<%BANNER%>

Proposing an Integrated Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan to Support Florida's Required Recycling Rate

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042178/00001

Material Information

Title: Proposing an Integrated Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan to Support Florida's Required Recycling Rate
Physical Description: 1 online resource (105 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Goyal, Nippun
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 75, c, county, management, population, recycled, recycling, section, waste
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Building Construction PROPOSING AN INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO SUPPORT FLORIDA'S REQUIRED RECYCLING RATE By Nippun Goyal August 2010 Chair: James G Sullivan Co-chair: Abdol Chini Member: Robert Ries Major: Building Construction In 2008,Energy, Climate Change and Economic Security Act of 2008 was passed by the Florida legislature under section 402.7032 that established a new statewide recycling goal of achieving 75 percent recycling rate of Municipality Solid Waste (MSW) by the year 2020. Based on this objective, this research focuses on the C & D waste of overall MSW. Currently C & D waste is about 26 percent of total MSW in Florida, which is a significant portion of the waste. The first set of recycling goals was passed by the Legislature in 1988 that aimed at achieving 30 percent recycling rate for MSW. Today, after more than two decades, Florida recycles just 28 percent of its overall MSW and only 27 percent of C & D waste is recycled or recovered (County Waste Report-2007). Hence, improving C & D recycling rate will be a big step to achieve 75 percent recycling goal. It is estimated that if C & D recycling rate is increasing to 75 percent the total MSW waste-recycling rate will shoot up from 28 percent to 40 percent. This paper analyzes the amount of site generated C & D waste that is diverted to landfills and its recycling rate based on data received from each landfill facilities in different counties of Florida. Then based on certain factors like population, higher recycling rates, a set of counties were selected for further research. Each of these selected counties were given a survey form and based on those results further calculations were conducted. This report focuses on where Florida stands, currently in term of C & D waste recycling as a whole, suggesting a waste management plan that should help achieve 75 percent recycling rate by 2020. The waste management plan discussed in this paper is more inclined on its implementation after the waste is diverted from construction sites to waste facilities. The report also introduces a business plan that estimates the cost of achieving the target goal.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Nippun Goyal.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Sullivan, James.
Local: Co-adviser: Chini, Abdol R.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042178:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042178/00001

Material Information

Title: Proposing an Integrated Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan to Support Florida's Required Recycling Rate
Physical Description: 1 online resource (105 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Goyal, Nippun
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 75, c, county, management, population, recycled, recycling, section, waste
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Building Construction PROPOSING AN INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO SUPPORT FLORIDA'S REQUIRED RECYCLING RATE By Nippun Goyal August 2010 Chair: James G Sullivan Co-chair: Abdol Chini Member: Robert Ries Major: Building Construction In 2008,Energy, Climate Change and Economic Security Act of 2008 was passed by the Florida legislature under section 402.7032 that established a new statewide recycling goal of achieving 75 percent recycling rate of Municipality Solid Waste (MSW) by the year 2020. Based on this objective, this research focuses on the C & D waste of overall MSW. Currently C & D waste is about 26 percent of total MSW in Florida, which is a significant portion of the waste. The first set of recycling goals was passed by the Legislature in 1988 that aimed at achieving 30 percent recycling rate for MSW. Today, after more than two decades, Florida recycles just 28 percent of its overall MSW and only 27 percent of C & D waste is recycled or recovered (County Waste Report-2007). Hence, improving C & D recycling rate will be a big step to achieve 75 percent recycling goal. It is estimated that if C & D recycling rate is increasing to 75 percent the total MSW waste-recycling rate will shoot up from 28 percent to 40 percent. This paper analyzes the amount of site generated C & D waste that is diverted to landfills and its recycling rate based on data received from each landfill facilities in different counties of Florida. Then based on certain factors like population, higher recycling rates, a set of counties were selected for further research. Each of these selected counties were given a survey form and based on those results further calculations were conducted. This report focuses on where Florida stands, currently in term of C & D waste recycling as a whole, suggesting a waste management plan that should help achieve 75 percent recycling rate by 2020. The waste management plan discussed in this paper is more inclined on its implementation after the waste is diverted from construction sites to waste facilities. The report also introduces a business plan that estimates the cost of achieving the target goal.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Nippun Goyal.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Sullivan, James.
Local: Co-adviser: Chini, Abdol R.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042178:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





PROPOSING AN INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN TO SUPPORT FLORIDA'S REQUIRED RECYCLING RATE


















By

NIPPUN GOYAL


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2010






























2010 Nippun Goyal































To my family and my professors who supported me throughout my work









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my committee members Dr. James Sullivan, Dr. Abdol Chini

and Dr. Robert Ries. My committee has a great influence on my education as well as

my dissertation. The M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction has impacted my

life and given me the outstanding knowledge to become a valuable member of the

construction industry. I would also like to thank Mr. Thomas Coraggio and Mr. Ernie

Windsor from Watson Construction for proving information on working of their company

and helping me complete this research.

I thank my parents for supporting me emotionally and financially through my

career.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C KN O W LED G M E NTS .......... .......... .......... ......... .......................... ............... 4

LIST OF TABLES .............. ........................ ............. 9

LIST O F FIG URES........................................... ............... 10

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................... .......... .............................. 12

A BSTRA CT ..................................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .......... .......... ......... 15

Background of the Problem ............. ........ .......... ......... .... ............... 15
Purpose of Study ........................... ......... ......... 15
Scopes and Limitation of Study ............................... ....... 16
Organization of Study ............................................ ............... 17

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............. ........ .......... ......... .... ............... 18

Introduction ............................................................................ .. .... ......................... 18
Definition Of Construction And Demolition W aste......................................... 19
Florida State Definition .......... .......... ......... ............ 19
Sources of Construction and Demolition W aste ............... .. .. ................ 20
Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials (RC&D).............................. 22
Methods Of Handling Site Generated C&D W aste ............ ......... ........................ 22
C&D Debris Recovery Facilities ...... ....... ........ ... ... ........... ............... 22
Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal and Recycling Facilities
(C D D R F) ............... .......... ... ..... .. .... ................. 23
M material Recovery Facility (M R F)...................................... .................... 23
T ra n sfe r S ta tio n s ................................ .................................. 2 3
Land C learning Facilities (LC F)........................... .................... 24
Non-Permitted Concrete and Asphalt Facilities............................. 24
C la s s III L a n d fills ........................................................................... ... 2 4
Construction and Demolition Recycling (CDR) Sites ............................. 25
Recovered Materials Processing Facility ........................ ........ ............. 25
C&D W aste Handling Process ........... .... ............ .. ................... ... ..... .......... 25
C&D Waste Process................................. ......... 25
Equipments Used to Recycle C&D Waste.............................................. 26
Jaw C rusher............................... ............... 26
Impact Crusher ................ ........................... 28
Cone Crusher .......................................... ........ 28
Conveyor System ................................................ 28









Grinder................................. ......... 29
Landfill C om actor ........................................ .. .............. .......... 29
Shredder .................................... ......... 29
Other Screening/Separating Equipments.................. ...... .............. 29
Methods Of Calculating C&D Waste........ .......................................... 30
Franklin & Associate.................. ... ...... .............. 30
Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management ...................... 31
Composition of C&D Waste .............. ........... ..... ............... 32
Composition Of C&D W aste In Florida .................................. ........ ......... 32
Composition of Recovered C&D Waste............ ..... ................ 32
Market for Recycled Products..... .............................................. .. ............... 33
Market for Recycled Concrete .............................. ......... ............... 33
M market for R ecycled D ryw a ll......................................................... ............... 34
Market for Recycled Asphalt......... ......... .............. ................... 35
Analysis of Existing Data ...... ...................... ..... ......... 35
Factors Affecting C&D W aste ............... ... ................................. ............... 40
Factors Affecting C&D W aste Generation ........ ....... ..................... ............... 40
V olum e of C onstruction............................ .............................. 40
Demographic Factor ....... .. ....................................................... ......... 41
Economic Factor ................ .... ........ ................ 41
Factors Affecting C&D Recycling ................... .................. ........... ............... 41
Markets for Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials (RC&D) ...... 41
T ipping Fee ........................................... .. ........................... .............. 43
Site and Site Location .......... ...... ... .. ........ ....................... 45
C&D Regulatory Background and Past Goals ........ ....... ..................... ............... 45

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................. ...................... 46

O ve review ................................ .............. ...... 4 6
Design Of The Survey ......... ........... ......... ................ ....... ........ 47
A s s u m p tio n s .............. ..... ............ ................. .......................................... 4 9
Limitations .............................. ......................................... 50

4 SURV EY A NA LYSIS A ND RESULTS................................................ .. .................. 51

Categorization of Responses by Agency Type ...... ........ ...... .................. 51
Distribution of Responses in Florida Counties ........ ....... ..................... ............... 52
Aw areness A bout the Recycling G oal................................................ .. .................. 52
C&D W aste Currently Recycled ................. ................ ............... 54
Materials Hard to Recycle........................................... ............... 56
Reason for Low Recycling Rate................................ .................................... 56
B ric k ......... ...... ............ ................................. ........................... 5 7
Roofing Material ......................... .......... ......... 58
Concrete......................................... ............... 60
Carpet ................ ...... ............. ............ ............... 60
Cardboard ................ ......... ........ ..... ............... 60
W ood ............... ...... ............ ............. ............... 62


6









D ry w a ll.............................. ......... ................ ................................ ............. 6 2
Reasons for Variation in Recycling Rates................ ....... .... .................. 62
Effect of Current Recession ..................................... ... ............... 64
H ow to R each 75 % G oal.................................................................... ......... 66
Achievable Goal.................................... .......... ......... 67
Part 1: W here to set the target ............... ............................ .. ............. 67
Part 2: Investment required for reaching target ............... ....... ................ 68
Part 3: Equipment's required ...................... ........... ............... 69

5 C & D W A STE M A NA G EM ENT ....................................................... .. .................. 70

Four Step Process ............. .... .................................. .... ........... 70
Aw areness........................................... ........ 70
Preparation ................. ................................ ....... ..... ......... 71
Implementation .................. ............................... 71
Follow-up................................ ............ 71
Waste Management Practices ............................ ...... ......................... 72
Creating Local Market for Reusable Material ...... .... ............. ........... 72
Increase Tipping Fee .................................... ............... 73
Im prove Sorting Process ........................ .. ......... ................... ............... 73
Special Groups or Organizations....................... ........ ... ............... 74
Recognizing and Funding Future Investments ....................... .................... 74
Incentive from the State .............. ....... ............_. .............. ........... 74
Mandatory Lined C&D Facilities ..................... ..................... ....... ..75
Im prove D ryw all R recycling ...................................................... ...... ....... .. 75
A B business M odel A approach ..................................................................................... 76

6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS................................... 82

C o nclusio n ........................................ ................. ...... ........... ....... 82
Recom m endations for Future Studies................................................. ............... 83

APPENDIX

A SU RV EY FO RM ................................................................... ......... 84

List Of Survey Takers .................................... ........................... .. ........ 89

B WATSON C&D WASTE FACILITY INTERVIEW.............. ..... ................. 90

C EXISTING DATA ........ .......... .............. .................. ... ............ 92

Annual Data Reporting Form For C&D Facilities .............. ..... ............... 92
C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 1996 .............. .... ................ 93
C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 1997 .............. .... ................ 94
C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 1998 .............. .... ................ 95
C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2002 .............. .... ................ 96
C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2004 .............. .... ................ 97









C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2005 .............. .... ............... 98
C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2006 .............. .... ............... 99
C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2007 .................... .................. 100

LIST OF REFERENCES .......... ........... ......... ............... ..... .......... 101

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. .............. .... ...................... 105









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 What Count and does not Count as MSW C&D Waste (Source: FDEP)............ 20

2-2 Number of C&D W aste Facilities in Florida ....... ..... ... ..................... 22

2-3 C&D W aste Equipments ......... .................................... ......................... 26

2-4 Estimated C&D Waste, in Tons, generated in Florida (2001)........................... 31

2-5 Composition of C&D Waste in Florida (2001)...... ........ ..... ................. 32

2-6 C&D Waste Generated in Florida (in Tons) ...... ..... .... ..................... 36

2-7 C&D Recycling Rate for selected counties........ ....... .... .. ............... 37

2-8 Composition of C&D Waste in Florida ...... ................................. 42

4-1 Distribution of Responses in Florida Counties...... ........ .................... 53

4-2 Goal Awareness ............... ......... ................. 53

4-3 C & D C currently R ecycled .......................................................... .... ................. 54

4-4 C&D Recycled by County ......... ........................................... ................... 55

4-5 M materials Hard to Recycle ......... .................................... ......................... 56

4-6 Reasons for low Recycling ......... .... ......... ........................ 58

4-7 Reasons for Variation in Recycling Rate .... .......................... .. ............... 63

4-8 Effect of Current Recession on Recycling Rates.......... ................................ 64

4-9 How to Reach 75% Goal ......... .......................................... 66

4-10 Achievable Goal ............. ......... ............................. ............... 67

4-11 Investm ent Required for Reaching G oal.................................... ..................... 69

4-12 Equipment Required for Reaching Goal ..... .............................. 69

5-1 W atson Construction Business Model............................... ............. .......... 79

5-2 Watson Construction Business Operating Model ......................... ............ 81









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 Composition of MSW Waste, in Tons, in Florida, 2007 (Source: FDEP) ............ 18

2-2 C&D Waste Recycling Process Flow Cycle (Source: Construction
M anagem ent and Econom ics, 1997) ........... ............................ ....... ............ 27

2-3 Composition of C&D Waste in Florida (Source: FDEP-1998)........................... 33

2-4 Market for Recycled Concrete (Source: Generated from CMRA)....................... 33

2-5 Market for Recycled Drywall (Source: Generated from CMRA)....................... 34

2-6 Market for Recycled Asphalt Shingles (Source: Generated from CMRA).......... 35

2-7 C&D Waste Generation and Recycling in Florida (Generated from FDEP
collected data) ................ ............. ............. .................... ........... 37

2-8 Recycling Rate for Dade County .............................. ........... ............... 38

2-9 Recycling Rate for Brow ard C ounty.............................................. ... .................. 39

2-10 Recycling Rate for Palm Beach County.................................. ..................... 40

2-11 Recycling Rate for Hillsborough County......... ....... ..... ...... ........... 40

2-12 Tipping Fee ($/Tons) vs. Recycling Rates (Source: Matthew V. Brooks) ......... 43

2-13 Florida Class I MSW Tipping Fees 1998 (Source: FDEP).............. .......... 44

4-1 Categorization of Survey Response ............... ......... ........ ........... .... 52

4-2 Goal Awareness ...... .. ...................... .............................................. 54

4-3 C & D W aste R recycled ......... ................. ................... ................. ............... 55

4-4 C&D Recycled (Florida Avg. vs. Responders Avg.)......................................... 56

4-5 Materials Hard to Recycle ......... .................................... ........................ 57

4-6 Reasons for Low Recycling of Brick ............................................. 58

4-7 Reason for Low Recycling of Roofing Materials.............. .................... 59

4-8 Reason for Low Recycling of Asphalt........................................... 59

4-9 Reason for Low Recycling of Concrete ..... .................................. 60









4-10 Reason for low Recycling of Carpet .............. ..... ...... ... ...... ............... 61

4-11 Reason for low Recycling of Cardboard ............... ............................. 61

4-12 Reason for low Recycling of W ood ................ ............................... ............... 62

4-13 Reason for Low Recycling of Drywall ............. ... ............ .......... .......... 63

4-14 Reason for Fluctuating Data ........................... ............... ...... ........... 64

4-15 Effect of current recession on recycling rate..................................................... 65

4-16 How to Reach 75% G oal ............ .......... ...... .......... .................... ............... 67

4-17 Achievable Goal .............. .. ......... ... .. ........................68

5-1 C& D W aste Lifecycle ........................ ........ .......... .. ............................. 73









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene

C&D Construction and Demolition

CDR Construction and Demolition Recycling

CDDRF Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal and Recycling
Facilities

CMRA Construction Material Recycling Association

DOT Department of Transportation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

HDPE High-density polyethylene

HMA Hot Mix Asphalt

IRB Internal Research Board

LCF Land Clearing Facilities

MSW Municipality Solid Waste

MRF Material Recovery Facility

OSB Oriented Strand Board

PVC Premature Ventricular Contraction

RFT Recycle Florida Today

RSA Recycled Asphalt Shingle

RSM Recovered Screened Material

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District

WTE Waste to Energy

WCV Waste Collection Vehicles









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

PROPOSING AN INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN TO SUPPORT FLORIDA'S REQUIRED RECYCLING RATE

By

Nippun Goyal

August 2010

Chair: James G Sullivan
Cochair: Abdol Chini
Major: Building Construction

In 2008, "Energy, Climate Change and Economic Security Act of 2008" was

passed by the Florida legislature under section 402.7032 that established a new

statewide recycling goal of achieving 75% recycling rate of Municipality Solid Waste

(MSW) by the year 2020. Based on this objective, this research focuses on the C&D

waste of overall MSW. Currently C&D waste is about 26% of total MSW in Florida,

which is a significant portion of the waste. The first set of recycling goals was passed by

the Legislature in 1988 that aimed at achieving 30% recycling rate for MSW. Today,

after more than two decades, Florida recycles just 28% of its overall MSW and only 27

percent of C&D waste is recycled or recovered (County Waste Report-2007). Hence,

improving C&D recycling rate will be a big step to achieve 75% recycling goal. It is

estimated that if C&D recycling rate is increasing to 75% the total MSW waste-recycling

rate will shoot up from 28% to 40%.

This paper analyzes the amount of site generated C&D waste that is diverted to

landfills and its recycling rate based on data received from each landfill facilities in

different counties of Florida. Then based on certain factors like population, higher









recycling rates, a set of counties were selected for further research. Each of these

selected counties were given a survey form and based on those results further

calculations were conducted.

This report outcome focuses a C&D waste management plan that should help

Florida achieve 75% recycling rate by 2020. This waste management plan focuses on

the C&D waste material entering a C&D landfill. The report also introduces a business

plan that estimates the cost of achieving the target goal.

Keywords:

75% recycling goal, C&D waste, recycling rate, waste diversion, population,

management plan, Energy Climate Change and Economic Security Act of 2008, county

waste report, recycled material market, waste business plan









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem

In the late 1980s, the State of Florida had set its first recycling goal that aimed at

achieving a 30% recycling rate for total Municipality Solid Waste (MSW) by the end of

year 1996. However in 2007, 11 years after the goal year, Florida generated 32 million-

tons of MSW, out of which only 8.96 million-tons (28%) was recycled. In the same year,

Florida generated 8.03 million-tons of Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste, out of

which only 2.22 million-tons (27%) was recycled. Yet in 2008 the legislature passed

another act, "Energy, Climate Change and Economic Security Act of 2008" under

section 403.7032 that aims at recycling goal of 75% of total MSW waste by the end of

2020.

It is therefore evident that Florida's population, as well as their elected

representatives are extremely keen in recycling. However, looking at the recycling

record from the past few years: we ask, whether this goal is achievable? C&D waste

constitutes a major portion (around 25-30%) of total MSW. Hence, improving C&D

recycling rate should help achieve overall 75% recycling goal. It is estimated that if only

C&D recycling rate is increased to 75%, the total MSW recycling rate will shoot up from

28% to 40%.

Purpose of Study

The research outlined here involves analyzing C&D waste recycling rates in all 67

Florida counties. The research involves conducting a C&D waste survey to analyze the

trends in recycling rate data. The research proposes a waste management plan to

achieve the target goal for C&D waste recycling rate in the state of Florida.









The environmental impacts from disposal of C&D waste are recognized to present

lower risk to human health and the environment as compared to other MSW waste.

Hence, the mainstream construction industry has been very slow to adopt, any waste

management plan that will help to improve recycling rate, as it is cheaper to just landfill

the waste. In the last few years we have realized that C&D waste disposal might not

have a direct impact but it does have an indirect impact on the environment. For

example: disposal of construction material such as gypsum board into the landfill might

have a lower impact on the environment but the manufacturing of new gypsum board

has a large direct impact on our eco-system. Hence, if the old gypsum board can be

reused or recycled, it will indirectly help to protect our environment.

Scopes and Limitation of Study

The scope of this report includes analyzing and recognizing trends for recycling

C&D waste in Florida. Some counties might have a better recycling rate than others in

a given year but it may vary from year to year. This research focuses on counties with

higher overall C&D recycling rate and their waste management plan that led to

improved recycling rate. On the basis of this background information and other

recycling success from other regions, this research proposes an integrated waste

management model that applies to the entire state of Florida to achieve 75% recycling

goal for C&D waste. This research also proposes a business plan that estimates the

cost of achieving the target goal.

The generation of C&D waste is very complex and depends on many factors.

Computing the amount of C&D waste generated at a particular time and the

composition that waste is very difficult. Researchers have struggled to come up with a









perfect method that could give us an accurate result. In the past, two methods have

been used to compute C&D waste generation:

* C&D waste generated by volume
* C&D waste generated by weight

In this research we will use the numbers that were computed by C&D waste

generated by weight. Another limitation is the incomplete data for the amount of waste

generated in each county.

Organization of Study

The research is outlined as follows:

Chapter 1 represents the introduction, problem statement, scope and limitation of

the research.

Chapter 2 is the literature review, which explores previous research that has been

done in C&D waste, FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) definitions

for specific waste materials and facilities, methods of handling C&D waste, methods of

estimating C&D waste, market for recycled products, data analysis, factors effecting

C&D waste.

Chapter 3 gives the methodology used for this research.

Chapter 4 gives an analysis and results for the survey.

Chapter 5 presents an integrated waste management model for achieving targeted

recycling rate.

Chapter 6 summarizes the conclusion of this research and provides

recommendations for further studies.

Additional information for a more thorough understanding and reference are found

in the Appendix.









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

Municipality Solid Waste (MSW) disposal is one of the major problems faced by

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today; and Construction and Demolition (C&D)

waste constitutes major portion of MSW. According to a report submitted by Franklin &

Associates "Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in

the United States", it was estimated that out of 390 million-tons of MSW generated in

1996, 135 million tons (35%) was C&D waste. Data from last ten years indicate that

C&D waste is between 20-30 % of total MSW. In 2007, Florida generated nearly 32

million-tons of MSW out of which 8.1 million-tons (26%) was C&D waste (Figure 2-1).

WASTE GENERATED IN FLORIDA 2007
C&D WASTE MSWWASTE





24.293,330
Tons 75%




Figure 2-1. Composition of MSW Waste, in Tons, in Florida, 2007 (Source: FDEP)

Most of the C&D waste generated ends up in MSW landfills or incinerators, or in

special C&D landfills, which causes environmental hazards. Currently, Florida has 343

active C&D debris disposal facilities and there are 32 non-permitted construction related

companies that recover concrete or asphalt (Table 2-1).









Definition Of Construction And Demolition Waste


C&D waste definition varies from state to state. Some states include certain

materials under C&D waste, whereas some states do not include those materials.

Table-1 summarizes the waste materials that can be counted as C&D waste under

MSW and the materials that are excluded from being considered C&D waste. This

excluded part of waste can be counted out of the 75% recycling goal.

Florida State Definition

According to Florida Administrative Code 62-701.200 definitions of C&D waste is:

"Construction and demolition debris" means discarded materials generally
considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature, including
but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe,
gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from the construction or destruction of a
structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the
renovation of a structure, including such debris from construction of
structures at a site remote from the construction or demolition project site.
The term includes rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative
matter that normally results from land clearing or land development
operations for a construction project; clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood,
and metal scraps from a construction project; except as provided in Section
403.707(9)(j), F.S., yard trash and unpainted, non-treated wood scraps from
sources other than construction or demolition projects; scrap from
manufacturing facilities that is the type of material generally used in
construction projects and that would meet the definition of construction and
demolition debris if it were generated as part of a construction or demolition
project, including debris from the construction of manufactured homes and
scrap shingles, wallboard, siding concrete, and similar materials from
industrial or commercial facilities; and de minimis amounts of other non-
hazardous wastes that are generated at construction or demolition projects,
provided such amounts are consistent with best management practices of
the construction and demolition industries. Mixing of construction and
demolition debris with other types of solid waste will cause it to be classified
as other than construction and demolition debris.










Table 2-1. What Count and does not Count as MSW C&D Waste (Source: FDEP)
WHAT COUNTS WHAT DOES NOT COUNT


Concrete from residential/commercial building
construction or demolition used for:
Road Base
Pipe Bedding
Drain Fields
Septic Tanks
Landfill Cell Drainage & Stabilization
Artificial Reefs

Wood & Land Clearing Debris used for:
Mulch
Compost
Final Cover

Wood & Land Clearing Debris sent to:
Processed Fuel/Biomass Facilities
Stone Container, Panama City
Okeelanta Sugar, South Bay
Osceola Farms Sugar, Pahokee
Forestry Resources, Ft. Myers
Buck-Eye Cellulose, Perry
Kenetech (Royal Oak Charcoal), Ocala
Ridge Generating Station


Concrete from:
Roads
Bridges
Sidewalks
Curbs
Storm/Sewer Pipes
Culverts

Concrete from building construction or
demolition used for:
Lake Fill
Land Fill

Wood & Land Clearing Debris
WTE (Waste to Energy) Fuel
Daily /Intermediate Cover
Intermediate Cover
Landfill Roads Within A Cell

Wood & Land Clearing Debris sent to:
WTE Facilities
Bay County Resource Recovery
Broward County N. Resource Recovery
Broward County S. Resource Recovery
Dade County Resource Recovery
Hillsborough County SWE Recovery
Lake County Resource Recovery
Lee County SW Resource Recovery
McKay Bay Refuse to Energy Project
Southernmost WTE Facility
North County Regional Resource Recovery
Pasco County SW Resource Recovery
Pinellas County Resource Recovery


Sources of Construction and Demolition Waste

C&D debris can either be generated from building construction or demolition activities;

transportation related building and demolition debris; land clearing debris; and disaster

debris. On the basis of source of generation of C&D waste, C&D waste can be

categorized into two types:

* MSW C&D Debris- MSW C&D debris includes construction, renovation, and
demolition debris from building construction only. Building and demolition debris
can be further divided into residential and non-residential. Residential building and









demolition debris refers to new construction, renovation, and demolition activities
of single and multi-family homes.

* Non-MSW C&D Debris- whereas, non-MSW C&D debris includes transportation
related building and demolition debris (such as roadways, bridges, and other non-
building related C&D debris). Non-MSW C&D debris represents, by far, the largest
percentage of C&D debris generation and recovery as compared to MSW C & D
debris.

In this report we will consider only MSW C&D waste.

MSW C&D waste can be further broken down into the following:

* Wood Materials that are direct product or derived from wood, like dimensional
lumber, cabinets, composites, mill-ends, shipping skids, and crating, siding,
veneer, plywood, oriented strand board and particleboard, wooden pallets and
other objects constructed out of wood.

* Metals These are ferrous and non-ferrous metal products including aluminum
cans, ducts and siding, re-bar, pipe, sheet metal, wire/cable, fasteners, metal
buckets, mesh, strapping, trim, nails, mercury from electrical switches, brass,
flashing and gutters.

* Roofing Materials Roofing materials can include any waste materials from
demolition or renovation of roof like asphalt or asbestos shingles, roofing
compound, built-up roofing, tar paper, roofing tar and roof tiles.

* Masonry and Rubble This category includes concrete waste products including
block (whole or broken), rubble including walls, foundations, slabs, concrete
pavements, mortar, plaster rock, stone, tiles and other products of similar origin.

* Construction Packaging Packaging waste generated in the construction,
remodeling or repair of structures and related appurtenances including paper or
cardboard products.

* Plastics Plastic wrap, mesh strapping and PVC, HDPE or ABS pipe, buckets,
polyethylene sheets, sheeting or bags and laminates.

* Insulation Materials used to insulate an object or structure including boards,
fiberglass insulation, asbestos and other flexible wraps. In addition, included are
heating, venting or air conditioning ducts comprised of a soft fiberglass insulation
tube reinforced by a metal or plastic coil.

* Earthwork Waste Products formed by earthwork that is not included in vegetative
debris such as rocks, soil and dirt.









* Petroleum Products brake fluid, form oil, fuel tanks, petroleum distillates, waste
oils and greases

* Other Wastes These are materials that cannot be classified in categories listed
above.

Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials (RC&D)

Recycled construction and demolition materials are defined as products manufactured

principally from Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste consisting of civil construction

materials including concrete, sand, brick, rubble, rock, scrap metals, timber products

and other products. (Source: EPA). According to the latest data from 2008 Florida

recycles around 28% of the total C&D generated waste.

Methods Of Handling Site Generated C&D Waste

Site generated C&D can be handled in the following ways:

* Recycle on-site
* Transfer to recycling plant directly from site
* Divert to C&D debris recovery facility for recycling or disposal

Once the C&D waste is diverted from site, there are many methods by which it can

be managed. It can be disposed at a landfill facility that is permitted to accept C&D

waste or it is processed at a material recovery facility (MRF) or a transfer station where

recyclable materials may be separated from the C&D stream.

Currently, there are 343 C&D (Table 2-2) debris recovery facilities in Florida that

include Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal and Recycling Facilities, Material

Recovery Facilities, Transfer Stations, Land Clearing Facilities, Construction and

Demolition Recycling (CDR) Sites.

C&D Debris Recovery Facilities

In Florida, these facilities are defined in part 62-701, FAC as follows.









Table 2-2. Number of C&D Waste Facilities in Florida
C&D Debris Recovery Facilities No. of Facilities
Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal and 91
Recycling Facilities
Material recovery facilities 40
Transfer stations 105
Land Clearing Facilities 69
Construction and Demolition Recycling Sites 4
Class III Landfills 34
TOTAL NO. OF FACILITIES IN FLORIDA 343



Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal and Recycling Facilities (CDDRF)

FDEP definition for CDDRF is a state permitted solid waste management facility

that serves as the final disposal point for C&D debris waste. CDDRF are generally not

required to have a liner. CDDRF may process and recycle C&D debris; however any

recovery operations occurring on site must be described in their operating permit and

approved by the FDEP. There are currently 91 CDDRF operating in Florida.

Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

Materials recovery facility is a solid waste management facility that provides for the

extraction from solid waste of recyclable materials, materials suitable for use as a fuel or

soil amendment, or any combination of such materials. There are currently 40 C&D

MRF operating in Florida. MRF generally have a large assortment of capital-intensive

processing equipment that grind, crush, shred, chip, sort, and bale C&D debris.

Transfer Stations

Transfer station means a facility the primary purpose of which is to store or hold

solid waste for transport to a processing or disposal facility. There are currently 105









transfer stations operating in Florida that recovers C&D waste. Transfer stations are

more common in heavily populated areas that are not in close proximity to landfills.

Land Clearing Facilities (LCF)

"Land clearing debris" means rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other

vegetative matter that normally results from land clearing or land development

operations for a construction project. Land clearing debris does not include vegetative

matter from lawn maintenance, commercial or residential landscape maintenance, right-

of-way or easement maintenance, farming operations, nursery operations, or any other

sources not related directly to a construction project.

LCF are currently general permit sites whose primary purpose is to manage a

waste stream that primarily consists of debris from the clearing of new residential or

nonresidential construction sites. These sites may dispose of the material in unlined

area or process and recycle it as approved by the FDEP. There are currently 69 LCF

operating in Florida. Processing at LCF is typically limited to chipping and screening

wood for mulch or fuel. LCF typically do not recycle significant amounts C&D debris.

Non-Permitted Concrete and Asphalt Facilities

There are roughly 32 non-permitted concrete and asphalt recovery sites operating

in Florida. In addition, there are numerous companies that use mobile processing

equipment to recover C&D directly on the construction/demolition sites.

Class III Landfills

Class III landfills are FDEP permitted sites that are generally not required to have

a liners. They can only receive yard trash, construction and demolition debris, waste

tires, asbestos, carpet, cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, furniture other than appliances,









or other materials approved by the FDEP. There are currently 34 Class III landfills

operating in Florida that recover C&D debris materials.

