[PPT] - Stakeholder Working Group Meeting Florida Solid Waste Management: PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Stakeholder Working Group Meeting Florida Solid Waste Management: State of the State

October 5, 2017 Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences Engineering School for Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment University of Florida

10/11/2017 1

SLIDE 2

Introductions

2 10/11/2017

SLIDE 3

Solid Waste Management: State of State

Motivation and Justification:

Market values for recyclable commodities are

lower than they have been in years.

Recovered material purchasers (e.g., paper

mills) are demanding higher quality product while at the same time product quality from many materials recovery facilities (MRF) has declined with the predominance of single stream programs.

The waste stream has evolved
less newspaper, more composite packaging

SLIDE 4

Solid Waste Management: State of State

Motivation and Justification:

More efficient collection vehicles and strategies
Waste management technologies that were

historically never considered feasible are actively being pursued

Gasification, anaerobic digestion, source

separated organics

Statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements

drive additional recycling or landfill diversion

Florida 75% recycling goal; required C&D

recycling where economically feasible

Landfill costs remain low

Low Solids Anaerobic Digestion System for SSO in Toronto, Canada

SLIDE 5

Commodities Pricing

Recyclables Commodity Pricing – Monthly Averages

➢ In July, the Chinese notified the World Trade Association (WTO) of its intent to ban 24 materials from import into China. Mixed plastic, plastics that once contained food, rigid plastics and mixed waste paper were among the materials identified as banned as of January 1, 2018. ➢ Earlier this month, the Chinese announced a new ratcheting down of the quality of material flowing into the country. This 0.3% prohibitive limit is effective before the ban takes place. The new quality specifications apply to all materials, even those not included on the banned list (such as newspaper or cardboard). ➢ The Chinese Government has not issued the required quotas necessary for its mills to buy recycled material. This is resulting in a short-term reduction of all tons being allowed into China for recycling.

SLIDE 6

10/11/2017 6

SLIDE 7

Project Objectives

Form a state-wide stakeholder

working group and foster a dialogue

n the state of solid waste
Compile cost data from Florida

municipalities

Estimate materials flow and

composition for the Florida solid waste stream

Create a database of commodities

pricing for recyclables

2014 Florida Waste Generation: FDEP Annual Reports

SLIDE 8

Project Objectives

Develop a series of specific waste management
ptions (for Florida conditions) and conduct an

economic and environmental assessment of different waste management technologies

LCA tools + collected data
Evaluate the economic viability feasibility of CDD

recycling, as well as emerging waste management technologies, for different FL regions

Develop a publically available summary

document that outlines the findings and provides data

Whitepaper Produced as Deliverable for Hinkley Combustion Recycling Project

SLIDE 9

Project Tasks

The proposed research project is broken down into the following four tasks:

Task 1: Establish Stakeholder Working Group Task 2: Compile Available Data on FL Solid Waste Management Economics Task 3: Develop Waste Economic and Environmental Scenario Evaluations Task 4: Summary Whitepaper: Florida Solid Waste Management: State

f the State

SLIDE 10

Today’s Goals

Discuss the current “numbers” with respect to how

much waste is produced, recycled, combusted, and landfilled in Florida.

Explore data gaps with respect to waste amounts,

disposition, and cost.

Examine opportunities and limitations to reaching

the current State recycling goal, and discuss how SMM might be integrated into alternative goals.

10/11/2017 10

SLIDE 11

Agenda

10/11/2017 11

Activity Schedule Introductions, and Agenda 10:00-10:15am MSW Management in Florida: The Current Numbers 10:15-10:45am Getting to 75%: County Case Studies 10:45-11:15am Getting to 75%: State Approaches 11:15-12:15pm Lunch 12:15-1:00pm Moving toward SMM 1:00-1:45pm Adjourn 1:45pm

SLIDE 12

MSW Management in Florida

10/11/2017 12

The Current Numbers

SLIDE 13

Current Data

All the available data is listed under the FDEP Solid

Waste Management in Florida 2015 Annual Report and retrieved from RE-TRAC. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recyclin g/SWreportdata/15_data.htm

10/11/2017 13

SLIDE 14

Current Data

10/11/2017 14

Reported Data

SLIDE 15

Current Data

10/11/2017 15

Reportin ing System

SLIDE 16

Current Data

10/11/2017 16

Reportin ing System

SLIDE 17

Current Data

10/11/2017 17

Types of Recyclin ing Credits

Total Recycling Credits Traditional Recycling Credits Standard Recycling Credits

Traditional recycling

credits

Renewable energy

recycling credits

As described by FDEP
Only MSW material

components recycled

SLIDE 18

Yard trash used as a landfill cover
Other MSW used as landfill cover
Treated contaminated soil used as

a landfill cover

Fuel or fuel substitute recycling

credits

Recycling of MSW material

components

Traditional Recycling Credits

10/11/2017 18

Recycling Credits

SLIDE 19

Landfill gas generated from yard trash
Landfill gas generated from MSW
Waste To Energy
Other renewable energy other than

