2. Austin Resource Recovery Zero Waste Comprehensive Plan Update - Presentation — original pdf

Backup

ARR Comprehensive Plan Update for JSC October 25, 2023 Meeting Agenda Introductions Planning Process Benchmarking Research & Analysis Stakeholder Engagement ARR Comprehensive Plan Overview Questions and Next Steps 2 Introductions 3 Update to 2011 Zero Waste Master Plan • The existing 2011 Zero Waste Master Plan has been renamed to the 2023 Zero Waste Comprehensive Plan • 2011 Plan had a goal to reach 90% diversion by the year 2040 • The 2011 plan focused on introduction to zero waste and access to services • This is a roadmap for the next 10 years 4 Key Accomplishments Since 2011 • Curbside Composting at Single Family Homes • Universal Recycling – recycling, food donation, or composting access for employees at all businesses and food permitted businesses • Construction Debris Recycling 5 Planning Process 6 Planning Process Early Improvement Recommendations Feasibility Matrix Preferred Strategies Benchmarking Research Key Definitions, Data/Technology & Policy Issues Analyze Multiple ARR Topics Establish Plan Goals & Objectives Identify Alternatives Evaluate Options Research, Analysis & Recommendations Develop Strategies & Options Multiple Strategy Workshops ARR Comprehensive Plan City/Stakeholder Engagement & Public Outreach Develop Outline & Write Multiple Drafts Based on Workshop and Stakeholder Engagement Feedback 7 Benchmarking 8 Benchmarking Overview Benchmarked 13 Zero Waste cities Zero Waste definitions Technology solutions Policy issues Key findings & recommendations to inform Comprehensive Plan 9 Benchmarking Results Year when City Adopted Zero Waste Vision 2008 2008 2013 1998 2005 2015 2012 2010 N/A N/A 2014 2013 2009 City Los Angeles Portland San Diego Seattle Austin Minneapolis Phoenix San Antonio Fort Worth Denver Boston Dallas San Francisco Published Diversion Rate* Waste Generators Considered Percent Year Commercial Single- Family Multi- Family Construction & Demolition (C&D) 76% 70% 65% 57% 42% 37% 36% 36% 30% 23% 21% 21% City does not use diversion rate 2011 2015 2018 2018 2015 2016 2019 2019 2018 2019 2019 2016 N/A ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Metrics are based on data published at the time of benchmarking analysis (2020). More recent diversion rates may have been published by cities but were not updated within the table in order to maintain a baseline benchmarking comparison. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 1 0 Benchmarking Results ► Of 13 benchmark cities, Austin’s diversion rate only trails west coast cities (LA, Portland, San Diego, Seattle) ► Cities with higher diversion rates share long-term commitment to Zero Waste principles and have mandates ► Cities that consider multiple generator types in their diversion calculations generally have higher diversion rates ► Programs with higher diversion rates require recycling mandates and/or enforcement, as well as material bans ► Austin’s lack of detail on commercial waste generation is a common data gap ► Austin’s framing of Zero Waste as a vision is consistent with other industry and municipal definitions 1 1 Benchmarking Recommendations ► Complementary measurement methods (e.g., per-capita disposal rate and capture rate) in Austin’s Zero Waste goals offers a more comprehensive measure of progress ► Evaluate options to obtain data from haulers ► Structure waste characterization methodology to provide ability to carry out capture rate analysis ► Evaluate contents of residential setouts through cart audit data entry, and/or notices for contamination 1 2 Research & Analysis 1 3 Research & Analysis Divided in Three Key Groups Residential Private Facilities & Infrastructure City-Wide Alternative Metrics Facilities & Infrastructure Circular Economy Residential Collection C&D Recycling Messaging and Outreach Other Residential Services Organics Processing Economic Development Hard-to-Recycle Materials Universal Recycling Ordinance Community Partnerships & Special Events 1 4 Research & Analysis Results: Residential ► Implement alternative metrics, including per-capita disposal and capture rate, in order to set and track short-term goals ► Prioritize capturing material with the greatest future diversion potential ► Increase access to proper management of hard-to-recycle materials 1 5 Prioritize Capturing Material with the Greatest Future Diversion Potential Ranking Material Type Diverted Tons Capture Rate (2018) Future Diversion Based on 90 Percent Capture (Tons/Year) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Food Waste Mixed Paper Other Plastics Yard Trimmings Newsprint Rigid Plastic Glass Jars and Bottles Ferrous Metal Wood PET Aluminum Other Metal HDPE Corrugated Cardboard 14,414 14,427 2,170 17,830 7,859 1,466 8,035 1,349 2,405 1,290 7,507 469 2,053 - 29% 55% 20% 67% 60% 27% 68% 34% 0% 55% 43% 78% 26% 61% Legend Recycling Composting 29,854 9,335 7,837 6,192 3,833 3,407 2,631 2,234 1,988 1,536 1,411 1,144 1,137 979 1 6 Increase Access to Proper Management of Hard- to-Recycle Materials Participation at the RRDOC is concentrated in the four closest zip codes in South Austin 1 7 Research & Analysis Results: Infrastructure and Private Entities ► Monitor processing and disposal capacity in region ► Utilize transfer stations due to City growth ► Focus food waste diversion efforts on commercial food processors, wholesale food distributors, and retail grocery stores ► Expand and enhance the URO in a methodical approach 1 8 Utilize Transfer Station Due to City Growth ► Growth in North Austin coupled with existing landfills located in the South enhances need for transfer stations Trash collected by ARR is disposed in Creedmoor, nearly 60 miles round-trip from North Austin 1 9 Research & Analysis Results: City-Wide ► Introduce the concept of Zero Waste community-wide through accessible, simple language ► Continue and expand reuse and waste reduction programs and opportunities ► Engage businesses on the topics of Circular Economy ARR’s [Re]verse Pitch Competition has been an engine for Circular Economy entrepreneurship in Austin since 2015 2 0 Introduce the Concept of Zero Waste Community-Wide Through Accessible, Simple Language ► Effective messages for key ARR programs (e.g., URO, curbside composting collection) implement simple and direct language to affect recycling behavior ► Communicating concepts such as “Zero Waste” and “Circular Economy” should similarly focus on simple and direct language to build City-wide familiarity (examples shown in next slide’s word cloud) ARR has developed easy-to-understand messaging materials as a part of the URO and other key programs, including Spanish materials to further reach our community 2 1 Effective Words and Phrases to Communicate Zero Waste Concepts Reduce Remade Reuse Buy Used Share Reshare Repair Give An Experience Compost Donate Remanufacture Recycle 2 2 2 2 Stakeholder Engagement 2 3 Stakeholder Engagement Activities Focus Groups Community Surveys In 2020 and 2021, residents provided feedback on their current Zero Waste practices, their knowledge of existing programs and services, and how to best achieve Zero Waste by 2040. In 2020, 46 organizations and businesses representing 7 key stakeholder groups shared perspective on Zero Waste through facilitated dialogues In 2021, 50 residents representing all 10 Council Districts described their recycling and composting habits and shared ways for ARR to improve awareness of its services in the community 2 4 ARR Comprehensive Plan Overview 2 5 Plan Goal Highlights • On-call services • Infrastructure expansion • Service Centers • Transfer Stations • Fleet electrification • Data and measurement expansion • Keep existing Zero waste goal • Expand types of data beyond diversion rate • Per capita disposal and capture rate 26 Questions and Next Steps 2 7 Additional Questions? Scott Pasternak Burns & McDonnell 512-872-7141 spasternak@burnsmcd.com 2 8