RFT Annual Conference Florida Solid Waste Management: State of the State June 12 st, 2017 Tim Townsend, Steve Laux, Malak Anshassi, Matthew Morse

Transcription

1 RFT Annual Conference Florida Solid Waste Management: State of the State June 12 st, 2017 Tim Townsend, Steve Laux, Malak Anshassi, Matthew Morse Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences Engineering School for Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment University of Florida 1

2 Motivation Hinkley Center Research Project Florida Solid Waste Management: State of the State Motivated by numerous questions on HC 2016 research agenda regarding waste technologies, feasibility, economics, life cycle assessment, and future options for solid waste management in Florida. Additional support: Alachua, Escambia, Palm Beach, Polk and Sarasota Counties 2

3 Presentation Agenda Historic and Current Recycling Rates in Florida; Challenges with Getting to 75% SMM Fundamentals and the Use of SMM tools in Setting Materials Management Priorities Approaches for Using SMM Tools in Conjunction with (or as an alternative to) the 75% Recycling Goal Future Directions 3

4 Management and Disposition of Waste Total tons of MSW generated in Florida in million tons combusted Traditional Recycling Rate: 42% million tons traditionally recycled million tons landfilled 32.5 Million tons 4

5 Management and Disposition of Waste Total Recycling Rate: 54% Total tons of MSW generated in Florida in million tons total recycled 718,977 million tons combusted million tons landfilled 32.5 Million tons 5

6 Recycling Rate Florida Historic Recycling Rates 60% Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA) 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recycling Rate 6

7 Recycling Rate Florida Historic Recycling Rates Changes in how C&D is counted toward recycling 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recycling Rate 7

8 Recycling Rate 60% Florida Historic Recycling Rates 2008 House Bill % goal 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recycling Rate 8

9 Recycling Rate 60% Florida Historic Recycling Rates 2010 House Bill 7242 and FDEP Report to Legislature 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recycling Rate 9

10 Recycling Rate 60% Florida Historic Recycling Rates 2012 House Bill % 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recycling Rate 10

11 Recycling Rates Across the US Location Recycling Rate Comment San Francisco, CA 80% Los Angeles, CA 76% Portland, OR 70% San Antonio, TX 29% NYC, NY 19% Atlanta, GA 12.5% Zero Waste Policies, ban on disposable plastic bas, mandatory recycling and composting Planning and implementation of programs to achieve the 2025 zero waste to landfill goal Aggressive recycling and waste diversion program that requires more labor which increases the cost per ton of collecting MSW Pilot Program for organic waste that focuses on composting Low rate due to inefficiencies related to the performance of private companies New residential recycling programs, Cartlanta Program Chicago, IL 9% Lack of recycling interest and public participation 11

12

13 Let s look more closely at the recycling rate of different waste sources in Florida 13

14 The Four Categories 1. Residential MSW* 2. Non-residential MSW* 3. C&D Debris 4. Yard Trash *Not including yard trash or C&D debris. 14

15 State of Florida Total Waste Generation by Category Categorizing the total 32.5 million tons of collected MSW into the four categories 3.81 million tons yard trash million tons residential 8.95 million tons non-residential 9.64 million tons C&D Debris 32.5 Million tons 15

16 Recycling Rate Recycling Rates by Category 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Residential Non-Residential C&D Debris Yard Trash Category Traditional Recycling Total Recycling 16

17 Large Counties 2015 Recycling Rate 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pinellas Palm Beach Hillsborough Lee Pasco Sarasota Collier Alachua Charlotte Brevard Martin Marion St. Lucie Broward Leon Orange Citrus Manatee Duval Miami-Dade Escambia Bay Seminole Volusia Hernando Santa Rosa Indian River Lake Okaloosa Highlands St Johns Clay Polk Sumter Osceola Flagler 17 Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recyling Rate

18 Small Counties 2015 Recycling Rate 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Monroe Hendry Madison Putnam Hamilton Bradford Suwannee Columbia Nassau Holmes Franklin Union Taylor Gulf Jackson Wakulla Lafayette Baker Hardee Washington Okeechobee Levy DeSoto Jefferson Gadsden Calhoun Walton Liberty Gilchrist Dixie Glades Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recyling Rate 18

19 Large Counties Recycling Rate 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pinellas Palm Beach Hillsborough Lee Pasco Sarasota Collier Alachua Charlotte Brevard Martin Marion St. Lucie Broward Leon Orange Citrus Manatee Duval Miami-Dade Escambia Bay Seminole Volusia Hernando Santa Rosa Indian River Lake Okaloosa Highlands St Johns Clay Polk Sumter Osceola Flagler Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recyling Rate 19