WTE

Yard trash disposed beneficially in a

landfill to generate energy other than landfill gas

Renewable Recycling Credits

10/11/2017 19

Recycling Credits

SLIDE 20

Florida Total Waste Generation

16.7 million tons traditionally recycled 16.2 million tons landfilled

37.4 Million tons

Traditional Recycling Rate: 44.7%

15.2 million tons standard recycled 17.7 million tons landfilled

37.4 Million tons

Standard Recycling Rate: 40.6%

4.51 million tons combusted

20.8 million tons total recycled 15.6 million tons landfilled

37.4 Million tons

Total Recycling Rate: 55.8%

892,526 million tons combusted 4.51 million tons combusted

10/11/2017 20

SLIDE 21

Next, Let’s Break This Down By 4 Major Categories

1. Residential MSW*
2. Non-residential MSW*
3. C&D Debris
4. Yard Trash

10/11/2017 21

➢ *Not including yard trash or C&D debris.

SLIDE 22

Assumptions

There are assumptions that are made that are needed to find the data we are looking for.

10/11/2017 22

SLIDE 23

Assumptions

10/11/2017 23

Yard Trash and C&D Debris

using best judgment yard trash and C&D Debris

were removed from residential and nonresidential

WTE & Landfill

A portion of the collected tons for all MSW

material components goes to either WTE or LF based on the relative amounts of each counties total WTE and LF

SLIDE 24

10/11/2017 24

12.35 million tons residential 9.15 million tons nonresidential 11.30 million tons C&D Debris

37.4 Million tons ➢ Categorizing the total 32.5 million tons of collected MSW into the four categories

State of Florida Total Waste Generation by Category ry

4.20 million tons yard trash

SLIDE 25

10/11/2017 25

12.35 million tons residential

12.35 Million tons ➢ Categorizing the total 32.5 million tons of collected MSW into the four categories

State of Florida Total Waste Generation by Category ry

SLIDE 26

Residential Waste Generation

2.52 million tons traditional recycled 7.53 million tons landfilled

12.35 Million tons

Traditional Recycling Rate: 20.5%

2.29 million tons combusted

2.33 million tons standard recycled 7.72 million tons landfilled

12.35 Million tons

Standard Recycling Rate: 18.9%

2.29 million tons combusted

5.10 million tons total recycled 7.24 million tons landfilled

Total Recycling Rate: 41.3%

12.35 Million tons

10/11/2017 26

SLIDE 27

9.15 million tons nonresidential

10/11/2017 27

9.15 Million tons ➢ Categorizing the total 32.5 million tons of collected MSW into the four categories

Non-Residential

SLIDE 28

Non-Residential Waste Generation

3.89 million tons traditional recycled 3.56 million tons landfilled

9.15 Million tons

Traditional Recycling Rate: 42.5%

1.69 million tons combusted

3.58 million tons standard recycled 3.87 million tons landfilled

9.15 Million tons

Standard Recycling Rate: 39.1%

1.69 million tons combusted

5.80 million tons total recycled 3.35 million tons landfilled

9.15 Million tons

Total Recycling Rate: 63.4%

10/11/2017 28

SLIDE 29

11.30 million tons C&D Debris

10/11/2017 29

11.30 Million tons ➢ Categorizing the total 32.5 million tons of collected MSW into the four categories

C&D D Debris

SLIDE 30

7.07 million tons recycled

10/11/2017 30

11.30 Million tons

C&D D Debris

4.29 million tons landfilled

Traditional Recycling Rate: 59.9% Total Recycling Rate: 62.6% Standard Recycling Rate: 62.6%

➢ Since C&D is assumed to not be combusted and it is assumed the treated contaminated soil recycling credits and

ther MSW used for

LF cover recycling credits originate from the landfill C&D tons

SLIDE 31

4.20 million tons yard trash

10/11/2017 31

4.20 Million tons ➢ Categorizing the total 32.5 million tons of collected MSW into the four categories

Yard Trash

SLIDE 32

Yard Trash Generation

2.82 million tons traditionally recycled

845,859 tons landfilled

4.20 Million tons

Traditional Recycling Rate: 67.3%

528,696 tons combusted 2.09 million tons standard recycled

1.57 million tons landfilled

4.20 Million tons

Standard Recycling Rate: 50.0%

528,696 tons combusted 3.38 million tons total recycled

812,465 tons landfilled

4.20 Million tons

Total Recycling Rate: 80.7%

10/11/2017 32

SLIDE 33

Recycling R Rates by Category ry

33 10/11/2017

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Residential Non-Residential C&D Debris Yard Trash Recycling Rate Standard Recycling Rate Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recycling Rate

