents call for a truck to come and pick up their wastes at an arranged time, overcome this difficulty. However, these programs are expensive and are not likely to be efficient at removing HHW from the waste stream due to the extra effort required of the generators. Alternatives exist, such as designated containers for HHW's that are sealable, door-to-door collection, and the collection of only waste which could not be harmful to the public in most situations such as paints. However, these alternatives do not adequately address both the concerns of the public and the efficiency of the collection program. Other concerns, such as the knowledge level of the public and the method of ultimate disposal, may be sufficiently addressed through effective education of the public. Clearly, individual household collection gives rise to a conflict between increasing the ease of use and satisfying the safety concerns of users. This conflict becomes further complicated when economic factors such as the cost of collection and the longterm cost of inefficient collection are considered. The cost differential between individual and other collection methods is likely to be large enough that for most areas the value of individual collection will not justify the expense. 5.3.3.2 Depot Collection Programs 110 Respondents indicated they would make use of a permanent, local depot collection program to almost the same degree as they would an individual household collection program. Particularly in the detached dwelling areas, this collection alternative would appear to be likely to succeed. In apartment zones, the ability of this collection method to remove HHW from uncontrolled disposal waste streams is slightly lower. The respondents in this survey may also be more likely to overestimate their participation in this kind of collection to a greater degree than they would overestimate their participation in individual collection programs, due to the increased effort that is required (optimistic thinking would be more significant here). Altogether, the degree of participation for a permanent, local depot would likely be slightly lower than for an individual collection program. Other depot options, such as centrally located depots and special event depots, resulted in significantly lower participation estimates. However, the effect of the increased and high-level advertising likely to accompany a special event collection program has not been considered here. On average, most respondents would be willing to travel up to 16 to 30 minutes to get to a depot, with little difference between zones. Apartment residents are less willing to travel to a depot, and are more in favour of evening and weekend operating hours. Detached dwelling residents are in favour of most operating hour options. These results indicate that apartment residents have different preferences for the operation of depots, in that proximity is more important and the facility operating hours must be flexible to accommodate irregular hours. The concerns of respondents regarding depot collection of HHW's were centred primarily around the safety of the depot. Accidents involving the mishandling of wastes and the possibility of vandalism were uppermost in their opinion. However, the major concerns of respondents were ones that may be more easily addressed than those regarding individual collection. For example, any special waste facility in B.C. must be designed to meet many safety precautions, and would in effect be highly vandal-proof. Residents taking wastes to a facility such as this would see for themselves the degree of safety involved, and would not gain access to any wastes once they have been received, all of which could lead to reducing their fears. Interestingly, the cost concerns and ultimate disposal concerns of respondents were not as widely spread for depot collection 111 programs. This may be due to the participants being able to watch the collection and handling of their wastes, and the feeling that they are not getting extravagant service in response to a minor quantity of waste. 5.3.3.3 Other Issues The locating of a HHW depot or storage facility in the neighbourhood of the respondents was not identified as a significant concern by many respondents. Although this may reflect a feeling of "it came from our house, after all", it is possible that when such a facility is proposed opposition will appear from residents who may not have opposed the concept while it was just hypothetical. Only a few respondents claimed to be worried about the traffic increase or appearance of a facility, but these are still potential issues for complaint. The locating of such a facility in a non-residential area is beneficial from this perspective, but not from a point of view of ease of access. The best compromise may be one that takes advantage of existing transfer stations and other publicly-owned areas already located, such as firehalls. Cost recovery options were generally not clearly preferred or disliked by respondents in this survey. A lack of agreement on the best method of payment for collection was observed both among respondents within each zone and among all respondents together. 5.3.4 Accuracy of Data The data collected and analyzed in this study represents a first effort at providing insight into an area about which little local information previously existed. As such, this data contains both respondent bias and influence from assumptions. Most of these inaccuracies are either apparent only after collection of the data, or were necessary to feasibly collect the data. Subsequent studies of this subject may take advantage of the knowledge gained here to design surveys which may overcome these data limitations. Some of the respondent biases and assumptions made in this study, and their affect on the accuracy of the data collected, are 112 summarized below. Respondent Bias: Over half of the respondents indicated that they would be willing to participate in certain depot HHW collection programs. However, data gathered from several depot collection events shows that even in the best attended collection programs a response of about one percent of the dwellings served is good. While the data gathered here is not suited to estimate the number of respondents that would participate in a depot collection program, it would seem to indicate a higher response rate than one percent. This may result from a general bias among respondents due to a desire to not appear lazy or uninterested in environmental concerns. Such a bias would also affect other responses in this survey, such as the disposal practices of respondents, and the amount respondents are willing to pay for HHW collection. Other respondent biases that could have affected data collected in this study include: • respondents not wanting to appear wasteful, and denying that they discard any unwanted products • respondents who do not feel HHW's are an important issue and subsequently do not take the time necessary to complete the questionnaires accurately Without more detailed study, it is not possible to estimate which respondent biases are most prevalent or have the biggest impact. However, it may be safest to assume that the reported quantity of HHW is less than or at best equal to the actual quantity of HHW, and that the actual response rate will be less than the respondents indicate. Assumptions: Many assumptions were involved in the determination of the HHW quantities, both generated and collected in depot programs, and in the potential effectiveness of the various disposal alternatives. These assumptions 113 include: • the respondents are representative of both their dwelling type and of the residents of the City of Vancouver as a whole • the three zones investigated are representative of all general dwelling types in the city • the generators of different types of HHW's are equally willing to participate in collection programs • the generators of different kinds of HHW's are equally willing to store wastes • the respondents had sufficient knowledge of their wastes handling practices to accurately estimate their generation and disposal of HHW Other less visible factors were made which will also have an impact on the results of this study, such as the use of different questionnaire forms and completion methods, and the interviewer or data entry staff interpretations of some responses. However, other outside factors beyond the scope of this analysis will also affect the generation and disposal of HHW. Examples of this are the changing trends of consumer purchases, the development of new products, public knowledge, and the cost of both buying and disposing of these materials. All of these respondent biases and assumptions will influence the data to some extent. It would require a study of much greater magnitude than this to determine just the background data needed to validate these assumptions. The use of these data for statistical comparisons and determination of trends is therefore weakened by the effect of these factors. Due to the changing and uncertain nature of the subject material, however, it may not be feasibly possible to gather data of greater statistical value without expending undue effort. The trends detected here, while certainly affected by these factors, are still useful in developing the design parameters of a HHW collection program whether or not statistically valid, and thus meet the objectives of this study. 114 6.0 Conclusions The intent of this survey was to provide sufficient background information regarding HHW's in Vancouver to design and evaluate an effective collection program for these wastes that would address public concerns. Through surveying over 200 households of varying economic status and dwelling type within the city, several observations regarding waste generation, disposal practices, and public willingness to participate in collection programs were made. A summary of the more significant factors, and their relevance to the design of an effective HHW collection program, are listed below. • The majority of respondents had at least one existing waste included on the list of HHW types that they wished to dispose of. The most common stored wastes are paints, with latex more common than oil-based paints. Motor oil and fuels were among the most widely present wastes, with batteries the most numerous solid wastes. Between dwelling types, apartment residents stored far fewer wastes than did detached dwelling residents, and far fewer liquid wastes in particular. The detached dwelling zone of higher average economic status had statistically similar quantities of stored HHW's to the lower economic status detached dwelling zone. However, the two detached dwelling zones differed in the primary types of waste they had stored, with paints being more common in the higher economic zone and automotive wastes (motor oils, etc.) in the lower economic zone. • In the annual generation of HHW's, paints were produced by the most respondents, although motor oil and antifreeze were produced in the largest volume. Many respondents also reported generating prescription drugs, batteries, paint thinners, and cleaners. Average annual liquid HHW generation, including only contents of containers, was estimated at 5.52 litres per year per respondent. Between zones, it appears that a greater proportion of apartment residents generate HHW's than detached dwelling residents, although in smaller 115 average quantity. Similar differences were also noted for the types of wastes produced in the detached dwelling areas as were noted for stored wastes; that is, the higher economic status area tended to generate primarily paints, while the most prevalent waste types in the lower income area were motor oils and other automotive wastes. The differences between stored and generated waste profiles suggest that storage practices differ depending on the waste type. It is likely, therefore, that as a collection program becomes established, the types of wastes collected will tend to change from the existing waste profile to the generated waste profile. That is, initial collection programs will collect primarily paints, and established collection programs will result in a greater proportion of collected waste being motor oils and antifreeze. An effective collection program will be able to collect not only the wastes likely to be stored, but also those wastes that are regularly discarded rather than stored. The effectiveness of a collection program could be estimated by the period of time required to observe this change in collected wastes. The profile, quantity and disposal of wastes generated are similar in Vancouver, on average, to other areas where similar studies have been conducted. Direct comparison with other studies is difficult due to different reporting standards being used. In general, most HHW's are thrown out with regular municipal solid waste streams and comprise less than one percent of the total solid municipal waste stream. In this study, HHW's are estimated to account for about 0.2 to 0.3 percent of the total solid waste stream in Vancouver. HHW's represent a small percentage of the total solid waste stream. In addition, the environmental effect of these wastes is difficult to quantify due primarily to the fact that there are other sources of similar pollutants which are potentially of an equal or greater magnitude to HHW's. However, there are many components of HHW's that are of potentially 116 significant impact to the environment, and it is likely that at least some of these chemicals are being discharged without controls to the environment. There are different HHW collection needs in different areas of the city, depending on factors such as dwelling type and economic status. In apartment areas, where storage space is at a premium and secure storage may be difficult to find, residents are more likely to discard wastes rather than store them. In higher economic areas, residents may be willing to store wastes longer than in lower economic areas, either due to the nature of the waste generated (largely paints) or due to other factors like greater available storage space. Lower economic status areas tended to generate wastes that were not commonly stored, such as waste motor oils. These two areas seem to require two different types of services, one being for wastes that are easily stored and one being for wastes that are more commonly not stored. Among the collection options provided in the questionnaire used here, individual household collection programs received the greatest amount of positive response. However, among the detached dwelling respondents, there was no significant difference in response to individual household collection and to the option of a local collection depot that would be open on a permanent basis. Apartment residents distinctly preferred individual collection options. The least preferred collection option in all zones was central depots open on special events only. This type of collection, however, is also the most commonly performed. In Canada and in the United States, typically less than one percent of the population will participate in collection events of this design. Apartment residents also preferred more frequent collection periods than did detached dwelling residents. This is most likely due to their reluctance or inability to store such materials. 