20 Large Counties Recycling Rate 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pinellas Palm Beach Hillsborough Lee Pasco Sarasota Collier Alachua Charlotte Brevard Martin Marion St. Lucie Broward Leon Orange Citrus Manatee Duval Miami-Dade Escambia Bay Seminole Volusia Hernando Santa Rosa Indian River Lake Okaloosa Highlands St Johns Clay Polk Sumter Osceola Flagler Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recyling Rate 20

21 Large Counties Recycling Rate 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pinellas Palm Beach Hillsborough Lee Pasco Sarasota Collier Alachua Charlotte Brevard Martin Marion St. Lucie Broward Leon Orange Citrus Manatee Duval Miami-Dade Escambia Bay Seminole Volusia Hernando Santa Rosa Indian River Lake Okaloosa Highlands St Johns Clay Polk Sumter Osceola Flagler 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Pinellas Palm Beach Hillsborough Lee Pasco Sarasota Collier Alachua Charlotte Brevard Martin Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recyling Rate 21

22 Large Counties Recycling Rate 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pinellas Palm Beach Hillsborough Lee Pasco Sarasota Collier Alachua Charlotte Brevard Martin Marion St. Lucie Broward Leon Orange Citrus Manatee Duval Miami-Dade Escambia Bay Seminole Volusia Hernando Santa Rosa Indian River Lake Okaloosa Highlands St Johns Clay Polk Sumter Osceola Flagler 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Pinellas Palm Beach Hillsborough Lee Pasco Sarasota Collier Alachua Charlotte Brevard Martin Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recyling Rate 22

23 Large Counties Recycling Rate 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pinellas Palm Beach Hillsborough Lee Pasco Sarasota Collier Alachua Charlotte Brevard Martin Marion St. Lucie Broward Leon Orange Citrus Manatee Duval Miami-Dade Escambia Bay Seminole Volusia Hernando Santa Rosa Indian River Lake Okaloosa Highlands St Johns Clay Polk Sumter Osceola Flagler 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Pinellas Palm Beach Hillsborough Lee Pasco Sarasota Collier Alachua Charlotte Brevard Martin Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recyling Rate 23

24 Lee County Recycling Rate Breakdown 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Lee Combusted 33% Recycled 46% Landfilled 21% 24

25 Lee County Recycling Rate Breakdown 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Lee 1% 15% 6% 9% 4% 2% 5% 7% 3% <1% 1% <1% 6% 6% 1% 2% 1% 1% Newspaper Glass Aluminum Cans Plastic Bottles Steel Cans Corrugated Paper Office Paper Other Plastics Ferrous Metals White Goods Non Ferrous Metal Other Paper Textiles Food Miscellaneous Tires C&D Debris Yard Trash 25

26 Lee County Recycling Rate Breakdown 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Lee 20% 38% <1% 1% 4% <1% 4% 9% 1% <1% 12% 4% 2% 2% 1% <1% <1% 1% Newspaper Glass Aluminum Cans Plastic Bottles Steel Cans Corrugated Paper Office Paper Other Plastics Ferrous Metals White Goods Non Ferrous Metal Other Paper Textiles Food Miscellaneous Tires C&D Debris Yard Trash 26

27 Lee County Recycling Rate Breakdown 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Lee 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Residential Non-Residential Yard Trash C&D Debris Recycled Landfilled Combusted 27

28 Lee County Recycling Rate Breakdown 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Lee C&D Debris Yard Trash Non-Residential Residential 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Recycling Rate 28

29 Large Counties Recycling Rate 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pinellas Palm Beach Hillsborough Lee Pasco Sarasota Collier Alachua Charlotte Brevard Martin Marion St. Lucie Broward Leon Orange Citrus Manatee Duval Miami-Dade Escambia Bay Seminole Volusia Hernando Santa Rosa Indian River Lake Okaloosa Highlands St Johns Clay Polk Sumter Osceola Flagler 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Pinellas Palm Beach Hillsborough Lee Pasco Sarasota Collier Alachua Charlotte Brevard Martin Traditional Recycling Rate Total Recyling Rate 29

30 Charlotte County Recycling Rate Breakdown 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Charlotte Landfilled 41% Recycled 59% 30

31 Charlotte County Recycling Rate Breakdown 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Charlotte <1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% <1% 51% 14% 3% 3% <1% 4% 1% 3% 12% <1% <1% Newspaper Glass Aluminum Cans Plastic Bottles Steel Cans Corrugated Paper Office Paper Other Plastics Ferrous Metals White Goods Non Ferrous Metal Other Paper Textiles Food Miscellaneous Tires C&D Debris Yard Trash 31