SLIDE 34

Quantifying Environmental Burdens

10/11/2017 34

Life Cycle Assessment Models

EPA WARM Model

SLIDE 35

GHG Emission Factors

Mass of Waste Net CO2, CH4, N2O, … Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalents (MTCO2E)

𝑁𝑈𝐷𝑃2𝐹 𝑈𝑝𝑜 𝑋𝑏𝑡𝑢𝑓

10/11/2017 35

SLIDE 36

WARM GHG Emission Factors

10/11/2017 36

SLIDE 37

WARM GHG Energy Factors

10/11/2017 37

SLIDE 38

Collection and Transportation

Solid Waste Waste Management Facility

CO2

Collection and Transportation

CO2 Distance

0.04 𝑁𝑈𝐷𝑃2𝐹 𝑈𝑝𝑜 𝑋𝑏𝑡𝑢𝑓

10/11/2017 38

SLIDE 39

Final Disposition

Solid Waste Waste Management Facility

CO2

Landfill Thermal Biological

CO2 , CH4 CO2 , CH4, N2O

10/11/2017 39

SLIDE 40

Landfilling

Construction
Equipment
Operation
Decomposition
Primarily anaerobic

Landfill in India Landfill in South America

CO2

C6H10O5 + H2O  3CH4 + 3CO2

Emit to Atmosphere

GHG

Capture and Flare Energy Recovery

What about carbon storage? Is all carbon the same?

10/11/2017 40

SLIDE 41

10/11/2017 41

SLIDE 42

Biological Treatment

Construction
Equipment
Operation
Composting
Primarily aerobic process
Anaerobic digestion

Anaerobic Digestion in Canada Composting in Philippines

CO2

C6H10O5 + 6O2  6C02 + 5H2O C6H10O5 + H2O  3CH4 + 3CO2

Energy Input Energy Output What about carbon storage? Is all carbon the same?

10/11/2017 42

SLIDE 43

10/11/2017 43

SLIDE 44

Thermal Treatment

Construction
Equipment
Operation
Excess Air Combustion
CO2, N2O
Pyrolysis, Gasification
Syngas and other products

(CO, H2, Carbon)

Excess Air Combustion in Taiwan

Gasification in US

CO2

Energy Output Energy Output Combustion Liquid Fuel CO2, N2O

Is all carbon the same?

10/11/2017 44

SLIDE 45

10/11/2017 45

SLIDE 46

Recycling

Solid Waste Waste Management Facility

CO2

Manufacturing Raw Materials Extraction

CO2 CO2 CO2 , CH4 CO2 , CH4, N2O

10/11/2017 46

SLIDE 47

Recycling

Solid Waste Waste Management Facility

CO2 CO2 , CH4

Manufacturing Raw Materials Extraction

CO2 CO2

CO2 , CH4, N2O

10/11/2017 47

SLIDE 48

10/11/2017 48

SLIDE 49

WARM GHG Emission Factors for Recycling

10
8
6
4
2

2

Drywall Asphalt Shingle Glass HDPE Plastic PET Plastic Steel Cans Computer Newspaper Cardboard Aluminum Cans

GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton)

10/11/2017 49

SLIDE 50

Source Reduction

Solid Wast e

Waste Management Facility

CO2 CO2 , CH4

Manufacturing Raw Materials Extraction

CO2 CO2

CO2 , CH4, N2O

10/11/2017 50

SLIDE 51

10/11/2017 51

SLIDE 52

Getting to 75%

10/11/2017 52

County Case Studies

SLIDE 53

Opportunities to Apply S SMM Tools and Principles t to Waste Management Decision Making

A state or community could

use a life cycle model to evaluate priorities for developing regulations or policies

Compare different scenarios

(e.g., waste to energy versus SSO) to assess which approach provides the

verall lower environmental

burden.

10/11/2017 53

SLIDE 54

54

Sarasota County Case Study

Town of Long Boat Key City of Sarasota City of Venice City of North Port

10/11/2017

SLIDE 55

Approaches to 75%

Waste to energy (WTE) scenario: Divert 100% of materials landfilled to WTE, this reduces landfill waste by 70%. Mixed waste processing scenario: recover 10% of materials otherwise landfilled in a MWPF. Biosolids and yard trash composting scenario: 100% of all biosolids collected composted with all of the collected yard trash at central county landfill (56%

f total collected yard trash in the county).

