Item 002 - City Code and the Department’s Administrative Rules for the Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance Presentation — original pdf

Backup

ZWAC C&D Committee Austin Resource Recovery | 6/24/2026 Agenda 1. Review three staff proposed options 2. Review residual vs average diversion rate audit 3. Review common changes to Code and Rules for options 1 and 2 2 Policy Change Options Options Staff propose three options for mixed-waste C&D processing: OPTION 1 Residuals Threshold Verified residual audit caps what gets landfilled (≤10% of listed materials, TBD) OPTION 2 No-minimum ADR Verified average diversion rate, but no minimum diversion to hit OPTION 3 Eliminate QP Program No Qualified Processor; each project submits weight tickets • All projects use a Qualified • All projects use a Qualified Processor (QP) • Replace registered evaluators with a City-contracted auditor • Annual City audit of mixed- • waste C&D facility (City pays) Facilities post quarterly ADR + annual audit results online Processor (QP) • Replace registered evaluators with a City-contracted auditor • Annual City audit of mixed- • waste C&D facility (City pays) Facilities post quarterly ADR + annual audit results online 4 Definitions Review • AVERAGE DIVERSION RATE means the percentage of all inbound commingled material over a period of time that a facility diverts for beneficial use — Code • RESIDUAL means the quantity of non-recyclable material left over at the end of a recycling process; often expressed as a percentage (i.e. amount of material remaining after the resource recovery process, divided by the total amount of materials processed) — Rules • PROJECT DISPOSAL RATE means the total pounds of material generated by a project and disposed per square foot of the project — Code • PROJECT DIVERSION RATE means the percentage of the materials generated by the project and diverted for beneficial use onsite or offsite — Code 5 What is a residual audit? ▪ A sampling of what a mixed C&D processing facility sends to the landfill. ▪ City will create a list of materials that are locally recyclable based on market conditions ▪ No more than 10% (by weight) of the residual material in all residual streams can include listed materials (to be determined) ▪ Each material will have size thresholds so that very small materials won’t count ▪ Materials will be audited before any shredding or grinding activity ▪ If sampling reveals that the processor is not meeting requirements, there is opportunity to come back into compliance with an additional sampling event at the processor’s expense. OPTION 1 - Residuals Threshold 6 Residual Audit Sampling Methods Visual overlay for "stockpile" sampling method Visual overlay for "direct load" sampling method 7 Average Diversion Rate Verification ▪ Validate average diversion rates through review of the application, onsite inspections, and onsite audits of a qualified processor applicant [Admin Rules for Registered evaluators, 12.6.1] ▪ Average diversion rate is calculated as 100 percent times the tons of material diverted for beneficial use divided by the tons of inbound commingled material the facility processes over a period of time. ▪ Average diversion rate = 100% × tons of diverted material Tons of inbound commingled material processed OPTION 2 - No-minimum ADR 8 Residual audit vs. Average Diversion Rate OPTION 1 · METHOD Residual audit Measures what the facility sends to the landfill OPTION 2 · METHOD Average diversion rate (ADR) Measures the share of materials diverted for beneficial use WHAT IT IS Sapling of what a facility sends to landfill w/ caps on certain materials in the residual stream ( suggested ≤10% by weight, materials TBD). WHAT IT IS A percentage, tons diverted for beneficial use ÷ tons of inbound commingled material. Under Option 2, there's no minimum rate to hit. STRENGTHS ✓ Focuses on what actually gets landfilled ✓ Materials list can change with recycling markets ✓ Cost-effective for processors; lower barrier to qualify STRENGTHS ✓ Familiar, widely-used metric ✓ May be easier to audit than residuals ✓ Cost-effective for processors; lower barrier to qualify TRADEOFFS — More complex to run and audit than ADR — Listed materials + thresholds still to be defined TRADEOFFS — Inflexible to changing recycling markets — A high rate can still leave recyclables in the discard 9 Changes Common to Options 1 & 2 Code and Admin rule changes applicable to both Options 1 & 2 Admin Rule Changes 11.0 – DEFINITIONS 11. XX MIXED C&D WASTE means waste containing both recyclable C&D materials and nonrecyclable C&D waste that has not been separated. * 11. XX NONRECYCLABLE C&D WASTE means any C&D waste that cannot be returned to use via the production of new products 12.2 - Project Disposal and Diversion Report 12.2.1 A permittee may include in this report material amounts from several permitted activities conducted at the same location, including permitted activities that are not included in Section 25-11-39. 