32 Charlotte County Recycling Rate Breakdown 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Charlotte 24% 2% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 3% 1% 0% 5% <1% 5% 1% 1% <1% 58% <1% Newspaper Glass Aluminum Cans Plastic Bottles Steel Cans Corrugated Paper Office Paper Other Plastics Ferrous Metals White Goods Non Ferrous Metal Other Paper Textiles Food Miscellaneous Tires C&D Debris Yard Trash 32

33 Charlotte County Recycling Rate Breakdown 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Charlotte 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Residential Non-Residential Yard Trash C&D Debris Recycled Landfilled Combusted 33

34 Charlotte County Recycling Rate Breakdown 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Charlotte C&D Debris Yard Trash Non-Residential Residential 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Recycling Rate 34

35 Getting to 75% 2/10/

36 Traditional Adjusted % Traditional 54% Adjusted 2/10/

37 Traditional Adjusted Constructed and operated WTE facilities in Orange and Duval Counties 42% Traditional 59% Adjusted 2/10/

38 Traditional Adjusted Established a Bottle Bill and Recycled 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, and Plastic Bottles 44.9% Traditional 56.6% Adjusted 2/10/

39 Traditional Adjusted Recycled 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard and Office Paper 51.4% Traditional 63.0% Adjusted 2/10/

40 Traditional Adjusted Food Waste Recycling (composting) to 80% 47.0% Traditional 57.7% Adjusted 2/10/

41 Traditional Adjusted Recycle 80% of C&D and Yard Trash 52.4% Traditional 64.1% Adjusted 2/10/

42 Traditional Adjusted 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 2/10/

43 The Challenge with Recycling Rates Recycling Rate = Waste Recycled Waste Recycled+Waste Disposed Doesn t track efforts in reduction All materials are treated equal All recycling is treated equal 43

44 The Challenge with Recycling Rates Consider this, A company currently has a heavy emphasis on recycling office paper: Recycling Rate: 40% Recycled Landfilled Recycled 44

45 The Challenge with Recycling Rates Doesn t track efforts in reduction Company institutes a double-sided printing policy Recycled Landfilled Recycled 45

46 The Challenge with Recycling Rates Doesn t track efforts in reduction Recycling Rate: 40% Recycling Rate: 35% Recycled Source Reduction Landfilled Recycled 46

47 Sustainable Materials Management 47

48 Sustainable Materials Management SMM is a systemic approach to using and reusing materials more productively over their entire life cycles. It represents a change in how our society thinks about the use of natural resources and environmental protection. By looking at a product's entire lifecycle we can find new opportunities to reduce environmental impacts, conserve resources, and reduce costs. 48

49

50

51 Tracking Life Cycle Impacts of Alternative Solid Waste Management Strategies Instead of looking at the % of material s mass recycled, why not look at the environmental burden associated with its waste management. Environmental burden categories: Global warming Energy consumption/production Toxicity Acidification Eutrophication Ozone depletion Water consumption SMM tools Open LCA Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW DST) Waste Reduction Model (WARM) Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment (WRATE; UK) 51

52 EPA WARM Model 2/10/

53 Waste and Climate Change The relationship of waste management to climate change Waste management alternatives Source reduction Recycling Biological treatment Thermal treatment Land disposal Assessment tools Potential for outcomes Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O

54 GHG Emission Factors Net CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, Metric Tons of CO 2 Equivalents (MTCO 2 E) MTCO 2 E Ton Waste Mass of Waste

55 WARM GHG Emission Factors for Recycling Aluminum Cans Cardboard Newspaper Computer Steel Cans PET Plastic HDPE Plastic Glass Asphalt Shingle Drywall GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton) -10

56 Comparison of PET Plastic and Office Paper GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton) PET OP

57 Food Waste GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton) Landfilling Combustion Composting

58 Landfill Gas Management Choice GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton) No recovery Flare Energy Recovery

59 Opportunities to Apply SMM Tools and Principles 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 overall lower environmental burden. 59

60 Sarasota County Case Study Town of Long Boat Key City of Sarasota City of Venice City of North Port 60

61 2015 Collection Solid Waste Composition 50% 5% 4% 5% 5% <1% 3% 2% <1% 1% 1% 4% 1% <1% 4% 5% 1% 9% Food Miscellaneous Tires Newspaper Glass Aluminum Cans Plastic Bottles Steel Cans Corrugated Paper Office Paper Yard Trash Other Plastics Ferrous Metals White Goods Non Ferrous Metal Other Paper Textiles C&D Debris 61