Commercial food waste and yard trash composting scenario: all yard trash collected by county (56% of total collected yard trash in the county) composted with 58% of commercial food waste otherwise landfilled. Food waste anaerobic digestion scenario: Assumed 65% of all food waste

therwise landfilled AD.

10/11/2017 55

SLIDE 56

GHG Emissions: 2016 Baseline and Scenarios

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100

2016 Baseline Mixed Waste Processing Waste-to-Energy Biosolids and Yards Trash Composting Commerical Food/Yard Trash Composting Organics Anaerobic Digestion Thousand MTCO2E 10/11/2017 56

SLIDE 57

Energy Use: 2016 Baseline and Scenarios

8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

2016 Baseline Mixed Waste Processing Waste-to-Energy Biosolids and Yards Trash Composting Commerical Food/Yard Trash Composting Organics Anaerobic Digestion Thousand mmBTU 10/11/2017 57

SLIDE 58

Recycling Rates: 2016 Baseline and Scenarios

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2016 Baseline Mixed Waste Processing Waste-to-Energy Biosolids and Yards Trash Composting Commerical Food/Yard Trash Composting Organics Anaerobic Digestion Recycling Rate Traditional Recycling Rate (%) Total Recycling Rate (%) 10/11/2017 58

SLIDE 59

Palm Beach County Case Study

SLIDE 60

WTE bottom ash recycling scenario: 60% of WTE Ash is used as road base replacing limerock and through advanced metal recovery 2% of the ash is additionally recycled; results in 30% reduction of materials landfilled. Glass pozzolan processing scenario: 94% of all glass recycled would be processed to become a pozzolan used in concrete manufacture, remaining glass is recycled traditionally. WTE bottom ash recycling and glass pozzolan processing scenario: Combines both scenarios.

Approaches to 75%

10/11/2017 60

SLIDE 61

GHG Emissions: 2016 Baseline and Scenarios

25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000

2016 Baseline Glass Pozzolan Processing BA Recycling BA Recycling and GP Processing Thousand mmBTU

10/11/2017 61

SLIDE 62

Energy Use: 2016 Baseline and Scenarios

1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200

2016 Baseline Glass Pozzolan Processing BA Recycling BA Recycling and GP Processing Thousand MTCO2E

10/11/2017 62

SLIDE 63

Recycling Rates: 2016 Baseline and Scenarios

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 2016 Baseline Glass Pozzolan Processing BA Recycling BA Recycling and GP Processing Recycling Rate Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recycling Rate

10/11/2017 63

SLIDE 64

Getting to 75%

10/11/2017 64

State Approaches

SLIDE 65

10/11/2017 65

State Approaches

SLIDE 66

10/11/2017 66

Approach 1

Waste-to-Energy (WTE) approach: Increase the capacities of existing WTE in Miami-Dade, Broward, & Pinellas and add new WTE facilities in 11 counties that do not have WTE facilities.

SLIDE 67

10/11/2017 67

Approach 1

Waste-to-Energy (WTE) approach: The increased capacity results in a target landfill rate of 2.6% in those counties

SLIDE 68

GHG Emissions: 2016 Baseline and Approaches

1.130
1.120
1.110
1.100
1.090
1.080
1.070
1.060

2016 Baseline WTE Approach MTCO2E/Person

10/11/2017 68

SLIDE 69

Energy Use: 2016 Baseline and Approaches

14.00
13.50
13.00
12.50
12.00
11.50
11.00

2016 Baseline WTE Approach mmBTU/Person

10/11/2017 69

SLIDE 70

Approach 1 Florida MSW Disposal

500,000

1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 Palm Beach Hillsborough Pinellas Pasco Monroe Lake Brevard Calhoun Walton Duval Gulf Jackson Martin Washington Orange Volusia Sarasota Escambia

St. Lucie

Santa Rosa Okaloosa Okeechobee Nassau Flagler Highlands Gadsden Wakulla Franklin Hardee Glades Madison Dixie Union Lafayette Tons per Year County Landfill Waste-to-Energy

10/11/2017 70

SLIDE 71

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Current Miami-Dade Broward Pinellas Lake Bay Polk Duval Orange Brevard Volusia Seminole Escambia Manatee Sarasota Collier Marion Santa Rosa Leon Alachua Okeechobee Indian River St Johns Martin Flagler Clay

