<%BANNER%>

Impact of Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Facilities on Job Creation and the Environment in Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044190/00001

Material Information

Title: Impact of Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Facilities on Job Creation and the Environment in Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (78 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Calhoun, Amanda B
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: construction -- debris -- demolition -- mrf
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: About 8 million tons of construction and demolition (C&D) debris is generated every year in the state of Florida. However, only 23% of the materials in the waste stream are recovered for recycling. Typical recovered materials in C&D debris waste stream include: concrete, asphalt, wood, metals, drywall, and shingles. There are multiple specialized materials recovery facilities (MRFs) within the state that are designed to accept mixed C&D debris for processing. These facilities have developed systems that require both employees and machinery to produce recovered material products that can be sold into the market. Since these recovery facilities are labor and energy intensive, this study aims to quantify the effects these facilities have on job creation and the environment for the state of Florida. Several C&D debris recovery facilities participated in this study and provided information regarding employment, the composition and mass of materials received and recovered in 2010, and insight into energy and fuel usage at the facilities. Site visits were also conducted to observe how these facilities operate and how they are employing members of Florida’s community. Information provided by the facilities was used to calculate the number of jobs created per ton of C&D debris material received, the amount of materials recovered from the waste stream, the amount of emissions resulting from fuel usage, and the amount of potential greenhouse gas emissions savings from recycling C&D debris materials versus landfilling them. The research concluded that C&D recovery facilities do create more jobs for the state versus landfilling, and that the recovery of materials has a positive impact on the environment.
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 Amanda B Calhoun.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.
Local: Co-adviser: Townsend, Timothy G.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044190:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044190/00001

Material Information

Title: Impact of Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Facilities on Job Creation and the Environment in Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (78 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Calhoun, Amanda B
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: construction -- debris -- demolition -- mrf
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: About 8 million tons of construction and demolition (C&D) debris is generated every year in the state of Florida. However, only 23% of the materials in the waste stream are recovered for recycling. Typical recovered materials in C&D debris waste stream include: concrete, asphalt, wood, metals, drywall, and shingles. There are multiple specialized materials recovery facilities (MRFs) within the state that are designed to accept mixed C&D debris for processing. These facilities have developed systems that require both employees and machinery to produce recovered material products that can be sold into the market. Since these recovery facilities are labor and energy intensive, this study aims to quantify the effects these facilities have on job creation and the environment for the state of Florida. Several C&D debris recovery facilities participated in this study and provided information regarding employment, the composition and mass of materials received and recovered in 2010, and insight into energy and fuel usage at the facilities. Site visits were also conducted to observe how these facilities operate and how they are employing members of Florida’s community. Information provided by the facilities was used to calculate the number of jobs created per ton of C&D debris material received, the amount of materials recovered from the waste stream, the amount of emissions resulting from fuel usage, and the amount of potential greenhouse gas emissions savings from recycling C&D debris materials versus landfilling them. The research concluded that C&D recovery facilities do create more jobs for the state versus landfilling, and that the recovery of materials has a positive impact on the environment.
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 Amanda B Calhoun.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.
Local: Co-adviser: Townsend, Timothy G.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044190:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECOVERY FACILITIES ON JOB CREATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN FLORIDA By AMANDA BLAIR CALHOUN 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 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Amanda Blair Calhoun

PAGE 3

3 To my family and close friends

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my committee members, Dr. Charles Kibert and Dr. Timothy Townsend, for their mentoring, John Schert and the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management for their support, and the C&D recovery facilities who participated in my research for their participation. I thank Duane Ellis for his help and enco uragement, and my parents and family for their love and support.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 Construction and Demolition Debris ................................ ................................ ....... 12 Importance of the Study ................................ ................................ .......................... 12 Objective of the Study ................................ ................................ ............................. 13 Summary of the Research Approach ................................ ................................ ...... 13 Organization of Thesi s ................................ ................................ ............................ 14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................. 16 Introduction to C&D Debris Generation and Recycling ................................ ........... 16 C&D Debris Generation and Recycling in Florida ................................ ................... 18 C&D Debris Generation ................................ ................................ .................... 18 C&D Debris Recycling ................................ ................................ ...................... 19 C&D Debris Material Composition ................................ ................................ .......... 19 C&D Debris Management Options ................................ ................................ .......... 21 Landfilling ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 21 Recycling ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 22 C&D Recycling Case Studies ................................ ................................ ................. 23 U nited States ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 23 Ireland ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 24 Japan ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 25 Taiwan ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 25 Hong Kong, China ................................ ................................ ............................ 26 Chongqing, China ................................ ................................ ............................. 26 Environmental Impacts of Recycling C&D Debris ................................ ................... 27 Conserv ation of Natural Resources ................................ ................................ .. 27 Conservation of Landfill Space ................................ ................................ ......... 28 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fuel and Electricity Usage .......................... 28 Fuel emissions ................................ ................................ ........................... 29 Utility emissions ................................ ................................ ......................... 29

PAGE 6

6 Comparison of recycling materials to raw material manufacturing and landfilling ................................ ................................ ................................ 30 Social Impacts of Recycling C&D Debris ................................ ................................ 31 Future of C&D Debris Recycling in Florida ................................ ............................. 32 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 38 Limitations to Data Collection and Analysis ................................ ............................ 38 Baseline Scenario of a C&D Recovery Facility ................................ ....................... 39 Identification of Data Needed From the C&D Recovery Facilities ........................... 42 Data Collection and Site Visits of the C&D Debris Recovery Faci lities ................... 44 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ............... 46 Results for the C&D Debris Recovery Facility in North Florida ............................... 46 Employment ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 46 Composition and Mass of C&D Debris ................................ ............................. 47 Energy Consumption and Fuel Usage ................................ .............................. 50 Results for the Facilities in South Florida ................................ ................................ 51 Employment ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 51 Composition and Mass of C&D Debris ................................ ............................. 52 Energy Consumption and Fuel Usage ................................ .............................. 54 Discussion of Results for the C&D Debris Recovery Facilities ................................ 54 Employment ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 54 Composition and Mass of C&D Debris ................................ ............................. 56 Energy Consumption and Fuel Usage ................................ .............................. 57 Job Creation ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 58 Environmental Impacts ................................ ................................ ..................... 59 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ .......... 72 Summary and Conclusions of Research ................................ ................................ 72 Potential Future Research ................................ ................................ ...................... 73 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 75 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 78

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Construction and demolition (C&D) debris composition in the United States ..... 33 2 2 Emissions for the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) subregion for 2007 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 33 2 3 Net greenhouse gas emissions for landfilling materials ................................ ...... 33 2 4 Net greenhouse gas emissions for recycling materials ................................ ....... 33 4 1 Typical positions at the C&D debris recovery facility in north Florida ................. 63 4 2 C&D debris recovered at the north Florida facility in 2010 ................................ .. 64 4 3 Cubic yards of C&D debris converted into tons for the facilities in south Florida for 2010 ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 64 4 4 C&D debris recovered at the south Florida facilities in 2010 .............................. 64 4 5 Tons processed per person and tons processed per day for the tons received and recovered for the facilities in 2010 ................................ ............................... 65 4 6 Average tons of recovered materials per day at the facilities in 2010 ................. 65 4 7 The average number of employees per material based on the mass of materials recovered at the facilities in 2010 ................................ ........................ 65 4 8 Estimate of the gallons of diesel fuel used per tons of material received and the gallons used per person per day at the facilities in 2010 .............................. 65 4 9 Jobs created per 10,000 tons of materials managed by different types of waste management facilities ................................ ................................ ............... 66 4 10 Carbon dioxide emissions savings for the facility in north Florida for 2010 ........ 66 4 11 Carbon dioxide emissions savings for the facilities in south Florida for 2010 ..... 66 4 12 Carbon dioxide emissions for 2010 based on the amount of diesel fuel consumed by the facilities ................................ ................................ .................. 66

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Average amount of construction and demolition (C&D) debris generated per person by the United States and other countries in 2002 ................................ ... 34 2 2 Re ported construction and demolition (C&D) debris recycled by the United States and countries in the EU in 2002 ................................ .............................. 34 2 3 Total amount of reported construction and demolition (C&D) debris generated in Florida for 2001 2009 ................................ ................................ .... 35 2 4 Construction and demolition (C&D) debris annual generation per person for 11 states in the United States ................................ ................................ ............. 35 2 5 Annual average recycling rates of construction and d emolition (C&D) debris annually in the state of Florida for 2001 2009 ................................ .................... 36 2 6 Material composition of construction and demolition (C&D) debris in Florida ..... 36 2 7 Material composition of construction and demolition (C&D) debris in the EU ..... 37 4 1 Categorization of employees by job description for the C&D recovery facility in north Florida ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 67 4 2 Categorization of employees by job description for the C&D recovery facility in north Florida ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 67 4 3 Percentage of materials recovered/recycled and disposed by the facility in north Florida in 2010 ................................ ................................ ........................... 68 4 4 Percentage of materials recovered/recycled and disposed by the facilities in south Florida in 2010 ................................ ................................ .......................... 68 4 5 Amount of recycled/recovered materials for the north Florida facility in 2010 ..... 69 4 6 Amount of recycled/recovered materials for the south Florida facilities in 2010 69 4 7 Total am ount of tons received per person compared to the tons recovered per person for the facilities in 2010 ................................ ................................ ..... 70 4 8 Total amount of tons received per person per day compared to the tons recovered per person per day for the facilities in 2010 ................................ ....... 70 4 9 The estimated av erage number of employees per material based on the mass of materials recovered at the facilities in 2010 ................................ .......... 71

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S C&D Construction and demolition CO 2 Carbon Dioxide eGRID Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database EPA Environmental Protection Agency EU European Union FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FRCC Florida Reliability Coordinating Council GHG Greenho use Gas kWh Kilowatt Hour MRFs Material Recovery Facilities MSW Municipal Solid Waste MTCO 2 E Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents SWMA Solid Waste Management Act WaRM Waste Reduction Model

PAGE 10

10 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 IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECOVERY FACILITIES ON JOB CREATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN FLORIDA By Amanda B. Calhou n May 2012 Chair: Charles Kibert Co chair: Timothy Townsend Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology About 8 million tons of c onstruction and demolition (C&D) debris is generated every year in the state of Florida. However, only 23% of the materials in the wast e stream are recovered for recycling. Typical recover ed materials in C&D debris waste stream include: concrete, asphalt, wood, metals, drywall, and shingles. There are multiple specialized materials recovery facilities (MRFs) within the state that are designed to accept mixed C&D debris for processing. These facilities have developed systems that require both employees and machinery to produce recovered material products that ca n be sold into the market. Since these recovery facilities are labor and energy intensive, this study aims to quantify the effects these facilities have on job creation and the environment for the state of Florida. Several C&D debris recovery facilities p articipated in this study and provided information regarding employment, the composition and mass of materials received and recovered in 2010, and insight into energy and fuel usage at the facilities Site visits were also conducted to observe how these fa cilities operate and how they are