117 • Most concerns expressed over the collection of HHW's had to do with the safety of the collection process and of the wastes once stored and awaiting disposal. It was also noted that concern over the ultimate disposal of wastes and the cost of collection was possibly less when respondents delivered the wastes themselves to the collection facility. The level of public knowledge of HHW's was also cited as a major concern by many respondents, and would appear to be an integral factor in the level of success that a collection program is capable of achieving. The factors discussed above may be used to assist in the design of a HHW collection program for the City of Vancouver and surrounding areas. Factors such as waste types, waste quantities, and participation rates may be used to estimate the quantity of wastes that will be received at certain collection events. Public response levels and concerns may be balanced against the cost of collection to maximize the effectiveness of a collection. The varying collection needs of different areas may be addressed to provide different kinds of service to the appropriate areas. From reviewing the data here and the trends observable in other areas where H H W collection programs are developing, the following recommendations may be made. These recommendations are presented as alternatives and considerations that may influence the final design of a collection program, and are not intended to be the blueprint for a design by themselves. • The great majority of the HHW's generated in Vancouver have at least some potential for reuse or recycling. Paints in good condition may be reused by charitable organizations or housing groups. Other paints and paint thinners may be blended and used as a primer in some instances. Motor oils and antifreeze are recyclable commercially, as are lead acid batteries. The potential for recycling other types of wastes could be further investigated. The design of a collection program should be such that the opportunities for recycling are 118 maximized, providing potential cost savings over disposal and reducing the amount of wastes sent to disposal facilities. The potential to recycle wastes varies throughout the city. In order to maximize the collection and recycling of used motor oils, locating bulk containers for receiving used motor oils could provide continuous and safe depositories for these wastes; these efforts would be the most effective in areas where these wastes are generated, such as the lower income detached dwelling areas of the city. Facilities to collect and blend or redistribute paints could be placed in upper income, detached dwelling areas to provide the greatest effectiveness. Difference in HHW generation and storage among dwelling types was observed in this study. However, not all dwelling types were included here, and areas encompassing rural dwellings may have other differences in generation and disposal practices to consider. One HHW collection option that deserves consideration is the use of mobile collection facilities. As currently practised in other areas, mobile collection facilities may be provided through the use of two trailers equipped with lab facilities and drum packaging facilities. The advantages of such a program, if operated on a continuous basis but rotating from area to area within the city, would be the provision of a permanent collection alternative to those residents willing to travel, and a local, well publicised event for other residents. Final processing of the collected wastes could be performed at a central station. Many respondents may wish to dispose of their HHW's at the same time as they perform "spring cleaning". To provide some form of permanent collection facility at transfer stations and at Burns Bog would result in collecting these wastes when a special event program may not be currently operating. 119 • There are many non-profit and volunteer organizations that feel the issue of HHW's are of sufficient concern that they would be willing to assist in the operation of special event collection programs. While the handling of some HHW's requires trained staff, there are many jobs suitable for volunteers, such as traffic control, distribution and completion of questionnaires to participants, and answering questions regarding alternative products and disposal methods for HHW's. • The responsibility of manufacturers for providing safe disposal methods for wastes resulting from the use of their products is an issue that is becoming more significant in recent times. Discussions with such manufacturers may result in assistance in collecting or disposing of the collecting wastes, for public relations reasons at present and possibly for liability reasons in the future. • Results from this survey and other surveys are only useful in identifying the factors and parameters of concern in the design of a program. Through performing special event collections of HHW's, and analyzing the results of these collections, additional information may be collected which can then be used in the design of a permanent collection program. A final factor that must be considered is the level of public knowledge and awareness regarding HHW's. Despite the design of a program, success at removing these wastes from uncontrolled waste streams can not be achieved until the generator is made aware of the fact that these wastes are potential environmental hazards. Therefore, public education of the kinds of materials that constitute HHW's is required, both before and during the operation of the collection program. In addition, it is possible that a greater level of public awareness will result in the true objective of any waste control program, which is reduction at the source. For HHW's in particular, the true disposal of many hazardous products occurs through use (for example, chemical drain openers and household cleaners are primarily discarded as they are used). Only through awareness of 120 the kind of impact these materials potentially have on the environment can the householder begin to understand the need to reduce their consumption of the products that generate these wastes. The forum of a special waste collection event is an ideal opportunity for beginning the public education process. Most respondents were able to understand the questions used in this survey. Of the difficulties encountered most resulted from ambiguities or redundancies in the questionnaire. An example was the respondent's interpretation of the question of "If you had a waste of this type, how would you dispose of it?"; the responses often indicated that they would recycle the waste, although no recycling alternative currently exists. Confusion also resulted from the inclusion of "Once Only" as a response for the question regarding waste disposal frequency, as this often overlapped with the previous question of "How much waste do you have at present?". Also, provision should have been made to distinguish between levels of concern among respondents completing the questions regarding the ranking of typical concerns. Some respondents indicated that, although they ranked the concerns as asked, they did not feel any of the concerns to be significant, while other respondents had genuine concerns about some of the aspects of the collections. Further survey work should avoid these errors in the questionnaire design. Further studies regarding HHW's may be performed to refine the data collected here, and to overcome the shortcomings of the data as identified in these conclusions. The range of issues and topics covered in this survey was wide, and respondents were asked to answer many questions. Further work would benefit by choosing only some of the issues covered here, and asking fewer questions but designing the questions to address more specific issues. The information gathered from different dwelling types suffered from variances that may result from the different questionnaire completion methods. However, several differences were apparent between respondents in these areas, and additional study of these differences may be valuable. Any additional work should be designed to make questionnaire completion methods consistent. Questions regarding respondent preferences in collection program design could be further addressed in 121 additional surveys. However, surveys regarding waste generation rates and disposal practices will continue to be influenced by respondent biases and uncertainty. The accuracy of results obtained in this manner may not be more verifiable than those obtained here. Therefore, additional quantification studies may be best performed through garbage sorting studies. 122 References Adkins, J.M., 1987, "Household Waste Threatens Hauler and Landfill Safety", World Wastes, October, 1987 Atwater, J.W., 1980, "Impact of Landfills", Report to the Fraser River Estuary Study of the Fraser river Estuary Study Steering Committee Brown, T.S., 1987, "Household Hazardous Waste: The Unresolved Water Quality Dilemma", Journal of WPCF, Vol. 59, No. 3, March, 1987 Chempro, 1989, "Summary Report Of Collection Waste, Waste Processing, and Waste Disposal", Seattle/King County Household Hazardous Waste Round-up, June, 1989 Conover, W.J., 1980, Practical Nonparametric Statistics, John Wiley & Sons Cuts, P., 1989, Personal Communication, June 1, 1989 E.V.S. Consultants Ltd., 1975, "Leachate Toxicity Measurements Using the Residual Oxygen Bioassay Method", prepared for Environment Canada Galvin, D.V., Guss, L.M. , and Leraas, J.L., 1982, "Public Opinion and Actions", Report C of the Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Project, Metro Toxicant Program #1, August 1982 Goldberg, J.S., 1987, "Household Hazardous Waste Management: A Survey of Selected Programs in North America and Europe", Munic. of Metro Seattle, August, 1987 Jacob, C , 1989, "Household Hazardous Wastes", Unpublished Paper, Greater Vancouver Regional District King County, 1988, "Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle-King County", Issue Paper, June 1988 King County, 1989, "Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle-King County", August 1989 King County, 1989a, "Household Hazardous Wastemobile", King County Solid Waste Division Landfills Committee, 1984, "Landfills", Report to the Technical Committee, E.J Bremmer, Chairman Lee, C.J., 1979, "Treatment of a Municipal Landfill Leachate", Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, MASc Thesis Lu, J.C.S., Eichenberger, B., and Stearns, R.J., 1985, Leachate from Municipal Landfills. Noyes Publications Masley, E. , 1987, "Public Willing to Pay for More Household Toxics Disposal", Waste Age, December, 1987 Manitoba, 1988, "Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste", Specifications for the Disposal of Household Hazardous Wastes, Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corp. Mattheis, A., 1987, "Collecting Household Toxics: Is it Worth the Effort?", Waste Age, February 1987 McLewin, J., 1990, Personal Communication, January 18, 1990 123 Meiorin, E.C., 1987, "Alameda County Pilot Collection Program for Household and Small Generators of Hazardous Waste", Association of Bay Area Governments, April, 1987 Miller, B.H., 1988, "Ammonia Gas Dynamics in Four Vancouver Area Landfills", Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, MASc Thesis Mitchell, G.L., and SCS Engineers, 1986, "A Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related Collection Programs", EPA/530-SW-86/038 Parker, A , 1983, "Behaviour of Waste in Landfill-Leachate", Practical Waste Management, John Wiley & Sons Peddie, C C , 1986, "RBC Treatment of a Municipal Landfill Leachate: A Pilot Scale Evaluation", Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, MASc Thesis Platek, R., Pierre-Pierre, F.K., and Stevens, P., 1985, Developement and Design of Survey Questionnaires, Statistics Canada, Census and Household Survey Methods Division, November, 1985 Pope-Reid Associates, Inc., and J.B. Stevens & Associates, 1988, "Characterization of Household Hazardous Wastes and Other Special Wastes Contained in Ramsey and Washington Counties' Combined Municipal Waste Stream", March, 1988 Purin, G., Burnes, P., Galvin, D., Krizanosky, M., Robinson, D., and Rosenberg, M., 1984, Household  Hazardous Wastes: Solving the Disposal Dilemma. Golden Empire Health Planning Center Randies, R.H., 1979, Introduction to the Theory of Nonparametric Statistics, John Wiley & Sons Rathje, W.L., Wilson, D . C , Lambou, V.W., and Herndon, R.C., 1987, "Characterization of Household Hazardous Waste From Marin County, California, and New Orleans, Louisiana", EPA/600/4-87/025, September Ridgley, S.M., 1982, "Toxicants in Consumer Products", Report B of the Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Project, Metro Toxicant Program #1, August, 1982 Ridgley, S.M., and Galvin, D.V., 1982, "Summary Report", Report A of the Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Project, Metro Toxicant Program #1, December, 1982 Russell, L.J., and Meiorin, E.C., 1985, "The Disposal of Hazardous Watse by Small Quantity Generators: Magnitude of the Problem", Association of Bay Area Governments, June, 1985 Sachs, L , 1982, Applied Statistics. Springer-Verlag New York Inc. Siegel, S., 1956, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company Sprent, P., 1989, Applied Nonparametric Statistical Methods. Chapman and Hall Ltd. Sturdevant, D., Christensen, J., Friebaum, J., Lamb, G., and Masterson, K., 1989, "Moderate Risk Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Clark and Skamania