St. Lucie

Hernando Suwannee Okaloosa Highlands Charlotte Osceola Nassau Columbia Sumter Putnam Jackson Citrus DeSoto Levy Gadsden Walton Hardee Wakulla Baker Taylor Bradford Franklin Calhoun Glades Washington Jefferson Hamilton Dixie Gulf Gilchrist Madison Union Liberty Holmes Lafayette Monroe Hendry

Statewide Recycling Rate County

Waste-to-Energy Alternative

Traditional Recycling Rate WTE Renewable Energy Credits

10/11/2017 71

SLIDE 72

Current Miami- Dade Browar d Pinellas Duval Polk Orange Semino le Osceol a Brevar d Volusia Manate e Sarasot a Collier Charlot te Renewable Energy 12.00% 14.35% 16.48% 16.72% 17.60% 18.50% 19.14% 19.64% 19.78% 20.40% 20.99% 21.33% 21.68% 21.94% 22.08% Traditional 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% 44.00% Cumulative Cost $124,3 $237,2 $250,1 $296,7 $344,5 $378,1 $404,7 $411,9 $445,0 $476,0 $494,4 $512,5 $526,6 $533,9

$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

(Millions) Statewide Recycling Rate

Capacity Increase (3.1 million tpy) New Capacity SW Florida (0.7 million tpy) New Capacity Central Florida (2.2 million tpy) New Capacity North Florida (0.6 million tpy)

10/11/2017 72

Cost per ton $81 Cost per percentage point $53 million

SLIDE 73

10/11/2017 73

Approach 2

Mixed Waste Processing (MWP) approach: Increase the residential recycling rate to 55.7% and the non-residential recycling rate to 47.6% for 13 counties.

SLIDE 74

10/11/2017 74

Approach 2

Mixed Waste Processing (MWP) approach: Residential 55.7% target includes:

Single Stream MWP in conjunction with

current curbside recycling

Organics Composting

Non-Residential 47.6% target includes:

Single Stream MWP
Organics Composting

SLIDE 75

GHG Emissions: 2016 Baseline and Approaches

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

2016 Baseline MWP Approach MTCO2E/Person

10/11/2017 75

SLIDE 76

Energy Use: 2016 Baseline and Approaches

16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00

0.00 2016 Baseline MWP Approach mmBTU/Person

10/11/2017 76

SLIDE 77

$(800,000,000) $(600,000,000) $(400,000,000) $(200,000,000) $- $200,000,000 $400,000,000 $600,000,000 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Current Miami-Dade Broward Pinellas Palm Beach Brevard Polk Volusia Seminole Escambia Santa Rosa Sarasota Levy Hillsborough Collier Orange Marion Lake Alachua Flagler Clay Suwannee Highlands Bay Leon Hernando Charlotte Okaloosa St Johns Martin Indian River Nassau Osceola Jackson Pasco Sumter Columbia Lee Okeechobee Monroe DeSoto Walton Hardee Calhoun Glades Manatee Taylor Baker Putnam Citrus Wakulla Franklin Washington Jefferson Bradford Gadsden Gulf Dixie Union Hamilton Gilchrist Liberty Lafayette Holmes Hendry Madison Duval

St. Lucie

Cumulatie Cost ($) Total Recycling Rate Counties

Mixed Waste Processing Alternative

10/11/2017 77

SLIDE 78

2.7% 4.9% 5.5% 6.1% 6.5% 7.0% 7.3% 7.6% 7.8% 8.0% 8.1% 8.3% 8.4%

$(500,000,000) $(400,000,000) $(300,000,000) $(200,000,000) $(100,000,000) $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Mixed Waste Processing Alternative

Cost per ton $35 Cost per percentage point $37 million

10/11/2017 78

SLIDE 79

10/11/2017 79

Approach 3

Traditional Recycling

SLIDE 80

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Miami-Dade County Palm Beach County Hillsborough County Orange County Broward County Pinellas County Duval County Brevard County Lee County Collier County Sarasota County Volusia County Manatee County Charlotte County Polk County Pasco County Alachua County Escambia County

St. Lucie County

Leon County Indian River County Monroe County Marion County Martin County Bay County Seminole County Sumter County

St. Johns County

Putnam County Citrus County Lake County Hernando County Clay County Osceola County Okaloosa County Santa Rosa County Nassau County Hendry County Desoto County Columbia County Highlands County Flagler County Suwanne County Walton County Okeechobee County Wakulla County Gadsden County Bradford County Franklin County Jackson County Madison County Taylor County Levy County Baker County Washington County Hamilton County Calhoun County Hardee County Gilchrist County Holmes County Recycling Center Gulf County Union County Jefferson County Glades County Liberty County Lafayette County Dixie County