PAGE 11

11 Information provided by the facilities was used to calculate the number of jobs created per ton of C&D debris material received, the amount of materials recovered from the waste stream, the amount of emissions resulting from fuel usage, and the amount of potential greenhouse gas emissions savings from recycling C&D debr is materials versus landfilling them. The research concluded that C&D recovery facilities do create more jobs for the state versus landfilling, and that the recovery of materials has a positive impact on the environment.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Construction and Demolition Debris Florida generates construction and demolition (C&D) debris every year. The debris generally comes from residential, commercial, and other types of manmade structures. The composition of the waste varies based on the type of job activ ity and whether or not it is a construction, renovation, or demolition project. Almost 6.7 million tons of C&D waste was generated in 2009 in Florida (FDEP, 2009a). About 30 % or about 2.0 million tons, of the reported waste was recycled (FDEP, 2009a). Alt hough most C&D debris is disposed of in landfills, some of it is transported to specialized C&D material recovery facilities (MRFs) that recover the material for recycling. A series of different types of machinery is used to separate and sort the constitu ents in the waste stream. This process typically incorporates sorters and operators who assist in sorting the material and moving the material around the site. Once the recovered materials have been separated and processed, they are then transported to mar ket consumers who will use the material in applications that would otherwise use virgin materials. Usually only a fraction of the debris will still be sent to a C&D landfill after processing due to the lack of market availability for the leftover material. Importance of the Study The basic operations of C&D recovery facilities are well known, but their direct impacts on job creation and the environment for the state of Florida has not been quantified. An understanding of these impacts will be helpful in det ermining strategies for regulations and policies regarding recycling. This research will also help the state

PAGE 13

13 better understand how these facilities create jobs in F lorida. To increase the recycling rate of C&D material, information regarding their operatio ns can be utilized to create and promote markets for the materials that are recovered from the debris. Objective of the Study The aim of this research is to quantify the relationship between C&D debr is recovery facilities and job creation and the environment in the state of Florida. In order to measure these impacts, three basic objectives were established for this study. The first objective wa s to determine the number of jobs created at a C&D recovery facility. The second obj ective wa s to determine the composition and mass of the C&D waste processed at the facility. The third objective wa s to determine the carbon emissions associated with the energy and fuel usage of the facility during processing. Summary of the Research Approach In orde r to investigate the research objectives, several C&D recovery facilities in Florida were visited. They were selected because they were located in different regions of the state. These facilities were also selected because they process a mi xed C&D waste stream and are representative of the larger processing facilities in Florida. To determine the number of jobs created at the C&D recovery facilities, employment information was received from the facilities that expressed the amount of employe es at the facility. This information, coupled with information regarding the mass of materials processed at the facility, was used to calculate the number of jobs cre a ted per ton of waste processed at the recovery facilities. To determine the composition a nd mass of the C&D waste processed at the facilities, information was collected regarding the materials received and processed at the site. Data for the amount of mixed C&D waste brought to the site for processing was

PAGE 14

14 provided as well as data for the amoun t of separated materials. This data was used to calculate the relative amount of materials that are recovered for recycling and the number of jobs created per ton of those materials. To determine the carbon emissions associated with the energy and fuel usa ge of the facilities during operation, information regarding the amount of fuel consumed by the equipment was provided. This data was then used to calculate the amount of carbon emissions emitted through processing. Additionally, this data was used to dete rmine the emissions created per ton of material processed. Data for the electricity usage of the sites was requested, but was not provided. Organization of Thesis This thesis is organized into five chapters. This first chapter introduces the importan ce, objective, and summary of the research approach. The second chapter discusses the generation and recycling rate of C&D debris in the United States and Florida. The typical composition of C&D waste and the two ways it is commonly managed are also discus sed. Several case studies from other countries regarding C&D recovery facilities are explored. Environmental and social impacts of C&D recovery facilities are discussed, including the importance of C&D recycling for Florida in the future. Chapter three dis cusses the methods behind the data collection from the facilities and how it was analyzed to determine the number of jobs created and the environmental impact s of recycling C&D debris. Chapter four presents and discusses the results of the information coll ected from the site visits to the C&D debris recovery facilities regarding employment, mass and composition of the materials, and energy consumption. Lastly, chapter five summarizes all of the results from this study and gives some conclusions regarding th e impact C&D recovery facilities have on job creation and

PAGE 15

15 the environment in Florida. R ecommendation s for future research studies are also provided.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AN D BACKGROUND INFORMA TION Introduction to C&D Debris Generation and Recycling Construction and Demolition (C&D) debris is generated regularly in the United States, but the exact amount and composition is not well known. It is difficult to quantify the amount produced because only a handful of states attempt to keep records of manage d C&D debris waste. Many C&D processing facilities are not required to record the amount of material processed, so they are not well equipped to measure the weight they receive (Cochran et al., 2007). A study completed in 1996 attempted to estimate C&D wa ste generation in the United States. The study found that about 136 million tons of building related debris is generated annually (Frank lin Associates, 1998). About 43% of the waste is from residential construction, renovation, or demolition pr ojects, and the other 57% is fr om non residential activities. A study conducted in 2003 estimated that the United States generates 170 million tons per year of C&D debris (EPA, 200 9). The study concluded that 39% of the waste is fr om residential projects, and 61% is f rom non residential projects. The reported amount of annual C&D waste generat ed in the United States per person is compared to other countries in Figure 2 1. The data for the European Union (EU) was collected as part of a report prepared by the European En vironment Agency for the European Topic Centre on Waste in 2002 (Kourmpanis et al., 2008). The sum of all of the C&D debris waste generated by the EU countries is about 200 million tons per of 1.1 million tons per year was from a study completed in 2002 (Kofoworola and Gheewala, 2009).

PAGE 17

17 Data is not widely available for C&D debris generation for many countries around the world. This may be because many transitory and developing countries lack explicit legislature for C&D waste management, such as the Czech Republic, Cyprus, India, and Malaysia (Agamuthu, 2008). Insufficient enforcement of C&D waste management causes illegal disposal of C&D waste into landfills in these types of countries, where C&D waste is generally considered to be regular municipal solid waste (MSW), and is therefore managed as MSW (Agamuthu, 2008). The amount of C&D debris generated annually that is recovered for recycling is not well known. The Franklin Associates stud y est imates that about 20 30% of the 136 million tons of C&D debris generated annually in the United States is recycled (1998). Therefore, the recycling rate is assumed to be 25% for the United States in Figure 2 2. Figure 2 2 compares the estimated recycling rate of the United States to the estimated recycling rate of several EU countries (Kourmpanis et al., 2008). It should be noted that the four EU countries that are not represented by a bar in the g raph, (Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Ireland), are presented this way because they have an assumed recycling rate of 0 5% ( Kourmpanis et al., 2008 ) In a different study of the recycling rates for countries in the EU, a cumulative total of about 993 millio n tons of regulated C&D waste was generated in 2006 (Fischer, 2011). About 571 million tons of the 993 million generated was either reused or recycled, which is about 57.5% (Fischer, 2011). Both studies show that several countries in the EU achieve a highe r recycling rate than the United States.

PAGE 18

18 C&D Debris Generation and Recycling in Florida C&D Debris Generation The amount of C&D debris generated in Florida is tracked by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The FDEP creates an annual report on different sectors of solid waste management for Florida based on reports submitted by each county. The total amount of C&D debris generated annually is reported as well as the amount of C&D debris that is recovered for recycling. This information is available in the Solid Waste Management Annual Report published annually, generally located in Table 4B of the report. The most recently available annual report is for the year 2009. The FDEP estimates that a total of about 6.7 million tons of C&D debr is was generated in the state of Florida in 2009 (FDEP, 2009a). The total amount of reported C&D debris waste generated between 2001 and 2009 is shown in Figure 2 3. The amount of generated C&D debris fluctuated over that time period. The greatest amount o f C&D debris was generated in 2005. This generation rate could be contributed to the mass destruction and subsequent needed repairs across the state caused by the four hurricanes that struck Florida during the hurricane season. The declining trend in the m ost recently reported C&D debris generation rates may be attributed to the current economic recession in which the construction industry has slowed down. Overall, the average amount of C&D waste generated between 2001 and 2009 in Florida was about 8 millio n tons per year. debris generation rate per person to other states, t he results of one study that looked at the total discarded C&D debris for eleven states are shown in Figure 2 4 (Staley and Barlaz, 2009). It should be n oted that the

PAGE 19

19 data represented in the figure does not represent C&D debris generation information collected from one comparable year; the data is representative of data collected between 1998 and 2006. Therefore, the year in parenthesis under each of the s abbreviations corresponds to the year in which the da ta was collected for th at particular state. C&D Debris Recycling The most recently available reported data from the FDEP estimates that about 2.0 million tons of the 6.7 million tons of the report ed C&D waste generated in 2009 was recycled in the state of Florida (FDEP, 2009a). The average amount of C&D debris recycled within the state of Florida during 2001 to 2009 was about 1.8 million tons per year. The percentages of reported C&D waste generated that was recovered for recycling f rom 2001 to 2009 is shown in Figure 2 5. The most recent data for 2009 suggests that the state of Florida is at a 30% recycling rate, the highest overall rate for any year in the reported time frame. The lowest r ecycling rate for the time period, 15%, occurred in 2006. This may have been a residual affect related to the four hurricanes that passed through Florida in 2005. A large amount of debr is was generated and may have been too difficult to process it all for recycling purposes. Overall, the average recycling rate for the state of Florida between 2001 and 2009 was 23%. C&D Debris Material Composition The material composition of the C&D debris waste stream is difficult to characterize. This is because the C&D wa ste stream composition will vary depending on the source of the waste. For example, the waste may be generated from a construction, renovation, or demolition project on a residential or nonresidential

PAGE 20

20 structure. Also, the region of the country may also a ffect the composition of materials in the C&D debris waste stream, since structures are built to satisfy different building codes and climates within the United States. Some of the typical components of the C&D debris waste stream in the United States are concrete, asphalt, wood, metals, gypsum wallboard (drywall), and roofing materials (shingles) (Franklin Associates, 1998). The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has attempted to estimate the overall percentages of certain materials found in a t ypical C&D debris waste stream in the United States. The majority of the materials in the C&D debris waste stream falls into one of the basic categories shown in Table 2 1 (Sandler, 2003). Concrete and mixed rubble, wood, drywall, and asphalt roofing compr ise the majority of a typical C&D debris waste stream. The rest of the waste stream mostly consists of metal, bricks, and plastics. One study conducted in Florida attempted to characterize the relative amounts of materials in a typical Florida C&D debris w aste stream (Cochran et al., 2007). The results of this study are shown in Figure 2 6. The data is representative of six specific categories of C&D debris: residential construction, nonresidential construction, residential demolition, nonresidential demoli tion, residential renovation, and nonresidential renovation. The methodology used in the EPA study was used in th is study to extrapolate the national data to a regional scale for Florida The majority of the C&D waste was concrete, representing about 56% o f the total C&D debris waste stream. Cardboard and plastic represented the smallest portion of the C&D debris waste stream, each representing about 1% of the total waste stream. There has also been other studies conducted, such as in California and Vermont that

PAGE 21

21 attempt to characterize the typical composition of C&D debris waste streams for other states within the United States (CIWMB, 2006; DSM, 2002). For comparison of the typical composition of C&D debris waste within the United States and Florida to other countries, Figure 2 7 represents the relative composition of C&D debris waste for several countries in the EU (Kourmpanis et al., 2008). Although the titles of the material categories are slightly different, the major constituents are reasonably comparable. Mineral C&D debris, representing about 70% of the C&D debris waste stream for the EU, is comparable to the generalized category of concrete for the United States. The EU includes materials such as tile s and bricks into this category Timber, wh ich is comparable to the generalized category of wood, is the second largest component, representing about 11% of the total EU C&D waste stream. The composition of C&D debris waste in the United States, Florida, and countries in the EU, demonstrate that th e most predominant materials in a typical C&D debris waste stream are concrete and wood products. This is likely attributed to the fact that most buildings and structures are constructed with frames made from either concrete or wood products C&D Debris Ma nagement Options Landfilling It has been normal for years to dispose of C&D debris into landfills designated especially for C&D debris materials. In 1994, the EPA estimated they were roughly 1,889 operating C&D debris landfills within the United States (ER G, 1994). Although typical municipal solid waste landfills are subject to regulations enforced by the federal government, C&D landfills are subject to state and local government regulations.