Construction and Demolition Recycling (CDR) Sites

Construction and Demolition Recycling (CDR) facilities are sites that recover

materials from the C&D debris waste stream for purposes of recycling but that do not

dispose of any wastes on-site. They are very similar to a transfer station and MRF,

however CDRs are much smaller and do not process or transport a large amount of

materials. There are currently 4 CDR facilities operating in Florida that perform some

level of C&D recovery.

Recovered Materials Processing Facility

Recovered materials processing facility means a facility engages solely in the

storage, processing, resale, or reuse of recovered materials. "Recovered screen

material" means the fines fraction, consisting of soil and other small materials, derived

from the processing or recycling of construction and demolition debris which passes

through a final screen size no greater than quarter of an inch.

C&D Waste Handling Process

C&D Waste Process

After C&D waste is diverted from site, it can be reused, recycled, composted,

incinerated or landfilled. Reusing is the most productive option available. Recycling is

the second best and most commonly used option, in which materials are reprocessed

into new products. Composting is process where organic land-clearing debris is

processed to produce humus for soil treatment. Incineration can extract energy from the

material without generating toxic substances. The most unproductive option, landfilling,

should be considered only when all other options are exhausted. It is more cost-










effective to process C&D waste for recycling and composting than for incineration and

landfilling when full cost accounting is considered (Construction Management and

Economics 1997).

Figure 2-2, depicts the C&D waste recycling process flow cycle. There are various

C&D equipment that are used to convert a mixed C&D Debris received from

construction sites to final recycled products. Some of the most commonly used

equipment are shown in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3. C&D Waste Equipments
Material Equipments
Metal Scrap handling magnet
Sorting conveyor
Rocks Jaw crusher
(Concrete/Asp Cone crusher
halt) Impact crusher
Grinder
Crusher Feeder
Vibrating Screen for product sizing
Belt conveyor
Wood Wood chipper
Shredder
Grinder
Hammermill
Drywall Drywall shredder
Paper recycler
Gypsum recycler
Cardboard Cardboard shredder
Cardboard bailer
Other C&D Manual picking station
Grizzly screen
Disk screen
Air classifier
Float tank


Equipments Used to Recycle C&D Waste

Jaw Crusher

Jaw Crusher is one of the primary crusher used in C&D waste recycling. The jaws are

farther apart at the top than at the bottom, forming a tapered chute so that the













I .. I1


4-


v
Recycled
Wood
Product


Crushed
Rock
Pile


I 1 I I


I I


Wood
Chio Pile












Recycled
Metal
Products


Recycled
Cardboard



Figure 2-2. C&D Waste Recycling Process Flow Cycle (Source: Construction
Management and Economics, 1997)


I---I


p.I


Rferi









material is crushed progressively smaller and smaller as it travels downward until it is

small enough to escape from the bottom opening. The inertia required to crush the

material is provided by a weighted flywheel, which moves a shaft creating an eccentric

motion, which causes the closing of the gap.

A Jaw Crusher reduces large size rocks by placing the rock into compression. The

rock remains in the jaws until it is small enough to pass through the gap at the bottom of

the jaws.

Impact Crusher

Impact crushers involve the use of impact rather than pressure to crush material.

The material is contained within a cage, with openings on the bottom, end, or side of the

desired size to allow pulverized material to escape.

Cone Crusher

Cone crusher breaks rock by squeezing the rock between an eccentrically gyrating

spindle, which is covered by a wear resistant mantle, and the enclosing concave

hopper, covered by a manganese concave or a bowl liner. As rock enters the top of the

cone crusher, it becomes wedged and squeezed between the mantle and the bowl liner

or concave.

Conveyor System

A conveyor system is a common piece of mechanical handling equipment that

moves materials from one location to another. In waste industry conveyor system is

mainly helpful in sorting of C&D waste material. A conveyor belt consists of two or more

pulleys, with a continuous loop of material the conveyor belt that rotates about them.

One or both of the pulleys are powered, moving the belt and the material on the belt









forward. In certain sections a steel apron conveyor can be used instead of rubber belt

conveyor because of their impact absorbing capability.

Grinder

Grinder is equipment, designed to break a solid material into smaller pieces. The

grinding of solid matters occurs under exposure of mechanical forces that trench the

structure by overcoming of the interior bonding forces. After the grinding the state of the

solid is changed: the grain size, the grain size disposition and the grain shape.

Landfill Compactor

Landfill compactors are large bulldozer, very heavy machines, with specialized

spiked wheels and blades to handle the material that comes into landfills. It is used to

drive over the waste deposited by waste collection vehicles (WCVs).

WCVs themselves incorporate a compacting mechanism that is used to increase

the payload of the vehicle and reduce the number of times it has to empty. This usually

takes the form of hydraulically powered sliding plates that sweep out the collection

hopper and compress the material into what has already been loaded.

Shredder

An industrial shredder is a machine used for reducing the size of all kinds of

material. Industrial shredders come in many different variations and sizes. Some

examples of materials that are commonly shredded are: rubber, metals, cardboard,

wood, and plastic.

Other Screening/Separating Equipments

There are different types of screeners such as Grizzly screen, Disk screen,

Vibrator screen, Magnetic separator, Air classifier, Manual-picking station, and Float

tank (Construction management and economics, 1997).









* Grizzly Screen- Grizzly screen scalping or crude screening consists of a feed
hopper with a vibrating bottom deck made up of evenly spaced steel bars.

* Trommel Screen- is a screened cylinder used to separate materials by size.
Portable trommels (also called portable Trommel screens) are often used in the
production of organic products from various types of waste. For example:
excavation contractors may screen their site debris into two fractions; a saleable
topsoil for farms, nurseries and site-work, as well as cleaned rock for aggregates
or landscaping work. This allows the contractor to resell their waste, instead of
incurring the cost of sending it for disposal. The same principal applies to the
production of compost, sand, gravel, lumber mill by-products and municipal waste.
(Source: Aggregate Pros)

* Disk Screen- used to size wood chips.

* Vibrator screen- used in the sand and gravel industry with high/low speed and
inclined/horizontal configuration.

* Magnetic separator- is designed to remove ferrous metals from a moving bed of
material with permanent/electromagnetic format.

* Float tank- is a gravity separator using water as a medium to separate wood from
rubble-base material.

* Air classifier- is a density separator using air as a medium. A vertical or horizontal
airflow is used to separate different density materials.

* Manual picking station-An elevated platform with a conveyor and a catwalk along
both sides of the belt.

Methods Of Calculating C&D Waste

Due to complex nature of C&D waste it is very hard to come up with any method

that will give us an accurate result for estimating C&D waste. Two methods have been

used in the past for calculating the waste generation:

* Square feet method and
* Per capital method.

Franklin & Associate

Two researches were conducted by Franklin & Associate for US-EPA,

"Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United









States" in 1996 and "Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition

Materials Amounts" in 2003. On both occasions they used the square feet method to

come up with a reasonable estimate whose accuracy is questionable. According to

these reports the amount of MSW-C&D waste generated in USA was 135.5 million tons

in 1996 and 170 million tons in 2003.

Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management

Another research project "Generation and Composition of Construction and

Demolition Waste in Florida" was conducted by Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous

Waste Management for estimating the C&D waste generated in Florida. This study used

combination of square feet method and per capital method to come up with a more

accurate result. The result of this report is shown in Table 2-4. All quantities in Table 2-

4 are in Tons.

Table 2-4. Estimated C&D Waste, in Tons, generated in Florida (2001)
Component Residential Non-res. Res. Non-res. Res. Non-res. Total
Construction Const. Demo. Demo. Reno. Reno.
Concrete 520,000 340,000 200,000 730,000 315,600 224,000 2,329,600
Wood 210,000 54,000 18,000 1,700 210800 64,900 559,400
Drywall 140,000 56,000 13,000 82,990 178,800 470,790 N/A
Misc. 44,330 58,000 23,900 120,000 120,711 49,100 416,041
Cardboard 33,000 3,600 N/A N/A 10,461 570 47,631
Asphalt roofing 37,000 N/A 5,400 N/A 196,193 44,000 282,593
materials
Metal 22,000 15,000 470 47,000 14,012 16,300 114,782
Total (Tons) 1,006,430 526,600 261,670 898,700 950,767 577,670 4,221,837









Composition of C&D Waste

Composition Of C&D Waste In Florida

Composition of C&D waste varies depending on various factors like type of

construction (residential, non-residential, construction, demolition), type of structure

(low-rise or high rise), location of the project, materials used, way of demolition,

schedule, and waste management plan.

Several research projects have been conducted to calculate composition of C&D

waste in the state of Florida. The most recent study "Generation and Composition of

Construction and Demolition Waste in Florida" conducted by Florida Center for Solid

and Hazardous Waste Management in 1992 was taken into consideration. In this study,

different techniques like photogrammetric study, visual characterization and mass

sorting were used and based on the result the final composition of C&D waste was

estimated. Results shown in Table 2-5 give the composition calculated by statistical

data and using field study.

Table 2-5. Composition of C&D Waste in Florida (2001)
Component Composition Predicted Using Generation Composition Estimate Using
Statistics and Literature Composition Composition Results from Field Studies,
Values, by weight by weight
Concrete 54.20% 32.40%
Wood 13.60% 14.80%
Drywall 11.40% 11.70%
Asphalt 6.90% 6.10%
Roofing
Metal 2.80% 5.40%
Other 11.20% 29.70%


Composition of Recovered C&D Waste

According to C&D Debris Recycling Study conducted by FDEP, in 1998, Florida

recovered 3.3 million-tons (35%) of the 9.4 million tons of C&D debris generated that









included both MSW and non-MSW C&D waste. The composition of recovered C&D

waste out of total waste was: Concrete (20%), Asphalt (11%), and Wood (3%). See

Figure 2-3 for overall composition of C&D waste in Florida in 1998.

1%

-C&D Disposal Asphalt Recovered W od Recovered Concrete Recovered Others



3%-










Figure 2-2. Composition of C&D Waste in Florida (Source: FDEP-1998)

Market for Recycled Products

Market for Recycled Concrete



RECYCLED


I II I
AGGREGATE
AGGREGATE READY MIX SOIL PIPE LANDSCAPE
BASE



Figure 2-3. Market for Recycled Concrete (Source: Generated from CMRA)

As shown in Figure 2-4, recycled concrete can be used in the following marketable

products:

Aggregate Base Concrete: Concrete can be used as road base as structural
foundation. It is used as a base between the soil sub-grade and the paving. The
main customer for such recycled concrete is DOT (Department of Transportation).









* Ready Mix Concrete: Consists of a mixture of cement, sand and water. This
market is still in developing stage but promised a bright future for recycled
concrete. It is used in slab and foundations, walk and curbs.

* Soil Stabilization: Recycled concrete along with lime, or fly ash is used to enhance
the load bearing capacity of sub-grade. The process changes the water
susceptibility of sub-grade thereby stabilizing the soil.

* Pipe Bedding: Recycled concrete acts as a firm foundation for laying pipes

* Landscape Materials: Recycled concrete can be used as landscape material for
construction of retaining wall, rock wall and erosion structure.

Market for Recycled Drywall


RECYCLED
.................. ....... AWI ......


PORTLAND LAND
NEW DRYWALL ENT APPLIATIN COMPOST
............. .. .... ....E.. ......ICA. T ...




Figure 2-4. Market for Recycled Drywall (Source: Generated from CMRA)

As shown in Figure 2-5, recycled drywall can be used as:

* New Drywall- Some drywall manufacturing facilities accept old used drywall and
refurbish them into drywall that is sold as a new product.

* Portland Cement- Gypsum is an important ingredient that is added to control the
setting time of the concrete used in manufacturing of Portland cement. Mined
gypsum rock is often used by the cement kilns, and the different physical form of
processed drywall may necessitate adjustment of the facility's materials handling
system. The only problem with this drywall is purity. Hence, it is important to
remove any sort of pain or paper used on the drywall.

* Land Application-Gypsum extracted from drywall can be used as land applied as it
helps in plant growth. Gypsum provides a source of calcium and sulfur for plants.
Gypsum has proven to be beneficial for vegetables like potato and corn.

* Compost- Scrap gypsum can be used in composting system. Gypsum offers the
potential to bind odors associated with ammonia.
(Source: CMRA)









Market for Recycled Asphalt


As shown in Figure 2-6, recycled asphalt can be used as:



RECYCLED



HOT MIX COLD PATCH DUST TEMPORARY NEW FUEL
dASHUllJA ,1,"/u^,,--'""' i_,ElilfcEEBl|M_ lii=iiiig s illlttlfiHifcr ^,,^^,.^^


Figure 2-5. Market for Recycled Asphalt Shingles (Source: Generated from
CMRA)

* Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)-The added asphalt cement decreases the demand for
virgin asphalt cement. This provides an economic advantage to the producers of
HMA.

* Cold Patch- The inclusion of RSA (Recycled Asphalt Shingle) improves the life of
cold patch due to presence of fibers from the felts in shingle. Cold patch with RSA
can be stored for a longer time.

* Dust Control on Roads- RSA helps to minimize dust on roads in rural areas. It also
reduced loss of gravel into side ditches. The roads with RSA have a longer life and
require less maintenance.

* Fuel- The use of RSA as fuel is relatively new market in USA. Although the
recovery of the BTU value of waste shingles has been used in Europe since long
time.

Analysis of Existing Data

Table 2-6 shows the Construction and demolition waste recycling rate data in

Florida from 1996 to 2008 (See Appendix C for more details). As shown in Figure 2-7,

the amount of C&D waste generation varies by the year from 1996 to 2008. The main

reason for fluctuation in C&D waste generation can be due to fluctuating workflow. Due

to heavy volume of work and very low interest rates the amount of C&D waste

generated in 2005 and 2006 is more than other years. Another interesting upward trend










can be seen in the early years from 1996 to 1998. The reason for uptrend was due to

difference in method of calculating waste. It was around 1998 when the method of

calculating waste was changed from volume to mass. These numbers were computed

after using the volume to mass calculator and hence can give us a fictitious data.

Table 2-6. C&D Waste Generated in Florida (in Tons)

MSW GENERATED TOTAL C&D GENERATED C&D RECYCLED
2008 29,952,983 7,199,444 2,003,626
24% 28%
2007 32,448,006 8,033,844 2,222,785
25% 28%
2006 34,703,226 9,950,065 1,645,972
29% 17%
2005 36,484,357 12,187,107 2,596,223
33% 21%
2004 31,820,084 8,134,511 1,472,491
26% 18%
2003 30,514,512 7,275,515 1,998,256
24% 27%
2002 29,280,220 7,514,548 1,676,444
26% 22%
2001 27,682,804 5,758,064 978,131
21% 17%
2000 25,739,254 5,954,855 515,571
23% 9%
1999 25,733,964 4,928,851 299,122
19% 6%
1998 24,858,535 5,851,508 563,085
24% 10%
1997 25,467,480 5,492,557 2,759,694
22% 50%
1996 25,282,407 5,489,514 2,864,836
22% 52%


These numbers can be better understood by doing a county-based analysis. Out

of 67 counties in the state of Florida a set of 18 counties were selected to better

understand the waste generation. These counties were selected on the basis of

following factors:

* Population
* Higher recycling rate









* Fluctuation in recycling rate
* Location

Table 2-7 gives the recycling rate of top 18 selected counties.



13jMOODO 60%


45%

7,800,OO
30%
513,0,00 -


15%
2.60N.000

0 0%
2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996

Figure 2-6. C&D Waste Generation and Recycling in Florida (Generated from FDEP
collected data)

Dade
Dade County was selected because of its large population (2.46 million people)

and hence heavily contributes towards the overall C&D waste generation (around

421,712 tons or 6% of total C&D waste in 2008) in Florida. After comparing Figure 2-7

and Figure 2-8 the recycling rate for Dade County reflects overall trend in Florida's C&D

recycling rate. The curve falls sharply from 1996 to 1998 due to change in method of

calculating waste to slight increase in 2005 and 2006 due to uptrend in construction

market.

Broward
Broward is the county with second largest population (1.75 million) in Florida and

hence generates 612,692 tons or 9% of overall C&D waste. Figure 2-9 shows that the










Table 2-7. C&D Recycling Rate for selected counties
C&D RECYCLED RATE (%)
--------------------------2002 1999 .o j ^\ Arrf


Dade
Broward
Palm Beach
Hillsborough
Orange
Lee
Brevard
Volusia
Pinellas
Duval
Pasco
Seminole
Sarasota
Manatee
Leon
Alachua
Martin


2008 2007
11% 9%
8% 25%
19% 25%
3% 39%
33% 49%
51% 36%
30% 27%
60% 31%
57% 24%
35% 24%
88% 57%
84% 87%
37% 89%
15% 44%
47% 46%
3% 37%
13% 0%


2006 2005 2004
13% 9% 6%
11% 28% 0%
3% 12% 16%
39% 30% 36%
24% 19% 16%
39% 41% 39%
19% 50% 0%
25% 35% 48%
49% 40% 45%
0% 12% 1%
38% 46% 54%
14% 45% 0%
11% 2% 40%
38% 33% 24%
29% 37% 45%
0% 4% 4%
0% 41% 70%


2002
9%
21%
30%
0%
14%
23%
4%
54%
55%
35%
43%
5%
3%
48%
29%
0%
0%


1999
14%
14%
54%
0%
1%
9%
6%
30%
0%
4%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%


1998
12%
0%
3%
0%
12%
25%
29%
35%
0%
10%
0%
23%
38%
0%
32%
0%
17%


Jackson 0% 0% 0% 91% 69% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%





Dade

50% -
5%
40% 38%

30%

20% -2%

10% -

0% .. T
2007 2006 2005 2004 2002 1999 1998 1997 1996

Figure 2-7. Recycling Rate for Dade County

recycling rate for Broward County has been fluctuating from 36% in 1996 to almost zero

percent in 1998 and back to 25% 2007. The only reason for such fluctuation can be due


45%
14%
69%
51%
78%
81%
95%
54%
98%
61%
68%
47%
99%
0%
47%
55%
43%


38%
36%
71%
56%
77%
85%
97%
17%
98%
59%
72%
13%
99%
0%
45%
84%
3%








to inefficient record keeping. The reason for zero recycling in 1998 and 2004 can be due

to failure to record data in these years.


Broward
40%
36%


JUT/O
20%

10%
no/_


,25% A8

S. \, /_ 14% /14%
SVna \In-


v /O 'j U 0W 0
2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2002 1999 1998 1997 1996


Figure 2-8. Recycling Rate for Broward County
Palm Beach
Palm beach is another county with million plus population that is the largest C&D

waste-producer in Florida with 662,778 tons or 10% of total C&D waste. As shown in

Figure 2-10, in 1998 there was a sharp reduction in recycling rate that can be due to

change in method calculation and then again the rate went down at constant pace

starting from 1999 to 2006.

Hillsborough
Hillsborough with a population of 1.2 million generated 277,555 tons or 4% of total

C&D waste in 2007. It has been able to maintain a constant C&D recycling rate between

30-40% over the past few years. Although it can be seen in Figure 2-11, the rate went

down to 3% in 2008.











Palm Beach


80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
d rtO!


54 -74


----------. ..._ 1------
- lbtn-


IU70
0%- ( V 3
2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2002 1999 1998 1997 1996

RECYCLED C&D/o%)

Figure 2-9. Recycling Rate for Palm Beach County




Hillsborough


60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
noL


S,36%



"


2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2002 1999 1998 1997 1996

RECYCLED C&D(%)

Figure 2-10. Recycling Rate for Hillsborough County

Factors Affecting C&D Waste

Factors Affecting C&D Waste Generation

Volume of Construction

Volume of construction can greatly affect the generation of C&D waste. More

volume of construction, will lead to more C&D waste generation. More construction

activity can also cause more demolition that will increase the generation of C&D waste

in future.









Demographic Factor

Demographic factor is another reason that will affect C&D generation. Increasing

population will place greater demand on residential, commercial and institutional

construction resulting in more demand for house, school, office, parking and supporting

structures. Whereas on the other side areas with less population will have less wear

and tear of roads, building structure reducing C&D generation.

Economic Factor

Any region that is economically more strong or growing economically will expect to

have more construction. Economic development will result in construction of new offices

for growing business and as people working in those offices get more money, they

would spend money to buy new house. Job per capital and income per capital are certain

elements that give us indication regarding economic development in a particular region.

Factors Affecting C&D Recycling

Markets for Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials (RC&D)

One of the main factors that affect C&D recycling is the ease of buying or selling

recycled products. For C&D material to be recovered, a market for their reuse is

essential. Well-graded, good quality recycled material have the potential for use in a

wide range of applications. Table 2-8 illustrates the use of commonly recycled C&D

material.

Currently market for C&D recycled material in Florida is very low. Charlotte County

has proposed a plan for C&D Materials Reuse Network. The plan is to combine

information technology, training and education, along with actual deconstruction and

materials storage. The expected outcome of this proposed plan is an online warehouse

and trained deconstruction subcontractors.









Table 2-8. Composition of C&D Waste in Florida
Material Markets
Virgin

Clay Bricks, Pottery, Lining / Drainage
Gravel Road base, Hardstands, Foundations, Concrete
Limestone Bulk Fill, Sub-base, Blocks/Bricks, Chemical Processes, Pollution Control, Cover
in Landfills Aggregates Road base, Concrete, Bitumen
Sand Bulk Fill, Concrete, Bricks, Glass, Landscaping
Timber Construction, Mulch, Firewood, Animal Bedding,
Recycled

Concrete Bulk Fill, Sub-base, Road base, Hardstands, Drainage, Aggregate
Aggregate (RCA)
Crushed Tiles Bulk Fill, Landscaping, Remanufacturing
Sand Bulk Fill, Landscaping, Cover in Landfills
Bricks (Whole) Construction, Remanufacturing into new brick, Landscaping
Brick and Rubble Bulk Fill, Cover in Landfills, Remanufacturing into new brick, Sub-base
Timber Particle Board, Mulch, Animal Bedding, Firewood



This approach will connect the potential supply of re-useable materials with the

demand for those materials in the most cost-effective and timely manner possible.

Below is the list of common products and uses of recycled C&D Debris in Florida

(as listed on FDEP website)

* Crushed concrete and brick used in road construction, drainage
* Concrete, block, masonry and other clean debris used as borrow pit fill
* Concrete truck washout used to make onsite containing walls and bins
* Reusable building supplies such as lumber and whole bricks
* Remanufacture of wood chips into engineered woods
* Wood fuels used in co-generation plants and industrial boilers
* Horticultural mulches made from natural woody material
* Dyed, decorative mulches made from construction debris wood
* Wood chips used as bulking agent in bio-solids, compost, animal bedding
* Planks and other dimensional lumber sawn from whole trees
* Corrugated cardboard containers
* Metals (steel, aluminum other non-ferrous)
* Recovered screened material (RSM) for FDEP approved uses









Tipping Fee

Tipping fee and recycling rate are proportional to each other. It has been found

that as tipping fee increases, it encourages people to recycle more waste as the

disposal cost goes up, hence resulting in increase in recycling rate.

In a study conducted by Matthew V. Brooks "Effect of State-Level Programs on

Waste Reduction and Increased Recycling" it was found that increase in tipping fee

resulted in increased recycling rate. The result of that research and other research

conducted in Northeastern states of USA is shown in Figure 2-12.

Tipping Fee vs Recycling Rate
100.00% $100


75.00% $75


50.00% $50


25.00% $25


0%


0 Recycling Rate U Tipping Fee

Figure 2-11. Tipping Fee ($/Tons) vs. Recycling Rates (Source: Matthew V. Brooks)

Average cost of disposal for C&D in Florida is $42.69 /ton, and it ranges from

$25.00/ton in Bay County to $92.00/ton in Monroe County. Tipping fee for various

counties in Florida is shown in the Figure 2-13.















S r-I rI r r


S$2.00
$2 .00
- I $ 6.64
$29.00
$29.02
.--- $29.50
$30.00
$ 30.00
S$$30.65
$30.78
$32.00C
$32.00C
---- $32.00
$32.00C
$32.OC
$34.
$34.
$35
$3

S, I $3


Bay
Baker
Collier
Leon
Jackson
Brevard
Volusia
Citrus
Orange
Charlotte
Union
Santa Rosa
Saint Lucie
Holmes
Hardee
Alachua
Hillsborough
Highlands
Duval
Escambia
Seminole
Pinellas
Osceola
De Soto
Martin
Nassau
Madison
Latayette
Jefferson
Dixie
Franklin
Glades
Polk
Gilchrist
Marion
Levy
Hamilton
Flagler
Bradford
Saint Johns
Pasco
Indian River
Sumter
Walton
Suwannee
Broward
Lee
Gadsden
Dade
Taylor
Hernando
Putnam
Clay
Okaloosa
Sarasota
Columbia
Lake
Wakulla
Monroe


)0
)6
.00
.00
i.50
3.00
37.50
38.00
'38.00
$38.60
$40.00
I $40.17
I $40.17
I $40.17
I $40.17
3 S411.06

$44.
$44.
S$44
$45
S$45
$4
S$

i 9


State Average $42.69i
ton


7
$70.00


qo2 nr


5.00
57.00
57.00
;58.00
= $63.:


$0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $100.00


$ Per Ton


Figure 2-12. Florida Class I MSW Tipping Fees 1998 (Source: FDEP)


,00
,00
L
5.00
5.12
17.00
47.49
$49.32
$49.50
$50.00
$50.00
$50.00
3 $51.10
:$ $52.00
1 $52.00
S$52.17
$5
$
$


)0
)0
50


Data provided by Counties as part of the 97-98
R&E GrantAppl. or via survey. $0.00 may
indicate no data was available or funded through
a tax assessment so Gulf, Calhoun, Hendry,
Holmes, Levy, Marion, Walton & Washington
counties are not shown.


2 .


I









Site and Site Location

The site used for C&D waste facility should be large enough for the C&D

processing equipment, an area for the incoming waste materials, and space for the

processed material. For a nominal operation, an allocation of 0.4 hectares for

equipment and 0.4 hectares for processed materials would be a minimum requirement

for materials handling and throughput (Construction Management and Economics,

1997).

The location is another major factor that is important in terms of jurisdiction it

serves. It must be in a reasonable proximity to the construction site, C&D landfills and

recyclers.

C&D Regulatory Background and Past Goals

The Florida Legislature passed the first set of recycling goals under "Florida State

Waste act of 1988" that aimed at achieving 30% recycling rate for MSW waste. Permits

were granted to facilities that demonstrated minimal effect on the environment. Facilities

were required to follow stormwater management and allow regular inspections by DEP

officials. C&D facilities were required to cover the waste with two feet of soil and

vegetation within 180 days after closure of facility under this act.

Some counties had their own ordnances, like Broward and Lake Beach allowed

only lined C&D facilities. As the construction cost of lined facilities was high there were

few landfills and hence the recycling waste was the only alternative. Dade County

banned any landfilling of wood, lumber or any metals (Source: Florida Center for Solid

and Hazardous Waste Management). Looking at current data we can confirm that these

counties were relatively more successful in recycling as compared to some of the other

neighboring counties.









CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Overview

This report is an investigation into the Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste

generation and recycling rates for each county in the state of Florida. The main source

of information used to obtain the C&D waste generation data is the final report

submitted by each county to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).

Each C&D waste facility throughout Florida is required to complete and submit a

form (Appendix C) to its respective county that contains the information on the amount

of waste accepted and recycled by them in a particular year. Each county then submits

a combined final report to FDEP.

The methodology of this research was divided into two sections; where section

one was to conduct a survey throughout Florida and compare the results with existing

data. Whereas, section two, consists of proposing a waste management plan based on

a business model.

In the first section, research was conducted through a survey (Appendix A) and

then compared with the data from set of selected counties from the entire state. This

selection process was based on the following factors:

* Population Population is considered as the main factor for analyzing C&D waste
as the higher the population the more waste it generates hence effecting overall
waste generation and recycling rate.

* Higher Recycling Rate Second factor used for selection process is the recycling
rate of a particular county in last few years. It is important to know the reason why
a particular county has an impressive recycling rate whereas its neighboring
county might not be doing as well. The waste management practices adopted by
these counties can be applied to other counties as well to get a good result.

* Fluctuating Recycling Rate another factor, which is, considered while selecting
counties is highly fluctuating year-to-year recycling rates.









The second section of this report was to propose an integrated waste

management plan based on business model to be adopted by C&D waste facilities and

the local municipalities in order to achieve 75% plus recycling rate by 2020.

The main criteria on which this business model was based are listed below:

* Waste that is economically feasible to recycle on site or waste that is currently
being recycled.

* Waste that can be recycled locally.

* Waste that can be recycled but currently not being recycled due to economic
reasons or locally unavailable recycling facility.

* Advance recycling equipment that can improve recycling.

* Available market for recycled products.

Hence, based on these criteria a business model was developed which gives the

steps that counties may take in order to improve their recycling rate. This model also

proposes method to estimates the financial assistance required in order to reach 75%

plus rate. The financial assistance to C&D waste companies can be through special

grants or programs that will encourage these facilities to recycle products which are

economically not feasible in present market. These special programs may help to

change the non-profitable businesses into profitable business.

Design Of The Survey

The survey takers before taking the survey are required to go through the informed

consent page that gives a short description of the survey and ensures the survey has no

anticipated risk, compensation or other direct benefits to them. The IRB (Internal

Research Board) of the University of Florida approved the informed consent form as

well as the survey. See Appendix A for the survey questionnaire and IRB 02 Approval.









The basic design of the survey form is in question format or question order,

prepared on the basis of interview conducted with the C&D waste facility manager of

Watson Construction (Appendix B) and after analyzing the current C&D waste recycling

data reported to FDEP (Appendix C). The survey was designed on the survey monkey

software (Appendix A).

The first set of question was developed to collect information on identification of

the person taking the survey and the location of survey taker. The type of survey taker

was mainly classified into:

* County owned facility
* Private owned facility
* County administration

The population selected for the survey is mainly from the above three categories

comprising of C&D waste facility managers, facility engineers, waste administrators.

(See Appendix A for the list).

The second question will test the awareness of the survey taker on 75% recycling

goal. Goal awareness is one of the key factors behind the success of the 75% recycling

goal.

The third question will check the amount of C&D waste that is currently been

recycled at the survey taker facility or county. This data can be matched with the current

recycling data to check the accuracy of current recycling rate in a particular county.

The fourth question gives the list of materials that are hard to recycling and forced

to be diverted or landfilled due to lack of recycling operation.









The fifth question is in continuation with fourth question that gives the survey taker

a list of reasons for lack of recycling operation for each type of materials that they think

are hard to recycle. The response should be from one of the following options-

* NO local market for recycled products.
* Unavailable equipment for recycling.
* NO recycling facility available.
* Recycling facility present but too far away to transport material.
* Uneconomical to recycle or it is cheaper to landfill.

The sixth question will ask, survey taker's opinion on the fluctuating recycling rate

between the year 1998 to 2007, found on the current recycling data reported to FDEP.

The seventh question is similar to sixth question but it focuses on the reason why the

recycling rate fluctuates in their respective facility instead on looking at overall big

picture.

The eighth question is a three-part question that answers the following:

1. What is a reasonable recycling Goal?

2. How much investment is required to reach the respective goal?

3. List of investment/equipments required reaching selected goal.

The ninth question will ask the survey taker to rate the reasons that will help to

improve the recycling rate.

The tenth and the last question will study the effect of current recession on the

75% recycling goal. It will check whether recession will act as a barriers or a catalyst to

achieve target goal.

Assumptions

It is assumed that all C&D waste facilities present in a particular county have

similar market conditions. That is, if one facility recycles certain material in a given









region of a county, all other facilities in that county will follow the same trend. Hence, a

survey response from a C&D waste facility located in a particular county will speak for

the entire county. If a business is not profitable in one region it might be profitable in

other region depending on local market.

Limitations

One main limitation to this methodology is the process each facility uses to sort

and calculate its waste accepted and recycled. Other limitation is the business approach

of one waste facility might be different from other.