Counties, Washington", April, 1989 Thompson, D.R., 1987, "Household Hazardous Wastes", Presented at Canadian Conference on Waste Management, Edmonton, 1987 Ward, J., 1985, "British Columbia's Regional Special Waste Storage Facility System", Unpublished Paper, November, 1985 124 Appendix A Questionnaire and Flyer 125 To: The Occupant This notice i s to inform you of a study being performed i n your area regarding household waste products of environmental or safety concerns. The study i s being carried out by Evan Jones, a graduate student i n the Department of C i v i l Engineering at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia to c o l l e c t data for a Masters Thesis. The work i s sponsored and approved by the City of Vancouver, the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , and the provincial Ministry of the Environment. The disposal of some waste products, such as unwanted paints, weed k i l l e r s , or car batt e r i e s , i s a problem for people who do not want to pollute the environment. On the other hand, to keep these materials around the house can be messy and p o t e n t i a l l y dangerous. This study involves a survey which w i l l look at three areas: - how much of these wastes there are i n a t y p i c a l house - how these wastes are disposed of now - how to best c o l l e c t the wastes from residents The results of this study w i l l be presented i n a Masters Thesis. As well, a summary of the results w i l l be used by the sponsors to develop plans for the c o l l e c t i o n of these kinds of wastes i n the future. Over the next two weeks, we w i l l be c a l l i n g people i n your neighbourhood to f i n d residents w i l l i n g to part i c i p a t e i n the study by f i l l i n g out the survey form and answering a few questions of a non-personal nature. The time required w i l l be about two 15 minute periods, arranged to s u i t you. People who p a r t i c i p a t e w i l l receive, as a token of appreciation, an informative d i a l device which provides useful information about household wastes and hazardous materials. F i f t y houses i n your area are going to be selected as part of this study. I f you would l i k e more information p r i o r to being contacted, please c a l l either Evan Jones or Professor Jim Atwater at the C i v i l Engineering Department, UBC, 126 HOUSEHOLD WASTES SURVEY Thank-you f o r Agreeing to Pa r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s Survey!! This survey of household wastes i s being performed to c o l l e c t data for a Masters degree thesis at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia (UBC). The survey has been approved and sponsored by the City of Vancouver, the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t (GVRD), and the pro v i n c i a l Ministry of the Environment. The purpose of this survey i s to learn more about types of household wastes that may have some environmental or safety concerns. In addition to the thesis, the results w i l l also be used to a s s i s t the sponsors i n future decisions to be made regarding the c o l l e c t i o n of these wastes. No personal information i s required, you may decide not to parti c i p a t e at any time, and the names of participants w i l l not be kept after the forms are completed. Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be taken as consent for the use of the data. This survey i s i n three parts: Part I involves a few short questions for background information. These are on page 1. Part II consists of three longer questions, asking about s p e c i f i c wastes that you may have. These questions are on pages 3 to 5. A description of the wastes of concern i s given on page 2. Part III i s eleven multiple choice questions to see how you would prefer to have a c o l l e c t i o n system operate for these wastes. We w i l l ask these questions when we c o l l e c t your answers to Parts I and I I , i n a short interview that w i l l not take longer than 10 or 15 minutes. It should not take long to complete this survey. Your cooperation i n providing accurate and complete information i s greatly appreciated. I f you have any questions, comments, or concerns, regarding this survey or the types of wastes discussed here, please mention them to the interviewer, c a l l our o f f i c e at 228-4694, or include them i n writing with the completed survey form. Thanks Again for your Cooperation!! 127 1 PART I; INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION Please mark "Yes" or "No", as appropriate. Does someone at your house or i n your apartment: Yes No. 1) perform house maintenance? (house painting, for example) 2) perform yard or garden maintenance? 3) keep a car or truck at the residence? If yes, does someone at the residence do t h e i r own o i l changes on the car or truck? How long have you l i v e d at your residence? years 128 2 DETACH THIS PAGE, AND USE WHEN ANSWERING QUESTIONS 1 TO 3 HOUSEHOLD WASTE CATEGORIES CLEANERS AND POLISHES includes: * tub, t i l e , window, f l o o r , and sink cleaners; oven cleaners; wood and metal polishes; d i s i n f e c t a n t s . DRAIN OPENERS OR CLEANERS includes: * products to unclog or clean drains LATEX PAINTS includes: * water based paints, cans or sprays OIL-BASE PAINTS includes: * waterproof paints, cans or sprays WOOD PRESERVERS includes: * weather protectors, fencepost preservers, creosote PAINT THINNERS includes: * paint strippers, solvents, thinners, and brush cleaners, used or old and unwanted ADHESIVES includes: * contact cements; water and solvent based glues. 8) PESTICIDES includes: * herbicides, fungicides, i n s e c t i c i d e s ; rat poisons, slug b a i t ; weed k i l l e r s . USED BATTERIES includes: * regular household batteries 10) LEAD/ACID BATTERIES includes: * car, truck, or motorcycle batteries 11) MOTOR OIL, OIL FILTERS includes: * used car, truck, or other engine o i l , and f i l t e r s 12) ANTIFREEZE AND COOLANT includes: * radiator f l u i d s from draining or flushing of radiators 13) FUELS includes: * n o n - r e f i l l a b l e propane/butane cylinders; gas, d i e s e l f u e l ; kerosene; camp stove gas; l i g h t e r or barbeque f l u i d s . 14) PETROLEUM PRODUCTS includes: * greases, lubricants; s t a r t i n g f l u i d s , gas additives; carburettor cleaners; brake, transmission, power steering f l u i d s ; mixing o i l s , chain o i l s . 15) SWIMMING POOL CHEMICALS includes: * chlorine, other cleaners or maintenance products 16) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS 17) ACIDS AND BASES includes: * hydrochloric, muriatic acids; brick cleaners; lye. 18) SMOKE DETECTORS 19) MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICALS includes wastes such as: * pure chemical products, chemistry k i t s ; hobby or c r a f t chemicals, glazes, wine making chemicals; photographic chemicals; r e f r i g e r a n t coolants; fibreglass resins or hardeners. 20) OTHER MISCELLANEOUS includes any wastes that you f e e l deserve special handling or care i n disposal 129 3 PART II; WASTE INVENTORY Examples of the types of wastes included under each heading are shown on the previous page, which may be detached. This section requires that you estimate the amount of waste you have or produce, which may require some checking i n your cupboards or workshop. Please use weights or volumes as shown on the container l a b e l s , i f possible. NOTE; Please include only materials you wish to dispose of i n  these answers. Many of these materials are useful products, and  are only "wastes" i f they are o l d or unused and you want to get  r i d of them. Other materials, such as dead b a t t e r i e s , are t r u l y  wastes. 1) How much of the following household materials do you currently have that you want to dispose of? Waste Type (Refer to previous page) None or, How Much? Cleaners and Polishes Drain Openers or Cleaners Latex Paints Oil-Based Paints Wood Preservers Paint Thinners Adhesives Pesticides Used Batteries Lead/Acid Batteries Motor O i l , O i l F i l t e r s Antifreeze and Coolant Fuels Petroleum Products Swimming Pool Chemicals Prescription Drugs Acids and Bases Smoke Detectors Miscellaneous Chemicals (Specify) Other Miscellaneous (Specify) 130 4 2) How often do you think you would have these kinds of wastes to throw out or dispose of? (Choose the answer closest to your response, and estimate how much waste you might have) Frequency Options: 0 - never, do not have this kind of waste 1 - once a month (or more often) 2 - once a year 3 - once every two years 4 - once only Example Answer: If you thought that you would have about half of a four-litre can of camp stove gas l e f t over every summer that you would want to get r i d of, your answer would be: Fuels, 2 l i t r e s Waste Type (See second page) Frequency Option Amount . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 131 5 3) Assume you did have wastes l i k e these; what method of disposal would you use, given that no c o l l e c t i o n system currently exists? (mark the appropriate disposal option, using the following l i s t of options;) Disposal Options; 1 - store 2 - throw out with garbage 3 - pour down drain 4 - pour or drain onto the ground 5 - re c y c l i n g or c o l l e c t i o n f a c i l i t y 6 - into street drain or storm drain Disposal Option Waste Type (see 2nd page) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Other Cleaners and Polishes Drain Openers or Cleaners. Latex Paints Oil-Based Paints Wood Preservers Paint Thinners Adhesives Pesticides Used Batteries Lead/Acid Batteries Motor O i l , O i l F i l t e r s . . . . Antifreeze and Coolant.... Fuels Petroleum Products Swimming Pool Chemicals... Prescription Drugs Acids and Bases Smoke Detectors Miscellaneous Chemicals... O t h e r M i s c e l l a n e o u s 132 6 PART I I I : COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES This section of the survey asks what your preferences would be i f these household wastes were to be c o l l e c t e d . For the purposes  of these questions, assume that you have some of the wastes  described i n Part II which you want to dispose of. 1) There are several ways i n which household wastes l i k e those discussed i n Part II could be c o l l e c t e d , some of which are l i s t e d here. Using the ra t i n g scale of 1 to 5 shown below, please indicate for each option shown the l i k e l i h o o d of your using the c o l l e c t i o n system described. Rating Scale: (1) would use i t for a l l my wastes of t h i s type (2) would use i t for most of these wastes, but not always (3) would use i t for roughly half of my wastes of t h i s type (4) would use i t for only a few of these wastes (5) would never use i t for these wastes C o l l e c t i o n Options: (A) INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD COLLECTION: door or curbside c o l l e c t i o n by special trucks on a regular basis. 1 2 3 4 5 (B) CENTRAL DEPOT COLLECTION: Residents d e l i v e r t h e i r wastes to a single depot set up at the municipal dump, which i s open: (i) year-round during dump operating hours.... 1 2 3 4 5 ( i i ) one or two weeks a year during special events such as Environment Week 1 2 3 4 5 (C) NEIGHBORHOOD DEPOT COLLECTION: Residents d e l i v e r t h e i r wastes to one of several depots set up around the c i t y (such as at a l l f i r e - h a l l s ) which are open: (i) year-round, during normal business hours.. 1 2 3 4 5 ( i i ) one or two weeks a year, during s p e c i a l events such as Environment Week 1 2 3 4 5 133 7 2) INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD COLLECTION (a) If i n d i v i d u a l household c o l l e c t i o n , s i m i l a r to your garbage c o l l e c t i o n system, were available for these kinds of wastes, how often do you think i t would be necessary to c o l l e c t the wastes? (i) Weekly ( i i ) Monthly ( i i i ) Twice a year (iv) Once a year.. (v) Other (b) Do you have any p a r t i c u l a r concerns regarding the i n d i v i d u a l household c o l l e c t i o n of these kinds of wastes? If so, what are they? (c) In addition to whatever you mentioned above, the following f i v e points regarding i n d i v i d u a l household c o l l e c t i o n systems may have affected your preference. Please rank these considerations from 1 to 5 i n order of importance to you, with 1 being the most important and 5 being the le a s t important. Rank (1 to 5) The p o s s i b i l i t y of an accident involving one of the trucks, and a release of wastes The possible need to locate a s t a t i o n i n your neighbourhood where the wastes may be sorted and temporarily stored The r i s k of leaving the wastes on the curb u n t i l they can be c o l l e c t e d The increase i n truck t r a f f i c i n your area The extra e f f o r t involved i n packaging and l a b e l l i n g the wastes sui t a b l y 134 8 3) DEPOT COLLECTION Depot c o l l e c t i o n for these wastes may be eithe r at a c e n t r a l depot, such as the municipal dump, or at a neighborhood depot, such as at a l o c a l f i r e - h a l l . Residents would be required to package and lab e l t h e i r wastes, and d e l i v e r them to one of these depots. The following questions ask to what extent you are w i l l i n g to go out of your way to dispose of these wastes using a depot c o l l e c t i o n system. (a) For how long would you drive to get to a c o l l e c t i o n depot and s t i l l consider i t worth the e f f o r t ? (i) under 15 minutes ( i i ) 16 to 30 minutes _____ ( i i i ) 31 to 45 minutes (iv) more than 45 minutes (v) other minutes (b) What operating hours would you f i n d convenient for a depot c o l l e c t i o n f a c i l i t y ? For each al t e r n a t i v e below, please indicate i f the hours would be convenient to you ("Yes") or inconvenient ("No"). Yes No (i) Weekdays; 9:00 to 5:00 during the evenings. ( i i ) Weekends; 9:00 to 5:00 during the evenings. ( i i i ) One day a week, daylight hours (c) Do you have any p a r t i c u l a r concerns regarding the c o l l e c t i o n of these kinds of wastes at a depot? If so, what are they? 135 9 (d) In addition to whatever you mentioned above, the following four points regarding c o l l e c t i o n at a depot may a f f e c t your preference. Please rank these considerations from 1 to 4 i n order of importance to you, with 1 being the most important and 4 being the least important. Rank (1 to 4) Carrying these waste materials i n my car The increase i n t r a f f i c i f