PAGE 22

22 Therefore, there are no national policies regarding how C&D debri s waste should be managed. Landfills accept C&D debris waste materials and typically charge a fee per ton to drop it off, also known as a tipping fee. The average tipping fee for C&D debris landfills in the state of Florida is about $34.57 per ton with values ranging from $0.00 to $120.00 per ton (FDEP, 2009b). Once the C&D debris waste is tipped at the landfill, the waste is deposited and compacted into the landfill through the use of compaction machinery. Landfills are typically monitored throughout t heir lifetime. Periodical monitoring is conducted to ensure the health and safety of the surrounding environment contamination. Class III Landfills in the state of Flor ida are permitted to accept C&D debris waste. Some of these landfills do not have a landfill liner system in place. Groundwater contamination is more likely for these landfills and therefore should be monitored closely. Additionally, some MSW landfills hav e methane gas capture systems, but C&D debris landfills typically do not. This is because these landfills contain mostly inert materials. Recycling Some of the C&D debris generated annually within the state of Florida is recovered for recycling The C&D de bris waste is sent to a materials recovery facility, also known as a MRF, which processes and sorts the C&D debris into recoverable materials for recycling. These specialized facilities accept mixed C&D debris waste streams and process them through a syste m which utilizes both machinery equipment

PAGE 23

23 and manual labor. The C&D debris is sorted into the different material components and then prepared for recycling by market consumers. A typical C&D MRF will accept C&D debris waste onto the tipping floor for a ti pping fee determined either by the ton or by the cubic yard of material. The material will then be processed through a series of conveyor belts and screens that separate the materials and make it easier for the sorters and operators of the machinery to sor t and process the materials. Typical materials gleaned from the waste stream include concrete, wood, metal, and cardboard. Once the C&D debris has been separated into the different recoverable materials, the resources are then marketed and sold to potentia l market buyers for recycling. C&D Recycling Case Studies Various studies have been conducted to evaluate the feasibility of C&D debris recovery facilities and systems in several countries, including the United Sta tes (Chong and Hermreck, 2010), Ireland (D uran et al., 2006), Japan (Gao et al., 2001), Taiwan (Huang et al., 2002), Hong Kong, China (Tam and Tam, 2006), and Chongqing, China (Zhao et al., 2010). United States Chong and Hermreck conducted a study that focused on calculating the transportation en ergy costs associated with recycling C&D debris and determining the recycling rate of C&D debris waste for 4 different construction projects in the United States (2010). The researchers believe that the easier it is to recycle the C&D debris, the less ener gy intensive the process will be to recycle, thereby creating a more sustainable recycling system. Currently there is a lack of data that exists to indicate where C&D debris wastes ultimately go and the amount of energy needed to recycle

PAGE 24

24 those wastes. This is likely due to the fact that the energy used to sort, extract, separate, regenerate, and convert C&D waste is difficult to determine because C&D debris recovery facilities all use different approaches and practices (Chong and Hermreck, 2010). The suppl y of recovered C&D debris waste for recycling can be extremely unreliable, since it is dependent on the type of materials C&D debris recovery facilities will accept, the quality of the materials in the waste stream, and the degree to which the materials ar e commingled (Chong and Hermreck, 2010). The researchers believe that if there was a stronger demand for recycled C&D materials, then C&D recyclers would be more willing to spend money on cleaning up the wastes, rather than sending the currently unrecovera ble wastes to the landfill. Chong and Hermreck also concluded that there is currently an insufficient demand for recycled construction materials in the United States within the regions of their study. The capacity to recycle C&D waste in some areas of the United States remains limited. These factors, together with the amount of energy needed to transport C&D debris waste to a C&D recovery facility, are significant and important in determining whether C&D facilities are viable alternatives to landfilling C&D debris (Chong and Hermreck, 2010). Ireland Duran et al. conducted a feasibility study on three different C&D debris recovery facilities in Ireland (2006). The researchers found that the more material a recovery facility can process, the less it will cost per ton to recycle C&D waste. Recycling only becomes economically viable when the cost of landfilling the C&D debris exceeds the costs of bringing the waste to a recovery facility for recycling, and when the cost of raw

PAGE 25

25 aggregate is more than the cost of r ecycled aggregate. In addition to being cheaper, recycled aggregate must be of similar quality to raw aggregate in order to be competitive in the market. Overall, the researchers concluded that C&D debris recovery facilities are feasible within Ireland. Ja pan Gao et al. conducted a study that aimed to create a method of calculating the energy and raw material savings for recycling residential building materials by studying three case studies in Japan (2001). The results of the study indicate that the energy consumption for most building materials is lower for recycled materials than the energy consumption associated with generating new materials. The overall energy consumption savings of recycled C&D materials was at least 10% in all three case studies. The study also emphasized that need to distinguish between three types of recycling: product recycling, material recycling, and feedstock recycling (Gao et al., 2001). Product recycling refers to processes that allow a product to be used again without changin g the form or nature of the product. Material recycling refers to a process that takes a separated material and uses it to produce a new building material. Lastly, feedstock recycling refers to a process that takes a separated material and turns it into fe edstock for making another type of building material. These types of recycling are important when determining the type of recycling that will be used for different recovered C&D debris materials. Taiwan Huang et al. conducted a study to assess the feasibility of a C&D debris recycling program in Taiwan (2002). The study concluded that for every six tons of C&D debris

PAGE 26

26 that is processed, approximately 3.8 tons of reusable construction materials will be prod uced, 0.27 tons of recyclable ferrous metals will be produced, and 0.61 tons of combustible waste will be recovered for use. The researchers concluded that a successful C&D debris waste recycling program in Taiwan would require increased knowledge regardin g the amount and quality of C&D debris that is currently generated, the relative location and distances of recyclable materials versus raw materials, and the secondary recycling market availability for the recovered C&D materials (Huang et al., 2002). Hong Kong, China Tam and Tam conducted a study on the recycling methods for waste generated in Hong Kong, China (2006). The study found that recycled materials are more competitive in regions where there is a shortage of raw materials and/or the availability o f landfilling locations. The researchers proposed several ways for improving the current recycling market including: requiring higher landfill tipping fees, implementing innovative methods of demolishing buildings and structures, having drop off centers an d local recycling facilities, increasing donations of reusable materials to charities, and incorporating legislation and incentive programs for recycling C&D debris waste (Tam and Tam, 2006). Chongqing, China Zhao et al. conducted a study that was focused on the feasibility for recycling C&D debris waste in Chongqing, China (2010). The researchers developed six different scenarios for potential future C&D debris recovery facilities. The researchers concluded that the demand for recycled C&D materials depen ds on environmental awareness, availability of recycling technology, and the quality of the recycled materials separated

PAGE 27

27 through processing. Additionally, in order for recovery facilities to exist, landfill tipping fees and the price for primary raw materi als needs to increase. The researchers believe these changes will make C&D recovery facilities a more economical alternative to landfilling and will be competitive in the market as a potential source for usable materials. Environmental Impacts of Recycling C&D Debris There are many impacts that recycling C&D debris can have on the environment. Reusing the C&D debris waste materials conserves both raw materials and landfill space. Additionally, some recycled materials may generate less greenhouse gas emissio ns and use less energy compared to landfilling and raw materials manufacturing. Recycling C&D debris overall has a positive impact on the environment. Conservation of Natural Resources Recycling C&D debris conserves natural resources. This is because the m aterials will be used in processes and applications that would otherwise require the use of raw materials. For example, recycled concrete can potentially be used as an aggregate in new concrete production (Tam, 2008) or as road sub base material (Poon and Chan, 2006). Also, the wood component of the C&D debris waste stream can be processed into landscaping mulch or used as fuel for incineration plants (Solo Gabriele et al., 1998). Recycling C&D waste also conserves the natural resources that would otherwi se be needed to manufacture raw materials. For example, recycling one ton of steel conserves 2500 pounds of iron ore, 1400 pounds of coal, and 120 pounds of limestone that would have been used to produce one ton of virgin steel (SRI, 2011). Overall, most r ecovered C&D materials after separation have the potential to be recycled in existing

PAGE 28

28 markets and processes. Therefore, using recycled C&D debris waste products in lieu of virgin materials not only decreases the need to harvest raw materials from the envir onment, but also conserves resources needed to manufacture and produce new raw material products. Conservation of Landfill Space Recycling C&D debris materials helps conserve the available space left in existing landfills. Since the materials can be reused in other applications, they will not be buried in a landfill. This will increase the longevity of landfills, while also decreasing the need to build new ones. A study conducted recently found that there are currently 34 Class III landfills operating in Fl orida (Goyal, 2010). Also, a recent report by the FDEP stated that Florida currently has a total of about 83 landfills and 75 C&D disposal sites (FDEP, 2010). Regardless of the number of currently operating disposal locations, eventually these sites will fill up and close. It is also likely that it will become increasingly harder to permit new sites to accept waste material. Therefore, recycling C&D debris allows existing landfills to be in operation longer and decrease the need to permit new landfills and disposal sites. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fuel and Electricity Usage C&D debris recovery facilities generate greenhouse gas emissions due to fuel usage by the machinery used to process the materials. Greenhouse gas emissions are also associated with t he electric power consumption used to operate the facility. Although greenhouse gas emissions are generated through the process of recovering C&D debris waste for recycling, the emissions associated with producing raw materials may end up producing even mo re emissions during their manufacture and production. Therefore, recycling C&D debris materials can lead to decreased greenhouse gas

PAGE 29

29 emissions compared to the emissions generated while manufacturing and producing raw materials. Fuel emissions Greenhouse ga s emissions are also generated by C&D debris recovery facilities due to their diesel fuel consumption. Diesel fuel is used to operate the trucks and machinery equipment required to process the C&D waste stream. The carbon content of a gallon of gasoline is 2 778 grams, and the carbon content of a gallon of diesel fuel is 2 421 grams (EPA, 2005). When these fuels are burned, carbon dioxide is produced. A gallon of gasoline produces about 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide, and a gallon of diesel fuel produces abo ut 22.2 pounds of carbon dioxide (EPA, 2005). If the amount of fuel used by a C&D recovery facility is known, then a relative estimate of carbon dioxide emissions could be calculated. Utility emissions C&D debris recovery facilities require the use of ele ctric power consumption from the local utility grid in order to operate. The EPA created the Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) which is a comprehensive data source for environmental characteristics for almost all of the electric power generated in the United States (EPA, 2011). Within the database, the majority of the state of Florida is located within the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) sub region; part of the Florida panhandle is grouped into another sub region. The greenhouse gas emissions for the FRCC region are shown in Table 2 2. The table contains estimates for the amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions associated with each kilowatt hour (kWh) consumed from the utility in the FRCC re gion. If the amount of electric power consumed at a C&D recovery facility

