Agenda (estimated minutes) Welcome and Project Update (15 min) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Agenda (estimated minutes) Welcome and Project Update (15 min) Welcome and Project Update (15 min) Rutherford County Solid Waste Advisory/ Analysis of Future Needs (15 min) Analysis of Future Needs (15 min) Steering Council Technology and Management Options (40 min) Technology and Management Options (40 min) Workshop 2: Technologies and Organization February 27, 2017 Defining Scenarios for Evaluation – Part I (10 min) Defining Scenarios for Evaluation – Part I (10 min) Murfreesboro City Council Chambers Break (10 min) Break (10 min) 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm 2 Agenda (continued) Project Update Organizational Possibilities (20 min) Organizational Possibilities (20 min) Middle Point Landfill Field Trip to PHG Capacity and Closure Energy Date Paying for Your System (10 min) Paying for Your System (10 min) Defining Scenarios for Evaluation – Part II (30 min) Defining Scenarios for Evaluation – Part II (30 min) Other Possible Field Next Steps (10 min) Next Steps (10 min) Trips: Public Outreach • Huntsville, AL WTE Questions, Comments, Answers & Discussion (20 min) Questions, Comments, Answers & Discussion (20 min) • WastAway • Proton Power 3 4

Middle Point Landfill Field Trip to PHG Energy “2016 Estimate of Remaining Life” form estimated the remaining Republic’s capacity at 11 years (2027) 2016 Estimate Publicly stated life may be 8 years (2024) Final Grades (volume) Items Affecting Waste disposal tonnage Capacity •Historically 3,500 tpd •Recently have been taking in more TDEC and Republic are in correspondence to define if TDEC/ capacity and closure date Republic Sludge deliveries may cease before garbage 5 6 Other Possible Field Trips Huntsville Solid Waste to Energy Facility (Huntsville, AL) https://www.covanta.com/Our‐Facilities/Covanta‐ Huntsville ANALYSIS OF FUTURE SOLID WastAway (Morrison, TN) WASTE MANAGEMENT NEEDS http://www.wastaway.com/ Proton Power (Lenoir City, TN) http://www.protonpower.com 7 8 February 27, 2017

Waste Projection Assumptions Waste Projection Methodology •2015 population is 298,612 Population of •2030 population estimated to be 420,000 Rutherford County •Represents a 2.3% compound annual growth rate •2015 population is 126,118 Population of City of •2035 population estimated to be 228,000 Murfreesboro Project Multiply the per •Represents a 3.0% compound annual growth rate Calculate the population capita waste per capita waste growth for 20 disposed by the Total waste disposed disposed for •258,000 tons at Middle Point Landfill years (FY2015 – following year’s in FY2015 is 279,027 •21,027 tons at County Class III/IV Landfill each material FY2035) population Waste disposed per •Individuals will generate equal amounts of garbage per capita does not person change 9 10 Rutherford County FY15 Waste and Estimated FY15 Rutherford County Material Generated Recycling by Generator Recycling Center Garbage: 36,765 tons, 13% 282,027 tons total 282,027 tons total C&D: 21,027 tons, Recycling Center 7% Recycling: 3,000 tons, 1% Garbage: 108,511 Organics: 69,157 Murfreesboro Curbside tons, 38% Garbage: 35,503 tons, tons, 25% Private Hauler Garbage: 13% 185,732 tons, 66% C&DD/Brush: 21,027 tons, 7% Single Stream Recycling: 83,331 tons, 30% 12 11 February 27, 2017

Rutherford County FY15 Garbage and Projection of Rutherford County Recycling by Recycling Center (approx. Waste and Recycling 40k tons) 470,576 500,000 Almaville Bradyville Buchanan Cranor Rd Hill Yard 7% 4% 0% 450,000 2% 28% 374,860 Christiana/Fosterville 400,000 298,612 1% Eagleville 350,000 2% 300,000 Epps Mill 2% 250,000 Lascassas 200,000 4% 150,000 Leanna 4% 100,000 Rock Springs 50,000 2% 0 Rock Crusher Weakley 7% 17% County Class III/IV Landfill Disposal Garbage Tons (Murfreesboro only) Rockvale Recycling Center Recycling Tons (FY2015 estimated) Recycling Center Garbage Tons 3% Private Hauler Garbage Tons County Population Walter Hill Sand Hill 6% 10% 13 14 Map of Recycling Centers LaVergne Smyrna PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF Murfreesboro Eagleville IDENTIFIED TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 15 16 February 27, 2017