CHAPTER 4
SURVEY ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

All counties in the state of Florida are required to report their C&D Waste recycling

rates to the FDEP. Recycling rates for each county varies by a wide margin. A survey

was conducted to get additional information about recycling procedures to analyze the

fluctuations in rates. The survey questionnaire comprised of ten-questions and was e-

mailed to 200 entities. Further information was solicited by e-mails and phone calls.

There were 34 entities that responded to the survey. The responders to the survey, in

general, belong to the following three types of agencies.

* County-Owned Waste Facilities
* County Administration
* Private Waste Facilities

This chapter elaborates results of those ten questions and analyzes the

responses. The objective of this research is to identify county-specific reasons for low

recycling rates and to suggest means for improving recycling rates. It is also possible

that county administrations can learn from each other about effective techniques to

improve their recycling programs.

Categorization of Responses by Agency Type

Figure 4-1 shows the type of agency taking the survey. As expected 59% of

responders were from county-owned waste facilities followed by county administration

18% and only 3% were private facilities. Apart from the above three categories there

were 7 responders who classified them as others. These were the responders who

didn't belong to any category but showed interest as they were directly or indirectly

linked to 75% recycling goal.









---------3%
Private
Waste
Facility


Figure 4-1. Categorization of Survey Response

Distribution of Responses in Florida Counties

The second part of first question required each responder to give the respective

county they report to or the name of county they fall under. Table 4-9, shows the list of

responders and their respective counties. Alachua and Broward County had maximum

number of responses (three each), whereas there were two responders each from

Sarasota and Osceola County. Fourteen other counties that had only one responder

each and one responder belonged to Hurricane C&D for Broward, Palm Beach, Martin,

St. Lucie & Indian River counties along State roads. The list of responders from different

counties matched most of the counties selected in previous selection on the basis of

million plus population. This meant that survey results could be used to check the

validity of reported data as these counties form the majority of C&D waste generated in

Florida.

Awareness About the Recycling Goal

Florida Statute FS 403.7032 stipulates that the government and private entities

should recycle 75% of the MSW by 2020. The next section of the survey was to check









Table 4-1. Distribution of Responses in Florida Counties
Response
Name of Counties Responses Percent
Levy 1 3%
Brevard 1 3%
Bay 1 3%
Volusia 1 3%
Sumter 1 3%
Alachua 3 9%
Sarasota 2 6%
Collier 1 3%
Orange 1 3%
Osceola 2 6%
Broward 3 9%
Marion 1 3%
Lee 1 3%
Hendry 1 3%
Santa Rosa 1 3%
Monroe 1 3%
Hurricane C&D for Broward, Palm Beach, Martin,
St. Lucie & Indian River counties along State roads 1 3%
TOTAL 23

the awareness of this 75% goal. The success of 75% goal by end of year 2020

depends on the awareness of this goal by various recycling entities.

Table 4-2. Goal Awareness
Options Response Response Percent
Yes 31 91.18%
No 3 8.82%
34

As shown in Table 4-2, survey results showed a spectacular positive response as

more than 90% responders were aware about the goal. Out of 34 responders, 31 were

aware about the goal. The 3 responders who were unaware of the goal belong to

relatively small counties or were not directly a part of 75% goal. A graphical

representation of responder's awareness of the goal is shown in Figure 4-2.










Awareness about 75% Goal
8.82%





SYes (31)
E No (3)


91.18%




Figure 4-2. Goal Awareness

C&D Waste Currently Recycled

This section focused on finding the percentage of C&D waste that is currently

being recycled in respective facility or within the county.

Table 4-3. C&D Currently Recycled
Options Response Response Percent
0-20% 21 66%
20-40% 4 13%
40-60% 2 6%
60-80% 3 9%
80-100% 2 6%
32


The majority of survey responders believed, they recycle less than 20% of the

C&D waste diverted to their facility/counties. A graphical representation of responses is

shown in Figure 4-3.

When the responses were filtered according to the counties (shown in Table 4-4),

it was found that Alachua and Sarasota were among the top recycling counties in

Florida. Lee and Monroe responders recycle 20-40% of their C&D waste. Whereas, all

other counties had less than 40% recycling rate.










Percentage of C&D Waste Recycled by

o, _Responders
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% .......
lO, I I I .... ... .. .. .. .. .. ..
ooo : : .. .. ,;i, ,,,,= _iii i:,,i ; ,i .... ... :--


r-20",


20 -10:: ,
-10 60" '


Figure 4-3. C&D Waste Recycled


Table 4-4.
0-20%
Levy
Broward
Brevard
Volusia
Sumter
Orange
Osceola
Marion
Hendry
Santa Rosa


C&D Recycled by County
20-40% 40-60%
Lee Sarasota
Monroe


This was an unexpected number as according to data reported to FDEP by each

county throughout Florida (Appendix C) the average recycling rate for C&D waste in

Florida was 28% (Figure 4-4). That means most of the responder belong to facilities

with below average recycling rate or the data was not good enough.


60-80%


80-100%


80-100%
Alachua
Sarasota











Responder's Avg.


Florida Avg



Figure 4-4.


. (2008) ..2

1 77

C&D Recycled (Florida Avg. vs. Responders Avg.)

Materials Hard to Recycle


Table 4-5. Materials Hard to Recycle
Options Response Response Percent
Drywall 16 59%
Wood 10 37%
Concrete 8 30%
Cardboard 4 15%
Carpet 16 59%
Roofing material 15 56%
Asphalt 7 26%
Brick 9 33%
Others 7 26%


It was found that drywall, roofing material and carpet were harder to recycle and

have to be landfilled as there are no recycling plants for these materials or the plants

are not in reachable distance. A more detailed explanation is given in next section.

Graphical representation of these materials is shown in Figure 4-5.

Reason for Low Recycling Rate

Survey responders were asked to choose between the following options as a

reason for low recycling rate in their facilities/counties-

1. NO local market for recycled products.

2. Unavailable equipment for recycling.

3. NO recycling facility available.


-~TT









4. Recycling facility present but too far away to transport material.

5. Uneconomical to recycle or it is cheaper to landfill.

The result of this section is shown in Table 4-6 and next section will analyze the

result of each material separately.




Materials hard to recycle

Brick --. 33%

Asphalt 26 o

Roofing material ... 56%

C a r p e t ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 9 %


Cardboard

Concrete ----
1
Wood

Drywall .. .


159,

-... 30%

1 3 10


59%


Others ..26'


Figure 4-5. Materials Hard to Recycle

Brick

Majority of responders believe that it is cheaper to landfill brick (Figure 4-6) than

sending it to a recycling facility that is sometimes miles away. Brick waste can be

compacted to reduce its volume that takes less space. Whereas, when transported brick

can be a heavy load increasing the transportation cost. Some responders though they

lack equipment that can recycle brick.










Table 4-6. Reasons for low Recycling
Response
1 2 3 4 5 Others Count
Brick 23.1% 30.8% 15.4% 0.0% 53.8% 15.4% 13
Asphalt 23.1% 23.1% 15.4% 0.0% 38.5% 30.8% 13
Roofing
material 52.4% 28.6% 33.3% 9.5% 38.1% 9.5% 21
Carpet 63.6% 27.3% 22.7% 4.5% 31.8% 4.5% 22
Cardboard 0.0% 30.0% 10.0% 0.0% 40.0% 50.0% 10
Concrete 8.3% 33.3% 25.0% 8.3% 41.7% 25.0% 12
Wood 47.1% 11.8% 17.6% 11.8% 41.2% 11.8% 17
Drywall 68.4% 26.3% 21.1% 5.3% 31.6% 10.5% 19


Brick


NO local market for recycled products.

Unavailable equipment for recycling

NO recycling facility available

Recycling facility present but too far away to
transport material
Uneconomical to recycle or it is cheaper to
landfill


S23.1 %

30.80'


,. 3.8C
I f


Others 1.40%


Figure 4-6. Reasons for Low Recycling of Brick

Roofing Material

Recycling roofing material is minimized, as there is no local market for the

recycled products. According to survey responders, roofing material are the hardest to

recycle. Asphalt is major part of roofing waste generated in large amount. Another

reason why most of roofing material including Asphalt is not recycled much is because it

is uneconomical to recycle. Some responders also think that contractors are too busy to

bother for recycling activities. Contractors do not sort out roofing waste on site and

hence by the time it reaches waste facilities they are much harder to sort. Hence,









roofing waste that can be refurbished ends up in landfills. A lot of contractors are ready

to pay additional landfill cost then sorting waste on site. Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8 show

the graphical representation of survey responders for roofing material and Asphalt.

Roofing Materials

l I I I I I I


NO local market for recycled products.

Unavailable equipment for recycling .....

NO recycling facility available

Recycling facility present but too far away to.50
transport material 9 50
Uneconomical to recycle or it is cheaper to
landfill

Others .5 9.50%


Figure 4-7. Reason for Low Recycling of Roofing Materials


52.40%P/


A


NO local market for recycled products.

Unavailable equipment for recycling

NO recycling facility available

Recycling facility present but too far away to
transport material
Uneconomical to recycle or it is cheaper to
landfill

Others


sphalt


1 I I 1I




, 15.400%


Figure 4-8. Reason for Low Recycling of Asphalt


!3.10'

!3.10'


38.50f/o


I 1 I I
............................................................................................I...................... 7 ...........................


30.D30'"









Concrete

Numbers of responders showed interest in buying a concrete crusher but lack of

funds and current economic conditions is postponing any investment they want to make

and they are waiting for the market to bounce back. Hence, supporting the above

statement (Figure 4-9) the majority of responders believed the reason for lack of

concrete recycling is due uneconomic reasons.


Concrete

NO local market for recycled products. T

Unavailable equipment for recycling .........

NO recycling facility available
Recycling facility present but too far away
to transport material
Uneconomical to recycle or it is cheaper
to landfill
Others


Figure 4-9. Reason for Low Recycling of Concrete

Carpet

Carpet once used, it's hard to find a reusable market for it, as it's a product that

takes a lot of wear and tear. More than 60% of survey responders agreed on the same

reason (Figure 4-10) for low recycling of carpet was due to no market for recycled

product.

Cardboard

Cardboard as compared to other C&D waste is easier to recycle and there is a big

market for recycled cardboard. Some survey responders thought the only reason for














NO local market for recycled products.


Unavailable equipment for recycling


NO recycling facility available

Recycling facility present but too far away to
transport material

Uneconomical to recycle or it is cheaper to
landfill

Others


Carpet

1


I I I I


a n,.
'1-i .


q -, q yS~~ ~


S 22.


27.30%


0.%


31.80%


Figure 4-10. Reason for low Recycling of Carpet

lack of cardboard recycling is the current economic recession. The demand for recycled

cardboard has decreased due to slow market. Hence the recycling mills are not

accepting any waste cardboard from recycling facilities.


Cardboard


NO local market for recycled products. 0.00%

I InntailnIb I l ni nrinm nt fnr rrir linn I. 'n /rin


JIV II CIU Ia lj CJ^JIUlJlUlJi UUlO IUI IaUjrU EElIY


NO recycling facility available

Recycling facility present but too far away to
transport material

Uneconomical to recycle or it is cheaper to
landfill


Others


10.00o-;


1 I I I


40.00'


I 50.00?


Figure 4-11. Reason for low Recycling of Cardboard


lr ,


J .J J *,










Wood

Wood is a part of C&D waste that can be recycled into various products. The most

common are wood landscaping mulch, fuel, OSB (Oriented Strand Board), panels and

siding. The survey responses for wood show that the reason for lack of wood recycling

is because there is very limited market for recycled wood. Figure 4-12 shows the

graphical representation of survey response for Wood.

Wood

local market for recycled products.

Unavailable equipment for recycling 1 J I J ,

NO recycling facility available 7.60 V/

Recycling facility present but too far away to 1
transport material
Uneconomical to recycle or it is cheaper to 4.1
landfill

Others _1 I *.,


Figure 4-12. Reason for low Recycling of Wood

Drywall

As seen in the previous section, drywall is the hardest material to recycle.

According to survey responder's drywall is not recycled due to lack of market for

recycled drywall. Some responders mentioned that lack of funds restrict them from

buying certain equipment that can help them reduce the volume of drywall that can

make it cheaper to transport. Figure 4-13 shows the graphical representation of survey

response for Drywall.

Reasons for Variation in Recycling Rates

As found on the FDEP's data for C&D recycling rate (Appendix C), there were

large variations in recycling rates between the years 1998 to 2007. When this question










was asked on the survey there was no biased response. Some people believed that this

fluctuating was the result of method change in calculating recycling rate. The method for

calculating C&D waste changed during the late ninety's from volume to weight method

that brought down the overall recycling rate for that county depending on the time when

this method change was adopted.


[


NO local market for recycled products.

Unavailable equipment for recycling

NO recycling facility available

Recycling facility present but too far away to
transport material
Uneconomical to recycle or it is cheaper to
landfill

Others


)rywall

1 I


I I I I


=^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^


Figure 4-13. Reason for Low Recycling of Drywall

Table 4-7. Reasons for Variation in Recycling Rate
Response
Options Response Percent

No recycling goals to meet between 1998-2007 5 17.20%

Method of calculating recycling rate has changed over the
years 9 31.00%

Inefficient record keeping by facilities 7 24.10%

Recycling rate was actually fluctuating 8 27.60%

Inaccurate data from recycling facilities 10 34.50%
Other 11 37.90%
50









Whereas, some people believed that the recycling rate was actually fluctuating.

This was hard to believe as the flow of waste can change over the years depending on

the workflow but the recycling rate is a factor that should remain constant throughout.

There were some responders who complained about the state dropping grant money in

last few years that makes recycling very expensive and hence explains the fluctuation in

data. Figure 4-14 shows the graphical representation of survey response for Fluctuating

data.


Reason for Fluctuating Data 1998-2007

1 I I I


Inaccurate data from recycling facilities

Recycling rate was actually fluctuating

Inefficient record keeping by facilities

Method of calculating recycling rate has
changed over the years
No recycling goals to meet between
1998-2007


S24.
.. .. .4 .


I-


2F.60%


10t%


34.50P/


31.00%


1 17.20%
~~I11


Other


.......................................................................................................................................................................................... .................... 9 0


Figure 4-14. Reason for Fluctuating Data

Effect of Current Recession

Table 4-8. Effect of Current Recession on Recycling Rates
Options Response Response Percent
Increase the recycling rate 7 23%
Decrease the recycling rate 14 45%
Not change the recycling rate 10 32%









The current recession may or may not have any effect on the 75% goal. Majority of

responders through it will have an effect and will decrease the recycling rate. Due to

less demand for finished recycled products the sales for recycling plants have gone

down and in slow season, recycling plants cannot accept waste more than their

capacity. Landfill facilities, due to lack of funds and extra time, might be keener on

recycling but recycling plants are already running over capacity and are not accepting

the extra recyclable waste generated in current low economy. Figure 4-15 shows the

graphical representation of survey response for affect of current recession on recycling

rate.


Effect of current recession on recycling rate




22.58%
32.26%

... Increase the reccIirig rate
Decrease the recycling rate
Not change the recycling rate







Figure 4-15. Effect of current recession on recycling rate

Other reason is the costs associated with recycling. Financially stressed

companies are less likely to spend money on recycling when they can save money by

using landfills. Additional investment is required for recycling that is another factor that

discourages any new purchases that can accelerate recycling rate.

Some responders also felt that due to low volume of construction the C&D waste

flow has reduced by 50-60% leaving with ample space to landfill. The landfill that once









accepted 1500 tons a day now accepts only 500-700 tons a day. Flow changes the

economics of recycling. It is not economical to operate recycling facility with a low flow.

According to a responder, county of Pinellas saw 80% reduction in C&D waste

generated from 2006 to 2007, which corresponded with a similar drop in construction

projects. The C&D recycling rate dropped from 49% to 24% in the same period, but the

total amount of C&D disposed was less in 2007 than 2006. C&D waste generation and

recycling for Pinellas, rebounded to 2006 levels in 2008.

How to Reach 75 % Goal

The survey responders were asked to rate the best way to reach 75% goal on a

scale of 1 to 5. As shown in Table 4-9 and Figure 4-16, majority of responders believe

the best way to reach 75% recycling rate is by improving the C&D waste sorting process

at their facilities/counties.

Table 4-9. How to Reach 75% Goal
Avg. Rating
Options (Scale 1-5) Response
Buy new equipment 2.63 19
Transport recyclable material to far away recycling
facilities 2.47 17
Improve sorting process 3.5 20


Responders suggested more ways they think could help improve recycling rate:

* Create local markets for recycled products.

* On-site sorting for recovered materials.

* Must have ordnance for mandatory C&D recycling and ban unprocessed material
from landfill.

* Money to fund capital and recurring costs

* Public and Private partnership should be established.









* Require recycling through building permits


S RSM (Recovered Screened Material) needs to count as recycled if used for landfill
cover. Either purchase dirt for cover or utilize RSM. All RSM goes to landfills, as
there is no other use for the material.

How to Reach 75% Goal?


Improve sorting process


Transport recyclable material to far away
recycling facilities


Buy new equipment


I I I I I I


...-I -


2.47


2.63


SI I

7 7 -'::i---:li--::::---


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Figure 4-16. How to Reach 75% Goal

Achievable Goal


Part 1: Where to set the target


Table 4-10. Achievable Goal
Target Goal Response Response Percent
100% Recycling Rate 1 3%
90% Recycling Rate 1 3%
80% Recycling Rate 6 19%
75% Recycling Rate 7 22%
65% Recycling Rate 1 3%
55% Recycling Rate 16 50%

Some experts believe that 75% goal is too high and is impossible to achieve. The

first part of this question will check what our responders think in this direction and what

should be a reasonable target if 75% is too high.









A little negative response was seen for this section as majority of people voted for

55 % or less of C&D waste that could be recycled or reused in Florida by 2020. A

graphical representation of achievable goal response is shown in Figure 4-17.


Achievable Goal

18
16
14
12
10
8


I I -


_ .. .


100% 90% 80% 75% 65% 55%
Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling
Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate

Figure 4-17. Achievable Goal

Some survey responders were unable to answer this question, as their

county/facility didn't have a proper data or no data at all. This was unexpected as every

C&D waste recycling facility (Public and Private) is expected to submit an annual report

for the C&D recycled to their county administration (See Appendix C for annual report

form). Further, county administration combines all annual report from all waste facilities

and submits it to FDEP.

Part 2: Investment required for reaching target

The second part for this question included the amount of investment that will be

required per facility to reach selected goal in part 1. As shown in Table 4-11, reaching

75% will require an additional investment of about 4 million dollars per facility. Whereas

55%, which is a more reasonable goal (as per part 1), will require only million dollars









worth of investment per facility. Hence, if the state is targeting 75%, a lot more money

needs to be poured into the system in next decade.



Table 4-11. Investment Required for Reaching Goal
Goal Investment required per facility
100% $5,000,000 and more
90% $4,000,000 to $4,500,000
80% $4,000,000 to $4,500,000
75% $3,500,000 to $4,000,000
65% $3,000,000 to $3,500,000
55% $500,000 to $1,000,000


Part 3: Equipment's required

Third part of this question required survey responders to select the equipment in

which investment should be made to reach target goal. The favorite equipment

selected by survey responders are listed in Table 4-12.

Table 4-12. Equipment Required for Reaching Goal
Equipments Responses
Material separation system 9
Grinder 7
Scrap handling magnet 4
Impact Crusher 4
Conveyor 3
Shredder 2









CHAPTER 5
C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT

A waste management plan can differ significantly depending on the life cycle of

C&D waste where it is being implemented. A waste plan can either be implemented

during its generation at the construction site and hence will focus more on reduction at

the site itself. But in this chapter the waste management plan discussed will focus on its

implementation during the life cycle of waste after it has been generated and then

diverted to waste facilities.

Designing a practical waste management plan is the most important factor that will

contribute towards the success of 75% recycling goal. This waste management plan

was prepared based on the analysis of FDEP's current recycling data, interview

responses of waste facilities (Appendix C) and results from the survey.

Four Step Process

Achieving 75% recycling goal is a four-step process:

* Awareness
* Preparation
* Implementation
* Follow up


Awareness

The very first step to get to a target goal is to spread the idea of goal. Every entity

linked with the C&D waste industry should be aware about the 75% recycling goal. The

more people aware about the goal the more followers there will be who can follow the

waste management plan. Conducting more surveys, emails, phone calls and meetings

can accelerate this process.









Preparation

The second step is to come up with an integrated waste management plan based

on business model that is practically and financially feasible. Every county should study

the business model for all facilities within their region and estimate the cost difference

that impedes the recycling process in these facilities. Business model will give a list of

equipment for each recyclable material that can improve recycling process, recognize

the high transportation cost materials that needs to be transported to far off facilities. A

sample of business model is discussed in next section.

Implementation

Implementing the waste management plan is the third and most important step.

Once the plan has been designed, state and counties throughout Florida should make

sure all facilities are following the waste-recycling model. Workshops should be

conducted to educate recycling entities about the waste management plan. Special

incentive (like tax reduction) can be given to facilities to make them follow the plan.

Follow-up

Next step after implementation is follow up. Achieving the target-recycling rate in

one year and then falling back to starting point is not desirable. Every county should set

yearly recycling goals of 5% more than previous year and facilities performing at par

should be given special incentives. Reduction in recycling rate should be seriously

looked and studied. Counties should have follow-up meeting with all the facilities that

report them. A more detailed plan is discussed in next section.

Increase awareness of recycling techniques by carrying out training and Internet

web sites that advertise the organizations and businesses involved in building material

recovery and reuse.









Waste Management Practices

Creating Local Market for Reusable Material

Creating market for reusable or refurbished C&D material is a critical part of plan

to reach target goal. Current recession provides the best opportunity to start a local

market initiative. People in slow market have less work leaving them with ample time to

sell their reusable products and due to stiff competition everyone is willing to save

money if possible. The only thing missing is a platform for them to conduct their

exchange. One way to create this platform is by setting up a regional market on weekly

or daily basis where people interested in selling/buying reusable material can conduct

business. Some of the commonly reusable building materials can be:

* Appliances
* Bathroom Fixtures
* Bricks
* Carpeting
* Doors
* Flooring
* Pipes
* Siding
* Tile
* Lumber
* Windows
* Trim
* Lighting Fixtures
* Insulation
* Shelving

State should support reuse centers by providing below market rents on publicly

owned warehouse space or selling public space to reuse stores for below-market value.

These warehouses can act as a perfect platform for conducting business for reusable

materials.









Increase Tipping Fee

As shown in previous section an increase in tipping fee has always resulted in

higher recycling rates. Hence, further increase in tipping fees will increase disposal cost

making landfilling more expensive and promoting recycling, which will help get close to

the target of 75%.

Improve Sorting Process

As found on the survey results improve sorting process was the most selected

option for increasing recycling rate. Hence, state should create different ways by which

this gap can be filled.

One solution to this problem is to create new businesses that would just do sorting

job. These businesses should be given funding to buy the most advance sorting

equipment (like material separation system, scrap handling magnet, conveyor system)

and they should be the only one responsible for sorting C&D waste (including other

MSW waste). As shown in the flow diagram (Figure 5-1) instead of leaving this process

for contractors or recycling facilities sorting companies should be paid to do this job.

Once the materials are sorted, materials can be diverted to respective recycling plants

or landfill.













Figure 5-13. C&D Waste Lifecycle









Special Groups or Organizations

Creating special group or organization that is responsible for looking into C&D

waste management in Florida should be a big step to achieve 75% goal. For example:

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District) looks into stromwater management

in south Florida, CMRA (Construction Material Recycling Association) looks into

recycled construction material for entire country, RFT (Recycle Florida Today) deals

with overall recycling throughout Florida. Similarly, there should be an organization

dedicated to C&D recycling in Florida funded by state or a part of FDEP.

Recognizing and Funding Future Investments

One way to find the list of recyclable materials is by issuing a "Recyclable Building

Permit". For example: In Orange County, North Carolina, an ordinance was passed in

2002 that required the recycling of specific materials along with plans for an additional

C&D landfill. In addition, people requesting building permits are required to apply for a

"Recyclable Material Permit" that requires the permit holder to state what types of waste

they anticipate generating and how they will manage that C&D waste (Source: Orange

County Solid Waste Management). This will help the counties to know what kind of

waste materials they can expect on future projects and hence the type of equipment

they should buy and fund in future.

Incentive from the State

FDEP should sponsor special grants for the projects working on 75% recycling

goal. Tax exemption and special credits should be given to businesses that operate

recycling plants to set up new plants. Sales tax exemptions should be provided for

recycling equipment i.e. on-site grinding equipment and recycled construction materials.

Tax credits could be offered for donation of building materials in order to address the









lack of a financial incentive for tax-exempt business owners, who otherwise are not

eligible for the tax deduction for donated materials.

Mandatory Lined C&D Facilities

Every county should pass an ordinance that requires all new C&D waste facilities

to have liners. Most of the counties in Florida have this policy apart from small counties.

This will make the landfilling process more expensive and hence contractors will be

forced to recycle their waste. Liner have been mandatory in Broward and Lake Palm

county since 1989 hence the recycling rate for these counties have always been higher

than other counties.

Improve Drywall Recycling

It was found in the survey that facilities in Florida have hard time recycling drywall.

But it has been proved that drywall is not a product that should be hard to recycle. It can

be recycled to get:

* New Drywall
* Used as ingredient in production of cement
* Used in land for plant growth and soil drainage
* Fertilizers
* Used in composting systems

The state should provide incentives for the facilities that can recycle drywall into any of
the above forms.


Collaborative Effort for Waste Management

A particular entity, either the contractors or the waste facility owner or the county

administration should not be the only one responsible to recycle waste. Combination of

public and private entity is required to improve recycling rate. A separate waste

management plan should be prepared for each entity. There should be a waste

management plan that will be applicable to contractors only and a separate waste plan









will apply to landfill facilities and recycling plants. Current system does not have a

proper interaction between the two entities. Each entity should be given responsibility to

sort and recycle certain materials.

For example: Contractors can be given responsibility to recycle the entire wood

and concrete generated on their site. Wood can be easily converted into mulch and

concrete can be crushed on site to be used for sub-grade material.

A Business Model Approach

The preparation of business model is important part of Waste Management Plan,

as it gives an estimate on the amount of additional investment required to reach the

75% goal. As shown in Table 5-1 a layout of business plan includes list of all the

materials that are diverted from construction and demolition site and each materials will

have the following:

* Volume (%) of material received by facilities
* Recovery Rate of that material
* Landfilling Cost
* Transportation Cost
* Selling Cost
* Equipment used till now
* Equipment required in future
* Place where material is diverted

In order to make a profit from C&D waste diversion to recycling plants, landfill

facilities have to meet the following two equations:

Transportation Cost < Landfilling Cost

OR

Selling Cost Transportation Cost > Disposal Fee + Landfilling Cost

For example: Let's assume a landfill facility accepts construction waste comprising

of Gypsum Board and they accepts the board at a disposal fee of $200 per load. The









facility can either landfill this accepted waste at $150 per load or divert it to a recycling

plant at a transportation cost of $200 per load.

Case 1: If the facility landfills the gypsum board they will make a profit of $50 per load.

$200 $150 = $50

Disposal Fee Landfill Cost = Profit

Case 2: In this case lets assume that landfill facility diverts the board to recycling plant

and the plant buys the board from landfill facility at a cost of $70 per load. Hence, the

facility will make a profit of $70 that is better than a $50 profit facility was making by

landfilling in Case 1.

$200 $200 + $70 = $70

Disposal Fee + Transportation Cost + Selling Cost = Profit

Case 3: Whereas, in this case we can assume that the recycling plant accepts the

gypsum board without paying any price. Hence the facility will not be able to make any

profit compared to a $50 profit by landfilling in Case 1.

$200 $200 + $0= $0

Disposal Fee + Transportation Cost + Selling Cost = Profit

Case 4: For this case let assume that recycling plant charges $100 per load for

accepting the gypsum board. Hence, landfill facility will make a loss of $100 per load if

they want to recycle their board versus $50 profit if they landfill.

$200 $200 $100= ($100)

Disposal Fee + Transportation Cost + Selling Cost = Loss

The price between transportation cost and landfill cost can be minimized either by

operating a gypsum recycling plant that is close to the facility. This will decrease the









transportation cost resulting in more profit. Another solution is if the state funds cover

the extra transportation cost required to make the far off trips to make recycling process

profitable.

The business model approach gives the transportation cost associated with

different C&D materials in different parts of Florida. The business plan for Watson

Construction, a waste construction company based in Newberry Florida that falls under

Alachua County is shown in Table 5-21. Let's apply the above scenario of gypsum

board to Watson Construction's business model. The transporting cost for gypsum

board is $250 per load, which is relatively high as the recycling plant, is all the way

south in Orange city. Hence, due to high transportation cost Watson Construction will

sometimes end up landfilling its gypsum board due to unavailable recycling plant in

nearby region. Table 5-21 illustrates a more detailed business plan showing each waste

material received and diverted by Watson Construction.











Watson Construction Business Model
Vol. Recovery Purchasing Landfilling
(%) Rate (%) Cost Cost
N/A $7.00 per
yard


Transportation
Cost
$100.00 per
load


$7.00 per $100.00 per
yard load

$7.00 per $25.00 per
yard load


Selling
Cost
Varies $1
to $12 a
ton


Equipment Used
till now
Front End
Loader/Roll-off
Cans
Front End
Loader/Roll-off


Cans
Landscape Front End
$12 cy Loader/Back hoe


$7.00 per $25.00 per Soil-$10 Front End
yard load cy Dirt-$2 Loader/Shaker
cy Screen
$7.00 per $25.00 per Mulch-$7- Track Hoe/Grinder
yard load $16 cy


Gypsum
Board


Plywood 0%


Disposal
Fee $26 per
ton
N/A


Lumber


Cabinets 0%


Misc


Cardboard 0%


Not taken Disposal
at Pit Fee
$250.00 ton


$7.00 per
yard

$7.00 per
yard
$7.00 per
yard
$7.00 per
yard
$7.00 per
yard
$7.00 per
yard
$7.00 per
yard
$7.00 per
yard
Not taken to
pit


$250.00 per
load

Disposal of
Onsite= C&D
Disposal of
Onsite= C&D
Disposal of
Onsite= C&D
Disposal of
Onsite= C&D
Disposal of
Onsite= C&D
Disposal of
Onsite= C&D
Disposal of
Onsite= C&D
Not
transported by
Watson


Roll-Off Can


No market N/A

No market N/A

No market N/A

No market N/A


Varies
Greatly
From + to

No market

N/A


N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


Table 5-9.
Material


Steel


Equipments
required
Orange Peel-
Grapel

Manual picking
station

Rock Screen


Tromel Screen


Track
Hoe/Grinder

Orange Peel-
Grapel

Manual picking
station
Manual picking
station
Manual picking
station


Manual picking
station
Manual picking
station
Manual picking
station
Hazmat


Place diverted

CMC or Ocala
Recycling

CMC
Recycling

Watson's Levy
Pit & Yard
Waste Facility
Watson's Levy
Pit & Yard
Waste Facility
Watson's Levy
Pit & Yard
Waste Facility
Gel-Corp in
Orange City

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


N/A

N/A

N/A

New River
Landfill


Aluminum


Rock


Soil/Dirt


Trees


Paper

Plastic

Asbestos
Shingles











Table 5-1. continued
Material Vol. Recovery Purchasing Landfilling Transportation Selling Equipment Used Equipments Place diverted
(%) Rate (%) Cost Cost Cost Cost till now required
Asphalt 0% N/A $7.00 cy $25.00 N/A Source separated Orange Peel- Florida


Grapel


$7.00 cy Disposal of
Onsite= C&D
$7.00 cy Disposal of
Onsite= C&D

$7.00 cy Disposal of
Onsite= C&D
$7.00 cy $25.00


$7.00 cy $25.00


$7.00 cy $25.00


$25.00


$25.00


$25.00


N/A

$100.00 per
load


$7.00 cy N/A


N/A

N/A


N/A

N/A


Roofing
Comp
Built in
Roofing

Tar Paper

Roof Tile


Source separated


Source separated


N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A

Labor & Front
End Loader


N/A


Concrete
Reclycling
N/A


N/A


Source
separated

Orange Peel-
Grapel

Orange Peel-
Grapel

Orange Peel-
Grapel

Orange Peel-
Grapel

Orange Peel-
Grapel

Orange Peel-
Grapel
Orange Peel-
Grapel


Orange Peel-
Grapel


Florida
Concrete
Reclycling
Florida
Concrete
Reclycling
Florida
Concrete
Reclycling
Florida
Concrete
Reclycling
Florida
Concrete
Reclycling
Florida
Concrete
Reclycling
n/a

Alachua
County
Transfer
Station
n/a


N/A

N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A

N/A



N/A


Brick


Block


Concrete
Pave.