PAGE 30

30 within Florida is known, then the emissions data shown in Table 2 2 can be used to operation. Co mparison of recycling materials to raw material manufacturing and landfilling Greenhouse gas emissions have been studied and determined for materials that are commonly recycled. Emissions associated with the raw material acquisition and manufacturing proc esses of some of those materials have also been studied. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with landfilling materials can also be compared to emissions data associated with recycling materials. The EPA has created the Waste Reduction Model (WaRM) that ca n be used to assess the amount of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents associated with various waste disposal methods, including recycling and landfilling, for common waste materials. The emissions factors for landfilling materials typically reflects the greenhouse gas emissions associated with transporting the material to a landfill and operating landfill equipment on a regular basis (EPA, 2010). Some materials, when stored in a landfill, can provide carbon sequestration and energy recovery potential such as wood, and can have a negative emissions factor. The net emissions factors associated with landfilling concrete, wood, drywall, asphalt shingles, cardboard, mixed metals, mixed paper, and mixed plastic are shown in Table 2 3 (EPA, 2010). The emis sions factor for recycled materials typically reflects the greenhouse gas emissions associated with using recycled materials in place of virgin materials. This assumption usually takes into account the emissions associated with transporting the material to a recovery facility and the process and non process energy associated with sorting and processing the material at the facility (EPA, 2010). However, the emissions

PAGE 31

31 generated through the operation of the facility are offset by the emissions associated with the transportation and energy associated to acquire and manufacture raw materials. The net emissions factors associated with recycling concrete, wood, drywall, asphalt shingles, cardboard, mixed metals, mixed paper, and mixed plastic are shown in Table 2 4 (EPA, 2010). The negative emissions factors for recycling these materials are a reflection of net emissions reductions and carbon storage. When comparing the emissions factors for landfilling versus recycling from Table 2 3 and Table 2 4, the emissions f actors for landfilling materials are greater than the emissions factors for recycling materials. This indicates that recycling C&D debris waste should result in a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions versus disposing the material into a landfill. Alth ough there are some emissions that result from operating a C&D recovery facility, landfilling materials and subsequently mining for raw materials for new materials, generally produces more emissions than recycling C&D debris waste materials. Social Impact s of Recycling C&D Debris The recycling industry as a whole creates jobs, typically at higher income levels, compared to jobs associated with landfilling and incineration operation (CCG, 2009). Also, some may argue that job creation from recycling outweighs the subsequent loss of jobs in disposal and raw material mining and manufacturing (CCG, 2009). About one job is created per ten thousand tons of waste disposed in a landfill or incineration facility each year, whereas about ten jobs are created f or the same amount of waste at a conventional MRF (Seldman, 2006). A conventional MRF is understood to be one that processes typical curbside recycling program materials, such as mixed paper and containers Unfortunately, at this point in time it if diffic ult to determine the number of

PAGE 32

32 jobs created by a C&D MRF Therefore, it would be valuable to determine an estimate of the number of jobs created by this industry. Future of C&D Debris Recycling in Florida Recycling C&D debris is possible, practical, and sh ould be a priority for the state of Florida. Recycling in Florida has been employed since the passage of the Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA) in 1988. The SWMA included a recycling goal of 30% for the state (FDEP, 2010). Unfortunately, the state is curren tly only reaching a recycling rate of about 28%, which has caused some members of the state legislature to reassess the need for recycling. The Energy, Climate Change, and Economic Security Act of 2008 were signed into law by former Governor Charlie Crist. The act created Florida statutes that establish a statewide recycling goal of 75% by the year 2020. The FDEP was directed to create a program that would outline the best way to achieve this goal. The 75% Recycling Goal Report was submitted to the Legislat ure for approval in January 2010 (FDEP, 2010). Part of the report states that recycling C& D debris, which constitutes about 25% of all waste in Florida, could contribute as much as 12% to the overall 75% recycling goal (FDEP, 2010). The report mentions that one way to achieve this goal is to have the recovery facilities. Therefore, it is critical to understand how these facilities operate and how they may help Florida reach its 75% recycling goal by 2020.

PAGE 33

33 Table 2 1. Construction and d emolition (C&D) d ebris c omposition in the United States Material Estimated C&D d ebris g enerated (%) Concrete and m ixed r ubble 40 50 Wood 20 30 Drywall 5 15 Asphalt roofing 1 10 Metals 1 5 Bricks 1 5 Plastics 1 5 Table 2 2. Emissions for the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) s ubregion for 2007 Greenhouse g as Emissions (lb./kWh) Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1.22011 000 Methane (CH4) 0.00004119 Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.00001525 Table 2 3. Net g reenhouse gas e missions for l andfilling m aterials Material Greenhouse g as e missions (MTCO 2 E/ton) Concrete 0.04 Wood 0.6 0 Drywall 0.13 Asphalt s hingles 0.04 Mixed m etal 0.4 0 Cardboard 0.08 Mixed p aper 0.05 Mixed p lastic 0.04 Table 2 4. Net g reenhouse g as e missions for r ecycling m aterials Material Greenhouse g as e missions (MTCO 2 E/ton) Concrete 0.01 Wood 2.46 Drywall 0.03 Asphalt s hingles 0.09 Mixed m etal 5.40 Cardboard 3.10 Mixed p aper 3.51 Mixed p lastic 1.5 0

PAGE 34

34 Figure 2 1. Average amount of c onstruction and d emolition (C&D) d ebris g enerat ed per person by the United States and o ther c ountries in 2002 Figure 2 2. Reported c onstruction and d emolition (C&D) d ebris r ecycled by the United States and c ountries in the EU in 2002 0.54 0.79 0.53 0.40 0.36 0.31 0.72 0.71 0.61 0.31 0.59 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.24 0.02 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Reported tons/person 25 17 45 15 9 <5 90 87 41 <5 81 <5 21 45 <5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent (%) recycled

PAGE 35

35 Figure 2 3. Total amount of reported c onstruction and d emolition (C&D) d ebri s g enerated in Florida for 2001 2009 Figure 2 4. C onstruction and d emolition (C&D) d ebris a nnual g eneration per person for 11 s tates in the U nited S tates 5.76 7.09 7.28 8.10 12.22 9.97 8.16 7.30 6.69 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Tons (millions) generated 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.42 0.09 0.23 0.14 0.03 0.31 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 Tons generated/person

PAGE 36

36 Figure 2 5. A nnual a verage r ecycling r ates of c onstruction and d emolition (C&D) d ebris a nnually in the s tate of Florida for 2001 2009 Figure 2 6. Material c omposition of c onstruction and d emolition (C&D) d ebris in Florida 17% 23% 27% 21% 20% 15% 26% 28% 30% 23% (avg.) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Recyclinrg rate % Concrete, 56% Wood, 13% Drywall, 11% Misc. Debris, 8% Asphalt Roofing, 7% Metal, 3% Cardboard, 1% Plastic, 1%

PAGE 37

37 Figure 2 7. Material c omposition of c onstruction and d emolition (C&D) d ebris in the EU Mineral, 70% Timber, 11% Glass/Plastic, 7% Metal, 7% Other, 5%

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER 3 METHOD OLOGY To determine the impact on job creation and the environment by C&D recovery facilities, a research approach was developed. A basic scenario for the typical daily operation of a mixed C&D recovery facility was created. Once the basic model was developed, in formation was identified that would be needed in order to assess the impacts on job creation and the environment. Questions regarding the employment, the mass and composition of materials, and the energy usage of the facilities were established and submit ted to the selected facilities. The staff then answered the questions to the best of their ability during site visits and through email correspondence. The information that was collected was then analyzed to determine the impacts on job creation and the en vironment associated with the facilities Some d ata from the United States EPA WaRM model was used in the analysis of the environmental impacts of the facilities to demonstrate the potential greenhouse gas emissions savings that result from recycling the r ecovered materials at the facilities instead of the material being buried in a landfill. Limitations to Data Collection and Analysis Several limitations were identified regarding the collection of data. Only certain facilities were analyzed due to their pr evious relationships and cooperation with the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management at the University of Florida There are many other facilities that exist within the state of Florida that were not included in this study Additionally, o nly mixed C&D recovery facilities were included in the research. Other facilities, such as C&D landfills, were not included in this particular study.

PAGE 39

39 Additionally, information used in the analysis of the impacts on job creation and the environment for the C&D recovery facilities are compared to data for typical MSW landfills. Therefore, the number of jobs created by a C&D MRF is compared to jobs created at a typical MSW landfill, not necessarily a C&D landfill. Furthermore the emissions factors associated with landfilling materials in the WaRM model results analysis is based on emissions factors for a typical MSW landfill, not necessarily a C&D landfill. Baseline Scenario of a C&D Recovery Facility There are many existing C&D debris recovery facilities and each one operates in a unique way to meet the specific needs of the facility. Although the types of machinery and the configuration of sorters and operators may vary, most facilities receive and process the waste in a similar process. C&D debris waste mat erial is brought to the facility via trucks. The trucks are typically weighed to determine the tons of material being delivered. Sometimes cubic yards are used to measure the materials, typically when they are lightweight materials such as plastics. The de cision of how to measure the waste is usually left to the discretion of the generator delivering the waste. The tipping fee for the material is determined by the amount of waste being dropped off at the C&D recovery facility, typically a flat rate charge p er ton or per cubic foot of debris. Once the trucks containing the C&D debris materials have been measured, the materials are tipped onto a designated tipping floor at the facility. The material is typically placed directly onto a larger pile of C&D debris waste that has continuously built up with each new load brought to the site. An employee, generally called a spotter, will watch the waste being deposited onto the tipping floor. The spotter looks for

PAGE 40

40 materials that are not allowed at the facility, such a s hazardous waste, or materials that require additional fees for disposal. From the tipping floor, an operator using a piece of machinery, usually called an excavator, places the waste onto a conveyor belt leading to a sorting screen, which is the first st ep in the sorting process. As the waste travels along the conveyor belt, it typically passes through a series of screens that separate the waste into two separate waste streams. One of the streams d the other stream will comprise the screens onto a different conveyor belt system, whereas the overs usually stay on the main processing line. This part of the process usually helps to separate and shake off the soil and dirt from the materials. Also, there may be a magnet used to pull out metals from the waste stream at this point in the system, before the materials continue on to the main sorting line. The larg er materials are carried over the screens onto another conveyor belt where an assembly line of people, or sorters, is ready to pick out specific types of materials from the waste stream. Each sorter is typically assigned a certain waste to pull from the wa ste stream and will place the material into a designated bin or bunk er for that specific material. Materials generally pulled from the C&D debris waste stream are cardboard, wood, metal, and concrete. Other materials may also be pulled from the waste strea material. Materials that are not recoverable will simply continue down the conveyor belt where it is then dumped into a pile of unrecoverable debris. These materials will eventual ly be hauled off by a truck to a landfill for disposal.

