20261007 C&D Committee Memo — original pdf

Backup

Construction and Demolition Ordinance Reform Committee Meeting 10.07.26 Updates to the Construction & Demolition Recycling Ordinance Executive Summary Staff engaged stakeholders over four Zero Waste Advisory Commission (ZWAC) Construction and Demolition (C&D) Committee meetings to identify challenges and gaps with the existing C&D Recycling Ordinance. Stakeholders raised concerns about transparency at processing facilities and how recycled materials are handled. The Qualified Processor (QP) program was designed to eliminate these uncertainties but has had low participation since inception, with only two facilities becoming qualified over the life of the program. This indicates that the voluntary program does not present adequate incentive to encourage processors to become qualified. In response, staff has prepared proposed amendments to the Ordinance that require projects to deliver mixed C&D material to a QP and update the QP program to improve transparency, increase material diversion, and reduce administrative burden. Background and Findings The Qualified Processor program is voluntary, and few processors choose to participate. The City currently has one qualified processor, Texas Disposal Systems. Facilities processing mixed C&D material that are not QPs are not required to report facility-wide diversion or have diversion rates verified. Stakeholders report that without auditing or verification, facilities can claim diversion rates to customers that have not been verified, reducing market trust. The “2020 Economic Impact Study on C&D Diversion Requirements,” mandated by the C&D Ordinance, confirmed that there is little to no verification of diversion rates at non-QP facilities and recommended stronger oversight over the facilities. Staff researched C&D recycling policies in other U.S. communities with processing facility requirements, interviewing staff from Chatham County in North Carolina, Portland, Oregon and Oregon Metro, Seattle and King County in Washington, and San Francisco, California. Through those meetings, staff heard that third-party verification of facility diversion rates, rather than self-reporting, was preferred, and, in some cases, required to remain licensed or authorized to accept waste. San Francisco moved to an independent audit model after finding that facilities' self-reported recovery rates did not match observed performance, and King County partners with a third-party consultant to conduct annual residuals sampling at its designated facilities. Both King County and Seattle staff noted that processors sometimes adjusted operations on audit days — adding staff to sorting lines or slowing belt speeds — which limited the accuracy of scheduled inspections. Staff in San Francisco and King County also emphasized that source separation at the job site, rather than reliance on mixed-debris processing, tends to produce stronger recycling outcomes (though neither require this). Problem Stakeholders and staff identified the following concerns throughout the engagement process: • Reporting integrity. Some non-QP diversion reports show estimates of materials diverted in a load, based on visual inspection, rather than weight. • No consistent standards for processing facilities. A lack of standards for facilities who process mixed C&D material. Proposed Policy Changes 1. Require Affected Projects to Deliver Mixed C&D Waste to a Qualified Processor Affected projects include: • Commercial and multifamily projects requiring demolition permits. • Construction projects > 5,000 square feet of new, added, or remodeled floor area. Details: • Processors may choose to become qualified, no minimum diversion rate required • Projects must use a QP for mixed waste - QP’s validated rate is applied • Source separated material does not have to be sent to a QP and recyclers accepting this material do not need to be qualified. • Current project diversion and disposal rate requirements stay the same (divert a minimum of 50% of materials generated by the project for beneficial use or dispose of no more than 2.5 pounds of material per square foot of the project). Benefit: Ensures mixed C&D material goes to an audited facility with verified diversion rates. 2. Update the Qualified Processor Program Details: • City-contracted auditor performs diversion rate audit. • Average diversion rates (ADR) verified every six months (matches current practice). • City posts ADRs publicly on ARR’s website for public transparency. • Any Austin-area mixed waste processor may apply to become a QP. • No minimum diversion rate required for to become a QP. • QPs maintain status as long as facilities continue meeting requirements (e.g., audits, weighing systems, TCEQ permits). • QP doesn’t have to submit six-month reports itself if the City contracts the auditor. Benefits: Increases transparency and reduces administrative work for QPs. 3. Replace the Registered Evaluator Program with City‑Contracted Auditors Details: • Audits would be performed exclusively by City-selected contractors. • Auditors will be assigned to facilities on a rotating basis to reduce potential bias. • Current REs and Recycling Certification Institute (RCI) contractors may apply to become City contractors. Benefits: • Establishes consistent audit requirements and fees. • Reduces bias that may arise when an auditor is selected and paid directly by the processor. • Provides greater assurance that materials are diverted at the facility’s reported rate. Costs The City of Austin aims to build a roster of auditors to validate facility diversion rates through a competitive solicitation and assign them to facilities on rotation. Qualified Processors would pay the City a fee to cover audit costs. Stakeholders identified that audit costs are not a barrier to becoming a Qualified Processor. Through conversations with other U.S. communities, staff found that audit costs vary. The City of San Francisco estimates that, depending on the verifier and complexity of the facility, annual diversion rate audits are estimated to cost between $5,000-10,000 per year. King County, Washington contracts for facility residual audits at around $3,600 per facility. The Recycling Certification Institute (RCI) is an approved validation organization currently available for Austin’s Qualified Processors and used by several other communities. RCI charges an Initial certification fee starting at $8,129, with a monthly maintenance fee starting at $629 per month.