a depot i s located i n my neighbourhood The storing of these materials near my house i f a depot i s located i n my neighborhood The chance that the wastes may be s p i l t or vandalized at a c o l l e c t i o n f a c i l i t y 136 10 4) COST RECOVERY (a) This special waste c o l l e c t i o n would require greater expenditures by the municipality. These costs would l i k e l y be recovered from municipal taxes. Please indicate below how much you would be w i l l i n g to pay annually for c o l l e c t i o n by the i n d i v i d u a l household method and also by the depot method (include a range, and, i f possible, a s p e c i f i c amount). Individual Depot (i) nothing ( i i ) less than $5 per year ( i i i ) between $5 and $10 per year... (iv) between $11 and $20 per year.. (v) more than $20 per year s p e c i f i c a l l y $ /year $ /year (b) Other payment methods could also be used as well as taxes. Some of these are indicated below. Please rank the following methods from 1 to 5 i n order of preference, assuming a l l costs work out to roughly the same t o t a l expense to you. Let "1" be your preferred method and "5" be your least desirable method. (Alternatively, i f you were not w i l l i n g to pay for c o l l e c t i o n , please check the l a s t l i n e below) Rank (1 to 5) Direct user fees, f l a t rate basis Direct user fees, item by item basis Municipal tax increase P r o v i n c i a l tax increase Purchase tax on c e r t a i n goods I am not w i l l i n g to pay for c o l l e c t i o n 5) Are you aware of the c o l l e c t i o n f a c i l i t y for these kinds of wastes that i s operated by the p r o v i n c i a l Waste Management Branch i n Surrey? Yes No 137 Appendix B Questionnaire, Apartment Versions 138 HOUSEHOLD WASTES SURVEY A survey is being conducted in your area regarding household waste products of environmental or safety concerns. This survey i s being performed by Evan Jones, a graduate student i n the Department of C i v i l Engineering at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia to c o l l e c t data for a Masters degree the s i s . The survey has been approved and sponsored by the C i t y of Vancouver, the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t (GVRD), and the p r o v i n c i a l Ministry of the Environment. The purpose of the survey is to learn more about specific types of household wastes (such as unwanted paints, weed killers, or car batteries) that are difficult to dispose of for people who do not want to pollute the environment, i n addition to the t h e s i s , the results w i l l also be used to a s s i s t the sponsors i n future decisions to be made regarding the c o l l e c t i o n of these wastes. Ho  personal information is required, you may decide not to p a r t i c i p a t e at any time, and the names of participants are not required. Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be taken as consent for the use of the data. This survey i s i n two parts: Part I involves a few short questions for background information. These are on page 1. Part II consists of three longer questions, asking about s p e c i f i c wastes that you may have. These questions are on pages 3 to 5. A description of the wastes of concern i s given on page 2. It should not take longer than 15 minutes to complete this survey. You do not need to have wastes of this kind to complete the forms, as an average of a l l t y p i c a l households i s required. Should you decide to p a r t i c i p a t e by completing the enclosed form, an addressed and stamped envelope i s enclosed for your use. Responses would be appreciated as soon as i s convenient for you. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, regarding t h i s survey or the types of wastes discussed here, please c a l l our o f f i c e at or include them i n writing with the completed survey form. Thank-you for your Cooperation!t 139 1 PART I : INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION Please mark "Yes" or "No", as appropriate. Does someone at your house or i n your apartment: Yes No 1) perform house maintenance? (house painting, for example) 2) perform yard or garden maintenance? 3) keep a car or truck at the residence? If "yes", does someone at the residence do t h e i r own o i l changes on the car or truck? How long have you l i v e d at your residence? years 140 2 DETACH THIS PAGE, AND USE WHEN ANSWERING QUESTIONS 1 TO 3 HOUSEHOLD WASTE CATEGORIES 1) CLEANERS AND POLISHES includes: * tub, t i l e , window, f l o o r , and sink cleaners; oven cleaners; wood and metal polishes; d i s i n f e c t a n t s . 2) DRAIN OPENERS OR CLEANERS includes: * products to unclog or clean drains 3) LATEX PAINTS includes: * water based paints, cans or sprays 4) OIL-BASE PAINTS includes: * waterproof paints, cans or sprays 5) WOOD PRESERVERS includes: * weather protectors, fencepost preservers, creosote 6) PAINT THINNERS includes: * paint strippers, solvents, thinners, and brush cleaners, used or old and unwanted 7) ADHESIVES includes: * contact cements; water and solvent based glues. 8) PESTICIDES includes: * herbicides, fungicides, i n s e c t i c i d e s ; rat poisons, slug b a i t ; weed k i l l e r s . 9) USED BATTERIES includes: * regular household batteries 10) LEAD/ACID BATTERIES includes: * car, truck, or motorcycle batteries 11) MOTOR OIL, OIL FILTERS includes: * used car, truck, or other engine o i l , and f i l t e r s 12) ANTIFREEZE AND COOLANT includes: * radiator f l u i d s from draining or flushing of radiators 13) FUELS includes: * n o n - r e f i l l a b l e propane/butane cylinders; gas, d i e s e l f u e l ; kerosene; camp stove gas; l i g h t e r or barbeque f l u i d s . 14) PETROLEUM PRODUCTS includes: * greases, lubricants; s t a r t i n g f l u i d s , gas additives; carburettor cleaners; brake, transmission, power steering f l u i d s ; mixing o i l s , chain o i l s . 15) SWIMMING POOL CHEMICALS includes: * chlorine, other cleaners or maintenance products 16) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS 17) ACIDS AND BASES includes: * hydrochloric, muriatic acids; brick cleaners; lye. 18) SMOKE DETECTORS 19) MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICALS includes wastes such as: * pure chemical products, chemistry k i t s ; hobby or c r a f t chemicals, glazes, wine making chemicals; photographic chemicals; r e f r i g e r a n t coolants; fibreglass resins or hardeners. 20) OTHER MISCELLANEOUS includes any wastes that you f e e l deserve special handling or care i n disposal 141 3 P A R T I I ; WASTE I N V E N T O R Y Examples of the types of wastes included under each heading are shown on the previous page, which may be detached. This section requires that you estimate the amount of waste you have or produce, which may require some checking i n your cupboards or workshop. Please use weights or volumes as shown on the container la b e l s , i f possible. NOTE: Please include only materials you wish to dispose of i n  these answers. Many of these materials are useful products, and  are only "wastes" i f they are o l d or unused and you want to get  r i d of them. Other materials, such as dead ba t t e r i e s , are t r u l y  wastes. 1) How much, i f a n y , of the following household materials do you currently have that you want to dispose of? Waste Type (Refer to previous page) None or, How Much? Cleaners and Polishes Drain Openers or Cleaners Latex Paints Oil-Based Paints Wood Preservers Paint Thinners Adhes ives Pesticides. Used Batteries Lead/Acid Batteries Motor O i l , O i l F i l t e r s Antifreeze and Coolant Fuels Petroleum Products Swimming Pool Chemicals Prescription Drugs Acids and Bases Smoke Detectors Miscellaneous Chemicals (Specify).... Other Miscellaneous (Specify) 142 4 2) How often do you think you would have these kinds of wastes to throw out or dispose of? (Choose the answer closest to your response, and estimate how much waste you might have) Frequency Options: 0 - never, do not have t h i s kind of waste 1 - once a month (or more often) 2 - once a year 3 - once every two years 4 - once only Example Answer: If you thought that you would have about half of a f o u r - l i t r e can of camp stove gas l e f t over every summer that you would want to get r i d of, your answer would be: Fuels, 0 3 4 2 l i t r e s Waste Type (See second page) Frequency Option Amount . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 . . 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 143 5 3) Assume you did have wastes l i k e these; what method of disposal would you use, given that no c o l l e c t i o n system currently exists? (mark the appropriate disposal option, using the following l i s t of options:) Disposal Options; 1 - store 2 - throw out with garbage 3 - pour down drain 4 - pour or drain onto the ground 5 - o i l r e c y c l i n g or c o l l e c t i o n f a c i l i t y 6 - into street drain or storm drain Disposal Option Waste Type (see 2nd page) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Other Cleaners and Polishes Drain Openers or Cleaners. Latex Paints Oil-Based Paints Wood Preservers Paint Thinners Adhesives Pesticides Used Batteries Lead/Acid Batteries Motor O i l , O i l F i l t e r s . . . . Antifreeze and Coolant.... Fuels Petroleum Products Swimming Pool Chemicals... Prescription Drugs Acids and Bases Smoke Detectors Miscellaneous Chemicals... Other Miscellaneous 144 HOUSEHOLD WASTES SURVEY A survey is being conducted in your area regarding household waste products of environmental or safety concerns. This survey i s being performed by Evan Jones, a graduate student i n the Department of C i v i l Engineering at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia to c o l l e c t data for a Masters degree the s i s . The survey has been approved and sponsored by the C i t y of Vancouver, the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t (GVRD), and the p r o v i n c i a l Ministry of the Environment. The purpose of the survey is to learn more about specific types of household wastes (such as unwanted paints, weed killers, or car batteries) that are difficult to dispose of for people who do not want to pollute the environment. In addition to the thesis, the results w i l l also be used to a s s i s t the sponsors i n future decisions to be made regarding the c o l l e c t i o n of these wastes. No personal information is required, you may decide not to pa r t i c i p a t e at any time, and the names of participants are not required. Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be taken as consent for the use of the data. This survey i s i n two parts: Part I involves a few short questions for background information. These are on page 1. Part II consists of eleven multiple choice questions to see how you would prefer to have a c o l l e c t i o n system for these wastes operate. A description of the wastes of concern i s given on page 2. It should not take longer than IS minutes to complete this survey. You do not need to have wastes of this kind to complete the forms, as an average of a l l t y p i c a l households i s required. Should you decide to p a r t i c i p a t e by completing the enclosed form, an addressed and stamped envelope i s enclosed for your use. Responses would be appreciated as soon as i s convenient for you. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, regarding t h i s survey or the types of wastes discussed here, please c a l l our o f f i c e at or include them i n writing with the completed survey form. Thank-you for your Cooperation!1 145 1 PART I; INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION Please mark "Yes" or "No", as appropriate. Does someone at your house or i n your apartment: Yes No 1) perform house maintenance? (house painting, for example) 2) perform yard or garden maintenance? 3) keep a car or truck at the residence? If "yes", does someone at the residence do t h e i r own o i l changes on the car or truck? How long have you l i v e d at your residence? years 146 2 EXAMPLES OF HOUSEHOLD WASTES OF CONCERN: 1) CLEANING CHEMICALS, including: * tub, t i l e , window, f l o o r , and sink cleaners; oven cleaners; wood and metal polishes; d i s i n f e c t a n t s . * products to unclog or clean drains 2) PAINTS, including: * water based paints, cans or sprays * waterproof oil-based paints, cans or sprays * weather protectors, fencepost preservers, creosote * paint s t r i p p e r s , solvents, thinners, and brush cleaners, used or old and unwanted 3) PESTICIDES, including: * herbicides, fungicides, i n s e c t i c i d e s ; rat poisons, slug b a i t ; weed k i l l e r s . 4) USED BATTERIES, including: * regular household batteries * car, truck, or motorcycle batteries 5) CAR FLUIDS, including: * used car, truck, or other engine o i l , and f i l t e r s * radiator f l u i d s from draining or flushing of radiators * greases, lubricants; s t a r t i n g f l u i d s , gas additives; carburettor cleaners; brake, transmission, power steering f l u i d s ; mixing o i l s , chain o i l s . 6) FUELS, including: * n o n - r e f i l l a b l e propane/butane cylinders; gas, d i e s e l f u e l ; kerosene; camp stove gas; l i g h t e r or barbeque f l u i d s . 7) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS 8) MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICALS, including: * pure chemical products, chemistry k i t s ; hobby or c r a f t chemicals, glazes, wine making chemicals; photographic chemicals; r e f r i g e r a n t coolants; fibreglass resins or hardeners. * hydrochloric, muriatic acids; brick cleaners; lye. 20) OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WASTES, including any wastes that you f e e l deserve special handling or care i n disposal 147 3 PART I I : COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES This section of the survey asks what your preferences would be i f these household wastes were to be c o l l e c t e d . For the purposes  of these questions, assume that you have some of the wastes  described on page 2 which you want to dispose of. 1) There are several ways i n which household wastes l i k e those discussed on page 2 could be c o l l e c t e d , some of which are l i s t e d here. Using the r a t i n g scale of 1 to 5 shown below, please indicate for each option shown the l i k e l i h o o d of your using the c o l l e c t i o n system described. Rating Scale: (1) would use i t for a l l my wastes of t h i s type (2) would use i t for most of these wastes, but not always (3) would use i t for roughly half of my wastes of t h i s type (4) would use i t for only a few of these wastes (5) would never use i t for these wastes C o l l e c t i o n Options: (A) INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD COLLECTION: door or curbside c o l l e c t i o n by special trucks on a regular basis 1 2 3 4 5 (B) CENTRAL DEPOT COLLECTION: Residents d e l i v e r t h e i r wastes to a single depot set up at the municipal dump, which i s open: (i) year-round during dump operating hours.... 