PAGE 41

41 The smaller materials carried through the system by a different conveyor belt after being screened may also require an assembly line of sorters. These sorters will pick out smaller pieces of recoverab le materials, but most of the waste is not sorted because it is mostly dirt and soil. The rest of the material is usually comprised of little bits of all the different materials in the C&D debris waste stream that have broken off from larger pieces of mate rial. Since this material is a mix of dirt and other resources, it is termed recovered screen material, or RSM, and it generally looks like dirt after being processed. While the sorters are constantly pulling materials out of the waste stream, other employ ees, known as operators, are moving and loading the material onto trucks or to other areas of the facility using machinery equipment. Some C&D recovery facilities may also have operators taking concrete waste and wood waste and further processing the mater ial into smaller pieces. All of the operators of heavy machinery must pass specialized training in order to operate the equipment. The facilities also require other types of employees to maintain everyday operations that are not necessarily associated with the sorting process. There are administrative employees that work in the facilities to assist with sales, accounting, and customer service, for example. There may also be employees that work on repairing ent, such as welders and mechanics. Typically at the beginning and end of each operating day, (before and after processing), the employees will clean and wet down the majority of the facility where processing has occurred. This is to help control the dust that has been generated and

PAGE 42

42 released into the air through processing, as well as to keep the work spaces and equipment clean and free of debris. Usually there is also some sort of wetting system that is applied continuously during processing. Additionally, there may be some sort of dust collection system in place in order to maintain the health and safety of the employees by keeping the dust levels in the atmosphere at a minimum. In order for a C&D debris recovery facility to operate daily, electric power m ust be purchased from the grid. Additionally, machinery equipment requires diesel fuel in order to operate. The fuel is typically needed to operate the equipment used to move and manage the materials at the facility. Identification of Data Needed From the C&D Recovery Facilities In order to quantify the effect that C&D debris recovery facilities have on job creation and the environment in the state of Florida, several C& D debris recovery facilities in Florida needed to be studied to collect pertinent information regarding their operations. The facilities chosen for this study were selected because they process a mixed C&D debris waste stream and are representative of the larger processing facilities within the state. Also, the locations of the facilities represent different areas of the state of Florida. Since many of the C&D debris recovery facilities are private businesses, they may be unwilling to give out detailed inf ormation regarding their different business practices. Therefore, the decision to choose these facilities for this study was also based on the Solid and Hazardous W aste Management at the University of Florida. To determine the number of jobs created by each of the facilities, employment information related to the ir operations was needed. A list of four questions was

PAGE 43

43 submitted to the facilities to help identify the ty pe of employment information that would be most helpful in determining jobs created by the facility. The questions that were submitted to the facilities were as follows: h ow many employees does the facility need to operate? d oes the number of employees needed to process debris fluctuate? h ow many hours are worked per day? h ow often are new employees hired? These questions were created with the intent that they would allow the facilities to report the information in the most suitable way for them, since it was initially unknown how each of the facilities kept track of their employment data. To determine the composition and mass of the C&D debris processed at the facilities, information related to the waste stream was needed. T he information that was collected was intended to help better characterize the materials received and processed at each of the facilities A list of four questions was submitted to the facilities to help identify the type of information needed about the C& D waste stream. The questions were as follows: h ow much material is received for processing? w hat materials are separated from the waste/ what is the typical composition? h ow much of each waste is separated through processing? w hat are the end markets for the separated materials? These questions were created with the intent that they would allow the facilities to report the information in the most suitable way for them, since it was initially unknown how well each of the facilities kept track of the ir waste data. To determine the carbon emissions associated with the energy and fuel usage of the facility, information related to the amount of electricity purchased from the grid, as

PAGE 44

44 well as fuel consumed by the facility, was collected. The following two questions were submitted to the facilities: h ow much fuel (used in transportation and by the machinery) is consumed? h ow much electricity is consumed to run the facility (from the grid)? These questions were created with the intent that they would allo w the facilities to report the information in the most suitable way for them, since it was initially unknown how well each of the facilities kept track of their energy and fuel usage and how willing they would be to share this type of information. These t hree categories of questions would be used to generate data on the amount of employees needed by each facility, the average amounts of debris processed, and the number of employees that it takes to process a given mass of C&D debris material. Also, the ene rgy and fuel usage consumption data would be used to generate data on the average greenhouse gas emissions associated with processing the C&D debris materials at the facilities. Data Collection and Site Visits of the C&D Debris Recovery Facilities After th e preliminary questions were submitted to the facilities via email, the actual facilities were visited several weeks later. Discussions were held with some of staff the f acility. Also, a tour was conducted at each of the facilities to observe how the machinery and employees operate together within the processing system. The tour also provided an opportunity to observe the various positions held by employees and what their respective duties were within the processing system. The data collected from the facility in north Florida was a combination of verbal and written answers to the questions provided. Detailed spreadsheets and charts

PAGE 45

45 identifying employment information and wa ste generation numbers were provided. Also, pictures and videos were taken of the facility to better identify the differences in operation compared to the facilities in south Florida. Unfortunately, when the facility was visited it was raining. Therefore, some of the outside areas of the facility were difficult to observe visually and the wood processing machinery was not in operation at that point in time. Although only one facility was visited in south Florida, the company operates four separate facilities, which all operate in a similar fashion. The data collected from these facilities was also a combination of verbal and written answers to the questions p rovided. A spreadsheet was provided identifying waste generation and composition data, which included limited data on employment and energy usage. operations and identif y differences in operations compared to the facility in north Florida. Unfortunately, when the tour of the facility was taken, most of the processing had ceased for the day and the employees were cleaning up instead of sorting and processing the C&D debris materials. Some of the employment data given was representative of other processes that are conducted at the site, but are not a part of the C&D debris material processing system. For example, the facilities in south Florida process yard waste separately from the C&D debris, and have an area designated specifically for this activity. The facility in north Florida processes curbside recycling materials on a separate processing line as well. Unfortunately, it was not possible to deduct the data given by the facilities for these processes, so they have been included along with the data for C&D debris materials.

PAGE 46

46 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSI ON Results for the C&D Debris Recovery Facility in North Florida Employment The C&D debris recovery facility in north Flo rida currently employs 40 people for everyday operations. When the facility first opened several years ago, there were only 14 people employed. Many of the positions began with just one person and now typically require two or three people for the same posi tion. The different categories and positions held by the employees at the facility are listed in Table 4 1. The facility is part of a larger company that deals with other products and services, so the president, vice president, and human resources employee s are not typically at the facility at any given time. In addition to C&D debris, this facility also processes curbside recyclable materials for the unincorporated part of the county in which it operates. These materials are handled by the 5 employees that work on the C Line (Table 4 1). Therefore, only 35 of the employees are actually associated with processing C&D debris material at the facility. The 40 employees currently working at the facility are needed every day. The number does not fluctuate based o n the types of materials received or the mass of materials received. This is because the processing line operates every day. The A Line being placed on the A Line conv eyor belt. These items include larger pieces of cardboard, metal, carpet, concrete, shingles, and wood. Each sorter is responsible for one main material, but may assist his co workers that may have missed their assigned material. The B Line sorters sort th

PAGE 47

47 through the sorter onto a separate conveyor belt from the A Line conveyor belt. The B Line sorters typically look for larger pieces of wood and metal, and the rest of the material ends up as RSM, which is mostly composed of dirt. The C Line sorters sort the materials brought in from the curbside collection program that services the residents in the unincorporated part of the county. The operators at the facility do not sort materials; operators ar e trained to maneuver the machinery equipment, such as the excavator and forklifts. They operate the different pieces of equipment and move the sorted piles of materials to different areas around the facility for further processing, baling, or storage unti l a market consumer purchases the material. Some of the employees may switch positions depending on what materials are being processed for any given day. For example, some of the sorters from the A Line and B Line may switch to sorting wood on days when wo od processing is being conducted. Additionally, there are a handful of employees who do not necessarily sort material or operate machinery, such as the on duty mechanic, but are still important to the overall processing system. There are 19 sorters, 11 ope rators, 6 administrative employees, and 4 miscellaneous employees (Figure 4 1). Figure 4 2 demonstrates the relative percentages of these different types of employee positions. About half of the employees are sorters, about a quarter of the employees are o perators, and the remaining quarter is split between administrative and other miscellaneous positions. Composition and Mass of C&D Debris The facility currently processes an average of 250 tons per day of C&D debris material, but is permitted to process up to 400 tons per day. The facility charges a flat

PAGE 48

48 rate tipping fee of $39 per ton for all customers regardless of the type or the mass of the C&D debris brought to the facility. The typical composition of the mixed materials received and separated include: cardboard, untreated and unpainted wood, concrete, carpet and carpet padding, shingles, metals, plastics, curbside materials, and mixed paper. The sorters working on the C&D debris processing line pick out cardboard, untreated and unpainted wood, metals, paper, concrete, carpet and carpet padding, and shingles. All other materials in the waste stream are currently either sent to the landfill or processed into RSM. Last year the facility installed two additional work stations along the A Line conveyor belt that can be utilized in the future by sorters to pick out additional resources from the waste stream if a market opens up for the additional materials. In addition to C&D debris material, the facility accepts the residential curbside recyclable materials from the unincorporated part of the county. This includes glass, plastic, and metal containers as well as mixed paper products. These materials are sorted separately from the C&D debris materials through a different processing system, located adjacent to t he C&D debris sorting line, known as the C Line. The facility accepts all numbers and types of plastic containers, including clamshell packaging. Currently the facility does not separate the plastics out by their specific types or numbers, but would like t o in the future in order to make a bigger profit from the sale of the material. The majority of the materials accepted by the facility are separated through either the C&D debris processing system or the curbside materials processing system. Only

PAGE 49

49 clean mat erial of one single material can be taken directly to a recovered material stockpile if it is not going through the processing system. Therefore, all mixed loads are tipped at the tipping floor where they must flow through one of the two processing system in order to be separated. There is also a select group of miscellaneous materials that the facility accepts in small quantities. For example, the facility will accept mattresses for a small fee per mattress, and some of the sorters will disassemble them du ring down times for a small monetary incentive in addition to their regular pay. Other materials, such as electronics and tires, are also collected by the facility for a small fee. In 2010, the facility accepted about 54,396.79 tons of materials for recycl ing. The waste materials originated from within the following counties in Florida: Leon, Wakulla, Gadsden, Jefferson, Franklin, and Calhoun County. Some materials were also accepted from Thomas and Lowndes County in Georgia. About 35,901.9 tons, or 66%, of the accepted material was recovered for recycling in 2010. The other 34%, or about 18,495.1 tons, of the material ended up being sent to a Class III landfill for disposal (Figure 4 3). The C&D debris recycling facility keeps track of the composition and mass of their waste based on the amount of each material leaving the facility. This is because the facility assumes that the amount of material received should equal the amount that leaves the facility, since they do not store or use any of the waste on th e site. The facility does use a total of 36 different types of material classifications to describe the materials received by the facility, but only 13 categories for materials that leave the facility.

PAGE 50

50 The facility reports the following categories to the s tate of Florida as recoverable materials: asphalt, concrete, RSM, wood, yard waste, drywall, shingles, cardboard, mixed paper, plastic, metals, glass, and textiles. Table 4 2 shows the estimated total amount of these materials that were recovered for recyc ling by the facility in 2010. Asphalt and drywall had no reported values, so they are not represented as part of Figure 4 5, which depicts the percentage of each material that was recovered for recycling in 2010. It is important to note that some of the es timated values were derived using data from 2011, because there was missing data for the information provided for 2010. Some of the end markets for the recovered materials include: paper and cardboard mills, metal processors, boiler fuel plants, wholesale landscaping companies, and road paving contractors. Although concrete is separated from the C&D debris waste stream, it is not processed at this particular facility. Therefore, market consumers who typically purchase this concrete material take it to anoth er facility for further processing into aggregate. The yard waste, coupled with unpainted and untreated wood, is processed on site to produce a mulch material that is mostly used by landscaping companies. The RSM that is produced at the facility is general ly purchased by a nearby landfill for use as daily landfill cover. Energy Consumption and Fuel Usage The facility purchases its electricity from the local utility company, and in 2010 the average monthly bill was about $9106. This equates to an annual elec tric bill of about $109,272. Unfortunately, the facility only tracks the amount paid to the utility e very month, not the kWh usage.