62 2015 Solid Waste Disposition Landfilled 41% Recycled (Traditional Rate) 59% 62

63 2015 Sarasota County Total Waste Generation Standard Recycling Rate: 56% Traditional Recycling Rate: 59% Total Recycling Rate: 63% 497,493 tons sent to recycling 520,178 tons sent to recycling 549,041 tons sent to recycling 385,013 tons sent to landfilling 362,328 tons sent to landfilling 333,465 tons sent to landfilling 882,506 tons 882,506 tons 882,506 tons 63

64 Thousand MTCO2E 2015 WARM MTCO2E Savings Material Thousand MTCO2E C&D Debris -234 Ferrous Metals -121 Corrugated Paper Newspaper White Goods Non Ferrous Metal Yard Trash Aluminum Cans Textiles Plastic Bottles Glass Other Paper Steel Cans Other Plastic Tires Office Paper 14.5 Miscellaneous 14.8 Food

65 Thousand mmbtu 2015 WARM Energy Savings Material Thousand mmbtu Ferrous Metals Corrugated Paper -402 White Goods -348 Newspaper -315 Non Ferrous Metal -273 Plastic Bottles -141 Aluminum Cans -136 Other Plastic Textiles Other Paper Steel Cans Glass Office Paper Tires Miscellaneous Food 1.80 Yard Trash 39.1 C&D Debris ,000-1,500-2,000 65

66 Thousand MTCO2E 2015 WARM MTCO2E Scenarios -500 Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario Baseline: The carbon dioxide emissions for Sarasota County solid waste management in

67 Thousand MTCO2E 2015 WARM MTCO2E Scenarios -500 Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario Scenario 1: WTE facility combusts all waste that is not recycled

68 Thousand MTCO2E 2015 WARM MTCO2E Scenarios -500 Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario Scenario 2: All commercial food waste is composted

69 Thousand MTCO2E 2015 WARM MTCO2E Scenarios -500 Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario Scenario 3: All commercial food waste is anaerobically digested

70 Thousand MTCO2E 2015 WARM MTCO2E Scenarios -500 Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario Scenario 4: All commercial office paper or other paper is recycled 70

71 Thousand mmbtu 2015 WARM Energy Savings Scenarios Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario Baseline: The energy expenditure for Sarasota County solid waste in

72 Thousand mmbtu 2015 WARM Energy Savings Scenarios Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario Scenario 1: WTE facility combusts all waste that is not recycled

73 Thousand mmbtu 2015 WARM Energy Savings Scenarios Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario Scenario 2: All commercial food waste is composted

74 Thousand mmbtu 2015 WARM Energy Savings Scenarios Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario Scenario 3: All commercial food waste is anaerobically digested

75 Thousand mmbtu 2015 WARM Energy Savings Scenarios Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario Scenario 4: All commercial office paper or other paper is recycled

76 How can SMM be utilized in a similar manner as the 75% goal? With the SMM tools discussed, we can model the environmental burden (e.g., carbon footprint) associated for a solid waste management for the State or for an individual municipality. Or we can compare different solid waste management systems? But to track progress over time, what do you compare the environmental burden to? One possible approach, is to compare to a baseline environmental burden. 76

77 Developing a Baseline for Florida Let s consider the following: The Statute with Florida 75% recycling goal was issued in Let s use 2008 as our baseline. Traditional Recycling Rate = 28.4% Adjusted Recycling Rate = 41.5% MTCO2E Emissions = million MTCO2E Energy usage = -147 million mmbtu 77

78 Developing a Baseline for Florida Let s consider the following: The Statute with Florida 75% recycling goal was issued in Let s use 2008 as our baseline. Traditional Recycling Rate = 28.4% Adjusted Recycling Rate = 41.5% MTCO2E Emissions = million MTCO2E Energy usage = -147 million mmbtu We developed a hypothetical waste management profile that would have corresponded to a 75% recycling in 2008 (included some additional WTE). Traditional Recycling Rate = 59.6% Adjusted Recycling Rate = 75.3% MTCO2E Emissions = million MTCO2E Energy usage = -275 million mmbtu Our Target 78

79 % Traditional 54% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E 79

80 Constructed and operated WTE facilities in Orange and Duval Counties 42% Traditional 59% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E 80

81 Established a Bottle Bill and Recycled 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, and Plastic Bottles 44.9% Traditional 56.6% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E 81

82 Recycle 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard and Office Paper 51.4% Traditional 63.0% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E 82

83 Food Waste Recycling (composting) to 80% 47.0% Traditional 57.7% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E 83

