Airport Waste Management and Recycling Practices (2018)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Airport Waste Management and Recycling Practices A Synthesis of Airport Practice Morgan E. Turner Mead & Hunt, Inc. Madison, WI 2018 Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration Subscriber Categories Aviation A I R P O R T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M ACRP SYNTHESIS 92

ACRP SYNTHESIS 92 Project 11-03, Topic S02-18 ISSN 1935-9187 ISBN 978-0-309-39063-7 Library of Congress Control Number 2018954132 © 2018 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. Cover figure credit: Courtesy of Portland International Airport NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Published reports of the AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and interna- tional commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ACRP carries out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agen- cies and not being adequately addressed by existing federal research programs. ACRP is modeled after the successful National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). ACRP undertakes research and other technical activi- ties in various airport subject areas, including design, construction, legal, maintenance, operations, safety, policy, planning, human resources, and administration. ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can cooperatively address common operational problems. ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100— Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Associa- tion of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract with the National Academy of Sciences formally initiating the program. ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials, equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organi- zations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibili- ties, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort. Research problem statements for ACRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel appointed by TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop- erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the intended users of the research: airport operating agencies, service pro- viders, and academic institutions. ACRP produces a series of research reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other interested parties; industry associations may arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, webinars, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by airport industry practitioners.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR ACRP SYNTHESIS 92 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Michael R. Salamone, Manager, Airport Cooperative Research Program Gail R. Staba, Senior Program Officer Demisha Williams, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications Doug English, Senior Editor ACRP PROJECT 11-03 PANEL Joshua D. Abramson, Easterwood Airport Management, College Station, TX (Chair) Debbie K. Alke, Montana DOT, Helena, MT (retired) Gloria G. Bender, TransSolutions, LLC, Fort Worth, TX David A. Byers, Quadrex Aviation, LLC, Melbourne, FL David N. Edwards, Jr., Greenville–Spartanburg Airport District, Greer, SC Brenda L. Enos, Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO Linda Howard, Independent Aviation Consultant, Bastrop, TX Patrick W. Magnotta, FAA Liaison Matthew J. Griffin, Airports Consultants Council Liaison Liying Gu, Airports Council International–North America Liaison Adam Williams, Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Liaison Christine Gerencher, TRB Liaison TOPIC S02-18 PANEL Kane Carpenter, Austin–Bergstrom International Airport, Austin, TX Jerry Haws, City of Phoenix Aviation Department, Phoenix, AZ Liza Milagro, Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA Bryan C. Wagoner, Wayne County Airport Authority–DTW, Detroit, MI Jeremy Webb, Port of Seattle Aviation Division, Seattle, WA Jerry P. Williams, Denver International Airport, Denver, CO Shenghua Wu, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL Janell Barrilleaux, FAA Liaison Christine Gerencher, TRB Liaison