PAGE 51

51 The facility uses an average of about 2,300 gallons of diesel fuel each month during operation, or about 27,600 gallons per year. The fuel is mainly required for the machinery equipment that is used to sort and process the C&D debris material. Although diesel fuel is the predominant fuel used at the facility, it is important to note that compressed gas is also used to operate s ome of the fork lifts and street sweeper machinery. Results for the Facilities in South Florida Employment The four facilities in south Florida currently employ a combined total of 165 people for everyday operations. The employees that support the facilities, such as executives, sales personnel, accounting, and customer service staff, were not included in this total. Therefore, the 165 employees strictly represent the number of people it takes to operate and process the material received by the faci lities. The 165 total employees for all facilities equates to an average of about 41 employees per facility. At the particular facility that was visited to collect data, 49 of those 165 people were needed to operate the facility. Unlike the facility in nor th Florida, the different categories and positions held by the employees were not given. However, it appeared as though the overall organization was similar. There were sorters, equipment operators, and administrative staff who overlooked the employees and the facility operations. Also, this particular facility is one of the two facilities that further process yard waste and wood, as well as concrete and asphalt. Therefore, additional employees are needed to operate the equipment for these processes. The ot her two facilities do not further process those materials on site at this point in time.

PAGE 52

52 The 165 employees currently working at the facilities are needed every day. The number does not fluctuate based on the types of materials received or the mass of mater ials received. However, the processing line does not operate every day if it is not feasible; the line only operates on days when there is a lot of material to process. The employees will clean up their workstations and the facility, as well as repair the machinery and equipment, on the days when sorting is not being conducted. The facilities do not experience a high turnover rate for their employees. Typically the only instance when employees step down from their job at the facility is when their schedule d hours have been cut. As long as the employees are able to work a full time schedule every week, then the employees are highly dependable and willing to work. Many of the employees are friends with one another; some are even from the same neighborhood and have created a carpooling system to get to work more easily and Composition and Mass of C&D Debris The four facilities accept materials from a wide range of customers. They allow the customers to choose whethe r to pay by the ton or by the cubic foot. The composition of the mixed materials received and separated by the facilities include: wood, RSM, yard waste, concrete, metal, cardboard, and a small amount of other miscellaneous materials. The majority of the m aterials accepted by the facility are separated through either the C&D debris processing system or the yard waste processing system. Only clean material of one single material can be taken directly to a recovered material stockpile if it is not going throu gh the processing system. Therefore, all mixed loads are tipped at

PAGE 53

53 the tipping floor where they must flow through the processing system in order to be separated. The facilities record the amount of materials they receive every year in cubic yards. Accordin yards of mixed C&D waste can be converted into tons using the following conversion: the weight of C&D debris (in tons) is equal to the volume of the C&D debris (in cubic yards) multip lied by the conversion factor of 0.24 tons per cubic yard. Table 4 3 shows the conversion of the cubic yards of C&D debris into tons for the facilities in south Florida. In 2010, the facilities accepted a combined total of roughly 788,311 tons of materials About 663,709 tons, or 88%, of the accepted material was recovered for recycling. The other 12%, or about 124,602 tons, of the material was sent to a Class III landfill (Figure 4 4). While on the tour of the facility, it appeared that the majority of the material destined for the landfill consisted of plastic, such as used trash bags and packaging material. The C&D debris recycling facilities keep track of the composition of their waste based on the amount of each material leaving the facilities. This is because the facilities assume that the amount of material received should equal the amount that, since they do not use the waste on the sites. The categories of recovered materials by the facilities are as follows: wood, RSM, yard waste, concrete, metal, c ardboard, and miscellaneous materials. Table 4 4 shows the relevant amounts of each C&D waste material recovered for recycling in 2010 for the facilities in south Florida. Additionally, Figure 4 6 represents the relative percentages for each of the materia ls recovered for recycling in 2010.

PAGE 54

54 Some of the end markets for the recovered materials at the facilities include: paper and cardboard mills, metal processors, boiler fuel plants, wholesale landscaping companies, the local landfill, and road paving contrac tors. The processed wood and yard trash is turned into fuel for cogeneration plants and as mulch for landscaping purposes. The product is used to fill low lying areas of land, build foundations for golf courses, and create berms for noise abatement. The lo cal landfill uses the RSM material as daily landfill cover. The processed aggregate, which is mostly concrete, is used to construct road base, line utility pipe ditches, and used in the base of local equestrian arenas. Energy Consumption and Fuel Usage The facilities purchase electricity from the local utility company However, the facilities did not provide any information for the study regarding how much electricity is consumed. Therefore, it is unknown how much kWh are used each year by the facilities. The four facilities combined use a total of about 31,200 gallons of diesel fuel each month during operation, or about 377,400 gallons per year. This is the equivalent of about 7,800 gallons of diesel fuel per facility each month, or about 93,600 gallons pe r facility per year. The fuel is mainly used by the machinery equipment used to sort and process the C&D debris material. Discussion of Results for the C&D Debris Recovery Facilities Employment The facility in north Florida employs 40 people, while the fac ilities in south Florida employ an average of about 41 people per facility for everyday operations. However, the facilities do not receive comparable amounts of C&D debris waste for processing. The facilities in south Florida received about 788,311tons in 2010, or about 197,078

PAGE 55

55 tons per facility. The facility in north Florida received about 54,396.79 tons in 2010, which is only about 28% of the total amount each facility in south Florida received. Therefore, the facilities do not have similar processing rat es for the C&D debris per employee. Table 4 5 shows data for the total number of employees at each of the facility locations, the amount of C&D debris accepted by the facilities, and the amount of C&D debris that was recovered for recycling in 2010. The to tal tons received per year were divided by the total number of employees to calculate the total tons of C&D debris processed per person per year. This value was then divided by 365 days to calculate the total tons of C&D debris processed per person per day This same method was also applied to the values for the tons of recovered materials to determine the amount of recovered tons of C&D debris per person and the recovered tons of C&D debris per person per year (Table 4 5 ). The facility in north Florida re ceived an average of 1 359.92 tons per person in 2010, whereas the facilities in south Florida received an average of about 4 777.64 tons per person (Figure 4 7). This equates to about 3.37 tons per person per day for the facility in north Florida, and 13. 09 tons per person per day for the facilities in south Florida (Figure 4 8). The facility in north Florida accepted about 26% of the total amount of materials the facilities in south Florida accepted per person in 2010. The facility in north Florida recov ered an average of 897.55 tons of materials per person in 2010, whereas the facilities in south Florida recovered an average of 4 022.48 tons per person (Figure 4 7). This equates to about 2.46 recovered tons per person per day for the facility in north Fl orida, and 11.02 recovered tons per person per day for the

PAGE 56

56 facilities in south Florida (Figure 4 8). The facility in north Florida only recovered about 23% of the total amount of materials the facilities in south Florida recovered per person in 2010. Compo sition and Mass of C&D Debris The composition and mass of the recovered materials for the facility in north Florida is shown in Table 4 2. The composition and mass of the recovered materials for the facility in north Florida is shown in Table 4 4 The data from these two tables were used to calculate the average daily recovered tons for each material at the facilities in 2010 (Table 4 6 ). The data from Table 4 5 and Table 4 6 were used to create Table 4 7 which shows the average number of employees per mat erial based on the mass of materials he categories given by the facilities in south Florida. Since fractions of people do not exist, the estimates for the number of employees have been rounded to the nearest whole number (Table 4 7 ). Figure 4 9 shows the comparison of each material category to the average number of employees based on the mass of materials recovered by the facilities in 2010. It is important to note that the south Florida employees per material shown are representative of the employees at each facility, not the 4 facilities co mbined. This is because the employees per facility are similar; 40 for north Florida and 41 for south Florida. There is a large difference between the number of potential jobs created from wood recovery at the facilities; about 12 jobs at a south Florida facility, but only one at

PAGE 57

57 the north Florida facility. This could be attributed to the fact the south Florida facilities recover treated and painted wood, whereas the facility in north Florida only recovers untreated and unpainted wood. The facilities in so uth Florida have a market treated and painted wood as fuel for cogeneration plants. none for the facilities in south Florida. The gap between the two is due to the fact that several categories of materials the north Florida facility recovers, such as shingl es and carpet, were classified in this data as miscellaneous. RSM yields the largest estimate of potential jobs created from its recovery; about 9 jobs at the facility in north Florida and about 10 jobs at each facility in south Florida. These estimates ar e all relative and based on the amount of materials recovered by the facilities, and therefore do not necessarily reflect the actual number of employees needed to manage each of the represented materials. Energy Consumption and Fuel Usage The facilities in north and south Florida currently do not keep records of their utility usage. Therefore, an estimate of their monthly kWh usage was not able to be determined. The facilities in north and South Florida keep track of the amount of diesel fuel used by the fa cility. The facility in north Florida uses about 2,300 gallons per month, or about 27,600 gallons per year. The facilities in south Florida use about 31,200 gallons per month, or about 374,400 gallons per year. An estimate of the number of gallons of diese l fuel consumed per ton of material processed by the facilities in 2010 is shown in Table 4 8

PAGE 58

58 The facility in north Florida uses about 0.507 gallons of diesel fuel per ton of material received and processed. The facilities in south Florida use about 0.475 gallons of diesel fuel per ton of material received and processed. Although the facilities receive vastly different amounts of materials each year, it appears that they both require a similar amount of fuel to process the materials at the facilities on a per ton basis. This is Table 4 8 also shows an estimate for the number of gallons of diesel fuel needed per employee per day at the facilities. The facility in north Florida uses about 1.8 9 gallons of diesel fuel per employee per day. The facilities in south Florida use about 6.22 gallons of diesel fuel per employee per day. This is reasonable because the facilities in south Florida process more materials per employee, therefore the facilit ies should require more fuel for processing the materials. Job Creation Operating the C&D debris recovery facilities in both north and south Florida has created jobs in the recycling industry. Table 4 9 has normalized the number of jobs created by the C&D recovery facilities to match previously determined data for other types of waste management facilities. The analogous unit that has been calculated is the number of jobs created per 10,000 tons received per year. Previous literature states that one job is created for every 10,000 tons of material accepted at a landfill or incineration plant, and 10 jobs are created for the same amount at a conventional MRF (Seldman, 2006). A conventional MRF is understood to be one that processes typical curbside materials such as mixed paper and containers. The facility in north Florida created roughly 7 jobs per 10,000 tons of material received in 2010. The facilities in south Florida created about 2 jobs per 10,000 tons of

PAGE 59

59 materials received in 2010. It is important to note that the facilities in south Florida accept significantly more materials per year compared to the facility in north Florida. Thus, the facilities in south Florida have also created numerous administrative jobs for each facility, but have not been fact ored into with data. Therefore, the estimated number of jobs created per 10,000 tons received at the facilities in south Florida is likely to be greater than two jobs. Sending C&D debris material to a MRF specifically designed to process C&D debris creates more jobs than if that same material was sent directly to a landfill. Although there is not enough data to determine an average number of jobs created, several currently operating C&D debris recovery facilities have created roughly two to seven jobs per 1 0,000 tons received, compared to just one job at a landfill. Unfortunately, at this time, it is difficult to make an estimate for total number of potential jobs that could be created in the state of Florida if all C&D material had to be processed through a C&D debris recovery facility instead of a landfill. This is because the estimates for job creation in this study are only based on limited data received for the year 2010, and are only representative for a handful of the C&D recovery facilities that exist within the state. Environmental Impacts The facility in north Florida recovered about 35,902 tons of material for recycling in 2010, and the facilities in south Florida recovered about 663,709 tons of material. This is a combined total of about 699,611 to ns of material for the year 2010. If this material had not been recovered by the facilities, it is likely that it would have been sent to a landfill. Since the facilities were able to recover 699,611 tons of C&D debris material in

PAGE 60

60 2010, about 2,915,045 cub ic yards of landfill space was conserved in the state of Florida. Furthermore, the 699,611 tons of recovered material helps conserve natural resources. This is because there are market consumers who use these recovered materials in recycling applications t hat would otherwise require the use of raw materials. Therefore, the need to mine for raw materials is reduced, and the subsequent energy and greenhouse gases associated with those activities will also be eliminated. By conserving natural resources through recycling recovered C&D debris, habit destruction is reduced as well as air and water pollution. Although the facilities only recover materials for recycling, market consumers use the recovered materials in place of raw materials. Therefore, the materials will end up as recycled materials once they leave the facility locations, instead of being buried in a landfill. The United States EPA WaRM model was used to determine the greenhouse gas emissions associated with landfilling and recycling materials based on the amount of materials recovered by the facilities. Table 4 1 0 and Table 4 1 1 show the carbon dioxide emissions savings for recycling versus landfilling some of the materials currently included in the WaRM model for the facilities (EPA, 2010). The car bon dioxide emissions savings associated with recycling the concrete, wood, shingles, mixed metal, mixed paper, and mixed plastic recovered by the facility in north Florida are shown in Table 4 1 0 According to the data adapted from the EPA WaRM model, the facility in north Florida will create a net savings of 38,747.33 tons of carbon dioxide emissions when the recovered C&D debris materials are recycled instead of being landfilled.