Mortar


Pipes

Buckets


$7.00 cy


$7.00 cy


$7.00 cy


$7.00 cy

n/a


100%
MSW


N/A

Disposal fee
$50.00 per
ton


Laminates










Table 5-1.


continued


Material Vol. Recovery Purchasing Landfilling Transportation Selling Equipment Used Equipments Place diverted
(%) Rate (%) Cost Cost Cost Cost till now required
Asbestos Not taken N/A Not taken Not transported N/A N/A Hazmat New River
at pit by Watson Land fill
Ducts N/A $7.00 cy $100.00 per Varies Front end loader/ Manual picking Ocala
load $1 to $4 Roll-off cans station Recycling
a ton
Plastic Coils 0% N/A $7.00 cy n/a

Oil from 100% N/A N/A Picked up Varies Fuel Truck Fuel Truck Varies
Equipment .50 per
ton



Table 5-2. Watson Construction Business Operating Model
Operation Cost Cost/hrs No. Of Hours Total Cost (weekly)
Electricity N/A N/A N/A
Fuel $3.00 25 $75.00
Services
Other
Supervisor Operator $16 50 $800.00
Labor (average) $10 50 $500.00









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

Over 8 million Tons of C&D waste was generated in Florida in 2007 and out of that

only 2.2 million Tons or 28 % was recycled. In order to get back on track by year 2020

legislature has passed an aggressive goal of recycling 75% of it MSW waste. The goal

might look far ahead today but if the four-step: awareness, preparation, implementation,

follow-up are followed the goal is achievable.

The spectacular response to survey and its results prove that people of Florida are

not only aware but also ready to give their precious time in contributing to achieve 75%

goal. It's the responsibility of each county to respond to this awakening and plan a

feasible waste management plan that will work in their respective counties.

The state should prepare a business plan for all of its C&D facilities throughout

Florida and cover the financial gap that forces these facilities to landfill some of their

recyclable C&D materials. After analyzing the business model approach it was found

that the transportation cost to recycling plant has to be less than or equal to landfilling

cost given that recycling plant is accepting the C&D waste for free. On the other hand, if

the transportation cost is high, the recycling plants should pay them enough profit for

accepting waste that is more than the transportation cost and better than or equal to the

profit that was made by landfilling. This means depending on the location and the

materials being recycled, special funds will be required to make a recycling process

financially feasible if either of the above statements are not satisfied.









The state should estimate this cost difference and fund these facilities through

grants or special incentives. If state is unable to generate enough funds for these

facilities, these facilities will be forced to landfill C&D waste due uneconomic factor.

The business model prepared for Watson construction shows that if they will add

few new equipment to their facility like Orange Peel- Grapel, Manual picking station,

Rock Screen, Track Hoe/Grinder, Hazmat, Fuel Truck, it will help increase the C&D

recycling rate for their facility. Hence, state should find ways through grants and other

incentives (like tax credit) that will help facilities like Watson Construction to buy new

equipment that will boost their recycling rate.

Recommendations for Future Studies

The business model approach applied to Watson Construction can be applied to

various facilities throughout Florida. One facility can be selected from each of the eight

zone in Florida (North West, North East, North Central, Central, Central West, Central

East, South East, South West) and their business can be studied to prepare a business

model that should work for the entire state.

These facilities can be given a scenario where there is no financial constraint and

the business approach they will adopt in such situation. Considering this situation new

business plan can be developed for these facilities where their main objective is to

reach 75% goal.

Hence, comparing the present business model with proposed business plan for

recycling facilities, will give the financial gap that the state is required to fulfill to reach

75% plus recycling rate.












APPENDIX A
SURVEY FORM



1. WASTE SURVEY FORM

*1. Which category do you fall under?
SPrivate waste facility
J County owned waste facility
J County administration
SOthers
I report to/fall under the county of


2. Are you aware of the 75% recycling goal for MSW Waste set by Florida Legislature by the end of 20207

Yes
SNo

3. How much Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste is currently being recycled at your facility/ county?
S0-20%
j 20-40%
J 40-60%
J 60-80%
80-100%

4. Which of the following C&D waste materials would you like to recycle/divert but cannot: (Check all that apply)

SBrick

Asphalt

SRoofing materTal

r Carpet

Cardboard

I Concrete

r Wood

I Drywall

Other (please specify)



5. Check the reasons) for lack of recycling/diversion of C&D waste and the material they apply to from the list given below. (Check all that apply)

1. NO local market for recycled products
2. Unavailable equipment for recycling
3. NO recycling facility available
4. Recycling facility present but too far away to transport material
5. Uneconomical to recycle or It is cheaper to landfill
1 2 3 4 5 Others
Brick r r r r r

Roofing material r F r r r r

Cardboard r r r

Carpet r F F F











Drywll

wood r r n r P
Wood r r r r r r

Concrete F r r F F

Asphalt r F F r

Others (for more than one selection leasee Aparar by ~





6, From 1991 to 2007 there was a sharp reduction In the reported CID recycling rate (data given on FDEP webslte). In your opinion what Is the reason for the
fluctuating data? (Check all that apply)

No recyclIng goals to meet between 1998-2007 I
I
F Method of calculating recycling rate f ad changed over the ys.a '

r Inefficient record keeping by facilities

SRecylir rate was actually fuctuating

Inaccurate data from eyllng f.~alilies

Other :plea3 ':rcify)




7 If your acillities/countles recycling rate varies by year. In your opinion, why does this happens?(Check all that apply)

Data not captured by recycling facilities
r Data not reported to FDEP
r Recycling rate was actually fluctuating
Other (please specify)



8, At what level would you set the recycling goal for C&D waste that can be achieved by 2020 and what amount of Investment will It require to reach respective goal?
Investment required to achieve goal List of equipment (If applicable) List of equipment (If applicable) List of equipment (If applicable)
100% recyclIng rate [ [ 1 I9 II
90% recycling rate
80% recycling rate I II
75% recycling I I I
65% recycling rate
55% recycling rate y
Other (please specify for each Recycling Goal separated by "/)


re ~ r~


re ~-












9, Rate the following based on their potential to Improve the CID recycling rate in your county. (1-low, 5-high)
1 2 3

Buy new equipmentsJ
Transport recyclable material to far
away recycling facilities

IrOtr p- ei:,e -.ri g pra.: g w J rI

Other 'plle :-- i;-cr daoiilg wirr, i ir, Qj


10. 1 believe the current economic recession will

J I'-rci ther lr n ling rate

SDecrease the recycling rate

J Not change the recycling rate

Please explain your answer


Survey Powered by:
SurveyMonkey
"Surveys Made Simple."











W Instilutional Review Board rouox 11225U
U T:\ [VERSITY of FLORIDA I. I...- F 32611-250
3522-392- 1M33 .1' ..*,i.-.
5-32-392-1234 I. .
i rb2ufl.c-du

DATE: April 2010

TO: Nippun Goyal



FROM: Ira S. Fischter, Phl; Chair--. f
University of lorida
Institutional Review Board 02

SUBJECT: Approval of Protocol #2010O-U-331
Analylng Construction and Demolition Recycling Rate in Florida

SPONSOR: Unfunded

I am pleased to advise you that the University of Florida Institutional Review Board has
recommended apprwoal of this protocol. Based on its review, the UFIRB determined that this
research presents no rmre than minimal risk to participants. Your protocol was approved as
an expedited study under category 7: Research on Icndfdual or grou characteristics or
behavior (ncaudlng, but not limited to. research on perception, cognitfon, motivation,
Identity, language, comrrunicEaoan, cultural beffefs or practices, and social behavior} or
research emproyfng survey,, interview, orl history, focus ypoup, program evaluation, human
factors evaluation, or quatty assurance methodotogies.

Given this status, It is essential that you obtain sined documentation of Informed consent
from each participant. Enclosed is the dated, IRB-approved informed consent to be used when
recruiting participants for the research. If you wish to make any changes to this protocol,
including the need to increase the number of portciponts aut horized, you must dislose your
plans before you implement them so that the Board can assess their Impact on your protocol
In addition, you must report to the Board any uneKpected ccplications that affect your
participants.

It is essential that each of your pardtipants sign a copy of your approved Infomed
consent that bears the IRB approval stamp and expiration date. I


Your approval Is valid through March 31, 2011. If you have not completed the protocol by
this date, pelase tephone ur office (392-0433, and we will discuss the renewal process
with you. It is important that you keep yur Department Chair informed about the status of
this research protocol,

1SF:dl













Informed Consent


Dear Educator:

I am a graduate student at the University of Florida. As part of my research I am
conducting a short 5-7 minutes survey, the purpose of which is to analyze the basic trends
in C&D waste industry. This information will be used to develop an integrated waste
management plan that will apply to the entire state of Florida. This survey will be a web-
based survey conducted by Survey Monkey. I am asking you to participate in this survey
because you have been identified as a Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste facility
or a county waste administration.

A copy of survey form is enclosed with this letter. You will not have to answer any
question you do not wish to answer.

There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a
participant in this survey.

If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at 352-359-
2594 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. James G. Sullivan, at 352-273-1176. Questions or
concerns about your rights as a research participant rights may be directed to the IRB02
office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; (352) 392-0433.
Please sign and return this copy of the letter in the enclosed envelope. A second copy is
provided for your records. By signing this letter, you give me permission to report your
responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty supervisor
as part of my course work.


I have read the procedure described above for the survey. I voluntarily agree to
participate in this survey and I have received a copy of this description.




Signature of participant Date




Approved by
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02
Protocol # 2010-U-0331
For Use Through 03-31-2011













List Of Survey Takers


Cunt Firt im Luilrm 31r M_ CIYn SL o EP P Fa E_ M Mdr
Xm1 PaW ikt Pby rei 4LS. .ri 4a h'30LW s11 -salt ]3Wi"1n't'si ( 3?FL44 pa -1188 u tAw s
we PAstFyw it_ mM Cw W eIfaiw amta imLan 23NaiStesnA2 hl L m 6 0'A11 .iF I '" jIN,
Bay Gw 41y, 0 ss ` j W nJchC.L Pr. >,r, a> S WLaDi cainr djM*.. rry v 4.m r>l it W awtirdmr ht FL 3051 aji W-C:. P44-1. atnq aa Kd q
&Mnl PaFIB .m' iiwJvi ai i *ot. -L c.' fi i44 I raj144 [ra FL .I34y .'il >.'.? 7i pmloomn ypmimhwat i.sa
broad FM &M I NA wi styLIr3 fio FL 3M23 (IS47410) .i..1n p m 4 c"r0
ihom te _N1__ Mst~eltkilgkom"adef .ktaver, M.CelaM eERmM 0-u4kIna M 4 M M5'j.isla'|orr.f.pid __
Br0tee [Wrre IU N Ler 3,3r1 x 'imwwSemz 2iPh@tW RdtJ0i P@C5)W4-3rMa I I a
43 ow PARdsrl i-t 11 FL 3w7 oIiAi 3I6 N2 ir1 iA s
Ctrti atei. ersMi 4 .ear a r 1x.f ON,,.: N5 RwSimH iM Gie 9ISr FL 32062 4 .32 *5W ol dMaa ftlawtus
CAe Jan G F 6ji .ifdraS./ 1-itaw* 6oYr 4 i m .l E Tmr-n Tr, di H P FLiFh i laes FcF 34112 .11:i'; ()1774W oFtip *l dimL l
U Q t Trgm g Cas L Snfdh*nm .i&.r Wirriat S fiWsaSw 0.&w caute Lieit FL .4-14 3S.ki:.Sa..' l rEarkfuti o0 la
Oft5k C401 '4d Ad4 Dir wi&e! Ekm mnrJtvm 232069k4 |SS* FL 341 03M1C1v .5t:i..l|H XseuarI a t .
Dem Sywi Ui PAvivaju u __ Doe t Coinl W P.O.bmi Cm- _I. JFL I W M1SiWy .:.ti^ s l-.1|ueirmou.f
Did L R*i CYAaI N Mu aEs DD FlAutr- i.kii `,11djil'raH tCLWil M VL 17 '011 i S 5S M)3? Uitqa4
Esa0 DEMIDe es. 8 w4 Us as._ S 0ti6 isa t -wa' 19BNMth. TAre FL P.%i :..'i7P ]) 0l37-2 iiRena .cisu
3 fti OanrPs *rdiue:'.'ur-na EA -r.u 4 12 Eas2o4BM. i,Blft5 Bw7el FL 2169764 PM3141 .'.-,.a bmrnAo.-s n
Frii n FA DKes Pi N'km ai A hZ i: 3iik $Aelb23 ApK FL w.S.t 61s W NW 2.. ..lt I la__.
Gl-d AaM P l u" ? .eit ldayoj Ih... su 3v3 1-9 A* i RIDm174 iiw F 3244L 3MI: M))85r8 ) 404W ondg ade l __t
_am turiels tf *firflt, sVi_ __ F_ 1 32w4419 V1!014 "Y I: w : r tic5a
G WietL Rdian! Viki.,B 1,ii ,C iaj m i ihieoMsafl r PO59 b0 0r lsMHep FL 3971 awl : :il-5 X 4 it5 asl4 m i

irftn D 1k 'ms t P'i Liii0 .a., i2 wi n e s4 tri l. : iFr 'E. mIet FL 31272 x i .- I ..g) .i: .5' Mtp rittag IndL, a
HtteF TM s s Rpj tXij "maithabHaewr i SARdai.j Wi FL 33W 5 03) .-nM________ TX ?.)r.i
Med TesOa C -ire. >adi -jj kyd WiWm aCir P.O.tbIM f1__ l" F* m3a3817 'A.Y.07-3 m._Bl b e
Hemet a ai u Sat_ iiin.s Par, n oti i P-i feifntorgumit stept 144OLandilk hasdle FL 3X14 (W1 6 *j7A44110 MsyiW dlm alus
HLwer ( L. Jr 'aY 4 JFrJir. y P.ZIle.,f I ,i 'NT '-.,Fi,.|.[rP,1 iv K:.1 .1.2 524'. r1.514r0 tI slPr s,
H"t Ei6abb l M SfeWt 0 e6trhWt SpKM heVLI- I 14.e &0*.' I' BTP FL 3W 11 :T 1' 131276iaf2 Imaff iMlhK.ltq
H"W AM Pa\e I faJ ncai 4PrJf s(r.lr 316 n:: i. 0 3 kLa FL 32423 IJ471 1 2351 rJ6 icti3dni L

tise Slat Slp j r R 4l.% p 4 fle0- 4.X16r8ni) __ l 4 elatmt FL 3B24u i4M AL'd o.m __5
Ma**hn &Wn sLasw N Sewr .As., r.mnt p- e Wlry mm FL M3448 V1'i 3 I! ) "Ap7r*InemrIsn
Wm Doe ierm P-enli akase tN r n Ire ITe FLa 3e11 9 iMa g:i :2 7 TaM-,e? FL ...
Aire Iae Fta p0i l'a S ,/we .l l1wtl ~&-1 fl5 2 Yff3$ Li 3R.I. ,L itis*".4 F 4.ii.X.'JL
Bse Erny Wl h j. jni-amr I0,B.trjr Ir i'. 1x_ IkFti FL 3M05 2 1eiebC4MM Ail im
Lem IOrO 115a.4a1us U rr4et. pai TarlbwBe FL 3234048 ilWD 32.IE 1rr Slp
Lasm e Ears jien .i.ls s r' w.in truf, I'J k: S-. it M mBa FL 41.. :: : )1 .65t arufltidi fmalan
t DrrS Een l Oan &W r-r% ar p:AvT.3 O.Betmt &W FL W24 2 1RM M iI :..-.7, a
mism J- me RO N. w- J ii I PC. .BN.kS ;W:1: I P.0. ,23 MSM FL 3341016 J94f6151 Yi. _____a ______
Mn- B t reat P PW Cat1fni -lOWIwtret pt 4410 945!kLWO F 3b0010M2 VIO IIii.ss-.4 i pn1.4) M m Mmam

rM l Weaml l1ker Paa.Jnir*t 5i1'.0i nr.rmi i 04O40 Slto FL 33178 i:02221 ..a S M(et1as-42123

Wmea n ts m 5rk alri S j9 jjk-h. 1 _t 9 t. i a:0-.[. ___ i0 Bar d_1LeymeO FL I010. ?i! i.5M W-i L 23 W fs sF Z.i401f aP
KS-Ru &Xky idAn RF.%p n .X 9 VeSe- t 439 i 31l UAW4 FL W1B403 '34ifl LJ KM x t f.ill n
0Sopa a n FRIM te e > N ijj a- *esre ptr 84eadiae.an FaYi A1a7i0t I r542 PiWM1iP .'i l : u-.lljil41 __

-Nx Doe Spmoer ki' .r .xx, r V ___ -K..1. ,"PA- l 4 1 __ ii 1PMI T. IP-1 odwd (471 iSiniti rde & wl
OMe Lar SDhs Dur SIdir.i.sjlearas ,vrter r4,1 I, V -.,, ntIa ;[i L"r. Kaini" FL 3'113 ( ll*1"i.C (40732744 _______
Panm. Srt lm himRirbite(ldtBr Ni7i0.Wlirr.|.A.' I.,PMamdeA a FL NWSA4 0i 1 li t:3 Wpa sam ra

h&s A"f 44ie*at R-i% ipH r95 :-.aL*f _pr e m itH ike.N BkS [S'tanqier FL 33533 1 '! $*'.-..1: A- k7t0lra2nA 44*
Pa hp %e*t PafiV a __ e Leodr-U 1Eami.,naoop WW aili F 3W410121 0 2.Wa 9m.j.rtennii. ii j
PAnmm S&hen IN%"ke N rr, r.n ki xi PO M0 M P"li FL M2499 Ai t q m l

SM aRooe W* ftt P-tlOlw -Mog" ftA FE 33_______teas t__ G_1B__l____ ___H q bod"W0igaylsi
,41012 TDm SrNA F7t.Iirar.s E--wrew wh 217WakeR 4r45111 FL 34232 51333.93 1 Wm40 p M t
Seard Lmt orrBte SDWWMiPm^Y incel r _hobr |w ti.Oct ionM ___ym [skt FL 732M i (403)a24-31V al_ iilrTyI____p
SIMMi'ra &ir *In R).% ap j- af ?.0 teA 1.M 4- O.bA & I Ap e FL ZSS5W0 1 (4iiri.fl me!rr. 'asi wn_-v u
SLiLue Jmj* GaflwPe a 1jbjs -juele aip' [4 W DepL rat De FaL 3212PeI 43 1 6 atsn4s aii.6. r.:aCT.l
S&tMr Jk" Wise Cu tyi osAirst e jieL_______ hefatsuree FP4 1 4 ll M i7T47Jniny -:jjien ifi ___
YimI oe VSls Ivipi'F.sr :ka ..... I'aIqelrte. N7i. .tL1*0 FL =8 1A N J)1 5 43 52M atwi2 woinwmt a
T b4_hn 54g P, .arj,_ I r 1Plulbcxffivximra'. a __ Pew n 7FL 3 743-1 E. 'z474 3 8 .I3t a'iz u s
Uton KW As$K WDRWAsiteanlD ederRwkwAidtidxlit&n *i:T NF -n)iwar RiMd W, 11.VY-)111 Xi3llTA- tpr aiimaf
Wae agni Crml bWior" or w f i.um .&W .1:1E59k lep tlu. DBitW FL 2124 :AX I me4sem nSW w toFlmrais
Wmahl toele ha tt __ |FI'mm .im .3BTMlml201 |Crelow tile FL W7-2M1 Iai9aSM153 1.Cthaiiicn _
hMakRn 040 ev |kae a -u jj osht 1118WIlteraisLane L-; llft3M M0o2ffl 'j p 41m.: .ii.'.i u




| Cy FMatm LWim Tb Mirhal Imei C2 01Y EP Phso Fu
C mer M IrtaS 17011A1 WtieMKn et Cranser FL 3462 1 iF-r.: '.20r.i
Fi Pm-, MoWn 10 Ir.tn.T, i.,-Re (, 6-1 Ft Fes k3f1 :s'li: .-'7 33.91 4
|fer M CiASh W *inr l.r.ir N BMit FL 33l


89









APPENDIX B
WATSON C&D WASTE FACILITY INTERVIEW

You must be aware of the fact that FDEP has passed a new recycling goal of achieving
75% recycling rate by 2020 for total MSW waste. My research is mainly on how we can
achieve this goal for C&D waste.
Yes we are aware of 75% goal

1. As it's a requirement on LEED projects to separate out the C&D waste materials
as wood, metals and other C&D. How much C&D waste that comes to your site
is separated out before coming to the facility? Has this amount changes within
last few years as we have more LEED projects.

LEED helps a lot in separation of waste. Metals and wood, cardboard, C&D
which are separated directly on site on LEED projects can be directly send to
recycling facilities instead of bring them to our landfill and then separating them
out. Even for the material that is brought to our landfill is very easy to separate
saving a lot of labor cost. On the other hand materials for non-LEED projects are
hard to separate and require a lot of labor cost.

2. If not, is it easy to separate out C&D waste? What is the process of separating
out C&D waste?

Process: waste cans or dumps are first brought to the landfill site. Then the
waste is scattered and manually separated out. After that the waste that is not
suitable for landfill or which can be recycled is removed from the waste. Then the
remaining waste is compacted by our compactor to the landfill.

3. How long will your landfill last. How much waste do you receive every day?

According to our calculation, our landfill should last about 6.3 years given that we
get 1500 cy of waste every day. But with the current economy 1500 cy per day is
hard to get. Currently we get about 500-600 CY of waste each day.

4. Do you think any part of site generated C&D waste is generated diverted directly
from site or recycled on site?

Contractors are smart enough to remove the waste that can be reused.

5. C&D recycling rate has been very inconsistent in last few years. What do you
think is the reason for this inconsistency? Is it because of bad record keeping?









No idea how come so many zeros. We have been recycling since last 5-7 years
and our numbers haven't changed.

6. What other factors do you think will help achieve this 75% goal?
More grants for us to buy better equipment and may be hiring more labor which
will be more efficient in separating waste.

7. Can I have the record for C&D waste that was send to Alachua county for C&D
waste collected and recycled.
Yes

8. Are there any specific equipment (machines, concrete crushers) helps you do
some jobs better than other.
We have a compactor for compacting waste and waste separation is done
manually. We would love to buy concrete crusher. Most of our concrete goes to
our sister Construction Company for base or fill.

9. Where the sorted waste does goes. Is there any market for sorted waste? Lack
of recycling for waste.
Among the sorted material we have recycling facilities nearby for wood, concrete,
cans, tires, metals but the only problem is the drywall. As the drywall recyclers
are all the way in orange city which is 2 12 hrs drive and it is costly for us the
drive all the way so sometime drywall might end up going to landfill.

Landfill cost: $7 per yard, $25 min

10. Are there any special equipment you have for separation and transportation of
waste?
NO, but we would like to buy conveyor system to improve our sorting.

11. Which county do you report? Can I have your record for last 4 years?
Alachua County












APPENDIX C
EXISTING DATA


Annual Data Reporting Form For C&D Facilities



Annual Report for a Cot atructi on Irm _
and )icmolition Debris Fuculity "

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FROTECTIQTN
iukK PL4i I' 2 m JiT .FyTra1pra ~nrr

1. Name ffIrflty! _____err____________I___I__
2. Cimpmny Nru- ____,".
J. PlbylLta AdCM : ____

S Cunely Locudnu: ______________________
A Debrla Coiunty of Oirlaiwe:
(wr MIwlnml Ilati county mof o Kr in I* nTr*MnrTi)
1 Compulny CcncL __
(Vih adiludinad rspon Tble tr lils, Iihoflitiion)I
8R P Nmwe Pnmbr: E-hLll:


I GL TOTAL- TONS OP C&D DEBRIS DISPOSED ,ulJ keui XmtuIJre

I^:*LJT IJlatha=e I.Sr sal f T:Mir


NMTE U Lione a hsei fArmi fr nth rmify ffmi wltth Ce EellMy ralmd midltrifL













C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 1996
County Special Wastes C & D Debris
Total Recycled % Total Recycled %
1 Dade 1,340,318 442,970 33 770,732 291,795 38
2 Broward 1,157,631 467,073 40 649,094 233,111 36
3 Palm 954,136 692,917 73 667,160 475,084 71
4 Hillsboroug 511,871 212,724 42 277,287 155,222 56
5 Pinellas 603,611 381,456 63 273,373 268,588 98
6 Orange 685,553 491,837 72 485,179 371,384 77
7 Duval 520,643 327,185 63 333,747 198.207 59
8 Polk 268,089 86,464 32 178,427 0 0
9 Brevard 263,894 215,020 81 82,250 80,000 97
10 Volusia 292,755 95,237 33 174,291 29,265 17
11 Lee 153,040 100,420 66 40,910 34,921 85
12 Seminole 144,645 59,323 41 98,626 13,304 13
13 Pasco 107,846 61,328 57 79,384 57,016 72
14 Sarasota 443,068 437,694 99 330,124 325,553 99
15 Escambia 187,043 40,333 22 127,048 12,700 10
16 Manatee 217,209 88,564 41 66,824 0 0
17 Marion 59,348 16,563 28 13,796 0 0
18 Leon 170,193 97,589 57 113,341 51,550 45
19 Alachua 107,323 81,212 76 62,042 52,304 84
20 Collier 138,001 108,049 78 84,460 58,912 70
21 Lake 53,973 23.941 44 23.195 4,062 18
22 Saint 142,375 57,007 40 58,379 0 0
23 Okaloosa 72,626 42,594 59 30,811 16,617 54
24 Bay 62,220 28,339 46 34,193 301 1
25 Osceola 38,525 24,618 64 23,567 14,168 60
26 Charlotte 59,407 51,036 86 42,905 40,779 95
27 Clay 28,942 10,425 36 16,534 1,984 12
28 Hernando 24,449 15,058 62 8,191 764 9
29 rVMartin 91,635 38.262 42 48.111 1,505 3
30 Citrus 48,177 25,908 54 23,120 2,350 10
31 Indian 95,070 56,846 60 50,490 19,511 39
32 Saint 55,341 16,547 30 42,407 3,613 9
33 Santa 38.964 19,514 50 23,140 10,888 47
34 Monroe 54,058 45,338 84 22,867 18,842 82
35 Highlands 32,575 15,115 46 16,657 10,525 63
36 Putnam 31,893 8,141 26 21,061 4,571 22
37 Columbia 15,251 14 0 12,610 0 0
38 Nassau 17,124 2,805 16 6,612 895 14
39 Jackson 6,053 64 1 1,046 0 0
40 Gadsden 8,539 3,124 37 657 0 0
41 Sumter 16,788 2,461 15 12,130 882 7
42 Flagler 22,920 8,084 35 14,208 830 6
43 Walton 2,995 1,709 57 755 25 3
44 Okeechobe 24,601 5,263 21 7,618 615 8
45 Suwannee 7,322 1,056 14 3,966 0 0
46 Levy 2,434 454 19 1,435 0 0
47 Hendry 10,664 0 0 7,276 0 0
48 De 5,336 257 5 3,138 2 0
49 Bradford 4,732 1,231 26 1,311 151 12
50 Hardee 3,828 1,970 51 1,857 0 0
51 Baker 3,456 196 6 713 57 8
52 Washingto 1,007 0 0 783 0 0
53 Taylor 5,513 2,076 38 1,927 0 0
54 Madison 2,260 429 19 1,308 0 0
55 Wakulla 4,786 354 7 2,972 94 3
56 Holmes 2,472 357 14 508 0 0
57 Jefferson 2,092 0 0 951 0 0
58 Gulf 10,346 3,900 38 4,468 687 15
59 Hamilton 1,856 868 47 404 25 6
60 Union 2,566 418 16 948 92 10
61 Dixie 1,818 0 0 853 0 0
62 Calhoun 2,180 670 31 479 350 73
63 Gilchrist 579 250 43 343 15 4
64 Franklin 5,967 957 16 3.012 254 8
65 Glades 1,683 1,112 66 800 466 58
66 Liberty 615 0 0 499 0 0
67 Lafayette 348 O 0 206 0 0
State 9,454,577 5,022,725 53 5,489,514 2,864,836 52













C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 1997

County Population (2) C & D Debris
SII Collected I Total Recycled %
1. Dade 2,070,573 3,616,709 797,123 360,524 45
2. Broward 1,423,729 2,185,083 608,983 83,283 14
3. Palm Beach 1,003,798 1,971,379 670,984 465,066 69
4. Hillsborough 928,731 1,542,210 293,019 149,933 51
5. Pinellas 888,141 1,517,235 288,275 282,365 98
6. Orange 803,614 1,745,875 510,743 390.662 78
7. Duval 741,508 1,379,641 345,402 211,518 61
8. Polk 459.010 841.192 206,890 3.761 2
9. Brevard 458,035 740,121 96,216 91,331 95
10. Volusia 413,668 632,884 174,889 93,908 54
11. Lee 394,244 569,645 42,154 34,225 81
12. Seminole 337,498 466,392 94,857 45,000 47
13. Pasco 315,785 395,813 87,235 59,064 68
14. Sarasota 311,043 521,265 106,923 105,651 99
15. Escambia 291.135 475.580 128.407 24.182 19
16. Manatee 241,422 456,019 63,770 0 0
17. Marion 237,204 273,244 17,504 0 0
18. Leon 227,714 389,891 115,608 54,122 47
19. Alachua 208,125 248,265 59,810 32,987 55
20. Collier 200,024 344,118 88,007 68,890 78
21. Lake 188,331 220,325 23,908 4,265 18
22. Saint Lucie 179,133 262,041 62,699 0 0
23. Okaloosa 171.038 195.312 41,215 15,000 36
24. Bay 144,584 299,583 102,278 3,955 4
25. Osceola 143,828 242,936 48,765 22,598 46
26. Charlotte 131,307 179,412 57,412 55,643 97
27. Clay 127,926 115,813 19,647 2,358 12
28. Hernando 122,099 117,516 23,647 4,221 18
29. Martin 116.359 212,664 53,528 23,284 43
30. Citrus 109,984 106,993 14,289 950 7
31. Saint Johns 105.965 140.789 39,247 3,613 9
32. Indian River 104,605 215,526 50,140 17,659 35
33. Santa Rosa 102,338 112,989 24,990 16,027 64
34. Monroe 84,743 151,650 13,437 8,942 67
35. Highlands 79,536 95,122 15,029 1,864 12
36. Putnam 70,243 89,124 18,374 4,500 24
37. Columbia 53,684 66,864 9,870 0 0
38. Nassau 52,740 52,155 5,215 107 2
39. Gadsden 49,740 34,781 688 0 0
40. Jackson 49,387 40,797 1,193 0 0
41. Sumter 44,366 36,598 10,247 675 7
42. Flagler 41,190 58,375 15,446 1,263 8
43. Walton 36,094 27,954 850 0 0
44. Okeechobee 34,746 68,673 10,327 6,296 61
45. Suwannee 33,223 34,671 3,217 0 0
46. Levy 31.591 24,082 2,089 0 0
47. Hendry 30,308 29,110 4,367 0 0
48. De Soto 27,224 22,102 3,691 0 0
49. Bradford 25,231 19,867 908 122 13
50 Hardee 22,447 18,989 811 0 0
51. Baker 21,138 18,839 549 38 7
52. Washington 20,116 12,912 904 0 0
53. Taylor 19,184 10,578 1,000 0 0
54. Madison 19,035 15,604 1,885 0 0
55. Wakulla 18,660 9,048 870 26 3
56. Holmes 17,609 6,043 125 0 0
57. Gulf 14,103 18,803 3,793 698 18
58. Jefferson 13,988 9,753 970 97 10
59. Hamilton 13,708 6.298 767 0 0
60. Union 13.103 11,379 947 180 19
61. Dixie 13,039 9,924 879 0 0
62. Calhoun 12.876 8.063 479 350 73
63. Gilchrist 12,531 6,729 272 61 22
64 Franklin 10,497 13,344 3,221 175 5
65. Glades 9,648 6,933 475 19 4
66. Liberty 7,694 4,556 890 227 26
67. Lafayette 7,002 2,122 206 10 5
State 14,712.9221 23,776.303 1 5,492,557 2,759,694 50