1 2 3 4 5 ( i i ) one or two weeks a year during special events such as Environment Week 1 2 3 4 5 (C) NEIGHBORHOOD DEPOT COLLECTION: Residents d e l i v e r t h e i r wastes to one of several depots set up around the c i t y (such as at a l l f i r e - h a l l s ) which are open: (i) year-round, during normal business hours.. 1 2 3 4 5 ( i i ) one or two weeks a year, during s p e c i a l events such as Environment Week 1 2 3 4 5 148 4 2) INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD COLLECTION (a) If i n d i v i d u a l household c o l l e c t i o n , s i m i l a r to your garbage c o l l e c t i o n system, were available for these kinds of wastes, how often do you think i t would be necessary to c o l l e c t the wastes? (i) Weekly ( i i ) Monthly ( i i i ) Twice a year (iv) Once a year (v) Other (b) Do you have any p a r t i c u l a r concerns regarding the i n d i v i d u a l household c o l l e c t i o n of these kinds of wastes? If so, what are they? (c) In addition to whatever you mentioned above, the following f i v e points regarding i n d i v i d u a l household c o l l e c t i o n systems may have affected your preference. Please rank these considerations from 1 to 5 i n order of importance to you, with 1 being the most important and 5 being the le a s t important. Rank (1 to 5) The p o s s i b i l i t y of an accident involving one of the trucks, and a release of wastes The possible need to locate a s t a t i o n i n your neighbourhood where the wastes may be sorted and temporarily stored The r i s k of leaving the wastes on the curb u n t i l they can be c o l l e c t e d The increase i n truck t r a f f i c i n your area The extra e f f o r t involved i n packaging and l a b e l l i n g the wastes suitably 149 5 3) DEPOT COLLECTION Depot c o l l e c t i o n for these wastes may be eithe r at a cen t r a l depot, such as the municipal dump, or at a neighborhood depot, such as at a l o c a l f i r e - h a l l . Residents would be required to package and l a b e l t h e i r wastes, and d e l i v e r them to one of these depots. The following questions ask to what extent you are w i l l i n g to go out of your way to dispose of these wastes using a depot c o l l e c t i o n system. (a) For how long would you drive to get to a c o l l e c t i o n depot and s t i l l consider i t worth the e f f o r t ? (i) under 15 minutes ( i i ) 16 to 30 minutes ( i i i ) 31 to 45 minutes (iv) more than 45 minutes (v) other minutes (b) What operating hours would you f i n d convenient for a depot c o l l e c t i o n f a c i l i t y ? For each al t e r n a t i v e below, please indicate i f the hours would be convenient to you ("Yes") or inconvenient ("No"). Yes No (i) Weekdays; 9 :00 to 5 :00 during the evenings. ( i i ) Weekends; 9 :00 to 5 :00 during the evenings. ( i i i ) One day a week, daylight hours (c) Do you have any p a r t i c u l a r concerns regarding the c o l l e c t i o n of these kinds of wastes at a depot? If so, what are they? 150 6 (d) In addition to whatever you mentioned above, the following four points regarding c o l l e c t i o n at a depot may a f f e c t your preference. Please rank these considerations from 1 to 4 i n order of importance to you, with 1 being the most important and 4 being the least important. Rank ( 1 to 4 ) Carrying these waste materials i n my car The increase i n t r a f f i c i f a depot i s located i n my neighbourhood The storing of these materials near my house i f a depot i s located i n my neighborhood The chance that the wastes may be s p i l t or vandalized at a c o l l e c t i o n f a c i l i t y 151 7 4) COST RECOVERY (a) This special waste c o l l e c t i o n would require greater expenditures by the municipality. These costs would l i k e l y be recovered from municipal taxes. Please indicate below how much you would be w i l l i n g to pay annually for c o l l e c t i o n by the i n d i v i d u a l household method and also by the depot method (include a range, and, i f possible, a s p e c i f i c amount). Individual Depot (i) nothing ( i i ) less than $5 per year ( i i i ) between $5 and $10 per year... (iv) between $11 and $20 per year.. (v) more than $20 per year s p e c i f i c a l l y $ /year $ /year (b) Other payment methods could also be used as well as taxes. Some of these are indicated below. Please rank the following methods from 1 to 5 i n order of preference, assuming a l l costs work out to roughly the same t o t a l expense to you. Let "1" be your preferred method and "5" be your least desirable method. (Alternatively, i f you were not w i l l i n g to pay for c o l l e c t i o n , please check the l a s t l i n e below) Rank (1 to 5) Direct user fees, f l a t rate basis Direct user fees, item by item basis Municipal tax increase P r o v i n c i a l tax increase Purchase tax on c e r t a i n goods I am not w i l l i n g to pay for c o l l e c t i o n 5) Are you aware of the c o l l e c t i o n f a c i l i t y for these kinds of wastes that i s operated by the p r o v i n c i a l Waste Management Branch i n Surrey? Yes No 1 5 2 Appendix C Telephone Script 153 Phone Discussions 1) c a l l i n g from UBC -did they get a copy of our notice we d i s t r i b u t e d i n area l a s t week (regarding household waste survey) ? YES: go to 3 NO, or UNCERTAIN: go to 2 2) i s t h i s close to the -hundred block of Street/Avenue? NO: end conversation YES: go to 3 3) -regarding a survey on some s p e c i f i c household wastes, being sponsored by the c i t y , the gvrd, and the province -data to be used for a Masters Thesis, as well as by the sponsors for future decisions regarding c o l l e c t i o n of these wastes -looking for people to p a r t i c i p a t e i n study by completing two short forms (no personal information w i l l be required) - w i l l give participants a token/gift of a d i a l device which provides information about household materials and hazardous wastes - s p e c i f i c a l l y : -two forms, about 15 minutes each to complete -complete at times convenient for them -questions asked about: -how much of s p e c i f i c kinds of wastes they have -what they do with them -what t h e i r preferred methods of c o l l e c t i o n are - i f they want v e r i f i c a t i o n : - c a l l us at 228-4694, or Ci t y at 4) Would you be w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n our study? NO: end conversation YES: -address -name of person to contact -would they l i k e to do i t a l l at once or i n two sections, the f i r s t one we drop o f f and they second one they do when we come to pick up the f i r s t one? (time i s about 15 minutes per section) -arrange date to drop o f f f i r s t section -arrange date to pick up f i r s t section, complete second section 154 Appendix D Data Summary 155 Appendix D Index Part I Responses .. 157 Part II Question 1 Responses 162 Part II Question 2 Responses 168 Part II Question 3 Responses 174 Part III Question 1 Responses 178 Part III Question 2(a) Responses 183 Part III Question 2(c) Responses • • • • 184 Part III Question 3(a) Responses 187 Part III Question 3(b) Responses 192 Part III Question 3(d) Responses 196 Part III Question 4(a) Responses 199 Part III Question 4(b) Responses 203 Part III Question 5 Responses 206 156 Part I Responses (O = No, 1 = Yes) Zone ID Maintain Maintain Own Change Number Number House? Garden? Car? Oil? Of Years? a 1 1 1 1 0 5 a 2 1 1 1 0 5 a 3 1 0 1 0 5 a 4 1 1 0 0 5 a 5 1 1 1 0 5 a 6 1 1 1 0 5 a 7 1 0 1 -0 4 a 8 1 1 1 0 2 a 16 1 0 1 0 2 a 17 1 0 1 0 4 a 18 1 1 1 1 6 a 19 1 0 0 0 2 a 20 1 0 0 0 0 a 22 1 1 1 1 1 a 24 0 0 1 0 3 a 25 0 0 1 0 0 a 26 0 0 0 0 12 a 101 0 0 1 0 18 a 102 0 0 1 0 1 a 103 1 0 1 1 5 a 105 0 1 1 1 0 a 105 0 0 1 0 4 a 106 0 0 1 0 1 a 107 1 0 1 0 1 a 108 1 0 1 1 3 a 109 0 0 0 0 0 a 110 0 0 1 0 0 a 111 0 0 1 0 3 a 112 0 0 1 0 1 a 113 0 0 1 1 10 a 114 0 1 1 1 1 a 115 1 0 1 0 2 a 116 1 0 1 0 0 a 117 1 1 1 0 2 a 118 1 0 1 0 1 a 119 1 1 1 0 4 a 120 0 1 0 1 a 121 1 0 1 0 16 a 122 1 0 1 0 15 a 123 1 0 1 0 1 a 124 1 1 1 0 1 a 125 1 1 1 1 9 157 Part I Responses (0 = No, 1 = Yes) Zone ID Maintain Maintain Own Change Number Number House? Garden? Car? Oil? Of Years? a 126 1 1 1 0 5 a 127 0 0 1 0 2 a 128 0 0 1 0 7 a 129 0 0 0 0 2 a 130 0 0 1 0 2 a 131 0 0 0 0 14 a 132 1 0 1 0 1 a 133 0 0 1 0 1 a 134 a 135 0 0 1 0 1 a 136 0 0 1 1 1 a 137 0 0 1 0 1 a 138 0 0 1 0 2 a 139 1 1 1 0 1 a 140 0 0 1 0 2 a 141 0 0 0 0 2 a 142 0 0 1 0 2 a 143 1 1 1 0 4 a 144 1 1 1 0 2 a 145 0 1 1 0 5 a 146 1 1 1 0 1 a 201 0 1 0 0 2 a 202 1 1 1 0 2 a 203 0 0 0 0 0 a 204 1 1 1 9 a 205 0 0 1 0 1 a 206 0 0 1 0 2 a 207 0 0 1 0 2 a 208 0 0 1 0 1 a 210 0 0 1 16 a 211 0 0 1 0 5 a 212 1 1 1 0 3 a 213 0 0 1 0 4 a 214 0 0 1 0 1 a 215 0 0 1 1 2 a 216 1 1 1 0 15 a 217 1 1 1 0 6 a 218 0 0 1 0 7 a 219 1 1 1 0 10 a 220 1 0 0 1 a 221 0 0 0 0 4 a 222 0 0 1 0 8 a 223 0 0 0 0 2 158 Part I Responses (O = No, 1 = Yes) Zone ID Maintain Maintain Own Change Number Number House? Garden? Car? Oil? Of Years? a 224 1 0 1 1 4 a 225 0 0 1 0 2 a 226 0 0 0 0 3 a 227 0 0 1 0 11 a 228 0 0 0 0 3 a 229 0 0 0 21 a 230 0 0 0 0 20 a 231 0 0 1 0 21 a 232 1 0 1 0 5 a 233 0 0 1 0 2 a 234 0 0 1 1 1 a 235 1 0 1 0 5 a 236 1 0 1 0 4 b 1 1 1 1 0 35 b 2 1 0 0 0 b 3 1 1 1 0 8 b 4 1 1 1 0 6 b 5 1 0 0 59 b 6 1 1 0 0 10 b 7 1 1 0 44 b 8 1 1 1 1 10 b 9 1 1 0 27 b 10 1 1 1 0 40 b 11 1 1 1 0 24 b 12 1 1 1 0 3 b 14 1 1 1 1 4 b 15 1 1 1 0 24 b 16 1 1 1 0 18 b 17 1 1 1 0 15 b 18 1 0 30 b 19 1 1 1 0 20 b 20 1 1 1 0 2 b 21 1 1 1 1 3 b 22 1 1 1 1 23 b 23 0 0 1 0 32 b 25 0 1 0 0 3 b 26 0 0 0 0 50 b 27 0 0 0 0 9 b 28 0 0 1 0 51 b 29 1 1 1 0 6 b 30 0 1 1 0 35 b 31 1 1 1 0 4 b 32 1 1 1 0 20 159 Part I Responses (0 = No, 1 = Yes) Zone b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b_ c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c ID Number 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 46 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 60_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 Maintain House? Maintain Garden? Own Car? Change Oil? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0_ 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Number Of Years? 2 4 23 5 35 18 6 4 15 0 33 41 24 4 39 35 7 4 25 20 9 34 12 25 9 4 33 7 43 4 12 36 45 20 7 5 12 12 12 19 2 3 3 160 Part I Responses (O = No, 1 = Yes) Zone ID Maintain Maintain Own Change Number Number House? Garden? Car? Oil? Of Years? c 23 1 0 1 0 25 c 24 1 1 0 0 12 c 25 1 1 1 0 4 c 26 1 1 1 0 41 c 27 1 1 1 1 3 c 28 1 1 1 0 3 c 29 1 1 1 0 9 c 30 1 1 1 0 20 c 31 1 1 1 0 11 c 32 1 1 1 0 40 c 33 0 1 1 1 2 c 34 1 1 0 0 16 c 35 0 1 1 0 25 c 36 1 1 1 0 24 c 37 1 1 1 1 34 c 38 1 1 1 1 35 c 40 1 1 1 1 11 c 42 0 1 1 0 5 c 43 1 1 1 1 10 c 44 1 1 1 0 40 c 45 1 1 1 0 3 c 46 1 1 1 1 35 c 47 1 1 1 0 6 c 48 0 0 0 14 c 50 0 1 0 26 c 51 0 1 1 0 5 c 52 1 1 1 1 35 c 53 0 0 1 0 2 c 54 1 1 0 0 4 c 55 1 1 1 1 25 161 Part II Question 1 Responses (units in litres or number of items) Zone ID CL DO LP OB WP PT AD PE BA LA MO AF FU PP PC PD AB SD a 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 3 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 a 4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 a 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 a 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 a 17 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 18 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 a 19 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 20 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 24 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 102 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 103 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 105 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 105 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 106 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 107 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 108 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0 0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0 a 109 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 110 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 111 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 112 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 113 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Part II Question 1 Responses (units in litres or number of items) Zone ID CL DO LP OB WP PT AD PE BA LA MO AF FU PP PC PD AB SD a 114 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 a 115 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 116 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 117 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 118 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 119 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 120 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 a 121 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 122 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 123 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 124 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 125 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 126 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 127 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 128 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 129 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 130 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 131 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 132 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 133 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 134 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 a 135 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 136 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 137 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 138 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 a 139 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 140 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 141 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 142 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 143 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Part II Question 1 Responses (units in litres or number of items) Zone ID CL DO LP OB WP PT AD PE BA LA MO AF FU PP PC PD AB SD a 144 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 145 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a 146 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 b 1 0.0 0.