PAGE 61

61 The carbon dioxide emissions savings associated with recycling the concrete, wood, mixed metal, and cardboard recovered by the facilities in south Florida are shown in Table 4 1 1 According to the data adapted from the EPA WaRM model, the facilities in south Florida will create a net savings of 604,818.72 tons of carbon d ioxide emissions when the recovered C&D debris materials are recycled instead of being landfilled. The emissions factors used by the WaRM model incorporate averaged emissions for operating a recovery facility. Therefore, the WaRM model was used to show how collected data in this study may be useful in generating a better estimate for the emissions generated from diesel fuel usage and electric power consumption at C&D debris recovery facilities in the model Table 4 1 2 shows the carbon dioxide emissions by t he facilities in 2010, based on the amount of diesel fuel consumed. The facility in north Florida generated about 277.93 MTCO 2 E and the facilities in south Florida generated about 3 770.12 MTCO 2 E in 2010. The EPA WaRM model accounts for many more variable s other than fuel usage and power consumption. Some of these variables including greenhouse gases emitted for mining raw materials if materials are landfilled instead of recycled. Therefore, at this point in time, the data collected from the facilities in this study cannot be directly compared to the WaRM model estimates. However, the data from this study can be useful in improving the data used to determine the factors used by the model. Overall, the C&D debris recovery facilities in north and south Florid a are helping to reduce the amount of C&D debris waste sent to landfills each year. The facility in north Florida achieves a recovery rate of about 66% and the facilities in south Florida achieve a recovery rate of about 88%. By recovering materials for re cycling, the facilities are

PAGE 62

62 reclaiming valuable materials for productive uses, which open up new markets and economic opportunities for the state of Florida. Recycling the materials helps free up landfill space for other wastes that are not as readily reco verable and reduces the need to permit new landfills. Additionally, recycling the materials recovered by the facilities provides potential sources of energy, conserves natural resources, and often is less energy intensive overall compared to landfilling an d mi ning for virgin materials.

PAGE 63

63 Table 4 1. Typical p ositions at the C&D d ebris r ec overy f acility in n orth Florida Category Position title Number of e mployees Administrative President 1 Vice p resident 1 Human r esources/Accounting 1 General m anager 1 Assistant g eneral m anager 1 Floor s upervisors 2 Scalehouse Weigh master 1 (Part Time) 1 Tipping f loor Excavator 1 Loader 1 Spotter 1 A & B l ine Operator 1 A l ine s orters 10 B l ine s orters 3 De s toner 1 C l ine Operator 1 Sorters 3 Feed b elt 1 Cardboard Operator 1 Sorter (when needed) 1 Bins/ c ompactor Operator 1 Wood p rocessing Operator 1 Sorters (A/B l ine when not grinding) 2 Maintenance Rolling s tock 2 Fixed a ssets 1 Helpers 3 Carpet p rocessing Operator 1 Sorters 2 Miscellaneous Metals p rocessing 1 Trailer/ t ruck d river 1 Household h azardous w aste 1 Total p ositions 50

PAGE 64

64 Table 4 2. C&D d ebris r ecovered at the n orth Florida f acility in 2010 Category Tons Percent of t otal Asphalt 0 .0 0.00% Concrete 8 266.1 22.85% Wood 1 309 .0 3.62% RSM 7 921 .0 21.90% Yard Waste 4 074.2 11.26% Drywall 0 .0 0.00% Shingles 2 804 .0 7.75% Cardboard/Mixed p aper 5 235 .0 14.47% Plastic 409 .0 1.13% Metal 3 835 .0 10.60% Glass 1 115 .0 3.08% Textiles 934 .0 2.58% Note: The values for concrete, wood, RSM, Yard Waste, and Shingles are estimates based on available data from 2011 since they were not provided for 2010 Table 4 3 Cubic y ards of C&D d ebris c onverted into t ons for the f acilities in s outh Florida for 2010 Category Cubic y ards Conversion f actor Tons Total a ccepted m aterial 3,284,628 0.24 tons/yd 3 788,311 Recovered m aterial 2,765,453 0.24 tons/yd 3 663,709 Discarded m aterial 519,175 0.24 tons/yd 3 124,602 Table 4 4 C&D d ebris r ecovered at the s outh Florida f acilities in 2010 Category Tons Percent of t otal Wood 185,839 28% RSM 159,290 24% Yard waste 132,742 20% Concrete 99,556 15% Metal 46,460 7% Cardboard 19,911 3% Miscellaneous 6,637 1% Note: Only percentage values were given totaling 98% not 100%. The tons were derived from the percentages, therefore the missing 2%, or about 13,274.2 tons, are unaccounted for i n this table.

PAGE 65

65 Table 4 5 Tons p rocessed p er p erson and tons processed p er d ay for the t ons r eceived and r ecovered for the f acilities in 2010 North Florida South Florida Total e mployees 40.00 165.00 Total t ons 54,396.79 788,311.00 Total t ons/ p erson 1359.92 4777.64 Total t ons/ p erson/ d ay 3.73 13.09 Recovered t ons 35,901.90 663,709.00 Recovered t ons/ p erson 897.55 4022.48 Recovered t ons/ p erson/ d ay 2.46 11.02 Table 4 6 Average t ons of r ecovered m aterials per d ay at the f acilities in 2010 Material North Florida South Florida Wood (Tons/ d ay) 3.59 509.15 RSM (Tons/ d ay) 21.70 436.41 Yard w aste (Tons/ d ay) 11.16 363.68 Concrete (Tons/ d ay) 22.65 272.76 Metal (Tons/ d ay) 8.58 127.29 Cardboard/Mixed p aper (Tons/ d ay) 14.34 54.55 Miscellaneous (Tons/ d ay) 14.42 18.18 Table 4 7 The a verage n umber of e mployees per m aterial b ased on the mass of m aterials r ecovered at the f acilities in 2010 Material (mat.) Tons/ d ay (N. FL) Tons/ p erson/ d ay (N. FL) People/ t on of m at. (N. FL) Tons/ d ay (S. FL) Tons/ p erson/ d ay (S. FL) People/ t on of m at./ f acility (S. FL) Wood 3.59 2.46 1 509.15 11.02 12 RSM 21.70 2.46 9 436.41 11.02 10 Yard w aste 11.16 2.46 5 363.68 11.02 8 Concrete 22.65 2.46 9 272.76 11.02 6 Metal 8.58 2.46 3 127.29 11.02 3 Cardboard 14.34 2.46 6 54.55 11.02 1 Misc 14.42 2.46 6 18.18 11.02 0 Table 4 8 Estimate of the g allons of d iesel f uel u sed per t ons of m aterial r eceived and the g allons u se d per p erson per d ay at the facilities in 2010 North Florida South Florida Gallons of d iesel f uel 27,600.0 00 374,400.0 00 Tons of m aterial r eceived 54,396.8 00 788,311.0 00 Gallons of d iesel f uel/ t on of m aterial r eceived 0.507 0.475 Total t ons/ p erson/ d ay 3.73 0 13.09 0 Gallons/ p erson/ d ay 1.89 0 6.22 0

PAGE 66

66 Table 4 9 Jobs c reated per 10,000 t ons of m aterials m anaged by d ifferent t ypes of w aste m anagement f acilities Total e mployees Total t ons Employees/10,000 t ons North Florida C&D MRF 40 54,396.79 7.35 South Florida C&D MRFs 165 788,311.00 2.09 Landfill and i ncineration N/A N/A 1.00 Conventional MRF N/A N/A 10.00 Table 4 1 0 Carbon d ioxide e missions s avings for the f acility in n orth Florida for 2010 Material Tons r ecovered Landfilling e missions (MTCO 2 E/ ton) Recycling e missions (MTCO 2 E/ ton) Total l andfilling e missions (MTCO 2 E/ ton) Total r ecycling e missions (MTCO 2 E/ ton) Savings ( MTCO 2 E ) Concrete 7 498.89 0.04 0.01 299.96 74.99 374.94 Wood 1 187.51 0.6 0 2.46 712.50 2 921.27 2 208.76 Shingles 2 543.75 0.04 0.09 101.75 228.94 330.69 Mixed m etal 3 479.06 0.04 5.40 139.16 18 786.91 18 926.07 Mixed p aper 4 749.12 0.05 3.51 237.46 16 669.40 16 906.86 Mixed p lastic 371.04 0.04 1.5 0 14.84 556.56 571.40 All m aterials 19 458.32 N/A N/A 65.82 38 681.51 38 747.33 Table 4 1 1. Carbon d ioxide e missions s avings for the f acilities in s outh Florida for 2010 Material Tons r ecovered Landfilling e missions (MTCO 2 E/ ton) Recycling e missions (MTCO 2 E/ ton) Total l andfilling e missions (MTCO 2 E/ ton) Total r ecycling e missions (MTCO 2 E/ ton) Savings ( MTCO 2 E ) Concrete 90 315.79 0.04 0.01 3 612.63 903.16 4 515.79 Wood 168 590.51 0.60 2.46 101 154.30 414 732.64 313 578.34 Mixed m etal 42 147.85 0.04 5.40 1 685.91 227 598.41 229 284.32 Cardboard 18 062.98 0.08 3.10 1 445.04 55 995.23 57 440.27 All materials 319 117.13 N/A N/A 94 410.72 699 229.44 604 818.72 Table 4 1 2 Carbon d ioxide e missions for 2010 b ased on the a mount of d iesel f uel c onsumed by the f acilities Location Gallons/year CO 2 (lb. /gallon ) CO 2 (lb. / y ear ) MTCO 2 E/ y ear North Florida 27,600.00 22.20 612,720.00 277.93 South Florida 374,400.00 22.20 8,311,680.00 3 770.12

PAGE 67

67 Figure 4 1 Categorization of e mployees by j ob d escription for the C&D r ecovery f acility in north Florida Figure 4 2 Categorization of e mployees by j ob d escription for the C&D r ecovery f acility in north Florida 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Sorters Operators Administrative Miscellaneous Number of employees Sorters 47% Operators 28% Administrative 15% Miscellaneous 10%