Traditional Recycling Mass (tons) County

Traditional Recycling (2016)

30 # Counties 37 43% Weighted Avg Standard Recycling Rate 16% 59% Weighted Avg Total Recycling Rate 22% 97% Traditional Recycling Mass 3% 92% Collected Waste Mass 8%

10/11/2017 80

SLIDE 81

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Miami-Dade County Palm Beach County Hillsborough County Orange County Broward County Pinellas County Duval County Brevard County Lee County Collier County Sarasota County Volusia County Manatee County Charlotte County Polk County Pasco County Alachua County Escambia County

St. Lucie County

Leon County Indian River County Monroe County Marion County Martin County Bay County Seminole County Sumter County

St. Johns County

Putnam County Citrus County Lake County Hernando County Clay County Osceola County Okaloosa County Santa Rosa County Nassau County Hendry County Desoto County Columbia County Highlands County Flagler County Suwanne County Walton County Okeechobee County Wakulla County Gadsden County Bradford County Franklin County Jackson County Madison County Taylor County Levy County Baker County Washington County Hamilton County Calhoun County Hardee County Gilchrist County Holmes County Recycling Center Gulf County Union County Jefferson County Glades County Liberty County Lafayette County Dixie County

Traditional Recycling Mass (tons) County

Traditional Recycling (2016)

30 # Counties 37 43% Weighted Avg Standard Recycling Rate 43% (270% Increase) 59% Weighted Avg Total Recycling Rate 49% 95% Traditional Recycling Mass 5%

Statewide Recycling Rate Increase = 2%

10/11/2017 81

SLIDE 82

Alternative Approaches to a 75% Recycling Rate

10/11/2017 82

SLIDE 83

Where we left off…

January 10, 2017
We discussed an approach to track Florida’s waste

management progress using measurements other than a weight-based recycling rate.

10/11/2017 83

WARM Emission and Energy Factors Net CO2 Emissions and Net Energy Use

SLIDE 84

Approach

10/11/2017 84

Recycling Rate (% Weight) 29% 2008 Measured Since the statute was passed in 2008, let’s set this as our baseline

year. Originally in that year Florida

had a recycling rate of ~29%.

SLIDE 85

Approach

10/11/2017 85

Recycling Rate (% Weight) 29% 2008 Measured Then we come up with a hypothetical waste management scenario that reached 75% in 2008. We will use this to set the threshold the state will aspire to. 75% 2008 Hypothetical

SLIDE 86

Approach

10/11/2017 86

Recycling Rate (% Weight) Use this hypothetical 75% recycling scenario, calculate a corresponding GHG emission and energy use values/footprints (with WARM factors) 75% 2008 Hypothetical

SLIDE 87

Approach

10/11/2017 87

Recycling Rate (% Weight) 75% 2008 Hypothetical

XXX MTCO2E

GHG Emissions (MTCO2E) Calculate a “baseline” GHG footprint

SLIDE 88

Approach

10/11/2017 88

Recycling Rate (% Weight) 75% 2008 Hypothetical

YYY MMBTU

Energy Use (MMBTU) Calculate a “baseline” energy footprint

SLIDE 89

10/11/2017 89

2015 42% Traditional 54% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E

SLIDE 90

10/11/2017 90

Target = -26 million MTCO2E Constructed and operated WTE facilities in Orange and Duval Counties 42% Traditional 59% Adjusted

SLIDE 91

10/11/2017 91

Target = -26 million MTCO2E Established a Bottle Bill and Recycled 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, and Plastic Bottles 44.9% Traditional 56.6% Adjusted

SLIDE 92

10/11/2017 92

Target = -26 million MTCO2E

Recycle 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard and Office Paper 51.4% Traditional 63.0% Adjusted

SLIDE 93

10/11/2017 93

Target = -26 million MTCO2E

Food Waste Recycling (composting) to 80% 47.0% Traditional 57.7% Adjusted

SLIDE 94

10/11/2017 94

Target = -26 million MTCO2E

Recycle 80% of C&D and Yard Trash 52.4% Traditional 64.1% Adjusted

SLIDE 95

10/11/2017 95

Target = -26 million MTCO2E

Recycle 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard, Office Paper, Yard Trash, C&D and Food Waste 66.0% Traditional 76.7% Adjusted

SLIDE 96

10/11/2017 96

Target = -275 million mmBTU 2015 42% Traditional 54% Adjusted

SLIDE 97

10/11/2017 97

Target = -275 million mmBTU Constructed and operated WTE facilities in Orange and Duval Counties 42% Traditional 59% Adjusted