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1.0 0 b 2 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 3 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 5 0.0 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 4 1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 1.0 0 b 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 b 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 b 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 b 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 15 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 16 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 b 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 20 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 8 0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 1 b 23 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 25 0.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 b 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 27 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Part II Question 1 Responses (units in litres or number of items) Zone ID CL DO LP OB WP PT AD PE BA LA MO AF FU PP PC PD AB SD b 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 b 32 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4 1 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 6.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 36 0.0 0.0 15.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 38 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 39 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0 12.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 b 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 42 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 46 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 49 2.0 0.0 15.0 3.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 8 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 52 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 53 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 54 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 b 56 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 57 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 58 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 59 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 b 60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 1 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1 9.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 3.5 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 4 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 c 5 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Part II Question 1 Responses (units in litres or number of items) Zone ID CL DO LP OB WP PT AD PE BA LA MO AF FU PP PC PD AB SD c 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 10 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 12 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 2.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 c 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 19 0.0 0.0 13.0 13.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0 2 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 c 21 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 c 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 23 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 30 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.3 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 c 31 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2 0 12.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 c 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 c 35 0.0 0.0 9.0 4.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 c 36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Part II Question 1 Responses (units in litres or number of items) Zone ID CL DO LP OB WP PT AD PE BA LA MO AF FU pp PC PD AB SD c 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 2 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 c 42 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 45 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0 c 46 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 c 47 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 c 48 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 50 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 53 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 c 54 1.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0 c 55 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CL = CLEANERS DO = DRAIN OPENERS LP = LATEX PAINTS OB = OIL-BASED PAINTS WP = WOOD PRESERVATIVES PT = PAINT THINNERS AD = ADHESIVES PE = PESTICIDES BA = BATTERIES LA = LEAD/ACID BATTERIES MO = MOTOR OIL AF = ANTIFREEZE FU = FUEL PP = PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PC = POOL CHEMICALS PD = PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AB = ACIDS AND BASES SD = SMOKE DETECTORS Part II Question 2 Responses (units are litres or items per year) Zone ID CL DO LP OB WP PT AD PE BA LA MO AF FU pp PC PD AB SD LIQ a 1 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 a 2 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.30 a 3 0.10 0.05 2.25 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 4.65 a 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 a 5 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.15 a 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 a 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 16 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.05 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.80 a 17 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 a 18 0.50 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 a 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 20 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.75 a 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 101 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 102 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 103 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 4.60 a 105 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 a 105 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 106 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 a 107 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 108 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.25 a 109 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 110 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 111 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 a 112 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 a 113 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Part II Question 2 Responses (units are litres or items per year) Zone ID CL DO LP OB WP PT AD PE BA LA MO AF FU pp PC PD AB SD LIQ a 114 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 115 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 a 116 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 a 117 1.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 a 118 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 119 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 120 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 121 0.00 0.00 2.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 7.00 a 122 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 a 123 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 a 124 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 125 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 a 126 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 127 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.50 a 128 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 129 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 130 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 a 131 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 2.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 a 132 1.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.85 a 133 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 a 134 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 a 135 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 a 136 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.50 8.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 a 137 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 a 138 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 139 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 a 140 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 141 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 142 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 a 143 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Part II Question 2 Responses (units are litres or items per year) Zone ID CL DO LP OB WP PT AD PE BA LA MO AF FU pp PC PD AB SD LIQ a 144 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 145 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 2.50 a 146 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 1 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 b 2 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 b 3 2.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 12.00 3.70 b 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.40 b 8 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.25 4.00 0.25 0.50 84.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 b 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 b 10 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 b 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 14 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 2.75 b 15 0.00 0.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 48.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.50 b 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 17 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.15 b 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 b 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 b 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 25 12.00 12.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.50 b 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 27 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 b 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Part II Question 2 Responses (units are litres or items per year) Zone ID CL DO LP OB WP PT AD PE BA LA MO AF FU PP PC PD AB SD LIQ b 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 34 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 b 35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 36 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 b 38 0.00 0.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 b 39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 42 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 8.00 0.50 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.55 b 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 46 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 b 48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 49 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 b 51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 b 52 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 b 53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 57 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 b 58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 59 0.00 0.00 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.50 b 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 1 0.00 0.00 2.30 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 4.60 c 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 3 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 c 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 c 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 Part II Question 2 Responses (units are litres or items per year) Zone ID CL DO LP OB WP PT AD PE BA LA MO AF FU pp PC PD AB SD LIQ c 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 c 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 5.00 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.75 c 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 12 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 c 13 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 c 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 c 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.10 c 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 c 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 29 12.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 4.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 12.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 30.50 c 30 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 c 31 0.10 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.10 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 c 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 33 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 48.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.50 c 34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 35 0.00 0.00 9.00 4.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 13.50 c 36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Part II Question 2 Responses (units are litres or items per year) u> Zone ID CL DO LP OB WP PT AD PE BA LA MO AF FU PP PC PD AB SD LIQ c 37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 40 0.05 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.00 4.00 1.00 10.00 25.00 0.00 2.25 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 38.25 c 42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 43 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 72.