PAGE 68

68 Figure 4 3 Percentage of m aterials r ecovered/ r ecycled and d isposed by the f acility in n orth Florida in 2010 Figure 4 4. Percentage of m aterials r ecovered/ r ecycled and d isposed by the f acilities in s outh Florida in 2010 Recovered/ Recycled 66% Disposed 34% Recovered/ Recycled 88% Disposed 12%

PAGE 69

69 Figure 4 5. Amount of r ecycled/ r ecovered m aterials for the north Florida f acility in 2010 Figure 4 6. Amount of r ecycled/ r ecovered m aterials for the south Florida f acilities in 2010 Wood 4% RSM 22% Yardwaste 11% Concrete 23% Metal 11% Cardboard/ Mixed Paper 14% Shingles 8% Plastic 1% Textiles 3% Glass 3% Asphalt 0% Drywall 0% Wood 29% Recovered Screen Material (RSM) 25% Yard Waste 20% Concrete 15% Metal 7% Cardboard 3% Miscellaneous 1%

PAGE 70

70 Figure 4 7. Total a mount of t ons r eceived per p erson c ompared to the t ons r ecovered per p erson for the f acilities in 2010 Figure 4 8. Total a mount of t ons r eceived per p erson per d ay c ompared to the t ons r ecovered per p erson per d ay for the f acilities in 2010 N. Florida 1,359.92 N. Florida 897.55 S. Florida 4,777.64 S. Florida 4,022.48 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Total Tons/Person Recovered Tons/Person Tons N. Florida 3.73 N. Florida 2.46 S. Florida 13.09 S. Florida 11.02 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Total Tons/Person/Day Recovered Tons/Person/Day Tons

PAGE 71

71 Figure 4 9. The estimated average number of employees per materi al based on the mass of materials recovered at the f acilities in 2010 1 9 5 9 3 6 6 12 10 8 6 3 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Employees/material North FL South FL (per facility)

PAGE 72

72 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSI ONS Summary and Conclusions of Research C&D debris recovery facilities have the potential to create jobs for the state of Florida as well as have a positive impact on the environment. Florida currently generates an average of about 8 million tons of C&D debris annually and only about 23% of that debris is being recycled. The recycling rate for C&D debris could be greatly increased since it is ripe wi th recoverable materials including: concrete, wood, drywall, shingles, metal, plastics, and cardboard. By recycling the recovered materials from the C&D debris waste stream, natural resources and landfill space can be conserved. The 5 facilities that part icipated in this study were able to conserve about 2,915,045 cubic yard of landfill space in Florida in 2010 alone. Recycling recovered C&D debris materials can also contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The facility in north Florida created a ne t savings of about 34,747.33 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions for the materials it recovered in 2010, and the facilities in south Florida created a net savings of about 604,818.72 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions were only th ose associated with materials included in the EPA WaRM model; it is likely that even more greenhouse gases were conserved considering there are other materials they recovered that are not included in the model. C&D debris recovery facilities create jobs a nd can help in assisting the state of reaching its 75% recycling goal by 2020.This study found that a handful of facilities in the state currently employ about 205 people to process about 842,707.79 tons of C&D debris. If roughly 8 million tons is generate d every year in the state, then it is likely that

PAGE 73

73 there is room for even more jobs to be created. This study found that roughly two to seven jobs have been created for every 10,000 tons of C&D material processed at the facilities studied. Potential Future Research G reat potential exists for further research into the effects that C&D debris recovery facilities have on job creation and the environment in Florida. Some recommendations for future studies would include surveying other recovery facilities within the state as well as collecting data for more years than just 2010. The data presented in this study is limited, but more data would help determine accurate averages for the data values related to employment, mass and composition, and energy consumption. Collecting data from other types of disposal facilities, especially C&D debris landfills in Florida, would be very useful in order to make a more accurate comparison between the types of C&D waste management options. It would be useful to know the number of jobs that are created at Florida C&D debris landfills, so that a more accurate comparison could be conducted to determine if the rec overy and rec ycling industry is creating more jobs per ton than C&D debris landfillin g Additionally, c ollecti n g data regarding the electric energy consumption needed to run these recovery facilities would also help in determining the environmental impacts This is because these facilities are very energy intensive, but the facilities do not currently track the amount of energy they use annually. The electric consumption for C&D landfills c ould also be collected for comparison. Determining the amount of energy consumed per ton of material accepted would be valuable in comparing the energy required to operate a landfill versus a recovery facility. Data related to water usage at a

PAGE 74

74 C&D recovery facility and at a C&D landfill would also be helpful in further determining environmental impacts. There is also great potential for job creation in th e C&D debris material recycling market itself. Future studies could focus on determining the number of jobs created in the market due to the increased amount of for the recovered materials available. Jobs in the manufacture of producing the equipment neede d to run a recovery facility could also be quantified to further help determine indirect job creation from C&D recovery facilities operations. Future research should also look into the C&D debris data reported to the state since 2009. It is unknown what th e current trend is for generation, recovery, and disposal. Also, it would be useful to determine an accurate estimate of the fraction of C&D is in the waste stream in Florida. This study could be used as a starting point for many more research studies for the state to determine the impacts of the C&D recovery facilities industry on job creation and the environment.

PAGE 75

75 LIST OF REFERENCES Agamuthu P. Challenges in sustainable management of construction and demolition waste. Waste Manage Res 2008; 26:491 492. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Targeted statewide waste characterization study: detailed characterization of construction and demolition waste. From California Integrated Waste Management; 2006, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publicati ons/Disposal/34106006.pdf [October 1, 2011]. Cascadia Consulting Group (CCG). Recycling and economic development: a review of existing literature on job creation, capital investment, and tax revenues. From King County Solid Waste Division; 2009, http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/linkup/documents/recycling economic development review.pdf [October 21, 2011]. Chong WK, Hermreck C. Unders tanding transportation energy and technical metabolism of construction waste recycling. Resour Cons erv Recycling 2010; 54: 579 590 Cochran K, Townsend T, Reinhart D, Heck H. Estimation of regional building related C&D debris generation and composition: cas e study for Florida, US. Waste Manage 2007; 27: 921 931. DSM Environmental Services, Inc. Vermont waste composition study. From Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Solid Waste Program; 2002, http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/solid/pubs/VT%20WASTE%20COMP.pdf [October 1, 2011]. construction and demolition waste recycling the case of Ireland. Resour Conserv Recycling 2006; 46: 302 320. Eastern Research Group (ERG). List of industrial waste landfills and construction and demolition waste landfills. From Environmental Protection Agency; 1994, http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/genera tion/sqg/list/lfillpdf.pdf [October 1, 2011]. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Emission Facts: Average carbon dioxide emissions resulting from gasoline and diesel fuel. From Environmental Protection Agency; 2005, http://www.motran.org/Research/environmental/EPA%20Emission%20Facts.pdf [October 9, 2011]. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Estimating 2003 building related construction and demolition materials amou nts. From Environmental Protection Agency; 2009, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/imr/cdm/pubs/cd meas.pdf [September 30, 2011].

PAGE 76

76 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Documen tation for greenhouse gas emissions and energy factors used in the waste reduction model. From Environmental Protection Agency; 2010. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html#background [October 4, 2011]. Environmental Protection Agenc y (EPA). eGRID2010 Version 1.1: year 2007 summary tables. From Environmental Protection Agency; 2011. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2010V1_1_year07_S umma ryTables.pdf [October 9, 2011]. Florida Department of Environmental Protectio n (FDEP). Solid waste management in Florida annual reports. From the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; 2009. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/09_data.htm [October 14, 2011]. Florida Department of Environmenta l Protection (FDEP). 2009 Florida solid waste disposal fees. From the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; 2009, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/recycling/2009Annu alReport/ 4C.pdf [October 1, 2011]. Florida Departme nt of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 75% recycling goal report to the legislature. From the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; 2010, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/recycling/75percent /75_recycling_report.pdf [October 1, 2011]. Fischer C. The development and achievements of EU waste policy. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 2011; 13: 2 9. Franklin Associates. Characterization of building related construction and demolition debris in the United States; 1998. Gao W, Ariyama T, Ojima T, Meier A. Energy impacts of recycling disassembly material in residential buildings. Energ Buildings 2001; 33: 553 562 Goyal N. Proposing an integrated construction and demolition waste management plan School of Building Construction, University of Florida; 2010. Huang WL, Lin DH, Change NB, Lin KS. Recycling of construction and demolition waste via a mechanical sorting process. Resour Conserv Recycling 2002; 37: 23 37. Kofoworola OF, Gheewala SH. Estimation of construction waste generation and management in Thailand. Waste Manage 2009; 29: 73 1 738.

PAGE 77

77 Kourmpanis B, Papadopoulos A, Moustakas K, Stylianou M, Haralambous KJ, Loizidou M. Preliminary study for the management of construction and demolition waste. Waste Manage Res 2008; 26: 267 275 Poon CS, Chan D. Feasible use of recycling concrete agg regates and crushed clay brick as unbound road sub base. Constr Build Mater 2006; 20: 578 585. Seldman N. Recycling means business. From Ph.D. Institute for Local Reliance, Waste to Weal th Program; 2006, http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/recyclingmeansbusiness.html [February 1, 2011]. Solo Gabriele H, Penha J, Catilu V, Townsend T, Tolaymat T. Generation, use, disposal, and management options for CCA treated wood. From Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management; 1998, http://www.ccaresearch.org/CCA treated_wood_options_98 1.pdf [Oct ober 9, 2011] Staley BF, Barlaz MA. Composition of municipal solid waste in the United States and implications for carbon sequestration and methane yield. ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering 2009; 135(10): 901 909. Steel Recycling Institute (SRI). Bu y recycled with recyclable steel From the Steel Recycling Institute; 2011, http://www.recycle steel.org/Recycling%20Resources/Buy%20Recycled.aspx [September 29, 2011] T am VWY. Economic comparison of concrete recycling: a case study approach. Resour Conserv Recycling 2008; 52: 821 828. Tam VWY, Tam CM. Evaluations of existing waste recycling methods: a Hong Kong study. Build Environ 2006; 41(12): 1649 1660. Zhao W, Leeftink RB, Rotter VS. Evaluation of the economic feasibility for the recycling of construction and demolition waste in China the case of Chongqing. Resour Conserv Recycling 2010; 54: 377 389.

PAGE 78

78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Amanda Blair Calhoun was born and raised in Orlando, Florida, graduating from Dr. Phillips High School in 2006. She earned her Bachelor of Science degree in e nvironmental s cience from Hawaii Pacific University in 2009. While attending the university, she w as a volunteer water quality monitor for the r iparian r estoration p roject on windward Oahu. She also earned her North American Board of Certified Energy Practioners Certificate of Knowledge, which acknowledges passing a photovoltaic industry designed exam and qualification for a supervised, entry level position in the industry. Amanda was a u niversity h onors s cholar and graduated c um laude with a 3.63 GPA Upon graduatin g with her B .S. degree in e nvironmental s cience, Amanda was a s ustainable e nergy f ellow at the 2009 Sustainable Energy Fellowship Conference held at the University of Michigan. Amanda will earn her Master of Science in i nterdisciplinary e cology through the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Florida in May 2012. While attending the University of Florida, she was a member of the r esource r ecovery p ark d esign c ompetition for Alachua County in 2010. Currently she spends her free time ass istant for the Hinkley Center for Solid & Hazardous Waste Management at the University of Florida.