SLIDE 98

10/11/2017 98

Target = -275 million mmBTU Established a Bottle Bill and Recycled 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, and Plastic Bottles 44.9% Traditional 56.6% Adjusted

SLIDE 99

10/11/2017 99

Target = -275 million mmBTU

Recycle 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard and Office Paper 51.4% Traditional 63.0% Adjusted

SLIDE 100

10/11/2017 100

Target = -275 million mmBTU

Food Waste Recycling (composting) to 80% 47.0% Traditional 57.7% Adjusted

SLIDE 101

10/11/2017 101

Target = -275 million mmBTU

Recycle 80% of C&D and Yard Trash 52.4% Traditional 64.1% Adjusted

SLIDE 102

10/11/2017 102

Target = -275 million mmBTU

Recycle 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard, Office Paper, Yard Trash, C&D and Food Waste 66.0% Traditional 76.7% Adjusted

SLIDE 103

After the Working Group Meeting…

We began to explore alternative ways to present

the results.

26 million MTCO2E GHG emissions and
270 million mmBTU
These numbers are a bit abstract.
We developed a procedure to equate these

numbers to the traditional recycling rate.

We presented this at RFT in June 2017.

10/11/2017 103

SLIDE 104

Approach

10/11/2017 104

Recycling Rate (% Weight) 75% 2008 Hypothetical

XXX MTCO2E

GHG Emissions (MTCO2E)

SLIDE 105

Approach

10/11/2017 105

Recycling Rate (% Weight) & GHG Footprint (MTCO2E) 75% 2008 Recycling Rate Baseline

25.8 million

MTCO2E

=

2008 GHG Footprint Baseline

SLIDE 106

Approach

10/11/2017 106

Recycling Rate (% Weight) & GHG Footprint (MTCO2E) 75% 2008 Recycling Rate Baseline

25.8 million

MTCO2E 2008 GHG Footprint Baseline Future Year GHG Footprint Baseline

15 million

MTCO2E

SLIDE 107

Approach

10/11/2017 107

Recycling Rate (% Weight) & GHG Footprint (MTCO2E) 75% 2008 Recycling Rate Baseline

25.8 million

MTCO2E 2008 GHG Footprint Baseline Future Year GHG Footprint Baseline

15 million

MTCO2E 43.6%

−15 million −25.8 million x 75% = 43.6%

Future Year Effective Recycling Rate

SLIDE 108

RFT Presentation

Examined progress toward recycling at several

different future waste management scenarios

Build more WTE
Increase residential recycling
Institute SSO
More C&D and yard trash recycling

10/11/2017 108

SLIDE 109

10/11/2017 109 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% SMM Scenario A SMM Scenario B SMM Scenario C SMM Scenario D 2015 Portfolio

Progress Towards Baseline 2

Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings Expand WTE

Baseline 2 Metric

Applying SMM for F Flo lorida SWM in in 2020

Duval, Brevard, Polk, Volusia, and Orange county divert a third of their total collected MSW into WTE.

SLIDE 110

10/11/2017 110 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% SMM Scenario A SMM Scenario B SMM Scenario C SMM Scenario D 2015 Portfolio

Progress Towards Baseline 2

Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings Expand WTE Enhance Recycling

Baseline 2 Metric

Applying SMM for F Flo lorida SWM in in 2020

75% recycling of residential curbside materials for newspaper, glass, aluminum cans, plastic bottles, steel cans, corrugated paper, and office paper.

SLIDE 111

10/11/2017 111 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% SMM Scenario A SMM Scenario B SMM Scenario C SMM Scenario D 2015 Portfolio

Progress Towards Baseline 2

Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings Expand WTE Enhance Recycling SSO

Baseline 2 Metric

Applying SMM for F Flo lorida SWM in in 2020

Organics recycling program will increase the Florida’s food recycling rate to become 75%

SLIDE 112

10/11/2017 112 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% SMM Scenario A SMM Scenario B SMM Scenario C SMM Scenario D 2015 Portfolio

Progress Towards Baseline 2

Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings Expand WTE Enhance Recycling SSO Focus on C&D & YT

Baseline 2 Metric

Applying SMM for F Flo lorida SWM in in 2020

Bulk recycling programs for with a 75% recycling rate for C&D Debris and yard trash

SLIDE 113

10/11/2017 113 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% SMM Scenario A SMM Scenario B SMM Scenario C SMM Scenario D 2015 Portfolio

Progress Towards Baseline 2

Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings Expand WTE Enhance Recycling SSO Focus on C&D & YT 2015