12.2.2 A permittee must deliver mixed C&D waste to a qualified processor. *(King County Ordinance 18166) 11 Admin Rule Changes Remove the following and require facility audits of Residuals or ADR by the City. 12.6 – Registered Evaluators 12.6.1 A registered evaluator is a third-party individual or organization that the department approves to validate average diversion rates through review of the application, onsite inspections, and onsite audits of a qualified processor applicant. 12.6.2 To receive approval, a registered evaluator shall provide the department with information that demonstrates operational or consulting experience and relevant certifications in waste management, building design, construction, demolition, renovation, environmental protection, or accounting. 12.6.3 Approval by the Department is effective for one year. 12 Code Changes CURRENT Code § 15-6-155 QUALIFIED PROCESSOR A permittee may deliver materials to a qualified processor to meet the rates established in Section 15-6-151 (Project Disposal Rates) or Section 15-6-152 (Project Diversion Rates). PROPOSED A permittee or its agents must deliver mixed construction or demolition materials to a qualified processor. 13 Code Changes CURRENT Code § 15-6-160 - REGISTRATION REQUIRED. (A) The department may register a facility that meets the requirements in Section 15-6-161 (Qualified Processor Requirements) as a qualified processor. (B) A registration is effective for two years. (C) To remain registered, the facility owner must submit a renewal application at least 90 days before the expiration of the registration. PROPOSED – Cut B and C and replace with: (B) A registration is effective for as long as the qualified processor submits their diversion reports on time and meets the report requirements as outlined in Section 15-6-161. 14 Code Changes CURRENT Code § 15-6-162 AVERAGE DIVERSION RATE CALCULATION AND VALIDATION (A) A qualified processor's average diversion rate is calculated as the tons of materials reclaimed divided by the tons materials processed and multiplied by 100 percent. PROPOSED (A) A qualified processor's average diversion rate is calculated as the tons of materials reclaimed for Beneficial Use divided by the tons materials processed and multiplied by 100 percent. 15 Code Changes CURRENT Code § 15-6-162 AVERAGE DIVERSION RATE CALCULATION AND VALIDATION (A) A qualified processor's average diversion rate is calculated as the tons of materials reclaimed divided by the tons materials processed and multiplied by 100 percent. PROPOSED (A) A qualified processor's average diversion rate is calculated as the tons of materials reclaimed for Beneficial Use divided by the tons materials processed and multiplied by 100 percent. 16 Common to Options 1 & 2 All projects use a QP · City-contracted auditor does 1 audit/yr (City pays) · Remove RE program · City posts audit results + quarterly unverified ADR Option 1 Residuals Threshold Measures what’s landfilled: ≤10% for specified materials Strengths: • Focus on what is landfilled • List of unacceptable residual materials can be adjusted based on market conditions • More cost-effective for processors • May draw more facilities to qualify (no audit-cost barrier) Tradeoffs: • More complex than ADR audit Option 2 No-minimum ADR Verifies diversion rate but sets no minimum for facilities to hit Option 3 Eliminate the QP No QP designation; projects document diversion w/ weight tickets Strengths: • Familiar metric • More cost-effective for processors • May be easier to audit than residuals • May draw more facilities to qualify (no cost or min. diversion barrier) Tradeoffs: • Inflexible to changing market conditions • More potential for recyclables to be landfilled Strengths: • No QP registration or audit program to run Tradeoffs: • More reporting burden on projects • No transparency on facilities and destination of recycled materials 17 Decision Points 1. Require all affected projects to use a QP? 2. Qualified processors must have an audit of diversion rate or residuals? 3. Replace the registered-evaluator program with a City-contracted, City-paid auditor? 4. Have ARR post verified audit and facility-supplied unverified ADR quarterly to department website? 18