84 Recycle 80% of C&D and Yard Trash 52.4% Traditional 64.1% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E 84

85 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 85

86 % Traditional 54% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 86

87 Constructed and operated WTE facilities in Orange and Duval Counties 42% Traditional 59% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 87

88 Established a Bottle Bill and Recycled 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, and Plastic Bottles 44.9% Traditional 56.6% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 88

89 Recycle 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard and Office Paper 51.4% Traditional 63.0% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 89

90 Food Waste Recycling (composting) to 80% 47.0% Traditional 57.7% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 90

91 Recycle 80% of C&D and Yard Trash 52.4% Traditional 64.1% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 91

92 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 Target = -275 million mmbtu 92

93 Lessons Learned With respect to two environmental burden categories (GHG emissions, energy), different recycling approaches result in different progress toward the goal. The materials targeted play a major role. The selection of a baseline is critical. Aluminum Cans Cardboard Newspaper Computer Steel Cans PET Plastic HDPE Plastic Glass Asphalt Shingle Drywall GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton) 93

94 Refined Approach Lets assume a hypothetical waste management profile in 2008, Baseline 2, that follows: Combusted, 25% Recycled, 50% Landfilled, 25% 94

95 Refined Approach The Baseline 2 outputs: Traditional Recycling Rate = 52% Adjusted Recycling Rate = 77% MTCO2E Emissions = million MTCO2E Energy usage = -272 million mmbtu Our Target To make it easier to compare, we will normalize the GHG and energy burdens to an equivalent progress toward a recycling goal. 95

96 Applying SMM for Florida SWM in 2020 Progress Towards Baseline 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Expand WTE SMM Scenario A SMM Scenario B Duval, Brevard, Polk, Volusia, and Orange county divert a third of their total collected MSW into WTE. SMM Scenario C SMM Scenario D 2015 Portfolio Baseline 2 Metric Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings 96

97 Applying SMM for Florida SWM in 2020 Progress Towards Baseline 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Expand WTE SMM Scenario A Enhance Recycling SMM Scenario B SMM Scenario C 75% recycling of residential curbside materials for newspaper, glass, aluminum cans, plastic bottles, steel cans, corrugated paper, and office paper. SMM Scenario D 2015 Portfolio Baseline 2 Metric Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings 97

98 Applying SMM for Florida SWM in 2020 Progress Towards Baseline 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Expand WTE SMM Scenario A Enhance Recycling SMM Scenario B SSO SMM Scenario C SMM Scenario D Organics recycling program will increase the Florida s food recycling rate to become 75% 2015 Portfolio Baseline 2 Metric Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings 98

99 Applying SMM for Florida SWM in 2020 Progress Towards Baseline 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Expand WTE SMM Scenario A Enhance Recycling SMM Scenario B SSO SMM Scenario C Focus on C&D & YT SMM Scenario D 2015 Portfolio Bulk recycling programs for with a 75% recycling rate for C&D Debris and yard trash Baseline 2 Metric Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings 99

100 Applying SMM for Florida SWM in 2020 Progress Towards Baseline 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Expand WTE SMM Scenario A Enhance Recycling SMM Scenario B SSO SMM Scenario C Focus on C&D & YT SMM Scenario D Portfolio Current 2015 Portfolio Baseline 2 Metric Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings 100

101 Applying SMM for Florida SWM in 2020 Progress Towards Baseline 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Expand WTE SMM Scenario A Enhance Recycling SMM Scenario B SSO SMM Scenario C Focus on C&D & YT SMM Scenario D Portfolio Baseline 2 Metric Recycling Rate (With WTE) GHG Savings Energy Savings 101

102 Discussion SMM could be used as a tool to set alternative targets with respect to solid waste management in Florida. This approach helps identify materials/system targets to reach SMM goals. What is an appropriate SMM metric? Could be community specific. Provides a scientific methodology to recognize WTE and more sustainable landfill practices, but still rewards recycling efforts. Reaching 75% is still a challenge. 102

103 What is the Appropriate SMM Metric? Metric Greenhouse Gases Energy Consumption Water Consumption Acidification Potential Community decides which is the most important to become the objective metric Objective Metric Baselines Reporting Measurements 103

104 Expanded View of SMM as a Tool Composting Food Waste Aerobic Digestion Landfill 104

105 Expanded View of SMM as a Tool Consumption Composting Agriculture Practice Manufacturing Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion Landfill 105

106 Next Steps Our team will keep working throughout the summer to: Refine materials flow estimates Synthesize cost data and refine environmental burden footprint Evaluate feasibility and outcome of alternative waste management strategies Continue to explore SMM metrics as a tool RFT webinar June 28 SWANA Summer Meeting July

107 107