Policy Drives Programs which are Summary of Current Options Powered by Technology Option Overview No Change Direct Haul/Go It Alone • Flow Control • Mandatory Source Reduction Education, bans, financial penalties Policy Policy Curbside Collection Collection System Residential • Franchising Commercial Recycling centers Landfill Expand Middle Point* • Recycling New facility in‐County Programming Programming • Education/Outreach Out of County • HHW/HCW Transfer Station New facility in‐County Diversion/Processing MRF AD/Composting • Landfill Gas MWP • Fuel preparation Technology Technology Energy WTE • Advanced Conversion Advanced Conversion Gasification Technology Pyrolysis 17 18 U.S. Waste Management Infrastructure Technology Number Transfer Stations 3,350 Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) 586 NO CHANGE/DIRECT HAUL Curbside Recycling Programs 9,000+ Mixed Waste Processing Facilities 70* & Hybrid MRFs Composting 2,300 Anaerobic Digestion 21 WTE 77 Landfills 1,908 *Excludes facilities that solely produce RDF GBB 2016 19 20 February 27, 2017

Materials Management Facilities within 20 miles of Rutherford County SOURCE REDUCTION 21 22 SOURCE REDUCTION SOURCE REDUCTION Description Typical Cost Impact on Diversion Implementation Risks • Education • First years: $2‐4 per 2‐3% • Material bans (e.g. household per year • Education is key • Can be challenges for plastic bags) • After 3 rd year: $1‐2 • Desire for legislative action is legislation • Financial penalties per household per unknown • Backyard programs are easier year • Grasscycling • Backyard composting 23 24 February 27, 2017

Example: Source Reduction Portland, OR • Statewide Bottle Bill • City Plastic bag ban • Residential messaging: COLLECTION OPTIONS o Waste‐wise holidays o Stop junk mail o Opt out of phone books Portland o Back to school tips o Backyard composting o Grasscycling Population: Approx. 600,000 Area: 146 sq. mi Part of Metro Regional Government http://www.oregonmetro.gov/tools‐living/garbage‐and‐recycling/reduce‐waste‐home 25 26 COLLECTION COLLECTION Description Typical Cost Recycling Improvement Implementation Risks • Residential • Residential: $15‐40 Residential: 20‐30% • Curbside collection per household per Commercial:25‐35% • PAYT (variable month • 1‐2 years to implement Centers: 3‐5% • Possible negative reaction from rates) • Commercial: varies • Coordinated effort is best private haulers • Commercial • Centers: varies • Evaluate best mechanism for • May be too expensive • Recycling mandates working with haulers • Recycling Centers • Bulky items 27 28 February 27, 2017

Example: Collection Curbside Collection Options Austin, TX • Curbside single stream • PAYT Roll carts for solid waste, • Recycle & Reuse recycling and compost, with Drop‐Off Center additional motor oil and • Bulk Collection batteries set out Sonoma County, CA Kraft bags for yard waste Compost roll cart Population: Approx. 900,000 Montgomery County, MD with indoor food Area: 272 sq. mi waste pail Austin, TX 29 http://austintexas.gov/what‐do‐i‐do 30 LANDFILLS Recycling Description Typical Cost Improvement LANDFILL OPTIONS • EPA Subtitle D Landfill • $15‐30/ton N/A • Lined Note: ‘cost’ of landfilling is different • Leachate and landfill gas collection and than ‘market’ pricing, control which will go as high as it can relative to • Burial of waste under closest alternatives. soil cover 31 32 February 27, 2017