Baseline 2 Metric

Applying SMM for F Flo lorida SWM in in 2020

Current 2015 Portfolio

SLIDE 114

10/11/2017 114 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% SMM Scenario A SMM Scenario B SMM Scenario C SMM Scenario D 2015 Portfolio

Progress Towards Baseline 2

Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings Expand WTE Enhance Recycling SSO Focus on C&D & YT 2015

Baseline 2 Metric

Applying SMM for F Flo lorida SWM in in 2020

SLIDE 115

10/11/2017 115 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% SMM Scenario A SMM Scenario B SMM Scenario C SMM Scenario D 2015 Portfolio

Progress Towards Baseline 2

Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings

2015 2017 2019

Expand WTE Enhance Recycling SSO Focus on C&D & YT 2015

Baseline 2 Metric

Applying SMM for F Flo lorida SWM in in 2020

SLIDE 116

Since the RFT meeting…

We continued the refine the analysis and we

worked with participating counties.

One thing that became clear is that we were not

truly counting source reduction.

10/11/2017 116

SLIDE 117

Florida Solid Waste Generation in 2008 and 2015

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2008 2015

Million Tons of Solid Waste

10/11/2017 117

SLIDE 118

Per-Capita Florida Solid Waste Generation in 2008 and 2015

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

2008 2015

Tons of Solid Waste per Person-Year

10/11/2017 118

SLIDE 119

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MTCO2E Ton

GHG Source Reduction Factors (based on WARM)

10/11/2017 119

SLIDE 120

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 MMBTU Tom

Energy Source Reduction Factors (based on WARM)

10/11/2017 120

SLIDE 121

10/11/2017 121

2008 2015 Difference

Aluminum Cans 0.012 0.010

0.002

C&D Debris 0.400 0.487 0.087 Corrugated Paper 0.137 0.128

0.009

Ferrous Metals 0.148 0.122

0.026

Food 0.092 0.100 0.008 Glass 0.042 0.043 0.001 Newspaper 0.077 0.051

0.026

Non Ferrous Metal 0.038 0.025

0.013

Office Paper 0.043 0.031

0.012

Other Paper 0.109 0.110 0.001 Other Plastics 0.061 0.073 0.012 Plastic Bottles 0.024 0.023

0.001

Steel Cans 0.017 0.015

0.002

Textiles 0.048 0.038

0.010

Tires 0.020 0.012

0.008

White Goods 0.029 0.018

0.011

Miscellaneous 0.149 0.156 0.007 Process Fuel 0.032 0.027

0.005

Yard Trash 0.170 0.177 0.007 Total 1.648 1.645

0.004

Material

(ton/person-year) Per Capita Generation

Florida’s Per-Capita Waste Component Increase/Decrease 2008  2015

SLIDE 122

Since the RFT meeting…

We have refined the analysis to include source

reduction.

Discussion point  we not only include source

reduction, but we include a source increase

This requires everything to be analyzed on a per

capita basis.

Note: when using per capita generation rates, if we did

not count source reduction, the effective recycling rates would be lower

10/11/2017 122

SLIDE 123

Baselines

123 10/11/2017 7% 10% 4% 2% 4% 2% 12% 1% 5% 25% 28%

Landfill EfW Recycled

Mixed Paper Mixed Metals Other Mixed Plastic Corrugated Paper Food C&D Debris Glass Yard Trash

Recycled MSW Materials

EfW-dominated baseline

11% 10% 9% 3% 5% 4% 16% 2% 7% 25% 8%

Landfill EfW Recycled

Recycled-dominated baseline

SLIDE 124

Example for Florida: Extrapolate 2020 MSW management in Florida using different SMM approaches.

10/11/2017 124

Scenario Description EfW scenario Expands on Florida’s EfW recycling credits, by diverting a third of the total collected MSW of the five most populated counties (Duval, Brevard, Polk, Volusia, and Orange county) to a WTE facility to recover EfW recycling credits. Curbside scenario The major residential curbside materials (newspaper, glass, aluminum and steel cans, plastic bottles, corrugated and office paper) are recycled in the state at 75%. Organics scenario The state’s food waste is recycled at 75%. C&D and YT scenario The state’s C&D and YT are recycled at 75%. Combination scenario Combines the curbside, organics, and C&D and YT scenarios.

SLIDE 125

10/11/2017 125 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% EfW S Scenario io Curbside Scenario Organic ics S Scenario C&D and Y YT Scenario Combination 2015

Progress Towards EfW fW-Dominated baseline

Traditional EfW GHG GHG Energy