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.75 c 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 c 45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 c 47 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 c 48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 51 0.10 0.00 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 5.75 c 52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 c 53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 c 54 1.00 0.00 216.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 220.00 c 55 0.00 0.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.75 CL = CLEANERS DO = DRAIN OPENERS LP - LATEX PAINTS OB = OIL-BASED PAINTS WP = WOOD PRESERVATIVES PT = PAINT THINNERS AD = ADHESIVES PE = PESTICIDES BA = BATTERIES LIQ = LIQUIDS LA = LEAD/ACID BATTERIES MO = MOTOR OIL AF = ANTIFREEZE FU = FUEL PP = PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PC = POOL CHEMICALS PD - PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AB = ACIDS AND BASES SD = SMOKE DETECTORS Part II Question 3 Responses, ZONE A Numerical Results Percentages Corrected Percentages St |Ga |Dr Gr Re Sm St Ga |Dr |Gr | Re |Sm |TI St Ga Dr |Gr Re Sm |T" CL 12 47 1 0 2 0 62 19 76 2 0 3 0 100 20 78 2 0 0 0 100 DO 10 34 15 0 2 1 62 16 55 24 0 3 2 100 17 57 25 0 0 2 100 LP 11 44 2 1 3 1 62 18 71 3 2 5 2 100 19 75 3 2 0 2 100 OB 9 45 0 1 5 1 61 15 74 0 2 8 2 100 16 80 0 2 0 2 100 WP 11 43 0 0 6 1 61 18 70 0 0 10 2 100 20 78 0 0 0 2 100 PT 14 39 1 3 5 0 62 23 63 2 5 8 0 100 25 68 2 5 0 0 100 AD 9 48 0 0 3 0 60 15 80 0 0 5 0 100 16 84 0 0 0 0 100 PE 9 41 0 0 8 0 58 16 71 0 0 14 0 100 18 82 0 0 0 0 100 BA 5 49 0 0 7 0 61 8 80 0 0 11 0 100 9 91 0 0 0 0 100 LA 9 33 0 0 15 0 57 16 58 0 0 26 0 100 21 79 0 0 0 0 100 MO 5 28 1 1 23 0 58 9 48 2 2 40 0 100 9 48 2 2 40 0 100 AF 8 26 2 3 15 3 57 14 46 4 5 26 5 100 14 46 4 5 26 5 100 FU 11 27 1 2 14 1 56 20 48 2 4 25 2 100 26 64 2 5 0 2 100 PP 9 30 0 0 17 1 57 16 53 0 0 30 2 100 23 75 0 0 0 3 100 PC 10 27 4 1 10 0 52 19 52 8 2 19 0 100 24 64 10 2 0 0 100 PD 4 44 10 0 4 0 62 6 71 16 0 6 0 100 7 76 17 0 0 0 100 AB 8 34 2 1 10 2 57 14 60 4 2 18 4 100 17 72 4 2 0 4 100 SD 5 48 0 0 5 0 58 9 83 0 0 9 0 100 9 91 0 0 0 0 100 TL 159 687 39 13 154 11 * * ft * TL* 159 687 39 13 38 11 947 CL = CLEANERS DO = DRAIN OPENERS LP = LATEX PAINTS OB = OIL-BASED PAINTS WP = WOOD PRESERVATIVES PT = PAINT THINNERS TL = TOTAL TL* • CORRECTED TOTAL St = store Dr = House Drain/Sewer Re = Recycle Ga = Include with Garbage Gr = Ground Application Sm = Storm Sewer AD = ADHESIVES PE = PESTICIDES BA = BATTERIES LA = LEAD/ACID BATTERIES MO = MOTOR OIL AF = ANTIFREEZE FU = FUEL PP = PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PC = POOL CHEMICALS PD = PRESRCIPTION DRUGS AB = ACIDS AND BASES SD = SMOKE DETECTORS Part I Question 3 Responses, ZONE B Numerical Results Percentages Corrected Percentages St iGa [Dr [Gr Re |Sm |TI St Ga Dr |Gr Re Sm |TI St iGa |Dr |Gr Re |Sm JTI CL 10 31 0 0 8 0 49 20 63 0 0 16 0 100 24 76 0 0 0 0 100 DO 5 21 13 0 9 0 48 10 44 27 0 19 0 100 13 54 33 0 0 0 100 LP 5 29 1 1 11 2 49 10 59 2 2 22 4 100 13 76 3 3 0 5 100 OB 5 30 0 1 12 2 50 10 60 0 2 24 4 100 13 79 0 3 0 5 100 WP 8 25 0 2 10 3 48 17 52 0 4 21 6 100 21 66 0 5 0 8 100 PT 9 15 3 5 12 3 47 19 32 6 11 26 6 100 26 43 9 14 0 9 100 AD 7 31 0 0 10 0 48 15 65 0 0 21 0 100 18 82 0 0 0 0 100 PE 8 24 0 1 14 1 48 17 50 0 2 29 2 100 24 71 0 3 0 3 100 BA 2 33 0 0 14 0 49 4 67 0 0 29 0 100 6 94 0 0 0 0 100 LA 3 19 0 0 25 1 48 6 40 0 0 52 2 100 13 83 0 0 0 4 100 MO 3 17 0 2 23 1 46 7 37 0 4 50 2 100 7 37 0 4 50 2 100 AF 3 18 2 4 16 3 46 7 39 4 9 35 7 100 7 39 4 9 35 7 100 FU 9 15 2 4 16 1 47 19 32 4 9 34 2 100 29 48 6 13 0 3 100 PP 8 14 1 3 15 2 43 19 33 2 7 35 5 100 29 50 4 11 0 7 100 PC 7 15 2 2 13 4 43 16 35 5 5 30 9 100 23 50 7 7 0 13 100 PD 5 16 16 1 9 1 48 10 33 33 2 19 2 100 13 41 41 3 0 3 100 AB 6 15 3 4 13 3 44 14 34 7 9 30 7 100 19 48 10 13 0 10 100 SD 6 30 0 0 10 1 47 13 64 0 0 21 2 100 16 81 0 0 0 3 100 TL 109 398 43 30 240 28 848 TL* 109 398 43 30 39 28 647 CL = CLEANERS DO = DRAIN OPENERS LP = LATEX PAINTS OB = OIL-BASED PAINTS WP = WOOD PRESERVATIVES PT = PAINT THINNERS TL = TOTAL TL* = CORRECTED TOTAL St = store Dr = House Drain/Sewer Re = Recycle Ga = Include with Garbage Gr = Ground Application Sm = Storm Sewer AD = ADHESIVES PE = PESTICIDES BA = BATTERIES LA = LEAD/ACID BATTERIES MO = MOTOR OIL AF = ANTIFREEZE FU = FUEL PP = PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PC = POOL CHEMICALS PD = PRESRCIPTION DRUGS AB = ACIDS AND BASES SD = SMOKE DETECTORS Part II Question 3, ZONE C Numerical Results Percentages Corrected Percentages St |Ga |Dr |Gr |Re |Sm St Ga |Dr |Gr Re |Sm St |Ga |Dr |Gr [Re |Sm |TI CL 6 33 4 0 3 1 47 13 70 9 0 6 2 100 14 75 9 0 0 2 100 DO 5 28 10 1 2 1 47 11 60 21 2 4 2 100 11 62 22 2 0 2 100 LP 10 35 1 0 4 0 50 20 70 2 0 8 0 100 22 76 2 0 0 0 100 OB 11 33 1 0 5 0 50 22 66 2 0 10 0 100 24 73 2 0 0 0 100 WP 8 30 2 1 6 0 47 17 64 4 2 13 0 100 20 73 5 2 0 0 100 PT 9 23 5 4 6 0 47 19 49 11 9 13 0 100 22 56 12 10 0 0 100 AD 7 37 0 0 4 0 48 15 77 0 0 8 0 100 16 84 0 0 0 0 100 PE 8 32 1 1 5 0 47 17 68 2 2 11 0 100 19 76 2 2 0 0 100 BA 2 39 0 0 8 0 49 4 80 0 0 16 0 100 5 95 0 0 0 0 100 LA 3 29 0 0 17 0 49 6 59 0 0 35 0 100 9 91 0 0 0 0 100 MO 1 25 2 2 18 1 49 2 51 4 4 37 2 100 2 51 4 4 37 2 100 AF 4 23 8 2 5 2 44 9 52 18 5 11 5 100 9 52 18 5 11 5 100 FU 7 25 4 3 6 1 46 15 54 9 7 13 2 100 18 63 10 8 0 3 100 PP 6 26 3 1 8 1 45 13 58 7 2 18 2 100 16 70 8 3 0 3 100 PC 3 29 6 0 4 1 43 7 67 14 0 9 2 100 8 74 15 0 0 3 100 PD 4 32 10 0 2 0 48 8 67 21 0 4 0 100 9 70 22 0 0 0 100 AB 6 27 5 1 4 1 44 14 61 11 2 9 2 100 15 68 13 3 0 3 100 SD 3 36 0 0 6 0 45 7 80 0 0 13 0 100 8 92 0 0 0 0 100 TL 103 542 62 16 113 9 845 TL* 103 542 62 16 23 9 755 CL = CLEANERS DO = DRAIN OPENERS LP = LATEX PAINTS OB = OIL-BASED PAINTS WP = WOOD PRESERVATIVES PT = PAINT THINNERS TL = TOTAL TL* - CORRECTED TOTAL St = store Dr = House Drain/Sewer Re = Recycle Ga = Include with Garbage Gr = Ground Application Sm = Storm Sewer AD = ADHESIVES PE = PESTICIDES BA = BATTERIES LA = LEAD/ACID BATTERIES MO = MOTOR OIL AF = ANTIFREEZE FU = FUEL PP - PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PC = POOL CHEMICALS PD = PRESRCIPTION DRUGS AB - ACIDS AND BASES SD = SMOKE DETECTORS Part II Question 3, ALL ZONES Numerical Results Percentages Corrected Percentages St |Ga |Dr |Gr | Re |Sm |TI St |Ga Dr |Gr Re |Sm |TI St |Ga Dr Gr | Re Sm |TI CL 28 111 5 0 13 1 158 18 70 3 0 8 1 100 19 77 3 0 0 1 100 DO 20 83 38 1 13 2 157 13 53 24 1 8 1 100 14 58 26 1 0 1 100 LP 26 108 4 2 18 3 161 16 67 2 1 11 2 100 18 76 3 1 0 2 100 OB 25 108 1 2 22 3 161 16 67 1 1 14 2 100 18 78 1 1 0 2 100 WP 27 98 2 3 22 4 156 17 63 1 2 14 3 100 20 73 1 2 0 3 100 PT 32 77 9 12 23 3 156 21 49 6 8 15 2 100 24 58 7 9 0 2 100 AD 23 116 0 0 17 0 156 15 74 0 0 11 0 100 17 83 0 0 0 0 100 PE 25 97 1 2 27 1 153 16 63 1 1 18 1 100 20 77 1 2 0 1 100 BA 9 121 0 0 29 0 159 6 76 0 0 18 0 100 7 93 0 0 0 0 100 LA 15 81 0 0 57 1 154 10 53 0 0 37 1 100 15 84 0 0 0 1 100 MO 9 70 3 5 64 2 153 6 46 2 3 42 1 100 6 46 2 3 42 1 100 AF 15 67 12 9 36 8 147 10 46 8 6 24 5 100 10 46 8 6 24 5 100 FU 27 67 7 9 36 3 149 18 45 5 6 24 2 100 24 59 6 8 0 3 100 PP 23 70 4 4 40 4 145 16 48 3 3 28 3 100 22 67 4 4 0 4 100 PC 20 71 12 3 27 5 138 14 51 9 2 20 4 100 18 64 11 3 0 5 100 PD 13 92 36 1 15 1 158 8 58 23 1 9 1 100 9 64 25 1 0 1 100 AB 20 76 10 6 27 6 145 14 52 7 4 19 4 100 17 64 8 5 0 5 100 SD 14 114 0 0 21 1 150 9 76 0 0 14 1 100 11 88 0 0 0 1 100 TL 371 * * * * 144 59 507 48 A * * * TL* 371 * * * * 144 59 100 48 * * * * CL = CLEANERS DO = DRAIN OPENERS LP = LATEX PAINTS OB = OIL-BASED PAINTS WP = WOOD PRESERVATIVES PT = PAINT THINNERS TL = TOTAL TL* = CORRECTED TOTAL St = store Dr = House Drain/Sewer Re = Recycle Ga = Include with Garbage Gr - Ground Application Sm = Storm Sewer AD = ADHESIVES PE = PESTICIDES BA = BATTERIES LA = LEAD/ACID BATTERIES MO = MOTOR OIL AF = ANTIFREEZE FU = FUEL PP = PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PC = POOL CHEMICALS PD = PRESRCIPTION DRUGS AB = ACIDS AND BASES SD = SMOKE DETECTORS Part 3 Question 1 Responses Zone ID Rank Assigned to Alternative Number A B1 B2 C1 C2 a 1 1 4 5 1 5 a 2 1 1 1 1 1 a 3 5 5 1 5 a 4 1 1 1 1 1 a 5 1 4 0 3 0 a 6 1 1 2 1 2 a 7 1 3 5 2 5 a 8 1 3 4 2 4 a 16 1 5 5 5 5 a 17 4 3 2 2 a 18 1 4 4 2 2 a 19 1 5 5 5 5 a 20 1 2 4 2 4 a 22 1 2 4 1 4 a 24 1 5 5 2 4 a 26 1 3 3 1 1 a 26 1 3 3 1 1 a 201 1 2 5 2 5 a 202 1 3 5 2 5 a 203 1 3 5 1 4 a 204 1 1 1 a 205 2 2 4 2 a 206 1 4 4 4 4 a 207 1 2 2 2 2 a 208 1 3 1 2 2 a 210 4 4 a 211 1 5 1 2 1 a 212 1 1 4 1 4 a 213 5 5 5 1 a 214 1 3 1 1 1 a 215 1 2 4 2 4 a 216 1 5 5 a 217 2 5 5 5 2 a 218 1 2 2 1 2 a 219 1 4 4 2 2 a 220 5 1 2 2 2 a 221 2 4 4 2 4 a 222 2 3 3 2 2 a 223 1 5 5 5 5 a 224 2 5 5 4 5 a 225 1 5 5 5 5 a 226 1 5 5 5 5 a 227 1 4 4 4 4 178 Part 3 Question 1 Responses Zone ID Ran < Assigned to Alternative Number A B1 B2 C1 C2 a 228 1 3 3 3 3 a 229 1 a 230 1 1 a 231 1 a 232 1 5 2 2 2 a 233 2 4 4 3 3 a 234 1 5 3 1 3 a 235 1 4 4 3 3 a 236 2 3 3 2 2 b 1 4 0 0 1 1 b 2 1 2 0 2 0 b 3 2 2 4 2 4 b 4 1 2 3 1 3 b 5 1 2 2 4 4 b 6 4 1 5 1 5 b 7 3 2 2 1 1 b 8 1 2 2 2 2 b 9 2 0 2 0 2 b 10 1 5 1 0 1 b 11 0 0 0 0 0 b 12 2 4 3 1 3 b 14 1 5 5 1 1 b 15 1 2 2 2 2 b 16 5 5 5 1 5 b 17 5 1 1 1 1 b 18 1 1 1 1 1 b 19 1 2 4 1 4 b 20 1 2 4 4 3 b 21 1 1 5 1 5 b 22 2 5 5 2 4 b 23 1 0 0 1 0 b 25 1 4 3 2 2 b 26 1 5 5 5 5 b 27 1 0 0 1 1 b 28 1 5 5 0 3 b 29 1 5 5 1 4 b 30 1 5 5 5 5 b 31 2 4 4 2 2 b 32 1 2 2 2 0 b 34 1 1 1 1 1 b 35 0 0 0 0 0 b 36 1 5 5 1 1 b 38 2 2 2 2 2 179 Part 3 Question 1 Responses Zone ID Number Rani A c Assig B1 ned to B2 Altemi C1 ative C2 b 39 2 0 4 5 0 b 40 1 1 5 5 5 b 41 1 5 5 3 5 b 42 1 4 4 2 4 b 44 1 1 0 1 0 b 45 5 5 1 5 b 46 1 1 5 1 5 b 48 1 0 0 2 0 b 49 1 1 1 1 1 b 51 4 4 4 4 b 52 1 0 0 0 0 b 53 1 2 3 1 3 b 54 1 1 4 1 4 b 56 1 1 1 1 1 b 57 1 1 1 1 1 b 58 1 2 3 1 2 b 59 5 5 2 2 b 60 2 0 1 0 c 1 1 4 4 1 2 c 2 1 1 3 1 1 c 3 2 0 5 0 c 4 1 5 5 5 5 c 5 1 5 5 4 5 c 6 1 5 4 2 2 c 7 5 5 1 1 c 8 1 3 1 1 1 c 9 1 1 1 1 1 c 10 1 0 0 1 0 c 11 1 5 5 1 5 c 12 5 5 5 5 c 13 1 2 1 2 1 c 14 2 2 0 2 0 c 15 1 2 2 1 1 c 16 1 1 2 1 2 c 17 1 1 5 1 1 c 19 1 2 4 2 4 c 20 1 3 4 2 4 c 21 1 1 1 1 1 c 22 1 2 2 1 2 c 23 1 5 5 1 1 c 24 1 5 5 5 5 c 25 1 2 3 1 2 c 26 1 3 3 1 1 180 Part 3 Question 1 Responses Zone ID Rank Assigned to Alternative Number A B1 B2 C1 C2 c 27 5 5 5 5 5 c 28 1 3 5 1 5 c 29 2 3 1 3 1 c 30 1 4 4 3 3 c 31 1 5 3 5 3 c 32 4 5 4 3 4 c 33 1 2 2 1 1 c 34 1 5 5 1 3 c 35 1 5 5 4 1 c 36 1 4 5 1 4 c 37 1 5 5 1 1 c 38 2 2 3 1 4 c 40 1 1 1 1 1 c 42 2 4 4 5 5 c 43 4 4 4 3 4 c 44 1 3 4 2 3 c 45 3 4 5 3 4 c 46 5 0 1 0 1 c 47 1 1 1 1 1 c 48 1 5 5 5 5 c 50 1 2 0 1 0 c 51 1 1 3 1 2 c 52 1 5 5 5 5 c 53 1 4 5 2 2 c 54 1 5 5 5 5 c 55 2 1 1 1 1 181 Part 3 Question 1 Responses Summary Zone Option Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents 1 2 3 4 5 Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total A A 39 7 2 2 2 52 75 13 4 4 4 100 Bi 8 7 11 10 13 49 16 14 22 20 27 100 Bii 5 6 7 13 15 46 11 13 15 28 33 100 Ci 14 18 4 4 8 48 29 38 8 8 17 100 Cii 7 13 4 11 12 47 15 28 9 23 26 100 B A 34 9 2 2 3 50 68 18 4 4 6 100 Bi 12 14 0 5 12 43 28 33 0 12 28 100 Bii 7 7 5 8 15 42 17 17 12 19 36 100 Ci 26 12 1 3 4 46 57 26 2 7 9 100 Cii 12 8 5 8 9 42 29 19 12 19 21 100 C A 38 6 2 3 2 51 75 12 4 6 4 100 Bi 9 10 6 7 17 49 18 20 12 14 35 100 Bii 9 4 6 9 19 47 19 9 13 19 40 100 Ci 26 7 5 2 10 50 52 14 10 4 20 100 Cii 18 7 4 7 11 47 38 15 9 15 23 100 All A 111 22 6 7 7 153 73 14 4 5 5 100 Bi 29 31 17 22 42 141 21 22 12 16 30 100 Bii 21 17 18 30 49 135 16 13 13 22 36 100 Ci 66 37 10 9 22 144 46 26 7 6 15 100 Cii 37 28 13 26 32 136 27 21 10 19 24 100 182 Part 3 Question 2(a) Responses Summary Zone Number of Respondents Weekly Monthly 2/Year 1/Year Total A 12 22 12 3 49 B 3 16 24 7 50 C 0 21 19 6 46 Total 15 59 55 16 145 Percentage of Respondents Weekly Monthly 2/Year 1/Year Total A 24 45 24 6 100 B 6 32 48 14 100 C 0 46 41 13 100 Total 10 41 38 11 100 183 Part 3 Question 2(c) Responses Zone 10 Rank of Considerations Number Truck Station Wastes Truck Extra Accident Location On Curb traffic Effort a 1 2 1 3 5 4 a 2 2 3 1 5 4 a 3 1 3 2 4 5 a 4 2 3 1 5 4 a 5 1 4 3 5 2 a 6 2 3 1 4 5 a 7 3 5 1 4 2 a 8 1 5 2 4 3 a 16 4 3 2 5 1 a 18 1 3 2 5 4 a 19 2 1 3 4 5 a 22 2 4 1 5 3 a 25 2 4 1 5 3 a 26 2 3 1 4 5 a 201 1 5 2 3 4 a 203 2 3 1 4 5 a 205 2 3 1 5 4 a 206 4 2 1 3 5 a 207 2 3 1 5 4 a 208 2 3 1 5 4 a 213 2 4 1 5 3 a 215 2 1 3 4 5 a 218 1 3 4 2 5 a 219 2 3 1 5 4 a 220 3 4 1 5 2 a 222 4 1 2 3 5 a 224 5 2 4 1 3 a 225 5 1 2 4 3 a 226 2 3 1 4 5 a 231 5 4 2 3 1 a 232 2 3 1 4 5 a 234 5 3 2 4 1 a 235 3 2 1 5 4 a 236 1 3 4 5 2 b 1 2 5 1 3 4 b 3 3 4 1 5 2 b 5 2 3 4 5 1 b 6 1 3 2 5 4 b 7 3 2 1 4 5 b 8 2 4 1 5 3 b 9 1 2 3 5 4 b 10 4 1 5 2 3 184 Part 3 Question 2(c) Responses Zone ID Rank of Considerations Number Truck Station Wastes Truck Extra Accident Location On Curb traffic Effort b 11 3 2 1 4 5 b 12 1 4 3 5 2 b 14 3 2 1 5 4 b 15 5 1 2 4 3 b 16 3 2 1 4 5 b 17 2 3 1 4 5 b 18 1 2 3 4 5 b 19 3 1 2 4 5 b 21 2 4 3 1 5 b 25 3 2 1 5 4 b 26 2 4 1 3 5 b 27 1 4 2 3 5 b 28 4 1 2 5 3 b 29 1 2 3 4 5 b 31 5 3 2 4 1 b 34 4 2 1 3 5 b 36 2 4 1 5 3 b 38 3 2 1 5 4 b 39 2 5 1 3 4 b 40 2 4 1 3 5 b 42 2 3 1 5 4 b 44 4 2 1 3 5 b 45 4 3 2 5 1 b 46 2 3 1 4 5 b 48 2 3 1 5 4 b 49 4 3 2 5 1 b 51 4 3 2 5 1 b 52 1 4 2 5 3 b 54 1 2 4 5 3 b 56 3 2 1 4 5 b 57 1 3 2 4 5 b 58 3 1 2 4 5 b 59 5 3 2 1 4 b 60 4 1 2 3 5 c 2 5 4 3 2 1 c 3 2 3 1 5 4 c 4 3 1 2 5 4 c 5 3 2 1 5 4 c 6 5 3 1 4 2 c 8 1 2 3 5 4 c 9 2 4 3 1 5 c 11 2 3 1 1 •* 5 4 185 Part 3 Question 2(c) Responses Zone ID Rank of Considerations Number Truck Station Wastes Truck Extra Accident Location On Curb traffic Effort c 13 3 1 2 5 4 c 15 2 3 1 4 5 c 16 1 3 2 5 4 c 17 2 3 1 4 5 c 20 3 1 2 4 5 c 23 5 1 2 4 3 c 25 3 2 1 4 5 c 27 3 4 2 5 1 c 28 2 1 3 4 5 c 29 3 4 5 2 1 c 30 2 1 4 5 3 c 32 1 3 2 5 4 c 34 3 1 2 4 5 c 36 4 2 3 5 1 c 37 3 1 2 5 4 c 38 3 4 1 5 2 c 40 2 1 3 4 5 c 42 4 2 1 5 3 c 43 4 1 2 5 3 c 44 3 4 1 5 2 c 45 2 4 1 5 3 c 47 1 2 3 5 4 c 50 4 2 1 3 5 c 51 1 2 3 4 5 c 53 2 3 1 5 4 c 54 3 2 1 4 5 186 Part 3 Question 3(a) Responses Zone ID Time Respondents Willing to Travel Number 1=0-15 min., 2 = 16-30 min. 3 = 31 to 45 min, 4 = >45 min. a 1 2 a 2 2 a 3 4 a 4 2 a 5 2 a 6 4 a 7 1 a 8 1 a 16 2 a 17 1 a 18 2 a 19 2 a 20 1 a 22 2 a 24 1 a 25 2 a 26 3 a 201 1 a 202 1 a 203 2 a 204 1 a 205 2 a 206 1 a 207 2 a 208 2 a 210 1 a 211 1 a 212 2 a 213 2 a 214 3 a 215 1 a 216 4 a 217 2 a 218 2 a 219 1 a 220 1 a 221 1 a 222 2 a 223 1 a 224 5 a 225 5 a 226 5 187 Part 3 Question 3(a) Responses Zone ID Time Respondents Willing to Travel Number 1=0-15 min., 2 = 16-30 min. 3 = 31 to 45 min, 4 = >45 min. a 227 1 a 228 5 a 229 2 a 230 a 231 a 232 2 a 233 1 a 234 1 a 235 1 a 236 1 b 1 2 b 