C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 1998

County C & D Debris
II ______ Total IRecycle % I
1. Dade 499,985 58,800 12
2. Broward 507,271 33 0
3. Palm Beach 199,192 5,789 3
4. Hillsborough 639,370 572 0
5. Pinellas 165,457 0 0
6. Orange 763,595 89,851 12
7. Duval 477,132 48,164 10
8. Polk 224.463 54,916 24
9. Brevard 67,670 19,453 29
10. Volusia 245,450 87,126 35
11. Lee 50,875 12,500 25
12. Seminole 141,189 32,995 23
13. Pasco 199,211 0 0
14. Sarasota 130,428 50,065 38
15. Escambia 144,892 11,540 8
16. Manatee 55,670 0 0
17. Marion 55,916 0 0
18. Leon 113,699 36,936 32
19. Alachua 40,313 50 0
20. Collier 110,689 3.149 3
21. Lake 98,950 16,537 17
22. Saint Lucie 32,048 1,418 4
23. Okaloosa 111.145 1,410 1
24. Osceola 46,683 4,653 10
25. Bay 75.195 1.170 2
26. Clay 9,016 0 0
27. Charlotte 24,378 18 0
28. Hernando 57,395 2,396 4
29. Martin 44.071 7,602 17
30. Citrus 95,267 40 0
31. Saint Johns 75,600 0 0
32. Santa Rosa 99,057 0 0
33. Indian River 40,361 6,966 17
34. Monroe 4,875 0 0
35. Highlands 17,794 0 0
36. Putnam 12.086 0 0
37. Columbia 9,624 0 0
38. Nassau 7,245 0 0
39. Gadsden 578 0 0
40. Jackson 1,740 0 0
41. Sumter 11,080 0 0
42. Flagler 27,330 0 0
43. Walton 66,930 0 0
44. Okeechobec 18,085 7,863 43
45. Suwannee 2,980 0 0
46. Levy 2,442 0 0
47. Hendry 1,434 0 0
48. De Soto 1,172 0 0
49. Bradford 1,167 0 0
50. Hardee 1,451 0 0
51. Washington 768 0 0
52. Baker 734 0 0
53. Wakulla 916 0 0
54. Taylor 727 0 0
55. Madison 1,659 0 0
56. Holmes 514 0 0
57. Gulf 3,271 471 14
58. Jefferson 873 0 0
59. Hamilton 105 0 0
60. Calhoun 279 0 0
61. Union 684 0 0
62. Dixie 7,060 422 6
63. Gilchrist 289 0 0
64. Franklin 2,825 180 6
65. Glades 302 0 0
66. Liberty 586 0 0
67. Lafayette 270 0 0
State 5.851.508 563.0851 10














C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2002

2002
COUNTY Population TOTAL MSW C&D(%) RECYCLED C&D(%) C&D ONLY RECYCLED C&D PER CAPITAL


1. Dade
2. Broward
3. Palm Beach
4. Hillsborough
5. Orange
6. Pinellas
7. Duval
8. Polk
9. Brevard
10. Lee
11. Volusia
12. Seminole
13. Pasco
14. Sarasota
15. Escambia
16. Manatee
17. Collier
18. Marion
19. Leon
20. Lake
21. Alachua
22. Saint Lucie
23. Osceola
24. Okaloosa
25. Bay
26. Clay
27. Charlotte
28. Hernando
29. Saint Johns
30. Martin
31. Santa Rosa
32. Citrus
33. Indian River
34. Highlands
35. Monroe
36. Putnam
37. Sumter
38. Nassau
39. Columbia
40. Flagler
41. Jackson
42. Gadsden
43. Walton
44. Okeechobee
45. Hendry
46. Levy
47. Suwannee
48. De Soto
49. Hardee
50. Bradford
51. Wakulla
52. Baker
53. Washington
54. Taylor
55. Madison
56. Holmes
57. Gulf
58. Gilchrist
59. Dixie
60. Hamilton
61. Union
62. Jefferson
63. Calhoun
64. Glades
65. Franklin
66. Lafayette
67. Liberty


624692


56222


2,312,478
1,669,153
1,183,197
1,055,617
955,865
933,994
809,394
502,385
494,102
475 071
439,737
387.626
361,468
339,684
299,485
277,362
277,286
271.096
/.W.1 149
231 072
22.,607
203,360
193,35i
176.97 1
I I Rt1;
149,904
148,521
136,484
133,953
131.051

123 006
118 .149
83 018
81,140
71,329
61,348
61,094
58,372
56.785
47,707
45.911
45,521
36 551
36,1 '
36,013
35,727
32.798
/ ?.',a 4
26.517
24,217
22,992
21,649
19,800
18,932
18,708
15,202
15,023
14,L',9
13.923
I 3, ,"-
13261
13,231
10 % C,(,4
10,161
7 205
7,157


TOTAL FLORIDA 16,674,44011 31,017,3811 7514548 1676444 139.68
1 I 124% 22% 2.08


'" "


4,164,611
3,201,003
2,269,222
1,805,823
2,132,094
2,413,242
1,587,438
931,575
1,035,189
1,116,660
1,027,992
472,362
592,472
636,109
422,405
567,156
627,394
312,421
551,061
239,155
248,115
328,869
272,291
386,740
288,580
143,686
154,654
220,951
251,822
195,525
357,793
230,183
374,731
108,924
182,081
83,795
52,916
102,563
73,348
124,618
35,743
34,783
103,837
48,432
51,498
42,670
128,998
32,343
23,333
22,709
9,977
19,272
12,487
21,290
19,196
6,539
26,231
8,903
14,558
4,946
12,701
10,344
6,567
7,353
16,469
3,788
4,846


22 21 704221 147886 2.31
12 30 272307 81692 1.26
8 0 144466 0 0.75
38 14 810196 113427 4.64
32 55 772237 424731 4.53
21 35 333362 116677 2.26
11 0 102473 0 1.12
10 4 103519 4141 1.15
26 23 290332 66776 3.35
57 54 585955 316416 6.98
15 5 70854 3543 1.00
39 43 231064 99358 3.50
25 3 159027 4771 2.57
19 4 80257 3210 1.47
22 48 124774 59892 2.46
33 34 207040 70394 4.09
14 0 43739 0 0.88
39 29 214914 62325 4.75
50 2 119578 2392 2.84
27 0 66991 0 1.61
22 21 72351 15194 1.95
30 0 81687 0 2.31
53 1 204972 2050 6.35
55 1 158719 1587 5.71
22 1 31611 316 1.16
36 1 55675 557 2.05
33 1 72914 729 2.93
34 1 85619 856 3.50
30 0 58658 0 2.45
35 2 125228 2505 5.49
35 0 80564 0 3.59
19 12 71199 8544 3.30
16 0 17428 0 1.07
10 10 18208 1821 1.23
21 2 17597 352 1.35
31 1 16404 164 1.47
43 0 44102 0 3.96
13 0 9535 0 0.90
65 8 81002 6480 7.82
2 0 715 0 0.08
0 0 0 0 0.00
66 0 68532 0 8.25
20 0 9686 0 1.45
17 0 8755 0 1.33
20 0 8534 0 1.30
13 0 16770 0 2.57
11 0 3558 0 0.59
16 0 3733 0 0.75
11 0 2498 0 0.52
24 0 2394 0 0.54
7 0 1349 0 0.32
27 0 3371 0 0.85
0 0 0 0 0.00
14 0 2687 0 0.78
35 10 2289 229 0.67
14 25 3672 918 1.32
4 0 356 0 0.13
20 10 2912 291 1.10
0 0 0 0 0.00
7 889a 0 0.35
18 0 1862 0 0.77
1 0 66 0 0.03
9 0 662 0 0.34
23 0 3788 0 2.04
0 0 0 0 0.00
0 0 0 0 0.00


















COUNTY Populationi
Dade 2,379,818
Broward 1,723,131
Palm Beac 1,242,270
Hillsboroug 1,108,435
Orange 1,013,937
Pinellas 943,640
Duval 840,474
Lee 521,253
Polk 528,389
Brevard 521,422
Volusia 484,261
Pasco 389,776
Seminole 403,361
Sarasota 358,307
Collier 306,186
Marion 293,317
Manatee 295,242
Escambia 307,226
Lake 251,878
Leon 263,896
St.Lucie 226,216
Osceola 225,816
Alachua 236,174
Okaloosa 185,778
Clay 163,461
St.Johns 149,336
Bay 158,437
Charlotte 156,985
Hernando 145,207
Martin 137,637
SantaRosa 133,721
Citrus 129,110
IndianRiver 126,829
Highlands 92,057
Flagler 69,683
Sumter 66,416
Monroe 81,236
Putnam 73,226
Nassau 65,016
Columbia 60,453
Walton 50,543
Jackson 48,870
Gadsden 46,857
Levy 36,664
Hendry 37,394
Suwannee 37,713
Okeechobe 38,004
Desoto 34,105
Wakulla 25,505
Bradford 27,740
Hardee 27,787
Baker 23,963
Washington 21,940
Taylor 20,941
Madison 19,498
Holmes 19,012
Gilchrist 15,900
Gulf 16,171
Dixie 14,928
Union 14,620
Hamilton 14,303
Jefferson 13,552
Calhoun 13,610
Franklin 10,649
Glades 10,733
Lafayette 7,535
Liberty 7,354
TOTAL FLORIDA


C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2004

2004


TOTAL MSW C&D(%) RECYCLED C&D(%, C&D ONLY RECYCLED I PER CAPITI


3,887,45
3,356,63
2,093,65
2,259,64
2,142,94
1,943,41
1,764,98
1,296,74
852,29
1,234,4C
1,074,59
566,82
458,40
519,26
741,57
276,88
500,52
632,73
355,36
466,41
535,75
267,32
250,76
280,88
217,66
278,S6
272,84
241,18
251,06
259,44
418,43
250,83
430,65
125,29
120,72
72,09
189,94
88,87
63,27
72,15
90,03
58,39
41,67
26,2Z
55,17
179,45
50,92
34,41
15,63
23,7C
24,26
20,51
29,15
24,60
20,18
10,23
6,65
22,21
11,71
13,23
4,48
13,56
8,7;
22,87
9,25
3,5C
7,02
31,940,64


10


310996


18659.76


0.72


13 27 0 906290.91 0 2.88
2 25 16 523413 83746.08 2.31
*5 21 36 474525.45 170829.2 2.35
15 41 16 878607.45 140577.2 4.75
15 25 45 485853.75 218634.2 2.82
14 25 1 441246 4412.46 2.88
19 32 39 414959.68 161834.3 4.36
98 9 0 76706.82 0 0.80
*4 13 0 160472.52 0 1.69
92 53 48 569533.76 273376.2 6,44
7 43 54 243735.61 131617.2 3.43
37 17 0 77929.19 0 1.06
4 12 40 62311.68 24924.67 0.95
'4 44 0 326292.56 0 5.84
12 11 73 30457.02 22233.62 0.57
2 26 24 130135.72 31232.57 2.42
3 22 0 139201.26 0 2.48
5 52 0 184789.8 0 4.02
.6 28 45 130596.48 58768.42 2.71
7 43 16 230375.51 36860.08 5.58
9 20 0 53465.8 0 1.30
.8 14 4 35107.52 1404.301 0.81
*1 30 4 84264.3 3370.572 2.49
12 20 0 43532.4 0 1.46
a3 42 0 116996.46 0 4.29
17 24 0 65483.28 0 2.26
15 7 0 16882.95 0 0.59
17 36 0 90384.12 0 3.41
12 29 70 75238.18 52666.73 3.00
'0 55 0 230136.5 0 9.43
16 37 3 92809.32 2784.28 3.94
2 34 9 146421.68 13177.95 6.33
91 19 72 23805.29 17139.81 1.42
8 27 0 32596,56 0 2.56
94 50 0 36047 0 2.97
17 37 1 70280.39 702.8039 4.74
72 15 0 13330.8 0 1.00
78 14 0 8858.92 0 0.75
1 8 0 5772.08 0 0.52
)2 43 0 38713.76 0 4.20
*6 3 69 1751.88 1208.797 0.20
0 2 0 833.4 0 0.10
17 21 0 5511.87 0 0.82
70 1 0 551.7 0 0.08
6 1 0 1794.56 0 0.26
2 6 0 3055.32 0 0.44
L2 12 0 4129.44 0 0.66
*1 25 0 3907.75 0 0.84
*0 6 0 1427.4 0 0.28
19 7 0 1698.83 0 0.34
80 4 0 823.2 0 0.19
50 27 9 7870.5 708.345 1.97
*9 0 0 0 0 0.00
84 13 0 2623.92 0 0.74
13 23 0 2353.59 0 0.68
09 4 0 264.36 0 0.09
16 22 0 4899.52 0 1.66
L3 13 0 1522.69 0 0.56
15 3 0 397.05 0 0.15
80 8 0 358.4 0 0.14
8 9 0 1221.12 0 0.49
76 21 88 1842.96 1621.805 0,74
'7 22 0 5032.94 0 2.59
56 8 0 740.48 0 0.38
;7 16 0 569.12 0 0.41
23 11 0 772.53 0 0.58


18


8134511


1472491


133.88


I I 25% 18% 2.00














C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2005
2005

COUNTY Population TOTAL MSW C&D(%) RECYCLED I C&D ONLY RECYCLED PER CAPITAL PER
Dade 2,422,075 4,361,373 17 9 741433 66729 1.7
Broward 1,740.987 3 530,396 33 23 1161531 330929 3.7
Palm Beac 1.2e ,900, 2.041.074 31) 12 612322 731479 2.7
Hillsboroug 1.131 546 2,299.744 24 30 531940 165552 2 7
Orange 1,043,437 2,490,125 33 19 821741 156131 4.3
Pinellas 947,744 2,051,945 30 40 615584 246233 3.6
Duval 861.150 2,165 911 47 12 1017979 122157 6.5
Lee 549,442 1 330,586 32 41 423588 174573 4 2
Polk 541,840 968,005 12 0 116161 0 1.2
Brevard 531,970 1 603,653 22 50 335204 176402 3.6
Volusia 494.6A9 927,898 44 35 408275 142896 4.5
Pasco 405.892 617 340 18 45 338347 164240 4 8
Seminole 411,744 588,140 34 45 199968 89985 2.7
Sarasota 367,867 621,862 25 2 155466 3109 2.3
Collier 317,788 727,269 34 34 247271 84072 4.3
Marion 304,926 434,409 42 5 182452 9123 3.3
Manatee 304,364 450,089 26 33 117023 38618 2.1
Escambia 303,623 1.013,897 55 9 557643 50188 10.1
Lake 263.017 385 5.1 .2 1 612612 1619 3.3
Leon 271,111 476 532 31 37 147.72 54658 3 1
St.Lucle 240,039 640,307 48 50 307347 153674 7.0
Osceola 235,156 461,529 52 10 239995 24000 5.5
Alachua 240,764 235,350 12 4 28242 i130 0.7
Okaloosa 188,939 564,264 63 6 355486 21329 10.3
Clay 169,623 202,689 29 0 58780 0 1.9
St.Johns 157,278 294 265 42 0 173591 0 4.2
Bay 161,721 457,625 53 0 22-41 0 8.4
Charlotte 154,030 429,057 34 8 145879 11670 5.2
Hernando 150,784 256,532 36 1 92352 924 3.4
Martin 141,059 440,609 25 41 110152 45162 4.3
SantaRosa 136,443 754,919 72 10 543542 54354 21.8
Citrus 132,635 242,190 32 2 77501 1550 3.2
IndlanRiver 130,043 409,581 38 42 155641 65369 6.6
Highlands 93,456 125,367 9 71 11283 8011 0.7
Flagler 76,617 171 363 61 40 103 31 41613 7.0
Sumter 74.05 63.849 41 9 26172 2356 1 8
Monroe 82,413 224,939 29 8 65232 5219 4.8
Putnam 73.764 E2,796 24 0 15071 0 1.1
Nassau 6.,759 136.9.10 85 1 116399 .1656 9.7
Columbia 61 41,6 72.883 9 0 6559 0 0 6
Walton 53,525 272,787 82 0 223685 0 22.9
Jackson 49.691 01,736 5 91 3087 2809 0.3
Gadsden 47, 713 50.992 2 0 1020 0 0.1
Levy 3; 985 30.156 2 2 2413 48 0 3
Hendry 38,376 68,410 14 2 9577 192 1.4
Suwannee 35.174 192 018 "1 I 78727 11."
Okeechobe ?7,-F5 54.984 E 0 3299 0 0.5
Desoto 32 506 41.429 12 0 4971 0 08
Wakulla 27,333 13,353 37 0 4941 0 1.0
Bradford 28,118 25,571 10 0 2557 0 0.5
Hardee 26,867 35,246 27 0 9516 0 1.9
Baker 23,953 23,224 13 0 3019 0 0,7
Washington 23,097 30,921 28 4 8658 346 2.1
Taylor 21.310 21,932 6 0 1319 0 0.3
Madison 1 9,696 17.523 21 0 3F80 0 1.0
Holmes 19 157 10 456 5 32 523 167 0 1
Gilchrist 16,221 6,284 4 0 251 0 0.1
Gulf 16,479 25,201 22 4 5544 222 1.9
Dixie 15, 377 15,764 26 0 4099 0 1.5
Union 15,046 12,721 3 0 382 0 0.1
Hamilton 14,315 5,786 5 0 289 0 0.1
Jefferson 14,.233 15,671 10 0 15C7 0 0.i
Calhoun 13,945 18.159 13 0 23r"2 0 0.9
Franklin 10 845 31.146 25 0 77?7 0 3 9
Glades 10,729 11,316 19 0 2150 0 1.1
Lafayette 7,971 4,155 30 0 1247 0 0.9
Liberty 7 ;61 4,707 16 0 753 0 0.5
TOTAL FLORIDA 34,705,942 12187107 2596223 240
35 21 3.6














C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2006

2006

Population TOTAL MSW C&D(%) RECYCLED C&D ONLY RECYCLED C&D PER CAPITAL
COUNTY C&D(%) PER DAY C&D
Dade 2,437,022 4,878,337 13 13 634184 82444 1.4
Broward 1,753,162 3,583,264 35 11 1254142 137956 3.9
Palm Beac 1,287,987 2 0:9 154 35 3 710309 21309 3.0
Hillsboroug 1,164,425 2 2A9 I 52 22 39 503610 193-0E 2.4
Orange 1,079,524 2 313 3;3 26 24 601465 141352 3.1
Pinellas 948,102 2 01 2 71 23 49 463052 2'9, qi. 2.7
Duval 879,235 1.585.633 26 0 412265 0 2.6
Lee 585,608 1 396 206 32 39 478786 1E5727 4.5
Polk 565,049 941. 398 12 1 113028 1130 1.1
Brevard 543,050 1,.105 i.10 31 19 435675 -277, 4.4
Volusia 503,844 730.100 33 25 240933 Q0273 2.6
Pasco 424,355 ~ ,,' l 413 38 256960 9 l.4' 3.3
Seminole 420,667 *,-1 319 15 14 86084 12052 1.1
Sarasota 379,386 470,154 1, 11 173957 'I I ". 2.5
Collier 326,658 939,962 51 24 479381 115051 8.0
Marion 315,074 l4', 3 1I,- 5 224772 1I 1 3.9
Manatee 308,325 604,623 12 38 108832 41356 1.9
Escambia 309,647 727.960 30 0 218388 0 3.9
Lake 276,783 393,669 33 6 129911 7795 2.6
Leon 272,497 4 0.377 4 29 238261 59096 4.8
St.Lucie 259,315 473 92 48 6 227324 ;!36 4.8
Osceola 255,903 495.61 42 2 208220 4164 4.5
Alachua 243,779 2- 61'54 25 0 71154 0 1.6
Okaloosa 192,672 336,020 40 1 134408 1344 3.8
Clay 176,901 204,912 16 0 32786 0 1.0
St.Johns 165,291 .i '-.SO 45 0 170483 0 5.6
Bay 165,515 4.1 -32 55 1 254004 2540 8.4
Charlotte 160,315 34S" ,11 22 7 74952 i;4. 2.6
Hernando 157,006 250 '3AR 34 2 85336 17i07 3.0
Martin 142,645 25EO. 0 18 0 50455 0 1.9
SantaRosa 141,428 25 3.47 47 0 139095 0 5.4
Citrus 136,749 17I.71! 35 7 60801 4256 2.4
IndianRiver 135,262 372,437 40 27 148975 40223 6.0
Highlands 96,672 140,138 15 0 22422 0 1.3
Flagler 89,075 184,687 57 40 105272 4210 6.5
Sumter 82,599 107.0.40 53 1 56731 557 3.8
Monroe 80,510 212.545 28 8 59513 4761 4.1
Putnam 74,416 59 a.ji 8 0 4788 0 0.4
Nassau 68,188 11.5. 1hQ 16 35 26512 9279 2.1
Columbia 63,538 69,081 10 0 6908 0 0.6
Walton 55,786 139,641 74 0 103334 0 10.1
Jackson 50,246 58,614 6 0 3517 0 0.4
Gadsden 48,195 63,586 1 0 636 0 0.1
Levy 38,981 27,.'B, 8 0 2199 0 0.3
Hendry 38,678 77,231 8 2 6178 124 0.9
Suwannee 38,799 205,459 26 0 53419 0 7.6
Okeechobe 38,666 82,178 37 0 30406 0 4.3
Desoto 33,164 38,307 12 0 4597 0 0.8
Wakulla 28,393 20,705 41 0 8489 0 1.6
Bradford 28,551 241 71 3 3 1224 37 0.2
Hardee 27,186 26.212 18 0 4724 0 1.0
Baker 25,004 18 ?92 5 22 949 209 0.2
Washington 23,073 43 35! 1 0 434 0 0.1
Taylor 21,471 2 ', I. 6 0 1402 0 0.4
Madison 19,814 1: 311 1 0 123 0 0.0
Holmes 19,502 i..-40 5 0 482 0 0.1
Gilchrist 16,703 6.061 10 0 606 0 0.2
Gulf 16,509 24 317 26 0 6322 0 2.1
Dixie 15,677 I0 L51 39 0 4154 0 1.5
Union 15,028 1 OJ,09 4 0 522 0 0.2
Hamilton 14,517 6,214 2 0 124 0 0.0
Jefferson 14,353 14,761 8 0 1181 0 0.5
Calhoun 14,113 9,915 24 91 2380 2165 0.9
Franklin 11,916 19,253 26 0 5006 0 2.3
Glades 10,796 17 5 ; 13 0 2284 0 1.2
Lafayette 8,060 4.,99 13 0 598 0 0.4
Liberty 7,772 3,223 20 0 645 0 0.5
TOTAL FLORIDA 34,705,942 9950065 1645972 171
29 17 2.6














C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2007

2007
RECYCLED PER CAPITAL PER
COUNTY Population TOTAL MSW C&D(%) C&KD() C&D ONLY RECYCLED C&D DAY CAD

Dade 2.462 292 4,390,224 10 9 439022 39512 0.98
Broward 1 75S 707 3,330,679 31 25 1032510 258128 3.20
Palm Beac 1,295,033 2,057,107 33 25 G7A dl 169711 2.J7
Hillsboroug 1 1l2 aE 1 2,032,875 1. 39 243945 95139 1.12
Orange 3.105 Ci L 2,472,719 2 49 791?761 387722 3.92
Pinellas 944,199 1,546,811 5 24 77_4] 18562 0.45
Duval ?97 597 1,809,774 37 24 669616 160708 4.09
Lee 615.741 1,228,905 29 36 356382 128298 3.17
Polk 5 31 0i 973,705 11 3 107108 3213 1.01
Brevard 552,109 1,261,464 26 27 327981 88555 3.26
Volusia 50e Ol 816,749 .17 31 ?8 e 72 119000 4.14
Pasco J14.J25 768,366 40 57 307346 175187 3.88
Seminole 4:- il-9 609,385 23 87 1I._.159' 121938 1.80
Sarasota ?37.J61 605,524 27 89 11: i31 145507 2.31
Collier ?>? 9,? 548,156 1 5 290523 14526 4 ,
Marion 325,023 392,130 38 0 149009 0 2.51
Manatee 315,890 559,122 1 / 44 0-, I 41822 1.65
Escambia 311,775 536,681 20 4 1071 h'74293 1.89
Lake 286,499 330,194 2. 2 -' --L 1717 1.64
Leon 272,896 425,549 42 46 178731 82216 3.59
St.Lucie 271,961 461,404 28 34 129193 43926 2.60
Osceola 266,123 325,092 15 13 48764 6339 1.00
Alachua 247 561 412,260 3, 37 148414 54913 3.28
Okaloosa 196,540 338,481 26 0 88005 0 2.45
Clay 184,644 213,245 21 0 449JJ 0 1.33
St.Johns 173,935 214,615 21 0 45069 0 1.42
Bay ]G7 651 437,653 4i 1 188191 1882 .13.
Charlotte 614 58J 221,162 9 96 13905 19108 0.6.'
Hemando G1? !93 224,839 2'; 2 1, 210 1124 1.90
Martin 14.'.77 251,075 2 0 65280 0 2.49
SantaRosa 142,144 212,081 10 0 21208 0 0.82
Citrus 140,124 215,132 33 70994 4970 2.78
IndianRiver I 9 737 360,778 22 23 79i7] 18255 3.11
Highlands 98 727 136,160 12 0 16339 0 0.91
Flagler 9. ;i39 113,342 30 21 34003 7141 1.99
Sumter 8? 7?l 62,285 51 2 17]65 635 1.94
Monroe ? 9 j 146,965 '31 10 :20 4 2204 I ?
Putnam ?J 73) 99,199 3 0 12896 0 '. 4
Nassau *....u' 114,677 t i 10 57339 5734 4.52
Columbia *:.5 ?2 75,322 27 0 20337 0 1.70
Walton .'i, 136,882 __ 0 '**,','0 9.46
Jackson .i- 1 41,292 11 0 4542 0 0.49
Gadsden 41 67,079 1 0 671 0 l.:
Levy 4ij A'44 29,786 8 12 2383 286 i.
Hendry 1.1,lI 64,710 9 1 i-, 4 58 n 1-i
Suwannee -0n 219,841 16 0 35175 0 -1.?7
Okeechobe 0?0 70,090 26 0 18223 0 2.56
Desoto 31 9 1 38,433 29 0 10761 0 1.74
Wakulla 29 .1] 13,718 31 0 4253 0 .
Bradford 2' 055 29,380 4 9 1175 106 0.22
Hardee 27 320 22,675 13 0 2948 0 0.59
Baker 25 623 28,150 3 35 845 296 0.18
Washington 23 719 45,913 1 0 4J9 0 0.11
Taylor 22 J56 24,346 6 0 1461 0 0.36
Madison 19944- 15,002 0 0 0.00
Holmes 1:-464 20,379 5 0 1019 0 0.29
Gilchrist 17 10i 7,070 8 0 566 0 0.18
Gulf 16,815 22,755 27 0 6144 0 2.00
Dixie 15,808 10,783 29 0 3127 0 1.08
Union 15722 13,855 O0 0 0.00
Hamilton 11 7'0 7,137 9 0 '42 0 14
Jefferson 1J 4 4 12,351 5 0 618 0 0.23
Calhoun i1 4, 1 10,282 24 0 24,8 0 0.93
Franklin 12,249 18,854 26 0 4 ?i2 0 2.19
Glades 1 iF ', 14,513 4 9 581 52 0.29
Lafayette 8,215 4,916 6 0 295 0 0.20
Liberty 7 :.? 5,096 14 0 713 0 0.50
TOTAL FLORIDA 32,327,174 948 8033844 2222785 1.' 4F?6124
14.14925 25% 28% 1.89


100









LIST OF REFERENCES


Campman, C. (2001). Northeast tipping fee." Federation of New York Solid Waste
Associations, New York. http://www.nyfederation.org/PDF/NETippingfee.pdf. Last
accessed December 10, 2009

Cochran, K.,Townsend, T., Reinhart D., and Heck, H. (2007). "Estimation of regional
building-related C&D debris generation and composition: Case study for Florida,
US"

Cochran, K., (2001). "Estimation of the Generation and Composition of Construction
and Demolition Debris in Florida." Master of engineering thesis, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Construction Material Recycling Association (2003). Market for Recycled Gypsum
Drywall. http://www.drywallrecycling.org/markets.html. Last accessed May 11,
2010

Construction Material Recycling Association (2003). Market for Recycled Concrete.
http://www.concreterecycling.org/markets.html. Last accessed May 13, 2010

Construction Material Recycling Association (2003). Market for Asphalt Shingles.
http://www.shinglerecycling.org/content/markets-recycling-asphalt-shingles. Last
accessed May 15, 2010

Department of Environmental Protection Solid Waste Section (1998). "Guidelines For
The Management Of Recovered Screen Material From C&D Debris Recycling
Facilities In Florida"

Donovan Associates Inc. (1992). Recycling Construction and Demolition Debris In
Rhode Island

Franklin Associates Prairie Village, KS. (1998). "Characterization of Building-Related
Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States." Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division,
Office of Solid Waste, Contract No. 68W02-036.
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/02/01095.pdf. Last accessed September 11, 2009

Franklin Associates Prairie Village, KS. (2003), "Estimating 2003 building-related
construction and demolition materials amounts." Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division

Peng, Chun-Li, Scorpio, Domenic E. and Kibert, C. J. (1997). "Strategies for successful
construction and demolition waste recycling operations." Construction
Management and Economics, 15: 1, 49 58


101









Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2001). 1999 Annual Report for
a Construction and Demolition Debris Facility: Florida, Tallahassee, FL. Compiled
by Jennifer Caldwell-Kurka

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (1997). 1996 Solid Waste Management
Annual Report

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (1998). 1997 Solid Waste Management
Annual Report

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (1999). 1998 Solid Waste Management
Annual Report

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2000). 1999 Solid Waste Management
Annual Report

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2001). 2000 Solid Waste Management
Annual Report

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2002). 2001 Solid Waste Management
Annual Report

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2005). 2004 Solid Waste Management
Annual Report

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2006). 2005 Solid Waste Management
Annual Report

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2007). 2006 Solid Waste Management
Annual Report

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2008). 2007 Solid Waste Management
Annual Report

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009). 2008 Solid Waste Management
Annual Report

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2010). 75% Recycling Goal Report to
legislature

Hiers, F., (2010), "Waste experts doubt counties can meet recycling target of 75
percent", The Gainesville Sun, Gainesville.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100112/articles/ 121011?p=1&tc=pg. Last
accessed January 14, 2010

Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC. (2008), "Evaluation of Franchise
Agreements and Impacts to Construction and Demolition Debris Management",
Gainesville FL, Prepared for Southern Waste Systems, LLC


102









Kessler Consulting Inc. (2004). "Waste Reduction and Recycling Guide for Florida
Correctional Facilities." Prepared for Kessler Consulting Inc. and Solid Waste
Authority of Palm Beach County.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quicktopics/publications/shw/recycling/Innovative
Grants/IGyear4/finalprisonguide-72ppi.pdf. Last accessed January 10, 2010

Muller, R. (2003). "The Capitol Area East End Office Complex: A Case for Construction
and Demolition Waste Diversion." California Integrated Waste Management Board.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/GreenBuilding/43303023.pdf. Last
accessed December 15, 2009

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (2008). "2007 Massachusetts
construction and demolition debris industry study."
http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/reduce/07cdstdy.pdf. Last accessed November
25,2009

Reinhart, D., Townsend, T., and Heck, H. (2003), "Generation and Composition of
Construction and Demolition Waste in Florida", Affiliated by University of Central
Florida, University of Florida, Florida Institute of Technology

Sim R. (2008). "Detailed investigation into existing and potential markets for recycled
construction and demolition materials."
http://www.zerowastewa.com.au/documents/investigation_marketsforrecycled_c
nd_materials.pdf. Last accessed Feb 1, 2010

Schlauder, R.M., and Brickner. R.H. (1993). Setting Up for Recovery of Construction
and Demolition Waste. Solid Waste & Power Magazine

Sander K. (2003) "Analyzing what's recyclable in C&D", Bio-cycle 51-54

Townsend' T & Kibert C. (1998)"The management and environmental impacts of
construction and demolition waste in Florida", Gainesville

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009). Estimating 2003 Building-Related
Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts Protection Agency, Municipal and
Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste.
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/rrr/imr/cdm/pubs/cd-meas.pdf. Last accessed
September 29, 2009

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste (1995). "Construction and
demolition waste landfills."
http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/generation/sqg/const/cdrpt.pdf. Last accessed
November 15, 2009


103









U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste (2008). "Materials
Characterization Paper In Support of the Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Identification of Nonhazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste
Construction and Demolition Materials Building-Related C&D Materials."
http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/pdfs/cdbldclean.pdf. Last accessed September
6, 2009


104









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Nippun Goyal was born in New Delhi, India in 1986 to Sandeep Goyal and

Pratibha Goyal. Upon graduating high school in 2004, Nippun decided to go for an

engineering degree from University of Mumbai majoring in electronics and

telecommunication. Nippun was always fascinated with the construction industry

watching documentaries on Discovery and NatGeo. Finally after completing engineering

degree he decided to direct his carrier toward his more passionate field of construction

and get a master in Building Construction. Once started with the construction degree

Nippun was directly interested in taking sustainability track, which was the bright future

where world was moving into. It was after working for his professor at the M.E. Rinker,

Sr. School of Building Construction on a recycling project, Nippun developed an interest

towards recycling. The state of Florida passing a 75% goal in 2008 was a fantastic

platform for Nippun to write his thesis.