FOREWORD Airport administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor- mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the airport industry. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire airport community, the Airport Cooperative Research Program authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing project. This project, ACRP Project 11-03, “Synthesis of Information Related to Airport Practices,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowl- edge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an ACRP report series, Synthesis of Airport Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. PREFACE By Gail R. Staba Staff Officer Transportation Research Board The focus of this synthesis is on airport waste management and recycling practices that reduce impacts and costs to airports and their surrounding communities. The information in this study was acquired through a literature review, survey results from 35 organizations representing 36 airports from a range of geographic locations and airport classifications, and interviews of a subset of 21 airport waste management experts. The results of the literature review and survey are presented in this short report. The online appendices include survey results, case examples representing in-depth interviews on specific airport waste management and recycling practices, and toolkits of existing effective prac- tices to assist airports in implementing their waste management and recycling programs. The online appendices can be accessed at http://www.trb.org/acrp/acrpsynthesis92.aspx. Morgan E. Turner, Mead & Hunt, Inc., Madison, WI, synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on page iv. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowl- edge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research presented in this report was performed under ACRP Project 11-03/Topic S02-18 by Principal Investigator Morgan E. Turner of Mead & Hunt, Inc. Those at Mead & Hunt who provided invaluable and appreciated research, graphics, and other support included Ms. Kate Andrus, Project Manager; Ms. Courtney Beard, Aviation Planning Assistant; Ms. Anita Cobb, Administrative Assistant; Ms. Brauna Hartzell, GIS Analyst; Ms. Eunique Jackson, Aviation Planner; Ms. Sondra Retzlaff, Technical Communicator; Mr. Bill Rucker, Aviation Services; Ms. Patricia Song, Aviation Planner; Mr. Richard Trammell; Senior Graphic Designer; and Ms. Stephanie Ward, Manager Aviation Planning. The principal investigator and author would like to express her gratitude to the members of the ACRP project panel for their insight throughout this synthesis effort. She would also like to thank the staff and consultants of the following airports that contributed survey responses or case example interviews, for which she is very grateful: Aéroports de Montréal: Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport Albany County Airport Authority: Albany International Airport Allegheny County Airport Authority: Pittsburgh International Airport City of Austin Aviation Department: Austin Bergstrom International Airport Massachusetts Port Authority: Boston Logan International Airport City of Chicago, Chicago Department of Aviation: Midway International Airport City of Chicago, Chicago Department of Aviation: O’Hare International Airport City of Albuquerque Aviation Department: Albuquerque International Sunport City of Atlanta Department of Aviation: Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport City of Phoenix Aviation Department: Sky Harbor International Airport Clark County Department of Aviation: McCarran International Airport City of Colorado Springs: Colorado Springs Airport Columbus Regional Airport Authority: John Glenn Columbus International Airport County of Milwaukee Airport Division: General Mitchell International Airport Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth and DFW Airport Board: Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport City and County of Denver Department of Aviation: Denver International Airport City of Eugene and Eugene Airport Administration: Eugene Airport (Mahlon Sweet Field) Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority: Gerald R. Ford International Airport Helena Regional Airport Authority: Helena Regional Airport Orange County: John Wayne Airport Kenton County Airport Board: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport Los Angeles World Airports: Los Angeles International Airport Metropolitan Airports Commission: Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport City of San Jose: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport City of Philadelphia Aviation Division: Philadelphia International Airport Port Authority of New York/New Jersey: Newark Liberty International Port of Portland: Portland International Airport Port of Seattle: Seattle–Tacoma International Airport Reno–Tahoe Airport Authority: Reno–Tahoe International Airport Sacramento County Airport System: Sacramento International Airport Salt Lake City Department of Airports: Salt Lake City International Airport San Diego County Regional Airport Authority: San Diego International Airport City and County of San Francisco: San Francisco International Airport Snohomish County: Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field) Lee County Port Authority: Southwest Florida International Airport Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust: Tulsa International Airport Wayne County Airport Authority: Detroit Metropolitan Airport In addition, the principal investigator and author extends her appreciation to the ACI-NA and FAA for providing exposure for the project and research effort.

Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions. 1 Summary 3 Chapter 1 Introduction 3 Background 3 Scope of Study 4 Report Organization 6 Chapter 2 Methodology 6 Literature Review 9 Survey and Data Collection 12 Chapter 3 Drivers and Challenges 12 Existing Drivers for Recycling and Other Practices 13 Existing Challenges to Recycling and Other Practices 17 Future Drivers and Challenges 18 Chapter 4 Waste Management Practices 18 Program Management Elements 22 Physical Strategies 26 Stakeholder Practices 27 Other Practices 28 Effective Practices Summary 28 Future Strategies 30 Chapter 5 Data Sources and Metrics 30 Data Sources 31 Waste Generation, Disposal, Diversion, and Recycling Metrics 33 Chapter 6 Case Examples 36 Chapter 7 Conclusions 38 Suggestion for Further Research 39 References and Bibliography 40 Glossary 42 Abbreviations and Acronyms 43 Appendices C O N T E N T S