2 2 b 3 2 b 4 1 b 5 2 b 6 2 b 7 1 b 8 3 b 9 1 b 10 2 b 11 3 b 12 1 b 14 2 b 15 3 b 16 1 b 17 2 b 18 2 b 19 3 b 20 2 b 21 2 b 22 1 b 23 2 b 25 2 b 26 1 b 27 1 b 28 1 b 29 1 b 30 0 b 31 1 b 32 2 b 34 3 b 35 0 188 Part 3 Question 3(a) Responses Zone ID Time Respondents Willing to Travel Number 1=0-15 min., 2 = 16-30 min. 3 = 31 to 45 min, 4 = >45 min. b 36 1 b 38 1 b 39 3 b 40 2 b 41 0 b 42 2 b 44 1 b 45 1 b 46 2 b 48 1 b 49 2 b 51 2 b 52 2 b 53 1 b 54 1 b 56 2 b 57 2 b 58 3 b 59 2 b 60 2 c 1 1 c 2 2 c 3 1 c 4 2 c 5 2 c 6 1 c 7 0 c 8 2 c 9 1 c 10 0 c 11 1 c 12 2 c 13 1 c 14 1 c 15 1 c 16 2 c 17 3 c 19 2 c 20 1 c 21 2 c 22 2 c 23 1 189 Part 3 Question 3(a) Responses Zone ID Time Respondents Willing to Travel Number 1 =0-15 min., 2 = 16-30 min. 3 = 31 to 45 min, 4 = >45 min. c 24 0 c 25 1 c 26 1 c 27 1 c 28 2 c 29 1 c 30 2 c 31 1 c 32 1 c 33 1 c 34 2 c 35 1 c 36 1 c 37 1 c 38 2 c 40 2 c 42 1 c 43 2 c 44 1 c 45 2 c 46 3 c 47 4 c 48 5 c 50 2 c 51 2 c 52 1 c 53 1 c 54 2 c 55 2 Part 3 Question 3(a) Responses Summary Zone Total Number Respond* 0 t o 1 5 snts Willin; 16 to 30 3 to Travel ( 31 to 45 min.) over 45 a 46 21 20 2 3 b 49 18 24 7 0 c 47 24 20 2 1 total 142 63 64 11 4 191 Part 3 Question 3(b) Responses Zone ID Respondents Finding Hours Convenient Number (1 = Yes, 0 = No) Weekdays Weekends One Day 9 to 5 evening 9 to 5 evening per Week a 1 1 1 1 1 0 a 2 0 1 1 1 0 a 3 0 1 1 0 0 a 4 1 0 0 a 5 1 1 1 0 0 a 6 1 1 0 1 a 7 1 1 1 1 0 a 8 0 1 1 1 0 a 16 0 1 1 0 0 a 17 1 1 0 0 a 18 1 1 1 0 0 a 19 0 1 1 0 a 20 0 1 1 1 0 a 22 0 1 1 1 0 a 24 0 1 1 1 1 a 25 1 1 1 1 1 a 26 1 1 1 1 1 a 201 0 1 1 1 0 a 202 1 1 1 1 0 a 203 0 1 1 1 0 a 204 1 0 a 205 0 1 1 1 0 a 206 0 1 1 1 0 a 207 0 1 1 0 1 a 208 0 1 1 1 0 a 210 1 a 211 1 1 a 212 0 1 1 1 0 a 213 0 1 0 0 a 214 0 1 1 1 1 a 215 0 1 1 1 0 a 216 1 a 217 1 a 218 1 1 1 1 1 a 219 0 1 0 0 a 220 0 1 1 0 0 a 221 1 a 222 0 1 1 0 0 a 223 0 0 1 a 224 0 1 0 1 0 a 225 0 0 0 0 0 192 Part 3 Question 3(b) Responses Zone ID Respondents Finding Hours Convenient Number (1 = Yes, 0 = No) Weekdays Weekends One Day 9 to 5 evening 9 to 5 evening per Week a 226 0 0 0 0 0 a 227 0 1 1 1 0 a 228 1 1 1 a 229 1 1 0 a 230 1 a 231 1 a 232 1 1 a 233 0 1 1 1 0 a 234 1 1 0 a 235 1 1 1 1 1 a 236 1 1 1 1 1 b 1 1 0 1 0 1 b 2 1 1 0 0 b 3 0 1 1 1 1 b 4 1 0 1 0 1 b 5 1 0 0 1 b 6 0 1 1 1 0 b 7 0 0 0 1 b 8 1 0 1 0 1 b 9 1 1 1 1 1 b 10 1 1 1 1 1 b 11 0 1 1 0 0 b 12 1 0 1 0 1 b 14 0 1 1 0 0 b 15 1 0 0 0 b 16 1 1 1 1 1 b 17 1 1 1 1 1 b 18 1 0 0 0 b 19 1 1 1 0 0 b 20 0 1 1 0 b 21 1 1 1 1 0 b 22 1 1 1 1 1 b 23 1 0 0 0 b 25 1 1 1 1 0 b 26 0 0 1 b 27 1 1 1 0 1 b 28 1 0 1 0 1 b 29 1 1 1 1 b 30 0 0 0 b 31 1 1 1 0 0 b 32 1 1 1 1 0 193 Part 3 Question 3(b) Responses Zone ID Respondents Finding Hours Convenient Number (1 = Yes, 0 = No) Weekdays Weekends One Day 9 to 5 evening 9 to 5 evening per Week b 34 0 1 1 1 0 b 35 0 0 0 0 0 b 36 0 1 1 0 0 b 38 0 0 1 1 0 b 39 1 0 0 0 1 b 40 1 1 0 0 0 b 41 0 0 0 0 0 b 42 1 1 1 0 0 b 44 0 1 0 0 0 b 45 1 0 0 0 1 b 46 1 1 1 1 0 b 48 1 0 0 0 0 b 49 1 1 1 1 1 b 51 1 1 1 1 0 b 52 1 1 1 1 1 b 53 0 0 0 0 1 b 54 0 1 1 1 0 b 56 1 1 1 1 1 b 57 1 0 1 1 1 b 58 0 1 1 1 0 b 59 1 0 1 0 1 b 60 1 1 1 1 1 c 1 0 1 1 1 0 c 2 0 1 1 1 0 c 3 1 1 1 1 0 c 4 0 0 0 1 0 c 5 0 1 1 1 1 c 6 0 1 0 1 0 c 7 1 0 1 0 1 c 8 1 1 0 1 0 c 9 0 1 0 1 0 c 10 0 1 1 0 0 c 11 1 1 1 1 1 c 12 1 1 1 0 1 c 13 0 0 0 0 1 c 14 1 1 1 0 0 c 15 1 1 0 0 1 c 16 1 1 1 1 1 c 17 0 1 1 0 0 c 19 0 1 1 0 0 c 20 0 1 1 1 0 194 Part 3 Question 3(b) Responses Zone ID Respondents Finding Hours Convenient Number (1 = Yes, 0 = No) Weekdays Weekends One Day 9 to 5 evening 9 to 5 evening per Week c 21 1 1 1 1 0 c 22 0 1 1 1 0 c 23 1 0 0 0 1 c 24 0 1 1 1 0 c 25 1 1 1 1 0 c 26 1 1 0 0 1 c 27 0 1 0 1 0 c 28 0 1 1 1 0 c 29 1 1 1 0 1 c 30 0 1 1 1 0 c 31 0 0 1 1 0 c 32 0 0 0 0 1 c 33 1 1 1 1 1 c 34 1 0 1 0 1 c 35 1 1 1 1 1 c 36 1 0 1 0 1 c 37 1 0 0 0 1 c 38 1 0 1 0 1 c 40 0 1 1 1 0 c 42 0 1 1 0 0 c 43 0 1 1 0 0 c 44 1 1 0 0 0 c 45 0 1 1 1 0 c 46 1 0 0 0 0 c 47 1 0 1 1 0 c 48 0 0 0 0 0 c 50 1 0 0 0 0 c 51 1 1 1 1 1 c 52 0 0 0 0 0 c 53 0 1 1 1 1 c 54 1 1 1 1 0 c 55 0 1 0 0 0 195 Part 3 Question 3(d) Responses Zone ID Rank of Considerations Number Car Increased Need to Facility Accident Traffic Store Vandalism a 1 3 4 2 1 a 2 3 4 2 1 a 3 4 3 2 1 a 5 1 3 2 4 a 6 4 2 3 1 a 7 1 4 3 2 a 8 2 3 4 1 a 16 1 4 2 3 a 18 2 4 3 1 a 19 3 1 2 4 a 20 1 4 3 2 a 22 1 4 2 3 a 24 2 4 3 1 a 25 1 2 3 4 a 26 4 3 2 1 a 201 1 2 4 3 a 203 3 4 2 1 a 205 1 4 3 2 a 206 4 2 3 1 a 207 3 4 2 1 a 208 3 4 2 1 a 212 2 3 4 1 a 213 1 4 3 2 a 215 4 3 1 2 a 218 1 3 2 4 a 219 1 4 2 3 a 224 1 3 2 4 a 225 4 3 2 1 a 228 4 3 2 1 a 229 3 4 1 2 a 231 1 4 2 3 a 232 3 4 1 2 a 234 2 4 1 3 a 235 1 2 4 3 a 236 2 4 3 1 b 1 1 3 4 2 b 2 4 1 2 3 b 3 1 4 2 3 b 4 4 3 2 1 b 5 2 3 1 4 b 6 3 4 2 1 b 7 4 3 2 1 196 Part 3 Question 3(d) Responses Zone ID Rank of Considerations Number Car Increased Need to Facility Accident Traffic Store Vandalism b 8 4 3 2 1 b 9 4 3 1 2 b 10 4 3 2 1 b 11 3 2 4 1 b 12 1 2 3 4 b 14 3 4 2 1 b 15 2 4 1 3 b 16 4 3 2 1 b 17 4 3 2 1 b 18 4 2 3 1 b 19 2 4 1 3 b 20 4 3 1 2 b 21 4 1 2 3 b 25 3 4 2 1 b 26 4 3 1 2 b 27 4 3 1 2 b 29 2 3 1 4 b 30 1 2 3 4 b 31 1 4 2 3 b 34 4 1 3 2 b 36 1 4 3 2 b 38 3 4 1 2 b 39 1 4 2 3 b 40 4 1 2 3 b 42 2 4 1 3 b 45 3 4 1 2 b 46 4 3 2 1 b 48 4 3 2 1 b 49 1 2 3 4 b 51 4 3 2 1 b 52 3 4 1 2 b 53 4 3 2 1 b 54 3 4 1 2 b 56 4 3 2 1 b 57 4 3 2 1 b 58 3 1 2 4 b 59 1 3 2 4 b 60 4 3 2 1 c 2 2 1 3 4 c 3 2 3 1 4 c 4 4 3 1 2 c 5 2 3 1 4 197 Part 3 Question 3(d) Responses Zone ID Rank of Considerations Number Car Increased Need to Facility Accident Traffic Store Vandalism c 6 1 4 3 2 c 8 3 4 2 1 c 9 4 3 2 1 c 10 3 4 2 1 c 11 1 2 3 4 c 13 4 3 2 1 c 15 4 3 1 2 c 16 1 4 3 2 c 17 2 4 1 3 c 20 4 3 1 2 c 21 3 4 1 2 c 23 1 4 2 3 c 24 4 3 1 2 c 25 4 1 2 3 c 27 3 4 2 1 c 28 4 2 1 3 c 29 2 3 1 4 c 30 3 4 1 2 c 32 3 4 2 1 c 33 4 3 2 1 c 36 4 3 2 1 c 37 1 3 4 2 c 40 4 3 2 1 c 42 2 4 1 3 c 43 3 2 1 4 c 44 4 1 3 2 c 45 1 4 2 3 c 47 2 4 3 1 c 50 4 2 1 3 c 51 3 4 2 1 c 53 3 4 2 1 c 54 2 3 1 4 198 Part 3 Question 4(a) Responses Zone ID Amount Respondents are Willing to Pay Number As per Code Below Specific Amount ($) Individual Depot Individual Depot a 1 1 1 0 0 a 2 4 3 0 0 a 3 4 5 25 50 a 4 5 5 50 50 a 5 3 3 0 0 a 6 3 1 0 0 a 7 4 3 15 6 a 8 4 3 20 10 a 16 2 3 0 0 a 17 4 0 0 0 a 18 5 4 0 0 a 19 3 0 5 0 a 20 4 0 0 0 a 22 5 5 a 24 3 2 0 0 a 25 3 2 10 5 a 26 2 3 0 0 a 201 5 3 a 202 4 a 203 2 a 204 3 3 a 205 4 3 a 206 4 4 a 207 5 4 30 a 208 3 3 5 10 a 210 3 3 9 9 a 211 1 4 0 20 a 212 3 3 a 213 1 3 a 214 4 3 20 10 a 215 5 3 30 10 a 216 1 1 a 217 3 a 218 5 4 35 20 a 219 4 4 a 220 2 2 3 3 a 221 a 222 4 3 a 223 3 1 a 224 1 1 a 225 3 1 10 a 226 4 4 20 20 199 Part 3 Question 4(a) Responses Zone ID Amount Respondents are Willing to Pay Number As per Code Below Specific Amount ($) Individual Depot Individual Depot a 227 4 3 a 228 4 a 229 3 10 a 230 3 a 231 1 1 a 232 1 2 1 a 233 3 3 a 234 2 4 a 235 3 2 a 236 3 2 10 1 b 1 0 0 0 0 b 2 5 3 25 8 b 3 4 4 20 20 b 4 3 4 10 15 b 5 1 1 0 0 b 6 5 5 40 35 b 7 4 4 0 0 b 8 3 2 0 0 b 9 4 1 0 0 b 10 3 3 8 8 b 11 5 5 0 0 b 12 0 0 0 0 b 14 4 4 0 0 b 15 0 0 0 0 b 16 1 4 0 0 b 17 2 5 0 0 b 18 0 0 0 0 b 19 5 4 40 20 b 20 4 3 20 10 b 21 2 2 5 5 b 22 3 3 0 0 b 23 0 3 0 0 b 25 3 5 10 30 b 26 3 3 0 0 b 27 5 5 100 100 b 28 5 3 0 0 b 29 3 2 0 0 b 30 0 0 0 0 b 31 3 3 0 0 b 32 3 2 10 5 b 34 5 5 50 50 b 35 0 0 0 0 200 Part 3 Question 4(a) Responses Zone ID Amount Respondents are Willing to Pay Number As per Code Below Specific Amount ($) Individual Depot Individual Depot b 36 4 3 20 10 b 38 3 2 0 0 b 39 5 5 25 25 b 40 0 4 0 0 b 41 0 0 0 0 b 42 4 2 20 10 b 44 0 0 0 0 b 45 2 3 0 0 b 46 4 1 12 0 b 48 3 2 0 0 b 49 5 5 50 5 b 51 5 5 20 20 b 52 3 3 0 0 b 53 5 5 100 50 b 54 4 2 20 8 b 56 3 3 0 0 b 57 0 0 0 0 b 58 5 4 0 0 b 59 3 3 0 0 b 60 4 2 15 5 c 1 2 2 0 0 c 2 4 4 0 0 c 3 4 3 0 0 c 4 1 1 0 0 c 5 4 3 0 0 c 6 2 2 0 0 c 7 2 1 2 0 c 8 2 2 0 0 c 9 4 3 0 0 c 10 1 1 0 0 c 11 2 2 0 0 c 12 3 3 0 0 c 13 3 1 0 0 c 14 4 3 0 0 c 15 5 5 0 0 c 16 5 4 30 15 c 17 5 3 0 0 c 19 2 0 0 0 c 20 4 4 0 0 c 21 4 4 15 15 c 22 3 1 0 0 c 23 3 2 0 0 201 Part 3 Question 4(a) Responses Zone ID Amount Respondents are Willing to Pay Number As per Code Below Specific Amount ($) Individual Depot Individual Depot c 24 4 2 0 0 c 25 5 5 30 40 c 26 3 3 0 0 c 27 1 1 0 0 c 28 5 3 25 10 c 29 3 2 0 0 c 30 2 1 5 0 c 31 4 3 20 10 c 32 2 2 0 0 c 33 1 2 0 0 c 34 3 3 0 0 c 35 4 3 0 0 c 36 4 4 0 0 c 37 3 3 0 0 c 38 3 3 10 10 c 40 3 1 8 0 c 42 2 0 0 0 c 43 4 3 15 5 c 44 2 2 0 0 c 45 3 2 0 0 c 46 3 0 0 0 c 47 5 5 0 0 c 48 0 0 0 0 c 50 0 0 0 0 c 51 5 5 50 30 c 52 1 1 0 0 c 53 5 5 40 40 c 54 3 1 0 0 c 55 4 4 15 15 1 = nothing 2 = less than $5 per year 3 = between $5 and $10 per year 4 = between $11 and $20 per year 5 = more than $20 per year 202 Part 3 Question 4(b) Resposnes Zone ID Rank o Payment Method Number Flat Item by Municipal Provincial Purchase Rate Item Taxes Taxes Tax a 1 2 3 4 5 1 a 2 4 5 3 2 1 a 3 3 1 4 5 2 a 5 2 1 4 3 5 a 6 2 3 5 4 1 a 7 3 2 5 4 1 a 8 5 4 1 2 3 a 16 4 5 3 2 1 a 18 3 2 4 5 1 a 20 3 1 4 5 2 a 22 4 5 2 3 1 a 25 3 2 4 5 1 a 26 2 1 3 4 5 a 201 2 1 5 4 3 a 202 2 1 3 4 5 a 203 2 1 4 3 5 a 205 3 2 4 5 1 a 206 4 5 2 1 3 a 207 4 5 2 3 1 a 208 2 1 4 5 3 a 212 1 2 3 4 5 a 213 2 3 5 4 1 a 214 2 1 3 5 4 a 215 4 5 1 2 3 a 218 1 2 4 5 3 a 219 5 4 1 2 3 a 220 5 4 3 2 1 a 226 1 2 4 3 5 a 227 4 5 3 2 1 a 234 3 1 4 5 2 a 235 2 1 4 5 3 a 236 5 4 1 2 3 b * 2 5 4 3 2 1 b 3 5 4 1 2 3 b 4 2 1 3 5 4 b 5 1 2 3 4 5 b 6 4 1 2 3 5 b 7 3 5 1 4 2 b 8 3 4 2 1 5 b 9 4 5 2 1 3 b 10 3 4 1 2 5 b 11 2 3 1 4 5 203 Part 3 Question 4(b) Resposnes Zone ID Rank o Payment Method Number Flat Item by Municipal Provincial Purchase Rate Item Taxes Taxes Tax b 16 4 5 3 2 1 b 17 4 5 2 3 1 b 19 2 1 4 5 3 b 20 3 5 2 1 4 b 25 1 5 2 3 4 b 27 1 3 5 4 2 b 29 2 1 3 4 5 b 30 2 1 4 5 3 b 31 2 1 3 4 5 b 34 2 1 3 4 5 b 36 4 5 2 1 3 b 38 1 5 4 3 2 b 39 1 2 3 4 5 b 40 4 5 2 1 3 b 42 4 5 1 2 3 b 45 4 5 1 2 3 b 48 2 1 3 4 5 b 49 2 1 3 4 5 b 51 2 1 3 5 4 b 53 1 2 3 4 5 b 54 1 5 3 2 4 b 58 5 4 2 3 1 b 59 1 5 2 3 4 b 60 2 1 3 5 4 c 1 5 2 3 4 1 c 2 5 4 1 2 3 c 4 2 1 5 4 3 c 5 4 5 1 2 3 c 7 3 2 4 5 1 c 8 4 5 2 1 3 c 11 5 4 1 2 3 c 13 3 2 5 4 1 c 15 2 3 4 5 1 c 16 3 4 1 2 5 c 17 4 5 1 3 2 c 20 1 2 4 5 3 c 23 4 5 1 2 3 c 24 4 5 2 1 3 c 25 4 5 3 2 1 c 26 3 4 1 2 5 c 29 2 1 4 5 3 c 30 3 2 4 5 1 204 Part 3 Question 4(b) Resposnes Zone ID Rank of Payment Method Number Flat Item by Municipal Provincial Purchase Rate Item Taxes Taxes Tax c 32 3 2 5 4 1 c 34 1 4 2 3 5 c 36 1 2 3 4 5 c 40 4 5 1 2 3 c 43 2 1 4 5 3 c 44 2 1 3 4 5 c 45 3 2 5 4 1 c 47 2 1 4 5 3 c 50 2 1 3 4 5 c 51 2 1 3 4 5 c 53 4 5 2 1 3 c 54 2 1 5 4 3 205 Part 3 Question 5 Responses Zone ID Number Respondents Aware Of Surrey BC MOE Depot (1 = Yes, 0 = No) a 1 0 a 2 0 a 3 0 a 4 0 a 5 0 a 6 0 a 7 0 a 8 0 a 16 0 a 17 1 a 18 0 a 19 0 a 20 0 a 22 0 a 24 1 a 25 0 a 26 0 a 201 0 a 202 0 a 203 0 a 204 0 a 205 0 a 206 0 a 207 1 a 208 0 a 210 0 a 211 0 a 212 0 a 213 0 a 214 0 a 215 0 a 216 0 a 217 0 a 218 0 a 219 0 a 220 0 a 221 0 a 222 0 a 223 0 a 224 0 a 225 0 a 226 0 206 Part 3 Question 5 Responses Zone ID Respondents Aware Number Of Surrey BC MOE Depot (1 = Yes, 0 = No) a 227 0 a 228 0 a 229 0 a 230 0 a 231 0 a 232 0 a 233 0 a 234 0 a 235 0 a 236 0 b 1 0 b 2 1 b 3 0 b 4 0 b 5 1 b 6 0 b 7 0 b 8 0 b 9 0 b 10 1 b 11 1 b 12 0 b 14 0 b 15 0 b 16 0 b 17 0 b 18 0 b 19 0 b 20 0 b 21 0 b 22 0 b 23 0 b 25 0 b 26 0 b 27 0 b 28 0 b 29 0 b 30 0 b 31 0 b 32 0 b 34 0 b 35 0 Part 3 Question 5 Responses Zone ID Respondents Aware Number Of Surrey BC MOE Depot (1 = Yes, 0 = No) b 36 0 b 38 0 b 39 0 b 40 1 b 41 0 b 42 0 b 44 0 b 45 0 b 46 0 b 48 0 b 49 0 b 51 0 b 52 1 b 53 0 b 54 0 b 56 0 b 57 0 b 58 0 b 59 1 b 60 0 c 1 0 c 2 0 c 3 1 c 4 0 c 5 0 c 6 0 c 7 1 c 8 0 c 9 0 c 10 0 c 11 1 c 12 0 c 13 0 c 14 0 c 15 0 c 16 0 c 17 0 c 19 1 c 20 0 c 21 0 c 22 0 c 23 0 Part 3 Question 5 Responses Zone ID Respondents Aware Number Of Surrey BC MOE Depot (1 = Yes, 0 = No) c 24 0 c 25 0 c 26 0 c 27 0 c 28 0 c 29 0 c 30 0 c 31 0 c 32 1 c 33 0 c 34 1 c 35 0 c 36 0 c 37 0 c 38 0 c 40 1 c 42 0 c 43 0 c 44 0 c 45 0 c 46 0 c 47 0 c 48 0 c 50 1 c 51 0 c 52 0 c 53 0 c 54 0 c 55 0 Appendix E Quantile Plots, Existing Wastes and Generation Rates 210 „ Quantile Plot, Existing Wastes o . o ' 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 Cleaners (I) 211 Quantile Plot Existing Wastes Quantile Plot Existing Wastes Quantile Plot Existing Wastes Quantile Plot Existing Wastes Quantile Plot Existing Wastes Quantile Plot Existing Wastes Quantile Plot Existing Wastes c CO co co _co ~c CD "D a o CL co <D CC c o o CO t_ LL 1.0 0.8 h 0.6 r - t 0 4 H 0.2 0.0 0 10 15 Pesticides (I) 20 25 218 Quantile Plot Existing Was tes 219 Quantile Plot Existing Wastes LL 0.0 " 1 ' 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 Lead/Acid Batt (no.) 220 Quantile Plot Existing Was tes Quantile Plot Existing Wastes 0 , 0 1 " 1 1 1 1 0 10 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 Fuels (I) 222 Quantile Plot Existing Wastes Quantile Plot Existing Wastes Quantile Plot Existing Wastes c CO 1— 0.8 CO CO 5 J 0.6 _CO © "D c o Q. CO 0.4 CD CC M— O c o 0 2 o CO LL 0.0 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 Smoke Detectors (no.) 225 Quantile Plot Existing Wastes c CO co co CD co -*—' c CD "D C o Q . CO CD Q C c o 1.0 0,8 h 0.6 h 0.4 73 02 CD _. LL 0.0 0 10 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 Liquids (I) 226 Quantile Plot, Generation Rates 5 10 Cleaners (l/yr) 15 227 Quantile Plot, Generation Rates 228 Quantile Plot, Generation Rates Quantile Plot, Generation Rates 230 Quantile Plot, Generation Rates Quantile Plot, Generation Rates Quantile Plot, Generation Rates CO LL Q O 1 ' " ' 0.0 0.5 1,0 1.5 Adhesives (l/yr) 233 Quantile Plot, Generation Rates Quantile Plot, Generation Rates o . o E 1 1 1 1 1 0 20 40 60 8 0 - 100 Batteries (number/yr) 235 Quantile Plot, Generation Rates CO LL 0.0 i 1 1 1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Lead/Acid Batt (number/yr) Quantile Plot, Generation Rates o.o 0 10 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 Motor Oil (l/yr) 237 Quantile Plot, Generation Rates Quantile Plot, Generation Rates Quantile Plot, Generation Rates o.o 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 Petroleum Prod, (l/yr) 240 Quantile Plot, Generation Rates c CO CO CO CD _co ~c CD TD c o CO-CO CD CC M— o c o o CO _. L L 1.0 0.8 -0.6 0.4 -0.2 0.0 -1 0 . 1 Smoke Detectors (no./yr) 2 241 Quantile Plot, Generation Rates 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0062804/manifest

Comment

Related Items