105





PAGE 1

1 PROPOSING AN INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO SUPPORT FLORIDA'S REQUIRED RECYCLING RATE By NIPPUN GOYAL A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILL MENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Nippun Goyal

PAGE 3

3 To my family and my professors who supported me throughout my work

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS I would like to thank my committee members Dr. James Sullivan, Dr. Abdol Chini and Dr. Robert Rie s. My committee has a great influence on m y education as well as my dissertation The M.E. Rinker Sr. Scho ol of Building Construction has impacted my lif e and given me the outstanding kn owledge to become a valuable member of the construction industry. I would also like to thank Mr. Thomas Coraggio and Mr. Ernie Windso r from Watson Construction for proving information on working of their company and helping me complete this research. I thank my parents for supporting me em otionally and financially through my career.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 L IST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 12 ABST RACT ................................................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 15 Background of the Problem .................................................................................... 15 P urpose of Study .................................................................................................... 15 Scopes and Limitation of Study .............................................................................. 16 Organization of Study ............................................................................................. 17 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................... 18 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 18 Definition Of Construction And Demolition Waste ................................................... 19 Florida State Definition ..................................................................................... 19 Sources of Construction and Demolition Waste ............................................... 20 Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials (RC&D) ................................ 22 Methods Of Handling Site Generated C&D Waste ................................................. 22 C&D Debris Recovery Facilities ....................................................................... 22 Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal and Recycling Facilities (CDDRF) ................................................................................................. 23 Material Recovery Facility (MRF) ............................................................... 23 Transfer Stations ........................................................................................ 23 Land Clearing Facilities (LCF) .................................................................... 24 Non Permitted Concr ete and Asphalt Facilities .......................................... 24 Class III Landfills ........................................................................................ 24 Construction and Demolition Recycling (CDR) Sites ................................. 25 Recovered Materials Processing Facility ................................................... 25 C&D Waste Handling Process ................................................................................ 25 C&D Waste Pro cess ......................................................................................... 25 Equipments Used to Recycle C&D Waste ........................................................ 26 Jaw Crusher ............................................................................................... 26 I mpact Crusher .......................................................................................... 28 Cone Crusher ............................................................................................. 28 Conveyor System ....................................................................................... 28

PAGE 6

6 Grinder ....................................................................................................... 29 Landfill Compactor ..................................................................................... 29 Shredder .................................................................................................... 29 Other Screening/Separating Equi pments ................................................... 29 Methods Of Calculating C&D Waste ....................................................................... 30 Franklin & Associate ......................................................................................... 30 Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management .......................... 31 Composition of C&D Waste .................................................................................... 32 Composition Of C&D Waste In Florida ............................................................. 32 Composition of Recovered C&D Waste ............................................................ 32 Market for Recycled Products ................................................................................. 33 Market for Recycled Concrete .......................................................................... 33 Market for Recycled Drywall ............................................................................. 34 Market for Recycled Asphalt ............................................................................. 35 Analysis of Existing Data ........................................................................................ 35 Factors Affecting C&D Waste ................................................................................. 40 Factors Affecting C&D Waste Generation ........................................................ 40 Volume of Construction .............................................................................. 40 Demographic Factor .................................................................................. 41 Ec onomic Factor ........................................................................................ 41 Factors Affecting C&D Recycling ..................................................................... 41 Markets for Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials (RC&D) ...... 41 Tipping Fee ................................................................................................ 43 Site and Site Location ................................................................................ 45 C&D Regulatory Background and Past Goals ........................................................ 45 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 46 Overview ................................................................................................................. 46 Design Of Th e Survey ............................................................................................. 47 Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 49 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 50 4 SURVEY ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ..................................................................... 51 Categorization of Responses by Agency Type ....................................................... 51 Distribution of Responses in Florida Counties ........................................................ 52 Awareness About the Recycling Goal ..................................................................... 52 C&D Waste Currently Recycled .............................................................................. 54 Materials Hard t o Recycle ....................................................................................... 56 Reason for Low Recycling Rate .............................................................................. 56 Brick ................................................................................................................. 57 Roofing M aterial ............................................................................................... 58 Concrete ........................................................................................................... 60 Carpet ............................................................................................................... 60 Cardboard ........................................................................................................ 60 Wood ................................................................................................................ 62

PAGE 7

7 Drywall .............................................................................................................. 62 Reasons for Variation in Recycling Rates ............................................................... 62 Effect of Current Recession .................................................................................... 64 How to Reach 75 % Goal ........................................................................................ 66 Achievable Goal ...................................................................................................... 67 Part 1: Where to set the target ......................................................................... 67 Part 2: Investment required for reaching target ................................................ 68 Part 3: Equipments required ............................................................................ 69 5 C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................ 70 Four Step Process .................................................................................................. 70 Awareness ........................................................................................................ 70 Preparation ....................................................................................................... 71 Implementation ................................................................................................. 71 Follow up .......................................................................................................... 71 Waste Management Practices ................................................................................ 72 Creating Local Market for Reusable Material ................................................... 72 Increase Tipping Fee ........................................................................................ 73 Improve Sorting Process .................................................................................. 73 Special Groups or Organizations ...................................................................... 74 Recognizing and Funding Future Investments ................................................. 74 Incentive from the State ................................................................................... 74 Mandatory Lined C&D Facilities ....................................................................... 75 Improve Drywall Recycling ............................................................................... 75 A Business Model Approach ................................................................................... 76 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 82 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 82 Recommendations for Future Studies ..................................................................... 83 APPENDIX A SURVEY FORM ..................................................................................................... 84 List Of Survey Takers ............................................................................................. 89 B WATSON C&D WASTE FACILITY INTERVIEW .................................................... 90 C EXISTING DATA .................................................................................................... 92 Annual Data Reporting Form For C&D Facilities .................................................... 92 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 1996 ................................................. 93 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 1997 ................................................. 94 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 1998 ................................................. 95 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2002 ................................................. 96 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2004 ................................................. 97

PAGE 8

8 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2005 ................................................. 98 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2006 ................................................. 99 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2007 ............................................... 100 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 105

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 What Count and does not Count as MSW C&D Waste (Source: FDEP) ............ 20 2 2 Number of C&D Waste Facilities in Florida ........................................................ 22 2 3 C&D Waste Equipments ..................................................................................... 26 2 4 Estimated C&D Waste, in Tons, generated in Florida (2001) ............................. 31 2 5 Composition of C&D Waste in Florida (2001) ..................................................... 32 2 6 C&D Waste Generated in Florida (in Tons) ........................................................ 36 2 7 C&D Recycling Rate for selected counties ......................................................... 37 2 8 Composition of C&D Waste in Florida ................................................................ 42 4 1 Distribution of Responses in Florida Counties .................................................... 53 4 2 Goal Awareness ................................................................................................. 53 4 3 C&D Currently Recycled ..................................................................................... 54 4 4 C&D Recycled by County ................................................................................... 55 4 5 Materials Hard to Recycle .................................................................................. 56 4 6 Reasons for low Recycling ................................................................................. 58 4 7 Reasons for Variation in Recycling Rate ............................................................ 63 4 8 Effect of Current Recession on Recycling Rates ................................................ 64 4 9 How to Reach 75% Goal .................................................................................... 66 4 10 Achievable Goal ................................................................................................. 67 4 11 Investment Required for Reaching Goal ............................................................. 69 4 12 Equipment Required for Reaching Goal ............................................................. 69 5 1 Watson Construction Business Model ................................................................ 79 5 2 Watson Construction Business Operating Model ............................................... 81

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Composition of MSW Waste, in Tons, in Florida, 2007 (Source: FDEP) ............ 18 2 2 C&D Waste Recycling Process Flow Cycle (Source: Construction Ma nagement and Economics, 1997) .................................................................. 27 2 3 Composition of C&D Waste in Florida (Source: FDEP 1998) ............................. 33 2 4 Market for Recycled Concrete (Source: Generated from CMRA) ....................... 33 2 5 Market for Recycled Drywall (Source: Generated from CMRA) .......................... 34 2 6 Market for Recycled Asphalt Shingles (Source: Generated from CMRA) ........... 35 2 7 C&D Waste Generation and Recycling in Florida (Generated from FDEP co llected data) .................................................................................................... 37 2 8 Recycling Rate for Dade County ........................................................................ 38 2 9 Recycling Rate for Broward County .................................................................... 39 2 10 Recycling Rate for Palm Beach County .............................................................. 40 2 11 Recycling Rate for Hillsborough County ............................................................. 40 2 12 Ti pping Fee ($/Tons) vs. Recycling Rates (Source: Matthew V. Brooks) ........... 43 2 13 Florida Class I MSW Tipping Fees 1998 (Source: FDEP) .................................. 44 4 1 Categorization of Survey Response ................................................................... 52 4 2 Goal Awareness ................................................................................................. 54 4 3 C&D Waste Recycled ......................................................................................... 55 4 4 C&D Recycled (Florida Avg. vs. Responders Avg.) ............................................ 56 4 5 Materials Hard to Recycle .................................................................................. 57 4 6 Reasons for Low Recycling of Brick ................................................................... 58 4 7 Reason for Low Recycling of Roofing Materials ................................................. 59 4 8 Reason for Low Recycling of Asphalt ................................................................. 59 4 9 Reason for Low Recycling of Concrete .............................................................. 60

PAGE 11

11 4 10 Reason for low Recycling of Carpet ................................................................... 61 4 11 Reason for low Recycling of Cardboard ............................................................. 61 4 12 Reason for low Recycling of Wood ..................................................................... 62 4 13 Reason for Low Recycling of Drywall ................................................................. 63 4 14 Reason for Fluctuating Data ............................................................................... 64 4 15 Effect of current recession on recycling rate ....................................................... 65 4 16 How to Reach 75% Goal .................................................................................... 67 4 17 Achievable Goal ................................................................................................. 68 5 1 C&D Waste Lifecycle ......................................................................................... 73

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene S tyrene C&D Construction and Demolition CDR Constructio n and Demolition Recycling CDDRF Constructio n and Demolition Debris Disposal and Recycling Facilities CMRA Construction Material Recycling Association DOT Department of Transportation EPA Envir onmental Protection Agency FDEP Flo rida Department of Environmental Protection HDPE High density polyethylene HMA Hot Mix Asphalt IRB Internal Research Board LCF Land Clearing Facilities MSW Municipality Solid Waste MRF Material Recovery Facility OSB Oriented Strand Board PVC Premature Ventricular Contraction RFT Recycle Flor ida Today RSA Recycled Asphalt Shingle RSM R ecovered Screened Material SFWMD South Fl orida Water Management District WTE Waste to Energy WCV W aste Collection V ehicles

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction PROPOSING AN INTEGRATED CO NSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO SUPPORT FLORIDA'S REQUIRED RECYCLING RATE By Nippun Goyal August 2010 Chair: James G Sullivan Cochair: Abdol Chini Major: Building Construction In 2008, Energy, Climate Change and Economic Security Act of 2008 was passed by the F lorida legislature under section 402.7032 that established a new statewide recycling goal of achieving 75% recycling rate of Municipalit y Solid Waste (MSW) by the year 2020. Based on thi s objective, this research focus es on th e C &D waste of overall MSW. Currently C&D waste is about 26% of total MSW in Florida, which is a significant portion of the waste. The first set of recycling goals was passed by the Legislature in 1988 that aimed at achieving 30% recycling rate for MSW To day, after more than two decades, Florida recycles j ust 28% of its overall MSW and only 27 percent of C&D waste is recycled or recovered ( County Waste R eport 2007). Hence, improving C&D recycling rate w ill be a big step to achieve 75% recycling goal. It is estimated that if C&D rec ycling rate is increasing to 75% the total MSW waste recycling rate will shoot up from 28% to 40%. This paper analyze s the amount of site generated C&D waste that is diverted to landfills and its recycling rate based on data recei ved from each landfill facilities in different counties of Florida. Then based on certain factors like population, higher

PAGE 14

14 recycling rate s, a set of counties were selected for further research. Each of these selected counties were given a survey form and based on those res ults further calculations were conducted. This report outcome focus es a C&D waste management plan that should help Florida achieve 75% recycling rate by 2020. This waste management plan focuses on the C&D waste material entering a C&D land fill. The report also introduces a business plan that estimates the cost of achieving the target goal. Keywords: 75% recycling goal, C&D waste, recycling rate, waste diversion, population, management plan, Energy Climate Change and Economic Security Act of 2008, county waste report, recycled materi al market, waste business plan

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem In the late 1980s, the S tate of Florida had set its first recycling goal that aimed at achieving a 30% recycling rate for total Municipality Solid Waste (MSW) by the end of year 1996. However in 2007, 11 years after the goal year, Florida generated 32 milliontons of MSW out of which only 8.96 milliontons (28% ) was recycled. In the same year, Florida generated 8.03 million ton s of Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste, out of which only 2.22 milliontons (27% ) was recycled. Yet in 2008 the legislatu re passed another act, Energy, Climate Change and Economic Security Act of 2008 under section 403.7032 that aims at recycling goal of 75% of total MSW waste by the end of 2020. It is therefore evident that Floridas population, as well as their elected representatives are extremely keen in recycling. However, looking at the recycling record from the past few years: we ask, whether this goal is achievable? C&D waste constitutes a m ajor portion (around 2530%) of total MSW. Hence, improving C&D r ecycling rate should help achieve overall 75% recycling goal. It is estimated that if only C&D recycling rate is increased to 75%, the total MSW recycling rate will shoot up from 28% to 40%. Purpose of Study The research outlined here involves analyzing C&D waste recycling rates in all 67 Florida counties. The research involves conducting a C&D waste survey to analyze the trends in recycling rate data. The research proposes a waste management plan to achieve the target goal for C&D waste recycling rate in the state of Florida.

PAGE 16

16 The environmental impacts from disposal of C&D waste are recognized to present lower risk to human health and the environment as compared to other MSW waste. Hence, the mainstream construction industry has been very slow to adopt any waste management plan that will hel p to improve recycling rate, as it is cheaper to just landfill the waste. I n the last few years we have realized that C&D waste disposal might not have a direct impact but it do es have an indirect impact on the environment. For example: disposal of construction material such as gypsum board into the landfill might have a lower impact on the environment but the manufacturing of new gypsum board has a large direct impact on our ecosystem. Hence, if the old gypsum board can be reused or recycled, it wil l indirectly help to protect our environment. Scopes and Limitation of Study The scope of this report includes analyzing and rec ognizing trends for recycling C&D waste in Florida. Some counties might have a better recycling rate than others in a given year but it may vary from year to year. This research focus es on counties with higher overall C&D recycling rate and their waste m anagement plan that led to improved recycling rate. On the basis of this background information and other recycling success from other regions this research proposes an integrated w aste management model that ap plies to the entire s tate of Florida to achieve 75% recycling goal for C&D waste This research also proposes a business plan that estimates the cost of achieving the target goal. The generation of C&D waste is very complex and depends on many factors. C omputing the amount o f C&D waste generat ed at a particular time and the composition that waste is very difficult. Researchers have struggled to come up with a

PAGE 17

17 perfect method that could give us an accurate result. In the past two methods have been used to compute C&D waste ge neration: C&D waste generated by volume C&D waste generated by weight In this research we will use the numbers that were computed by C&D waste generated by weight. Another limitation is the incomplete data for the amount of waste generated in each county. Organization of Study The research is outlined as follows: Chapter 1 represents the introduction, problem statement, scope and limitation of the research. Chapter 2 is the literature review which explores previous research that has been done in C&D wast e, FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) definitions for specific waste materials and facilities, methods of handling C&D waste, methods of estimating C&D waste, market for recycled products, data analysis, factors effecting C&D waste. Chapter 3 give s the methodology used for this research. Chapter 4 gives an analysis and results for the survey. Chapter 5 present s a n integrated waste management model for achieving targeted recycling rate. Chapter 6 summarizes the conclusion of this research and provides r ecommendations for further studies Additional information for a more thorough understanding and refere nce are found in the Appendix.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction Municipality Solid Waste (MSW) disposal is one of the major problems faced by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today; and Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste constitutes major portion of MSW. According to a report submitted by Franklin & Associates Characterization of BuildingRelated Construction and Demoli tion Debris in the United States it was estimated that out of 390 milliontons of MSW generated in 1996, 135 million tons (35%) was C&D waste. Data from last ten years indicate that C&D waste is between 2030 % of total MSW. In 2007, Florida generated nearly 32 million tons of MSW out of which 8.1 million tons ( 26 %) was C&D waste (Figure 2 1). Figure 2 1 Composition of MSW Waste, in T ons, in Florida, 2007 (Source: FDEP) Most of the C&D waste generated ends up in MSW landfills or incinerators, or in special C&D landfills, which causes environmental hazards. Currently, Florida has 343 active C&D debris disposal facilities and there are 32 nonpermitted construction related companies that recover concrete or asphalt (Table 21)

PAGE 19

19 Definition Of Construction And Demolition Waste C&D waste definition varies from state to state. Some states include certain materials under C&D waste whereas some states do not include those materials. Table 1 summarizes the waste materials that can be counted as C&D waste under MSW and the materials that are excluded from being considered C&D waste. This excluded part of waste can be counted out of the 75% recycling goal. Florida S t ate D efinition According to Florida Administrative Code 62701.200 defi nitions of C&D waste is: "Construction and demolition debris" means discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and nonhazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wal lboard, and lumber, from the construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation of a structure, including such debris from construction of structures at a site remote from the construction or demolition project site. The term includes rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter that normally results from land clearing or land development operations for a construction project; clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, and metal sc raps from a construction project; except as provided in Section 403.707(9)(j), F.S., yard trash and unpainted, nontreated wood scraps from sources other than construction or demolition projects; scrap from manufacturing facilities that is the type of material generally used in construction projects and that would meet the definition of construction and demolition debris if it were generated as part of a construction or demolition project, including debris from the construction of manufactured homes and scr ap shingles, wallboard, siding concrete, and similar materials from industrial or commercial facilities; and de minimis amounts of other nonhazardous wastes that are generated at construction or demolition projects, provided such amounts are consistent wi th best management practices of the construction and demolition industries. Mixing of construction and demolition debris with other types of solid waste will cause it to be classified as other than construction and demolition debris.

PAGE 20

20 Table 21 What Count and does not Count as MSW C&D Waste (Source: FDEP) WHAT COUNTS WHAT DOES NOT COUNT Concrete from residential/commercial building construction or demolition used for: Road Base Pipe Bedding Drain Fields Septic Tanks Landfill Cell Drainage & Stabilization Artificial Reefs Wood & Land Clearing Debris used for : Mulch Compost Final Cover Wood & Land Clearing Debris sent to: Processed Fuel/Biomass Facilities Stone Container, Panama City Okeelanta Sugar, South Bay Os ceola Farms Sugar, Pahokee Forestry Resources, Ft. Myers Buck Eye Cellulose, Perry Kenetech (Royal Oak Charcoal), Ocala Ridge Generating Station Concrete from: Roads Bridges Sidewalks Curbs Storm/Sewer Pipes Culverts Concrete from building cons truction or demolition used for: Lake Fill Land Fill Wood & Land Clearing Debris WTE (Waste to Energy) Fuel Daily /Intermediate Cover Intermediate Cover Landfill Roads Within A Cell Wood & Land Clearing Debris sent to: WTE Facilities Bay County Resource Recovery Broward County N. Resource Recovery Broward County S. Resource Recovery Dade County Resource Recovery Hillsborough County SWE Recovery Lake County Resource Recovery Lee County SW Resource Recovery McKay Bay Refuse to Energy Projec t Southernmost WTE Facility North County Regional Resource Recovery Pasco County SW Resource Recovery Pinellas County Resource Recovery Sources of Construction and Demolition Waste C&D debris can either be generate d from building construction or dem olition activities ; transportation related building and demolition debris; land clearing debris; and disaster debris. On the basis of source of generation of C&D waste, C&D waste can be categorized into two types: MSW C&D Debris MSW C&D debris includes co nstruction, renovation, and demolition debris from building construction only. Building and demolition debris can be further divided into residential and non residential. Residential building and

PAGE 21

21 demolition debris refers to new construction, renovation, an d demolition activities of single and multi family homes. Non MSW C&D Debris whereas, nonMSW C&D debris includes transportation related building and demolition debris (such as roadways, bridges, and other nonbuilding related C&D debris). NonMSW C&D d ebris represents, by far, the largest percentage of C&D debris generation and recovery as compared to MSW C & D debris. In this report we will consider only MSW C&D waste MSW C&D waste can be further broken down into the following: Wood Materials that are direct product or derived from wood, like dimensional lumber, cabinets, composites, mill ends, shipping skids, and crating, siding, veneer, plywood, oriented strand board and particleboard, wooden pallets and other objects constructed out of wood. Meta ls These are ferrous and nonferrous metal products including aluminum cans, ducts and siding, rebar, pipe, sheet metal, wire/cable, fasteners, metal buckets, mesh, strapping, trim, nails, mercury from electrical switches, brass, flashing and gutters. Roofing Materials Roofing materials can include any waste materials from demolition or renovation of roof like asphalt or asbestos shingles roofing compound, built up roofing, tar paper, roofing tar and roof tiles. Masonry and Rubble This category includes concrete waste products including block (whole or broken), rubble including walls, foundations, slabs, concrete pavements, mortar, plaster rock, stone, tiles and other products of similar origin. Construction Packaging Packaging waste generated in the construction, remodeling or repair of structures and related appurtenances including paper or cardboard products. Plastics P lastic wrap, mesh strapping and PVC, HDPE or ABS pipe, buckets, polyethylene sheets, sheeting or bags and laminates. Insulat ion Materials used to insulate an object or structure including boards, fiberglass insulation, asbestos and other flexible wraps. In addition, included are heating, venting or air conditioning ducts comprised of a soft fiberglass insulation tube reinforc ed by a metal or plastic coil. Earthwork Waste Products formed by earthwork that is not included in vegetative debris such as rocks, soil and dirt.

PAGE 22

22 Petroleum Products brake fluid, form oil, fuel tanks, petroleum distillates, waste oils and greases Othe r Wastes These are materials that cannot be classified in categories listed above. Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials (RC&D) Recycled construction and demolition materials are defined as products manufactured principally from Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste consisting of civil construction materials including concrete, sand, brick, rubble, rock, scrap metals, timber products and other products. (Source: EPA). According to the latest data from 2008 Florida recycles around 28% of the to tal C&D generated waste Methods Of Handling Site Generated C&D Waste Site generated C&D can be handled in the following ways: Recycle onsite Transfer to recycling plant directly from site Divert to C&D debris recovery facility for recycling or disposal Once the C&D waste is diverted from site, there are many methods by which it can be managed. It can be disposed at a landfill facility that is permitted to accept C&D waste or it is processed at a material recovery facility (MRF) or a transfer station where recyclable materials may be separated from the C&D stream. Currently, there are 343 C&D (Table 22) debris recovery facilities in Florida that include Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal and Recycling Facilities M aterial Recovery Facilities T ransfer Stations Land Clearing Facilities Construction and Demolition Recycling (CDR) Sites. C&D Debris Recovery Facilities In Florida, these facilities are defined in part 62 701, FAC as follows

PAGE 23

23 Table 2 2 Number of C&D Wast e Facilities in Florida C&D Debris Recovery Facilities No. of Facilities Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal and Recycling Facilities 91 Material recovery facilities 40 Transfer stations 105 Land Clearing Facilities 69 Construction and Dem olition Recycling Sites 4 Class III Landfills 34 TOTAL NO. OF FACILITIES IN FLORIDA 343 Construction and Demolition Debris Di sposal and Recycling Facilities (CDDRF) FDEP definition for CDDRF is a state permitted solid waste management facility that se rves as the final disposal point for C&D debris waste. CDDRF are generally not required to have a liner. CDDRF may process and recycle C&D debris; however any recovery operations occurring on site must be described in their operating permit and approved by the FDEP. There are currently 91 CDDRF operating in Florida. Material Recovery F acility (MRF) Materials recovery facility is a solid waste management facility that provides for the extraction from solid waste of recyclable materials, materials suitable for use as a fuel or soil amendment, or any combination of such materials. There are currently 40 C&D MRF operating in Florida. MRF generally have a large assortment of capital intensive processing equipment that grind, crush, shred, chip, sort, and bale C&D debris. Transfer S tation s Transfer station means a facility the primary purpose of which is to store or hold solid waste for transport to a processing or disposal facility There are currently 105

PAGE 24

24 transfer stations operating in Florida that recover s C&D w aste Transfer stations are more common in heavily populated areas that are not in close proximity to landfills. Land Clearing Facilities (LCF) "Land clearing debris" means rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter that normally result s from land clearing or land development operations for a construction project. Land clearing debris does not include vegetative matter from lawn maintenance, commercial or residential landscape maintenance, right of way or easement maintenance, farming o perations, nursery operations, or any other sources not related directly to a construction project. LCF are currently general permit sites whose primary purpose is to manage a waste stream that primarily consists of debris from the clearing of new resident ial or nonresidential construction sites. These sites may dispose of the material in unlined area or process and recycle it as approved by the FDEP. There are currently 69 LCF operating in Florida. Processing at LCF is typically limited to chipping and sc reening wood for mulch or fuel. LCF typically do not recycle significant amounts C&D debris. Non Permitted Concrete and Asphalt Facilities There are roughly 32 nonpermitted concrete and asphalt recovery sites operating in Florida. In addition, there are numerous companies that use mobile processing equipment to recover C&D directly on the construction/demolition sites. Class III Landfills Class III landfills are FDEP permitted sites that are generally not required to have a liners. They can only receive yard trash, construction and demolition debris, waste tires, asbestos, carpet, cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, furniture other than appliances,

PAGE 25

25 or other materials approved by the FDEP. There are currently 34 Class III landfills operating in Florida that recover C&D debris materials. Construction and Demolition Recycling (CDR) Sites Construction and Demolition Recycling (CDR) facilities are sites that recover materials from the C&D debris waste stream for purposes of recycling but that do not dispose of any wastes onsite. They are very similar to a transfer station and MRF, however CDRs are much smaller and do not process or transport a large amount of materials. There are currently 4 CDR facilities operating in Florida that perform some level of C&D reco very. Recovered Materials Processing Facility Recovered materials processing facility means a facility engages solely in the storage, processing, resale, or reuse of recovered materials. "Recovered screen material" means the fines fraction, consisting of s oil and other small materials, derived from the processing or recycling of construction and demolition debris which passes through a final screen size no greater than quarter of an inch. C&D Waste Handling Process C&D Waste Process After C&D waste is dive rted from site, it can be reused, recycled, composted, incinerated or land filled. Reusing is the most productive option available. Recycling is the second best and most commonly used option, in which materials are reprocessed into new products. Composting is process where organic landclearing debris is processed to produce humus for soil treatment. Incineration can extract energy from the material without generating toxic substances. The most unproductive option, landfilling, should be considered only when all other opti ons are exhausted. It is more cost -

PAGE 26

26 effective to process C&D waste for recycling and composting than for incineration and landfilling when full cost accounting is considered (Construction Management and Economics 1997). Figure 22 depicts t he C&D waste recycling process flow cycle. There are various C&D equipment that are used to convert a mixed C&D Debris received from construction sites to final recycled products. Some of the most commonly used equipments are shown in Table 23 Table 2 3 C&D Waste Equipments Material Equipments Metal Scrap handling magnet Sorting conveyor Rocks (Concrete/Asp halt) Jaw crusher Cone crusher Impact crusher Grinder Crusher Feeder Vibrating Screen for product sizing Belt conveyor Woo d Wood chipper Shredder Grinder Hammermill Drywall Drywall shredder Paper recycler Gypsum recycler Cardboard Cardboard shredder Cardboard bailer Other C&D Manual picking station Grizzly screen Disk screen Air classifier Float tank Equipments U sed to R ecycle C&D Waste Jaw Crusher Jaw Crusher is one of the primary crusher used in C&D waste recycling. The jaws are farther apart at the top than at the bottom, forming a tapered chute so that the

PAGE 27

27 Figure 2 2. C&D Waste Recycling Process Flow Cycle (Source: Construction Management and Economics, 1997)

PAGE 28

28 material is crushed progressively smaller and smaller as it travels downward until it is small enough to escape from the bottom opening. The inertia required to crush the material is provided by a weighted fl ywheel, which moves a shaft creating an eccentric motion, which causes the closing of the gap. A Jaw Crusher reduces large size rocks by placing the rock into compression. The rock remains in the jaws until it is small enough to pass through the gap at the bottom of the jaws. Impact Crusher Impact crushers involve the use of impact rather than pressure to crush material. The material is contained within a cage, with openings on the bottom, end, or side of the desired size to allow pulverized material to esc ape. Cone C rusher Cone crusher breaks rock by squeezing the rock between an eccentrically gyrating spindle, which is covered by a wear resistant mantle, and the enclosing concave hopper, covered by a manganese concave or a bowl liner. As rock enters the t op of the cone crusher, it becomes wedged and squeezed between the mantle and the bowl liner or concave. Conveyor S ystem A conveyor system is a common piece of mechanical handling equipment that moves materials from one location to another. In waste indus try conveyor system is mainly helpful in sorting of C&D waste material. A conveyor belt consists of two or more pulleys, with a continuous loop of material the conveyor belt that rotates about them. One or both of the pulleys are powered, moving the belt and the material on the belt

PAGE 29

29 forward. In certain sections a steel apron conveyor can be used instead of rubber belt conveyor because of their impact absorbing capability. Grinder Grinder is equipment, designed to break a solid material into smaller piec es. The grinding of solid matters occurs under exposure of mechanical forces that trench the structure by overcoming of the interior bonding forces. After the grinding the state of the solid is changed: the grain size, the grain size disposition and the gr ain shape. Landfill Compactor Landfill compactors are large bulldozer, very heavy machines, with specialized spiked wheels and blades to handle the material that comes into landfills. It is used to drive over the waste deposited by waste collection vehicl es (WCVs). WCVs themselves incorporate a compacting mechanism that is used to increase the payload of the vehicle and reduce the number of times it has to empty. This usually takes the form of hydraulically powered sliding plates that sweep out the collect ion hopper and compress the material into what has already been loaded. Shredder An industrial shredder is a machine used for reducing the size of all kinds of material. Industrial shredders come in many different variations and sizes. Some examples of mat erials that are commonly shredded are: rubber, metals, cardboard, wood, and plastic. Other Screening/Separating Equipments There are different types of screeners such as Grizzly screen, Disk screen, Vibrator screen, Magnetic separator, Air classifier, Manual picking station, and Float tank (Construction management and economics, 1997).

PAGE 30

30 Grizzly Screen Grizzly screen scalping or crude screening consists of a feed hopper with a vibrating bottom deck made up of evenly spaced steel bars. Trommel Screen is a screened cylinder used to separate materials by size. Portable trommels (also called portable Trommel screens) are often used in the production of organic products from various types of waste. For example: excavation contractors may screen their site debris into two fractions; a saleable topsoil for farms, nurseries and sitework, as well as cleaned rock for aggregates or landscaping work. This allows the contractor to resell their waste, instead of incurring the cost of sending it for disposal. The same principal applies to the production of compost, sand, gravel, lumber mill by products and municipal waste. (Source: Aggregate Pros) Disk Screen used to size wood chips. Vibrator screenused in the sand and gravel industry with high/low speed and inclined/hor izontal configuration. Magnetic separator is designed to remove ferrous metals from a moving bed of material with permanent/electromagnetic format. Float tank is a gravity separator using water as a medium to separate wood from rubblebase material. Air classifier is a density separator using air as a medium. A vertical or horizontal airflow is used to separate different density materials. Manual picking stationAn elevated platform with a conveyor and a catwalk along both sides of the belt. Methods Of Calculating C&D Waste Due to complex nature of C&D waste it is very hard to come up with any method that will give us an accurate result for estimating C&D waste. Two methods have been used in the past for calculating the waste generation: Square feet method and Per capita method. Franklin & Associate Two researches were conducted by Franklin & Associate for US EPA, Characterization of Building Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United

PAGE 31

31 States in 1996 and Estimating 2003 Building Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts in 2003. On both occasions they used the square feet method to come up with a reasonable estimate whose accuracy is questionable. According to these reports the amount of MSW C&D waste generated in USA was 135.5 million tons in 1996 and 170 million tons in 2003. Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Another research project Generation and Composition of Construction and Demolition Waste in Florida was conducted by Florida Center for Soli d and Hazardous Waste Management for estimating the C&D waste generated in Florida. This study used combination of square feet method and per capita method to come up with a more accurate result. The result of this report is shown in Table 24. All quanti ties in Table 24 are in Tons. Table 2 4 Estimated C&D Waste, in Tons, generated in Florida (2001) Component Residential Construction Non res. Const. Res. Demo. Non res. Demo. Res. Reno. Non res. Reno. Total Concrete 520,000 340, 000 200,000 730,000 315,600 224,000 2,329,600 Wood 210,000 54,000 18,000 1,700 210800 64,900 559,400 Drywall 140,000 56,000 13,000 82,990 178,800 470,790 N/A Misc. 44,330 58,000 23,900 120,000 120,711 49,100 416,041 Cardboard 33,000 3,600 N/A N/A 10,46 1 570 47,631 Asphalt roofing materials 37,000 N/A 5,400 N/A 196,193 44,000 282,593 Metal 22,000 15,000 470 47,000 14,012 16,300 114,782 Total (Tons) 1,006,430 526,600 261,670 898,700 950,767 577,670 4,221,837

PAGE 32

32 Composition of C&D Waste Composition Of C& D Waste In Florida Composition of C&D waste varies depending on various factors like type of construction (residential, nonresidential, construction, demolition), type of structure (low rise or high rise), location of the project, materials used, way of demolition, schedule, and waste management plan. Several research projects have been conducted to calculate composition of C&D waste in the state of Florida. The most recent study Generation and Composition of Construction and Demolition Waste in Florida conducted by Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management in 1992 was taken into consideration. In this study, different techniques like photogrammetric study, visual characterization and mass sorting were used and based on the result the final composition of C&D waste was est imated. Results shown in Table 25 give the composition calculated by statistical data and using field study. Table 2 5 Composition of C&D Waste in Florida (2001) Component Composition Predicted Us ing Generation Statistics and Literature Composition Values, by weight Composition Estimate Using Composition Results from Field Studies, by weight Concrete 54.20% 32.40% Wood 13.60% 14.80% Drywall 11.40% 11.70% Asphalt Roofing 6.90% 6.10% Metal 2.80% 5.40% Other 11.20% 29.70% Composition of Recovered C&D Waste According to C&D Debris Recycling Study conducted by FDEP, in 1998, Florida recovered 3.3 milliontons (35% ) of the 9.4 million tons of C&D debris generated that

PAGE 33

33 included both MSW and non MSW C&D waste. The composition of recovered C&D waste out of total waste was: Concrete (20%), Asphalt (11%), and Wood (3% ). See Figure 23 for overall composition of C&D waste in Florida in 1998. Figure 2 2 Composition of C&D Waste in Florida (Source: FDEP 1998) Market for Recycled Products Market for Recycled Concrete Figure 23 Market for Recycled Concrete (Source: Generated from CMRA) As shown in Figure 24, recycled concrete can be used i n the following marketable products: Aggregate Base Concrete: Concrete can be used as road base as structural foundation. It is used as a base between the soil subgrade and the paving. The main customer for such recycled concrete is DOT (Department of Transportation).

PAGE 34

34 Ready Mix Concrete: Consists of a mixture of cement, sand and water. This market is still in developing stage but promised a bright future for recycled concrete. It is used in slab and foundations, walk and curbs. Soil Stabilization: Recycled concrete along with lime, or fly ash is used to enhance the load bearing capacity of subgrade. The process changes the water susceptibility of subgrade thereby stabilizing the soil. Pipe Bedding: Recycled concrete acts as a firm foundation for laying pipes Landscape Materials: Recycled concrete can be used as landscape material for construction of retaining wall, rock wall and erosion structure. Market for Recycled Drywall Figure 24 Market for Recycled Drywall (Source: Generated from CMRA) As shown in Figure 25, recycled drywall can be used as: New Drywall Some drywall manufacturing facilities accept old used drywall and refurbish them into drywall that is sold as a new product. Portland Cement Gypsum is an important in gredient that is added to control the setting time of the concrete used in manufacturing of Portland cement. Mined gypsum rock is often used by the cement kilns, and the different physical form of processed drywall may necessitate adjustment of the facili ty's materials handling system. The only problem with this drywall is purity. Hence, it is important to remove any sort of pain or paper used on the drywall. Land ApplicationGypsum extracted from drywall can be used as land applied as it helps in plant gr owth. Gypsum provides a source of calcium and sulfur for plants. Gypsum has proven to be beneficial for vegetables like potato and corn. Compost Scrap gypsum can be used in composting system. Gypsum offers the potential to bind odors associated with ammonia. (Source: CMRA)

PAGE 35

35 Market for Recycled Asphalt As shown in Figure 26, recycled asphalt can be used as: Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) The added asphalt cement decreases the demand for virgin asphalt cement. This provides an economic advantage to the producers of HMA. Cold PatchThe inclusion of RSA (Recycled Asphalt Shingle) improves the life of cold patch due to presence of fibers from the felts in shingle. Cold patch with RSA can be stored for a longer time. Dust Control on Roads RSA helps to minimize dust on roads in rural areas. It also reduced loss of gravel into side ditches. The roads with RSA have a longer life and require less maintenance. Fuel The use of RSA as fuel is relatively new market in USA. Although the recovery of the BTU value of wast e shingles has been used in Europe since long time. Analysis of Existing Data Table 26 shows the Construction and demolition waste recycling rate data in Florida from 1996 to 2008 (See Appendix C for more details). As shown in Figure 27 the amount of C&D waste generation varies by the year from 1996 to 2008. The main reason for fluctuation in C&D waste generation can be due to fluctuating workflow. Due to heavy vo lume of work and very low interest rates the amount of C&D waste generated in 2005 and 200 6 is more than other years. Another interesting upward trend Figure 2 5 Market for Recycled Asphalt Shingles (Source: Generated from CMRA)

PAGE 36

36 can be seen in the early years from 1996 to 1998. The reason for uptrend was due to difference in method of calculating waste. It was around 1998 when the method of calculating waste was changed from volume to mass. These numbers were computed after using the volume to mass calculator and hence can give us a fictitious data. Table 26 C&D Waste Generated in Florida (in Tons) MSW GENERATED TOTAL C&D GENERATED C&D RECYC LED 2008 29,952,983 7,199,444 2,003,626 24% 28% 2007 32,448,006 8,033,844 2,222,785 25% 28% 2006 34,703,226 9,950,065 1,645,972 29% 17% 2005 36,484,357 12,187,107 2,596,223 33% 21% 2004 31,820,084 8,134,511 1,472,491 26% 18% 2003 30,514,512 7,275,515 1,998,256 24% 27% 2002 29,280,220 7,514,548 1,676,444 26% 22% 2001 27,682,804 5,758,064 978,131 21% 17% 2000 25,739,254 5,954,855 515,571 23% 9% 1999 25,733,964 4,928,851 299,122 19% 6% 1998 24,858,53 5 5,851,508 563,085 24% 10% 1997 25,467,480 5,492,557 2,759,694 22% 50% 1996 25,282,407 5,489,514 2,864,836 22% 52% These numbers can be better understood by doing a county based analysis. Out of 67 counties in the state of Florida a set of 18 counties were selected to better understand the waste generation These counties were selected on the basis of following factors: Population Higher recycling rate

PAGE 37

37 Fluctuation in recycling rate Location Table 2 7 gives the recycling rate of top 18 selected counties. Figure 26 C&D Waste Generation and Recycling in Florida (Generated from FDEP collected data) Dade Dade County was selected because of its large population (2.46 million people) and hence heavily contributes towards the overall C&D waste generation (around 421,712 tons or 6% of total C&D waste in 2008) in Florida. After comparing Figure 2 7 and Figure 2 8 the recycling rate for Dade County reflects overall trend in Floridas C&D recycling rate. The curve fall s sharply from 1996 to 1998 due to change in method of calculating waste to slight increase in 2005 and 2006 due to uptrend in construction market Broward Broward is the county with second largest population (1.75 million) in Florida and hence generates 612,692 tons or 9% of overall C&D waste. F igure 2 9 shows that the

PAGE 38

38 Table 27 C&D Recycling Rate for selected counties C&D RECYCLED RATE (%) 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2002 1999 1998 1997 1996 Dade 11% 9% 13% 9% 6% 9% 14% 12% 4 5% 38% Broward 8% 25% 11% 28% 0% 21% 14% 0% 14% 36% Palm Beach 19% 25% 3% 12% 16% 30% 54% 3% 69% 71% Hillsborough 3% 39% 39% 30% 36% 0% 0% 0% 51% 56% Orange 33% 49% 24% 19% 16% 14% 1% 12% 78% 77% Lee 51% 36% 39% 41% 39% 23% 9% 25% 81% 85% Brevar d 30% 27% 19% 50% 0% 4% 6% 29% 95% 97% Volusia 60% 31% 25% 35% 48% 54% 30% 35% 54% 17% Pinellas 57% 24% 49% 40% 45% 55% 0% 0% 98% 98% Duval 35% 24% 0% 12% 1% 35% 4% 10% 61% 59% Pasco 88% 57% 38% 46% 54% 43% 0% 0% 68% 72% Seminole 84% 87% 14% 45% 0% 5% 1% 23% 47% 13% Sarasota 37% 89% 11% 2% 40% 3% 0% 38% 99% 99% Manatee 15% 44% 38% 33% 24% 48% 0% 0% 0% 0% Leon 47% 46% 29% 37% 45% 29% 0% 32% 47% 45% Alachua 3% 37% 0% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 55% 84% Martin 13% 0% 0% 41% 70% 0% 0% 17% 43% 3% Jackso n 0% 0% 0% 91% 69% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Figure 27 Recycling Rate for Dade County recycling rate for Broward County has been fluctuating from 36% in 1996 to almost zero percent in 1998 and back to 25% 2007. The only reason for such fluctuation can be due

PAGE 39

39 to inefficient record keeping. The reason for zero recycling in 1998 and 2004 can be due to failure to record data in these years. Figure 28 Recycling Rate for Broward County Palm Beach Palm beach is another county with million plus population that is the largest C&D waste producer in Florida with 662,778 tons or 10% of total C&D waste. As shown in Figure 210, i n 1998 there was a sharp reduction in recycling rate that can be due to change in method calculat ion and then again the rate went down at constant pace starting from 1999 to 2006. Hillsborough Hillsborough with a population of 1.2 million generated 277,555 tons or 4% of total C&D waste in 2007. It has been able to maintain a constant C&D recy cling rate between 3040% over the past few years. Although it can be seen in Figure 2 11, the rate went down to 3% in 2008.

PAGE 40

40 Figure 29 Recycling Rate for Palm Beach County Figure 210. Recycling Rate for Hillsborough County Factors Affecting C&D Waste Factors Affecting C&D Waste Generation Volume of Construction Volume of construction can greatly affect the generation of C&D waste. More volume of construction, will lead to more C&D waste generatio n. More construction activity can also cause more demolition that will increase the generation of C&D waste in future.

PAGE 41

41 Demographic Factor Demographic factor is another reason that will affect C&D generation. Increasing population will place greater demand on residential, commercial and institutional construction resulting in more d emand for house, school, office parking and supporting structures. Whereas on the other side areas with less population will have less wear and tear of roads, building structure reducing C&D generation. Economic Factor Any region that is economically more strong or growing economically will expect to have more construction. Economic development will result in construction of new offices for growing business and as people working in those offices get more money, they would spend money to buy new house. Job per capita and income per capita are certain elements that give us indication regarding economic development in a particular region. Factors Affecting C&D Recycling Markets for R ecycled Construction and Demolition Materials (RC&D) One of the main factors that affect C&D recycling is the ease of buying or selling recycled products. For C&D material to be recovered, a market for their reuse is essential. Well graded, good quality recycled material have the potential for use in a wid e range of applications. Table 28 illustrates the use of commonly recycled C&D material. Currently market for C&D recycled material in Florida is very low. Charlotte County has proposed a plan for C&D Mat erials Reuse Network. The plan is to combine information technology, training and education, along with actual deconstruction and materials storage. The expected outcome of this proposed plan is an online warehouse and trained deconstruction subcontractors

PAGE 42

42 Table 2 8 Composition of C&D Waste in Florida Material Markets Virgin Clay Bricks, Pottery, Lining / Drainage Gravel Road base, Hardstands, Foundations, Concrete Limestone Bulk Fill, Sub base, Blocks/Bricks, Chemical Pr ocesses, Pollution Control, Cover in Landfills Aggregates Road base, Concrete, Bitumen Sand Bulk Fill, Concrete, Bricks, Glass, Landscaping Timber Construction, Mulch, Firewood, Animal Bedding, Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) Bulk Fill, Sub base, Road base, Hardstands, Drainage, Aggregate Crushed Tiles Bulk Fill, Landscaping, Remanufacturing Sand Bulk Fill, Landscaping, Cover in Landfills Bricks (Whole) Construction, Remanufacturing into new brick, Landscaping Brick and Rubble Bulk Fill, Co ver in Landfills, Remanufacturing into new brick, Subbase Timber Particle Board, Mulch, Animal Bedding, Firewood This approach will connect the potential supply of reuseable materials with the demand for those materials in the most cost effective and timely manner possible. Below is the list of common products and uses of recycled C&D Debris in Florida (as listed on FDEP website) Crushed concrete and brick used in road construction, drainage Concrete, block, masonry and other clean debris used as bor row pit fill Concrete truck washout used to make onsite containing walls and bins Reusable building supplies such as lumber and whole bricks Remanufacture of wood chips into engineered woods Wood fuels used in cogeneration plants and industrial boiler s Horticultural mulches made from natural woody material Dyed, decorative mulches made from construction debris wood Wood chips used as bulking agent in biosolids, compost, animal bedding Planks and other dimensional lumber sawn from whole trees Corrugated cardboard containers Metals (steel, aluminum other nonferrous) Recovered screened material (RSM) for F DEP approved uses

PAGE 43

43 Tipping Fee Tipping fee and recycling rate are proportional to each other. It has been found that as tipping fee increases, i t encourages people to recycle more waste as the disposal cost goes up, hence resulting in increase in recycling rate. In a study conducted by Matthew V. Brooks Effect of StateLevel Programs on Waste Reduction and Increased Recycling it was found that increase in tipping fee resulted in increased recycling rate. The result of that research and other research conducted in Northeastern states of USA is shown in Figure 212. Figure 2 11. Tipping Fee ($/Tons) vs. Recycling Rates (Source: Matthew V. Brooks) Average cost of disposal for C&D in Florida is $42.69 /ton, and it ranges from $25.00/ton in Bay County to $92.00/ton in Monroe County. Tipping fee for various counties in Florida is shown in the Figure 213 $100 $75 $50 $25

PAGE 44

44 Figure 2 12. Florida Class I MSW Tipping Fees 1998 (Source: FDEP)

PAGE 45

45 Site and Site L ocation The site used for C&D waste facility should be large enough for the C&D processing equipment, an area for the incoming waste materials, and space for the pr ocessed material. For a nominal operation, an allocation of 0.4 hectares for equipment and 0.4 hectares for processed materials would be a minimum requirement for materials handling and throughput (Construction Management and Economics, 1997). The location is another major factor that is important in terms of jurisdiction it serves. It must be in a reasonable proximity to the construction site, C&D landfills and recyclers. C&D Regulatory Background and P ast Goals The Florida Legislature passed the first set of recycling goals under Florida State Waste act of 1988 that aimed at achieving 30% recycling rate for MSW waste. Permits were granted to facilities that demonstrated minimal effect on the environment. Facilities were required to follow stormwater man agement and allow regular inspections by DEP officials. C&D facilities were required to cover the waste with two feet of soil and vegetation within 180 days after closure of facility under this act. Some counties had their own ordnances, like Broward and Lake Beach allowed only lined C&D facilities. As the construction cost of lined facilities was high there were few landfills and hence the recycling waste was the only alternative. Dade County banned any landfilling of wood, lumber or any metals (Source: F lorida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management). Looking at current data we can confirm that these counties were relatively more successful in recycling as compared to some of the other neighboring counties.

PAGE 46

46 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Overvie w This report is an investigation into the Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste generation and recycling rates for each county in the state of Florida. The main source of information used to obtain the C&D waste generation data is the final report subm itted by each county to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Each C&D waste facility throughout Florida is required to complete and submit a form (Appendix C) to its respective county that contains the information on the amount of waste accepted and recycled by them in a particular year. Each county then submits a combined final report to FDEP. The methodology of this research was divided into two sections; where section one was to conduct a survey throughout Florida and compare the res ults with existing data. Whereas, section two, consists of proposing a waste management plan based on a business model. In the first section, research was conducted through a survey (Appendix A) and then compared with the data from set of selected counties from the entire state. This selection process was based on the following factors: Population Population is considered as the main factor for analyzing C&D waste as the higher the population the more waste it gen erates hence e ffecting overall waste generation and recycling rate Higher Recycling Rate Second factor used for selection process is the recycling rate of a particular county in last few years. It is important to know the reason why a particular county has an impressive recycling rate whereas its neighboring county might not be doing as well. The waste management practices adopted by these counties can be applied to other counties as well to get a good result. Fluctuating Recycling Rate another factor, which is, considered while selecting cou nties is highly fluctuating year to year recycling rates.

PAGE 47

47 The second section of this report was to propose an integrated waste management plan based on business model to be adopted by C&D waste facilities and the local municipalities in order to achieve 75% plus recycling rate by 2020. The main criteria on which this business model was based are listed below: Waste that is economically feasible to recycle on site or waste that is currently being recycled. Waste that can be recycled locally. Waste that c an be recycled but currently not being recycled due to economic reasons or locally unavailable recycling facility. Advance recycling equipment that can improve recycling. Available market for recycled products. Hence, based on these criteria a business model was developed which gives the steps that counties may take in order to improve their recycling rate. This model also proposes method to estimates the financial assistance required in order to reach 75% plus rate. The financial assistance to C&D waste companies can be through special grants or programs that will encourage these facilities to recycle products which are economically not feasible in present market. These special programs may help to change the nonprofitable businesses into profitable business. Design Of The Survey The survey takers before taking the survey are required to go through the informed consent page that gives a short description of the survey and ensures the survey has no anticipated risk, compensation or other di rect benefits to them. The IRB (Internal Research Board) of the University of Florida approved the informed consent form as well as the survey. See Appendix A for the survey questionnaire and IRB 02 Approval.

PAGE 48

48 The basic design of the survey form is in quest ion format or question order, prepared on the basis of interview conducted with the C&D waste facility manager of Watson Construction (Appendix B) and after analyzing the current C&D waste recycling data reported to FDEP (Appendix C). The survey was designed on the survey monkey software (Appendix A). The first set of question was developed to collect information on identification of the person taking the survey and the location of survey taker. The type of survey taker was mainly classified into: County owned facility Private owned facility County administration The population selected for the survey is mainly from the above three categories comprising of C&D waste facility managers, facility engineers, waste administrators. (See Appendix A for the list). The second question will test the awareness of the survey taker on 75% recycling goal. Goal awareness is one of the key factors behind the success of the 75% recycling goal. The third question will check the amount of C&D waste that is currently been recycled at the survey taker facility or county. This data can be matched with the current recycling data to check the accuracy of current recycling rate in a particular county. The fourth question gives the list of materials that are hard to recycling and forced to be diverted or landfilled due to lack of recycling operation.

PAGE 49

49 The fifth question is in continuation with fourth question that gives the survey taker a list of reasons for lack of recycling operation for each type of materials that they think ar e hard to recycle. The response should be from one of the following options NO local market for recycled products Unavailable equipment for recycling NO recycling facility available Recycling facility present but too far away to transport material U neconomical to recycle or it is cheaper to landfill The sixth question will ask, survey takers opinion on the fluctuating recycling rate between the year 1998 to 2007, found on the current recycling data reported to FDEP. The seventh question is si milar to sixth question but it focuses on the reason why the recycling rate fluctuates in their respective facility instead on looking at overall big picture. The eighth question is a threepart question that answers the following: 1 What is a reasonable recycling Goal ? 2 How much investment is required to reach the respective goal? 3 List of investment/equipments required reaching selected goal. The ninth question will ask the survey taker to rate the reasons that will help to improve the recycling rate. The tenth and the last question will study the effect of current recession on the 75% recycling goal. It will check whether recession will act as a barriers or a catalyst to achieve target goal. Assumptions It is assumed that all C&D waste facilities present in a particular county have similar market conditions. That is, if one facility recycles certain material in a given

PAGE 50

50 region of a county, all other facilities in that county will follow the same trend. Hence, a survey response from a C&D waste facility located in a particular county will speak for the entire county. If a business is not profitable in one region it might be profitable in other region depending on local market. Limitation s One main limitation to this methodology is the process each facility us es to sort and calculate its waste accepted and recycled. Other limitation is the business approach of one waste facility might be different from other.

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 4 SURVEY ANALYSIS AND RESULTS All counties in the state of Florida are required to report their C&D Waste recycling rates to the FDEP. Recycling rates for each county varies by a wide margin. A survey wa s conducted to get additional information about recycling procedures to analyze the fluctuations in rates The survey questionnaire comprised of ten question s and was emailed to 200 entities Further information was solicited by emails and phone calls. There were 34 entities that responded to the survey. The responders to the survey, in general, belong to the following three types of agencies. County Owned Waste Facilities County Administration Private Waste Facilities This chapter elaborate s results of those ten questions and analyzes the responses. The objective of this research is to identify county specific reasons for low recycling rate s and to suggest means for improving recycling rates. It is also possible that county administrations can learn from each other about effective techniques to improve their recycling programs. Categorization of Responses by Agency Type Figure 41 shows t he type of agency t aking the survey. As expected 59% of responders were from county owned waste facilities followed by county administration 18% and only 3% were private facilities. Apart from the above three categories there were 7 responders who classifi ed them as others. These were the responders who didnt belong to any category but showed interest as they were directly or indirectly linked to 75% recycling goal.

PAGE 52

52 Figure 4 1. Categorization of Survey Response Distribution of Responses in Florida Counties The second part of first question required each responder to give the respective county they report to or the name of county they fall under. Table 49, shows the list of responders and their respective counties. Alachua and Broward County had maxim um number of responses (three each), whereas there were two responders each from Sarasota and Osceola County. Fourteen other counties that had only one responder each and one responder belonged to Hurricane C&D for Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie & Indian River counties along State roads. The list of responder s from different counties matched most of the counties selected in previous selection on the basis of million plus population. This meant that survey results could be used to check the validity of reported data as these counties form the majority of C&D waste generated in Florida. Awareness A bout the Recycling Goal Florida Statute FS 403.7032 stipulates that the government and private entities should recycle 75% of the MSW by 2020. The next sect ion of the survey was to check

PAGE 53

53 Table 4 1. Distribution of Responses in Florida Counties Name of Counties Responses Response Percent Levy 1 3% Brevard 1 3% Bay 1 3% Volusia 1 3% Sumter 1 3% Alachua 3 9% Sarasota 2 6% Collier 1 3% Orange 1 3% Osc eola 2 6% Broward 3 9% Marion 1 3% Lee 1 3% Hendry 1 3% Santa Rosa 1 3% Monroe 1 3% Hurricane C&D for Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie & Indian River counties along State roads 1 3% TOTAL 23 the awareness of this 75% goal. The success of 75% goal by end of year 2020 depends on the awareness of this goal by various recycling entities. Table 42. Goal Awareness Options Response Response Percent Yes 31 91.18% No 3 8.82% 34 As shown in Table 42 survey results showed a spectacular positive response as more than 90% responders were aware about the goal. Out of 34 responders, 31 were aware about the goal. The 3 responders who were unaware of the goal belong to relatively small counties or were not directly a part of 75% goal. A graphical representation of responders awareness of the goal is shown in Figure 42

PAGE 54

54 Figure 4 2. Goal Awareness C&D Waste Currently Recycled This section focused on finding the percentage of C&D waste that is currently being recycled in respective facility or within the county. Table 4 3. C&D Currently Recycled Options Response Response Percent 0 20% 21 66% 20 40% 4 13% 40 60% 2 6% 60 80% 3 9% 80 100% 2 6% 32 The majority of survey responders believed, they recycle less than 20% of the C&D was te diverted to their facility/counties. A graphical representation of responses is shown in Figure 43 When the responses were filtered according t o the counties (shown in Table 44 ), it was found that Alachua and Sarasota were among the top recycling counties in Florida. Lee and Monroe responders recycle 2040% of their C&D waste. Whereas all other counties had less than 40% recycling rate.

PAGE 55

55 Figure 4 3. C&D Waste Recycled Table 4 4. C&D Recycled by County 0 20% 20 40% 40 60% 80 100% Levy Lee Saraso ta Alachua Broward Monroe Sarasota Brevard Volusia Sumter Orange Osceola Marion Hendry Santa Rosa This was an unexpected number as according to data reported to FDEP by each county throughout Florida (Appendix C) the average recycling rate for C&D waste in Florida was 28% (Figure 4 4) That means most of the responder belong to facilities with below average recycling rate or the data was not good enough.

PAGE 56

56 Figure 4 4. C&D Recycled (Florida Avg. vs. Responders Avg.) Mater ials Hard to Recycle Table 4 5. Materials Hard to Recycle Options Response Response Percent Drywall 16 59% Wood 10 37% Concrete 8 30% Cardboard 4 15% Carpet 16 59% Roofing material 15 56% Asphalt 7 26% Brick 9 33% Others 7 26% It was found that drywall, roofing material and carpet wer e hard er to recycle and have to be landfilled as there are no recycling plants for these materials or the plants are not in reachable distance. A more detailed explanation is given in next section. Graphical repres entation of thes e materials is shown in Figure 45. Reason for Low Recycling R ate Survey responders were asked to choose between the following options as a reason for low recycling rate in their facilities/counties 1. NO local market for recycled products 2. Unavailable equipment for recycling. 3. NO recycling facility available.

PAGE 57

57 4. Recycling facility present but too far away to transport material. 5. Uneconomical to recycle or it is cheaper to landfill. The result of this section is shown in Table 4 6 and next section will analyze the result of each material separately. Figure 4 5. Materials Hard to Recycle Brick Majority of responders believe that it is cheaper to landfill brick (Figure 4 6) than sending it t o a recycling facility that is somet imes miles away. Brick waste can be compacted to reduce its volume that takes less space. Whereas, when transported brick can be a heavy load increasing the transportation cost. Some responders though they lack equipments that can recycle brick.

PAGE 58

58 Table 4 6 Reasons for low Recycling 1 2 3 4 5 Others Response Count Brick 23.1% 30.8% 15.4% 0.0% 53.8% 15.4% 13 Asphalt 23.1% 23.1% 15.4% 0.0% 38.5% 30.8% 13 Roofing material 52.4% 28.6% 33.3% 9.5% 38.1% 9.5% 21 Carpet 63.6% 27.3% 22.7% 4.5% 31.8% 4.5% 22 Cardboard 0.0% 30.0% 10.0% 0.0% 40.0% 50.0% 10 Concrete 8.3% 33.3% 25.0% 8.3% 41.7% 25.0% 12 Wood 47.1% 11.8% 17.6% 11.8% 41.2% 11.8% 17 Drywall 68.4% 26.3% 21.1% 5.3% 31.6% 10.5% 19 Figure 4 6. Reasons for Low Recycling of Brick Roofing M aterial Recycling roofing material is minimized, as there is no local market for the recycled products. According to survey responders, r oofing mate rial are the hard est to recycle Asphalt is major part of roofing waste generated in large amount. Another reason why most of roofing material including Asphalt is not recycled much is because it is uneconomical to recycle. Some responders also think that contractors are too busy to bother for recycling activities. Contractors do not sort out roofing waste on site and hence by the time it reaches waste facilities they are much harder to sort. Hence,

PAGE 59

59 roofing wa ste that can be refurbished ends up in landfills. A lot of contractors are ready to pay additional landfill cost then sorting waste on site. Fig ure 47 and Figur e 48 show the graphical representation of survey responders for roofing material and Asphalt Figure 4 7. Reason for Low Recycling of Roofing Materials Figure 4 8. Reason for Low Recycling of Asphalt

PAGE 60

60 Concrete Numbers of responders showed interest in buying a concrete crusher but lack of funds and current economic conditions is postponing any investment they want to make and they are waiting for the market to bounce back. Hence, supporti ng the above statement (Figure 49 ) the majority of responders believed the reason for lack of concrete recycling is due uneconomic reasons. Figure 4 9. Reason for Low Recycling of Concrete Carpet Carpet once used, its hard to find a reusable market for it, as its a product that takes a lot of wear and tear. Mor e than 60% of survey responders agreed on the same reason (Figure 4 10 ) for low recycling of carpet was due to no market for recycled product. Cardboard Cardboard as compared to other C&D waste is easier to recycle and there is a big market for recycled cardboard. Some survey responders thought the only reason for

PAGE 61

61 Figure 4 10. Reason for low Recycling of Carpet lack of cardboard recycling is the current economic recession. The demand for recycled cardboard has decreased due to slow market. Hence the recy cling mills are not accepting any waste cardboard from recycling facilities. Figure 4 11. Reason for low Recycling of Cardboard

PAGE 62

62 Wood Wood is a part of C&D waste that can be recycled into various products. The most common are wood landscaping mulch, fuel OSB (Oriented Strand Board), panels and siding The survey responses for wood show that the reason for lack of wood recycling is because there is very limited ma rket for recycled wood. Figure 412 shows the graphical representation of survey response for Wood. Figure 4 12. Reason for low Recycling of Wood Drywall As seen in the previous section, drywall is the hardest material to recycle. According to survey r esponders drywall is not recycled due to lack of market for recycled drywall. Some responders mentioned that lack of fund s restrict them from buy ing certain equipment that can help them reduce the volume of drywall that can make i t cheaper to transport. Figure 413 shows the graphical representation of survey response for Drywall. Reasons for Vari ation in Recycling Rates As found on the FDEP s data for C&D recycling rate (Appendix C) there were large variations in recycling rate s between the years 1998 to 2007. When this question

PAGE 63

63 was asked on the survey there was no biased response. Some people believed that this fluctuating was the result of method change in calculating recycling rate. The method for calculating C&D waste changed during the late ninet ys from volume to weight method that brought down the overall recycling rate for that county depending on the time when this method change was adopted. Figure 4 13. Reason for Low Recycling of Drywal l Table 47. Reasons for Variation in Recycling Rate Options Response Response Percent No recycling goals to meet between 19982007 5 17.20% Method of calculating recycling rate has changed over the years 9 31.00% Inefficient record keeping by facilities 7 24.10% Recycling rate was actually fluctuating 8 27.60% Inaccurate data from recycling facilities 10 34.50% Other 11 37.90% 50

PAGE 64

64 Whereas some people believed that the recycling rate was actually fluctuating. This was hard to believe as the flow of waste can change over the years depending on the workflow but the recycling rate is a factor that should remain cons tant throughout. There were some responder s who complained about the state dropping grant money in last few years that makes recycling very expensive and hence explains t he fluctuation in data. Figure 414 shows the graphical representation of survey response for Fluctuating data. Figure 4 14. Reason for Fluctuating Data E ffect of Current Recession Table 4 8. E ffect of Current Recession on Recycling Rates Options Response Response Percent Increase the recycling rate 7 23% Decrease the recycling rate 14 45% Not change the re cycling rate 10 32%

PAGE 65

65 The current recession may or may not have any effect on the 75% goal. Majority of responders through it will have an e ffect and will dec rease the recycling rate. D ue to less demand for finished recycled products the sales for recycling pl ants have gone down and in slow season, recycling plants cannot accept waste more than their capacity. Landfill facilities, due to lack of funds and extra time, might be keen er on recycling but recycling plants are already running over capacity and are not accepting the extra recy clable waste generated in current low economy. Figure 415 shows the graphical representation of survey response for affect of current recession on recycling rate. Figure 4 15. E ffect of current recession on recycling rate O ther reason is the costs associated with recycling. Financially stressed companies are less likely to spend money on recycling when they can save money by using landfills. Additional investment is required for recycling that is another factor that discourages any new purchases that can accelerate recycling rate. Some responders also felt that due to low volume of construction the C&D waste flow has reduced by 5060% leaving with ample space to landfill. The landfill that once

PAGE 66

66 accepted 1500 tons a day now ac cepts only 500700 tons a day. Flow changes the economics of recycling. It is not economical to operate recycling facility with a low flow. According to a responder, county of Pinellas saw 80% reduction in C&D waste generated from 2006 to 2007, which corresponded with a similar drop in construction projects. The C&D recycling rate dropped from 49% to 24% in the same period, but the total amount of C&D disposed was less in 2007 than 2006. C&D waste generation and recycling for Pinellas, rebounded to 2006 lev els in 2008. How to Reach 75 % Goal The survey responders were asked t o rate the best way to reach 75% goal on a sca le of 1 to 5. As shown in Table 49 and Figure 416, majority of responders believe the best way to reach 75% recycling rate is by improving the C&D waste sorting process at their facilities/counties. Table 4 9. How to Reach 75% Goal Options Avg. Rating (Scale 1 5) Response Buy new equipments 2.63 19 Transport recyclable material to far away recycling facilities 2.47 17 Improve sorting pr ocess 3.5 20 Responders suggested more ways they think could help improve recycling rate: Create l ocal markets for recycled products. On site sorting for recovered materials. Must have ordnance for mandatory C&D recycling and ban unprocessed material fro m landfill. Money to fund capital and recurring costs Public and Private partnership should be established.

PAGE 67

67 Require recycling through building permits RSM (Recovered Screened Material) needs to count as recycled if used for landfill cover. Either purchase dirt for cover or utilize RSM. All RSM goes to landfills, as there is no other use for the material. Figure 4 16. How to Reach 75% Goal Achievable Goal Part 1: Where to set the target Table 4 10. Achievable Goal Target Goal Response Response Percent 1 00% Recycling Rate 1 3% 90% Recycling Rate 1 3% 80% Recycling Rate 6 19% 75% Recycling Rate 7 22% 65% Recycling Rate 1 3% 55% Recycling Rate 16 50% Some experts believe that 75% goal is too high and is impossible to achieve. The first part of this q uestion will check what our responders think in this direction and what should be a reasonable target if 75% is too high.

PAGE 68

68 A little negative response was seen for this section as majority of people voted for 55 % or less of C&D waste that could be recycled or reused in Florida by 2020. A graphical representation of achievable go al response is shown in Figure 417 Figure 4 17. Achievable Goal Some survey responders were unable to answer this question, as t heir county/facility didnt have a proper data or no data at all. This was unexpected as every C&D waste recycling facility (Public and Private) is expected to submit an annual report for the C&D recycled to their county administration (See Appendix C for annual report form). Further, county administrati on combines all annual report from all waste facilities and submits it to FDEP. Part 2: Investment requi red for reaching target The second part for this question included the amount of investment that will be required per facility to reach selected goal in part 1. As shown in Table 411, reaching 75% will require an additional investment of about 4 million dollars per facility. Whereas 55% which is a more reasonable goal ( as per part 1) will require only million dollars

PAGE 69

69 worth of investment per facility Henc e, if the state is targeting 75%, a lot more money needs to be poured into the system in next decade. Table 4 11. Investment Required for Reach ing Goal Goal Investment required per facility 100% $5,000,000 and more 90% $4,000,000 to $4,500,000 8 0% $4,000,000 to $4,500,000 75% $3,500,000 to $4,000,000 65% $3,000,000 to $3,500,000 55% $500,000 to $1,000,000 Part 3: Equipments required Third part of this question required survey responders to select the equipments in which investment should be made to reach target goal. The favorite equipments selected by survey responders are listed in Table 412. Table 4 12. Equipment Required for Reaching Goal Equipments Responses Material separation system 9 Grinder 7 Scrap handling magnet 4 Impact Crusher 4 Conveyor 3 Shredder 2

PAGE 70

70 CHAPTER 5 C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT A waste management plan can differ significantly depending on the life cycle of C&D waste where it is being implemented. A waste plan can either be implemented during its generation a t the construction site and hence will focus more on reduction at the site itself. But in this chapter the waste management plan discussed will focus on its implementation during the life cycle of waste after it has been generated and then diverted to wast e facilities. Designing a practical waste management plan is the most important factor that will contribute towards the success of 75% recycling goal. This waste management plan was prepared based on the analysis of FDEPs current recycling data, intervie w responses of waste facilities (Appendix C) and results from the survey. Four Step Process Achieving 75% recycling goal is a four step process: Awareness Preparation Implementation Follow up Awareness The very first step to get to a target goal is to s pread the idea of goal. Every entity linked with the C&D waste industry should be aware about the 75% recycling goal. The more people aware about the goal the more followers there will be who can follow the waste management plan. Conducting more surveys, emails, phone calls and meetings can accelerate this process.

PAGE 71

71 Preparation The second step is to come up with an integrated waste management plan based on business model that is practically and financially feasible. Every county should study the business model for all facilities within their region and estimate the cost difference that impedes the recycling process in these facilities. Business model will give a list of equipment for each recyclable material that can improve recycling process, recognize the high transportation cost materials that needs to be transported to far off facilities. A sample of business model is discussed in next section. Implementation Implementing the waste management plan is the third and most important step. Once the plan has been designed, state and counties throughout Florida should make sure all facilities are following the wasterecycling model. Workshops should be conducted to educate recycling entities about the waste management plan. Special incentive (like tax reduction) can be given to facilities to make them follow the plan. Follow up Next step after implementation is follow up. Achieving the target recycling rate in one year and then falling back to starting point is not desirable. Every county should set yearly recyc ling goals of 5% more than previous year and facilities performing at par should be given special incentives. Reduction in recycling rate should be seriously looked and studied. Counties should have follow up meeting with all the facilities that report the m. A more detailed plan is discussed in next section. Increase awareness of recycling techniques by carrying out training and Internet web sites that advertise the organizations and businesses involved in building material recovery and reuse.

PAGE 72

72 Waste Managem ent Practices Creating Local Market for Reusable Material Creating market for reusable or refurbished C&D material is a critical part of plan to reach target goal. Current recession provides the best opportunity to start a local market initiative. People in slow market have less work leaving them with ample time to sell their reusable products and due to stiff competition everyone is willing to save money if possible. The only thing missing is a platform for them to conduct their exchange. One way to creat e this platform is by setting up a regional market on weekly or daily basis where people interested in selling/buying reusable material can conduct business. Some of the common ly reusable buil ding materials can be: Appliances Bathroom Fixtures Bricks Carp eting Doors Flooring Pipes Siding Tile Lumber Windows Trim Lighting Fixtures Insulation Shelving State should s upport reuse centers by providing below market rents on publicly owned warehouse space or selling public space to reuse stores for below market value. These warehouses can act as a perfect platform for conducting business for reusable materials.

PAGE 73

73 Increase Tipping Fee As shown in previous section an increase in tipping fee has always resulted in higher recycling rates. Hence, further increase in t ipping fees will increase disposal cost making landfilling more expensive and promoting recycling, which will help get close to the target of 75%. Improve Sorting Process As found on the survey results improve sorting process was the most selected option f or increasing recycling rate. Hence, state should create different ways by which this gap can be filled. One solution to this problem is to create new businesses that would just do sorting job. These businesses should be given funding to buy the most advance sorting equipments (like material separation system scrap handling magnet, conveyor system ) and they should be the only one responsible for sorting C&D waste (including other MSW waste). As shown in the flow diagram (Figure 51) instead of leaving thi s process for contractors or recycling facilities sorting companies should be paid to do this job. Once the materials are sorted, materials can be diverted to respective recycling plants or landfill. Figure 513. C&D Waste Lifecycle

PAGE 74

74 Special Groups or Organizations Creating special group or organization that is responsible for looking into C&D waste management in Florida should be a big step to achieve 75% goal. For example: SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District) looks into stromwater management in south Florida, CMRA (Construction Material Recycling Association) looks into recycled construction material for entire country, RFT (Recycle Florida Today) deals with overall recycling throughout Florida. Similarly, there should be an organization dedicated to C&D recycling in Florida funded by state or a part of FDEP. Recognizing and Funding Future Investments One way to find the list of recyclable materials is by issuing a Recyclable Building Permit. For example: In Or ange County, North Carolina, an or dinance was passed in 2002 that required the recycling of specific materials along with plans for an additional C&D landfill. In addition, people requesting building permits are required to apply for a "Recyclable Material Permit" that requires the permit holder to state what types of waste they anticipate generating and how they will manage that C&D waste (Source: Orange County Solid Waste Management). This will help the counties to know what kind of waste materials they c an expect on future projects and hence the type of equipments they should buy and fund in future. Incentive from the State FDEP should sponsor special grants for the projects working on 75% recycling goal. Tax exemption and special credits should be given to businesses that operate recycling plants to set up new plants. Sales tax exemptions should be provided for recycling equipment i.e. onsite grinding equipment and recycled construction materials T ax credits could be offered for donation of building materia ls in order to address the

PAGE 75

75 lack of a financial i ncentive for tax exempt business owners, who otherwise are not eligible for the tax deduction for donated materials Mandatory Lined C&D Facilities Every county should pass an ordinance that requires all new C&D waste facilities to have liners. Most of the counties in Florida have this policy apart from small counties. This will make the landfilling process more expensive and hence contractors will be forced to recycle their waste. Liner have been mandatory in Broward and Lake Palm county since 1989 hence the recycling rate for these counties have always been higher than other counties. Improve Drywall Recycling It was found in the survey that facilities in Florida have hard time recycling drywall. But it has been proved that drywall is not a product that should be hard to recycle. It can be recycled to get: New Drywall Used as ingredient in production of cement Used in land for plant growth and soil drainage Fertilizers Used in composting systems The stat e should provide incentives for the facilities that can recycle drywall into any of the above forms. Collaborative Effort for Waste Management A particular entity, either the contractors or the waste facility owner or the county administration should not be the only one responsible to recycle waste. Combination of public and private entity is required to improve recycling rate. A separate waste management plan should be prepared for each entity. There should be a waste management plan that will be applicable to contractors only and a separate waste plan

PAGE 76

76 will apply to landfill facilities and recycling plants. Current system does not have a proper interaction between the two entities. Each entity should be given responsibility to sort and recycle certain materials. For example: Contractors can be given responsibility to recycle the entire wood and concrete generated on their site. Wood can be easily converted into mulch and concrete can be crushed on site to be used for subgrade material. A Business Model App roach The preparation of business model is important part of Waste Management Plan, as it gives an estimate on the amount of additional investment required to reach the 75% goal. As shown in Table 51 a layout of business plan includes list of all the mate rials that are diverted from construction and demolition site and each materials will have the following: Volume (%) of material received by facilities Recovery Rate of that material Landfilling Cost Transportation Cost Selling Cost Equipment used till no w Equipment required in future Place where material is diverted In order to make a profit from C&D waste diversion to recycling plants, landfill facilities have to meet the following two equations: Transportation Cost < Landfilling Cost OR Selling Cost Transp ortation Cost > Disposal Fee + Landfilling Cost For example: Lets assume a landfill facility accepts construction waste comprising of Gypsum Board and they accepts the board at a disposal fee of $200 per load. The

PAGE 77

77 facility can either landfill this accepted waste at $150 per load or divert it to a recycling plant at a transportation cost of $200 per load. Case 1: If the facility landfills the gypsum board they will make a profit of $50 per load. $200 $150 = $50 Disposal Fee Landfill Cost = Prof it Case 2: In this case lets assume that landfill facility diverts the board to recycling plant and the plant buys the board from landfill facility at a cost of $70 per load. Hence, the facility will make a profit of $70 that is better than a $50 profit facility was making by landfilling in Case 1. $200 $200 + $70 = $70 Disposal Fee + Transportation Cost + Selling Cost = Profit Case 3: Whereas, in this case we can assume that the recycling plant accepts the gypsum board without paying any price. Hence th e facility will not be able to make any profit compared to a $50 profit by landfilling in Case 1. $200 $200 + $0= $0 Disposal Fee + Transportation Cost + Selling Cost = Profit Case 4: For this case let assume that recycling plant charges $100 per load for accepting the gypsum board. Hence, landfill facility will make a loss of $100 per load if they want to recycle their board versus $50 profit if they landfill. $200 $200 $ 10 0= ( $ 10 0 ) Disposal Fee + Transportat ion Cost + Selling Cost = Loss The price between transportation cost and landfill cost can be minimized either by operating a gypsum recycling plant that is close to the facility. This will decrease the

PAGE 78

78 transportation cost resulting in more profit. Another solution is if the state funds cover the extra transportation cost required to make the far off trips to make recycling process profitable. The business model approach gives the transportation cost associated with different C&D materials in different parts of Florida. The business plan for Watson Construction, a waste construction company based in Newberry Florida that falls under Alachua County is shown in Table 521. Lets apply the above scenario of gypsum board to Watson Constructions business model. The transporting cost for gypsum board is $250 per load, which is relatively high as the recycling plant, is all the way south in Orange city. Hence, due to high transportation cost Watson Construction will sometimes end up landfilling its gypsum board due to unavailable recycling plant in nearby region. Table 5 21 illustrates a more detailed business plan showing each waste material received and diverted by Watson Construction.

PAGE 79

79 Table 59 Watson Construction Business Model Material Vol. (%) Recovery Rate (%) Purchasing Cost Landfilling Cost Transportation Cost Selling Cost Equipment Used till now Equipments required Place diverted Steel N/A $7.00 per yard $100.00 per load Varies $1 to $12 a ton Front End Loader/Roll off Cans Orange Peel Grapel CMC or Ocala Recyclin g Aluminum N/A $7.00 per yard $100.00 per load Front End Loader/Roll off Cans Manual picking station CMC Recycling Rock N/A $7.00 per yard $25.00 per load Landscape $12 cy Front End Loader/Back hoe Rock Screen Watson's Levy Pit & Yard Waste Facilit y Soil/Dirt N/A $7.00 per yard $25.00 per load Soil $10 cy Dirt $2 cy Front End Loader/Shaker Screen Tromel Screen Watson's Levy Pit & Yard Waste Facility Trees N/A $7.00 per yard $25.00 per load Mulch $7 $16 cy Track Hoe/Grinder Track Hoe/Grinder Wa tson's Levy Pit & Yard Waste Facility Gypsum Board Disposal Fee $26 per ton $7.00 per yard $250.00 per load n/a Roll Off Can Orange Peel Grapel Gel Corp in Orange City Plywood 0% N/A $7.00 per yard Disposal of Onsite= C&D No market N/A Manual picking station N/A Lumber 0% N/A $7.00 per yard Disposal of Onsite= C&D No market N/A Manual picking station N/A Cabinets 0% N/A $7.00 per yard Disposal of Onsite= C&D No market N/A Manual picking station N/A Misc N/A $7.00 per yard Disposal of Onsite= C& D No market N/A N/A Cardboard 0% N/A $7.00 per yard Disposal of Onsite= C&D Varies Greatly N/A Manual picking station N/A Paper 0% N/A $7.00 per yard Disposal of Onsite= C&D From + to N/A Manual picking station N/A Plastic 0% N/A $7.00 per yard D isposal of Onsite= C&D No market N/A Manual picking station N/A Asbestos Shingles Not taken at Pit Disposal Fee $250.00 ton Not taken to pit Not transported by Watson N/A N/A Hazmat New River LandfIll

PAGE 80

80 Table 51. continued Material Vol. (%) Recovery R ate (%) Purchasing Cost Landfilling Cost Transportation Cost Selling Cost Equipment Used till now Equipments required Place diverted Asphalt 0% N/A $7.00 cy $25.00 N/A Source separated Orange Peel Grapel Florida Concrete Reclycling Roofing Comp 0% N/ A $7.00 cy Disposal of Onsite= C&D N/A N/A N/A N/A Built in Roofing 0% N/A $7.00 cy Disposal of Onsite= C&D N/A N/A N/A N/A Tar Paper 0% N/A $7.00 cy Disposal of Onsite= C&D N/A N/A N/A N/A Roof Tile N/A $7.00 cy $25.00 N/A Source separa ted Source separated Florida Concrete Reclycling Brick N/A $7.00 cy $25.00 N/A Source separated Orange Peel Grapel Florida Concrete Reclycling Block N/A $7.00 cy $25.00 N/A N/A Orange Peel Grapel Florida Concrete Reclycling Concrete Pave. N/A $7.00 cy $25.00 N/A N/A Orange Peel Grapel Florida Concrete Reclycling Tile N/A $7.00 cy $25.00 N/A N/A Orange Peel Grapel Florida Concrete Reclycling Mortar N/A $7.00 cy $25.00 N/A N/A Orange Peel Grapel Florida Concrete Reclycling Pipes N /A $7.00 cy N/A N/A N/A Orange Peel Grapel n/a Buckets 100% MSW Disposal fee $50.00 per ton n/a $100.00 per load N/A Labor & Front End Loader Orange Peel Grapel Alachua County Transfer Station Laminates N/A $7.00 cy N/A N/A N/A Orange Peel Grapel n /a

PAGE 81

81 Table 51. continued Material Vol. (%) Recovery Rate (%) Purchasing Cost Landfilling Cost Transportation Cost Selling Cost Equipment Used till now Equipments required Place diverted Asbestos Not taken at pit N/A Not taken Not transported by Watson N/A N/A Hazmat New River Land fill Ducts N/A $7.00 cy $100.00 per load Varies $1 to $4 a ton Front end loader/ Roll off cans Manual picking station Ocala Recycling Plastic Coils 0% N/A $7.00 cy n/a Oil from Equipment 100% N/A N/A Picked up Vari es .50 per ton Fuel Truck Fuel Truck Varies Table 52. Watson Construction Business Operating Model Operation Cost Cost/hrs No. Of Hours Total Cost (weekly) Electricity N/A N/A N/A Fuel $3.00 25 $75.00 Services Other Supervisor Operator $ 16 50 $800.00 Labor (average) $10 50 $500.00

PAGE 82

82 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion Over 8 million Tons of C&D waste was generated in Florida in 2007 and out of that only 2.2 million Tons or 28 % was recycled. In order to get bac k on track by year 2020 legislature has passed an aggressive goal of recycling 75% of it MSW waste. The goal might look far ahead today but if the four step: awareness, preparation, implementation, follow up are followed the goal is achievable. The specta cular response to survey and its results prove that people of Florida are not only aware but also ready to give their precious time in contributing to achieve 75% goal. Its the responsibility of each county to respond to this awakening and plan a feasible waste management plan that will work in their respective counties. The state should prepare a business plan for all of its C&D facilities throughout Florida and cover the financial gap that forces these facilities to landfill some of their recyclable C&D materials. After analyzing the business model approach it was found that the transportation cost to recycling plant has to be less than or equal to landfilling cost given that recycling plant is accepting the C&D waste for free. On the other hand, if the t ransportation cost is high, the recycling plants should pay them enough profit for accepting waste that is more than the transportation cost and better than or equal to the profit that was made by landfilling. This means depending on the location and the m aterials being recycled, special funds will be required to make a recycling process financially feasible if either of the above statements are not satisfied.

PAGE 83

83 The state should estimate this cost difference and fund these facilities through grants or special incentives. If state is unable to generate enough funds for these facilities, these facilities will be forced to landfill C&D waste due uneconomic factor. The business model prepared for Watson construction shows that if they will add few new equipments to their facility like Orange Peel Grapel, Manual picking station, Rock Screen, Track Hoe/Grinder, Hazmat, Fuel Truck it will help increase the C&D recycling rate for their facility. Hence, state should find ways through grants and other incentives (lik e tax credit) that will help facilities like Watson Construction to buy new equipment that will boost their recycling rate. Recommendations for Future S tudies The business model approach applied to Watson Construction can be applied to various facilities t hroughout Florida. One facility can be selected from each of the eight zone in Florida (North West, North East, North Central, Central, Central West, Central East, South East, South West) and their business can be studied to prepare a business model that s hould work for the entire state. These facilities can be given a scenario where there is no financial constraint and the business approach they will adopt in such situation. Considering this situation new business plan can be developed for these facilities where their main objective is to reach 75% goal. Hence, comparing the present business model with proposed business plan for recycling facilities, will give the financial gap that the state is required to fulfill to reach 75% plus recycling rate.

PAGE 84

84 APPENDIX A SURVEY FORM

PAGE 85

85

PAGE 86

86

PAGE 87

87

PAGE 88

88

PAGE 89

89 List Of Survey Takers

PAGE 90

90 APPENDIX B WATSON C&D WASTE FACILITY INTERVIEW You must be aware of the fact that FDEP has passed a new recycling goal of achieving 75% recycling rate by 2020 for total MSW waste. My research i s mainly on how we can achieve this goal for C&D waste. Yes we are aware of 75% goal 1 As its a requirement on LEED projects to separate out the C&D waste materials as wood, metals and other C&D. How much C&D waste that comes to your site is separated out before coming to the facility? Has this amount changes within last few years as we have more LEED projects. LEED helps a lot in separation of waste. Metals and wood, cardboard, C&D which are separated directly on site on LEED projects can be directly send to recycling facilities instead of bring them to our landfill and then separating them out. Even for the material that is brought to our landfill is very easy to separate saving a lot of labor cost. On the other hand materials for nonLEED projects are hard to separate and require a lot of labor cost. 2 If not, is it easy to separate out C&D waste? What is the process of separating out C&D waste? Process: waste cans or dumps are first brought to the landfill site. Then the waste is scattered and manually separated out. After that the waste that is not suitable for landfill or which can be recycled is removed from the waste. Then the remaining waste is compacted by our compactor to the landfill. 3 How long will your landfill last. How much waste do you recei ve every day? According to our calculation, our landfill should last about 6.3 years given that we get 1500 cy of waste every day. But with the current economy 1500 cy per day is hard to get. Currently we get about 500600 CY of waste each day. 4 Do you think any part of site generated C&D waste is generated diverted directly from site or recycled on site? Contractors are smart enough to remove the waste that can be reused. 5 C&D recycling rate has been very inconsistent in last few years. What do you th ink is the reason for this inconsistency? Is it because of bad record keeping?

PAGE 91

91 No idea how come so many zeros. We have been recycling since last 57 years and our numbers havent changed. 6 What other factors do you think will help achieve this 75% goal? M ore grants for us to buy better equipments and may be hiring more labor which will be more efficient in separating waste. 7 Can I have the record for C&D waste that was send to Alachua county for C&D waste collected and recycled. Yes 8 Are there any specif ic equipment (machines, concrete crushers) helps you do some jobs better than other. We have a compactor for compacting waste and waste separation is done manually. We would love to buy concrete crusher. Most of our concrete goes to our sister Constructio n Company for base or fill. 9 Where the sorted waste does goes. Is there any market for sorted waste? Lack of recycling for waste. Among the sorted material we have recycling facilities nearby for wood, concrete, cans, tires, metals but the only problem is the drywall. As the drywall recyclers are all the way in orange city which is 2 hrs drive and it is costly for us the drive all the way so sometime drywall might end up going to landfill. Landfill cost: $7 per yard, $25 min 10. Are there any special equipm ent you have for separation and transportation of waste? NO, but we would like to buy conveyor system to improve our sorting. 11. Which county do you report? Can I have your record for last 4 years? Alachua County

PAGE 92

92 APPENDIX C EXISTING DATA Annual Dat a Reporting Form For C&D Facilities

PAGE 93

93 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 1996

PAGE 94

94 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 1997

PAGE 95

95 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 1998

PAGE 96

96 C&D Rec ycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2002

PAGE 97

97 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2004

PAGE 98

98 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2005

PAGE 99

99 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2006

PAGE 100

100 C&D Recycling for all 67 Counties in Florida 2007

PAGE 101

101 LIST OF REFERENCES Campman, C. (2001). Northeast tipping fee. Federation of New York Solid Waste Associations, New York. http://www.nyfederation.org/PDF/NETippingfee.pdf Last accessed December 10, 2009 Cochran, K., Townsend T., Reinhart D. and Heck, H. (2007). Estimation of regional building related C&D debris generation and composition: Case study for Florida, US Cochran, K., (2001). Estimation of the Generation and Composition of Construction and Demolition Debris in Florida. Master of engineering thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Construction Material Recycling Association (2003). Market for Recycled Gypsum Drywall. http://www.drywallrecycling.org/markets.html Last accessed May 11, 2010 Construction Material Recycling Association (2003) Market for Recycled Concrete. http://www.concreterecycling.org/markets.html Last accessed May 13, 2010 Construction Material Recycling Association (2003). Market for Asphalt Shingles http://www.shinglerecycling.org/content/markets recycling asphalt shingles Last accessed May 15, 2010 Department of Environmental Protection Solid Waste Section (1998). Guidelines For The Management Of Recovered Screen Material From C&D Debris Recycling Facilities In Florida Donovan Associates Inc. (1992). Recycling Construction and Demolition Debris In Rhode Island Franklin Associates Prairie Village, KS. (1998). C haracterization of Building Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste Contract No. 68W02 036 http://www.p2pays.org/ref/02/01095.pdf Last accessed September 11, 2009 Franklin Associates Prairie Village, KS. (2003), Estimating 2003 building related construction and demolition materials amounts Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division Peng, ChunLi, Scorpio, Domenic E. and Kibert, C. J. (1997). Strategies for successful construction and demolition waste recycling operations Construction Management and E conomics 15: 1, 49 58

PAGE 102

102 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) ( 2001). 1999 Annual Report for a Construction and Demolition Debris Facility: Florida, Tallahassee, FL. Compiled by Jennifer Caldwell Kurka Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection (1997). 1996 Solid Waste Management Annual Report Florida Department of Environmental Protection (1998). 1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report Florida Department of Environmental Protection (1999). 1998 Solid Waste Management Annual Report Flo rida Department of Environmental Protection ( 2000). 1999 Solid Waste Management Annual Report Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2001). 2000 Solid Waste Management Annual Report Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2002). 2001 Soli d Waste Management Annual Report Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2005). 2004 Solid Waste Management Annual Report Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2006). 2005 Solid Waste Management Annual Report Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2007). 2006 Solid Waste Management Annual Report Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2008). 2007 Solid Waste Management Annual Report Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009). 2008 Solid Waste Management Annual Report Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2010). 75% Recycling Goal Report to legislature Hiers, F., ( 2010), Waste experts doubt counties can meet recycling target of 75 percent, The Gainesville Sun, Gainesville http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100112/articles/1121011?p=1&tc=pg Last accessed January 14, 2010 Innovative Waste Cons ulting Services, LLC. ( 2008), Evaluation of Franchise Agreements and Impa cts to Construction and Demolition Debris Management, Gainesville FL, Prepared for Southern Waste Systems, LLC

PAGE 103

103 Kessler Consulting Inc. ( 2004). Waste Reduction and Recycling Guide for Florida Correctional Facilities Prepared for Kessler Consulting Inc. and Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/recycl ing/Innovative Grants/IGyear4/finalprisonguide72ppi.pdf Last accessed January 10, 2010 Muller, R. (2003). The Capitol Area East End Office Complex: A Case for Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion. California Integrated Waste Management Board. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/GreenBuilding/43303023.pdf Last accessed December 15, 2009 Massachusetts Department of Env ironmental Protection (2008). 2007 Mas sachusetts construction and de molition debris industry study. http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/reduce/07cdstdy.pdf Last accessed November 25, 2009 Reinhart, D., Townsend, T., and Heck, H. ( 2003), Generation and Composition of Construction and Demolition Waste in Florida, Affiliated by University of Central Florida, University of Florida, Florida Institute of Technology Sim R. (2008). Detailed investigation into existing and potential markets for recycled construction and demolition materials. http://www.zerowastewa.com.au/documents/investigation_markets_for_recycled_c nd_materials. pdf Last accessed Feb 1, 2010 Schlauder, R.M., and Brickner. R.H. (1993). Setting Up for Recovery of Construction and Demolition Waste. Solid Waste & Power Magazine Sandler K. (2003) Analyzing whats recyclable in C&D, Biocycle 51 54 Townsend, T & Ki bert C. ( 1998)The management and environmental impacts of construction and demolition waste in Florida, Gainesville U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009 ). Estimating 2003 BuildingRelated Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste. http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/rrr/imr/cdm/pubs/cdmeas.pdf Last accessed September 29, 2009 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste (1995). Construction and demolition waste landfills. http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/generation/sqg/const/cdrpt.pdf La st accessed November 15, 2009

PAGE 104

104 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste (2008). Materials Characterization Paper In Support of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Identification of Nonhazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste Con struction and Demolition Materials Building Related C&D Materials http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/pdfs/cdbldclean.pdf Last accessed September 6, 2009

PAGE 105

105 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nipp un Goyal was born in New Delhi, India in 1986 to Sandeep Goyal and Pratibha Goyal. Upon graduating high school in 2004, Nippun decided to go for an engineering degree from University of Mumbai majoring in electronics and telecommunication. Nippun was alway s fascinated with the construction industry watching documentaries on Discovery and NatGeo. Finally after completing engineering degree he decided to direct his carrier toward his more passionate field of construction and get a master in Building Construct ion. Once started with the construction degree Nippun was directly interested in taking sustainability track, which was the bright future where world was moving into. It was after working for his professor at the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction on a recycling project, Nippun developed an interest towards recycling. The state of Florida passing a 75% goal in 2008 was a fantastic platform for Nippun to write his thesis.