barriers to c&d reuse & recycling survey results & findings
TRANSCRIPT
Barriers to C&D Reuse & Recycling Survey Results & Findings
History
April 14, 2004, the Board directed staff to create a cross-divisional work group to identify C&D reuse and recycling barriers in California.
May 19, 2004 - 1st C&D work group meeting
October 2004 - Electronic Survey E-Mailed to 2,433 individuals - 2 week window of response.
Survey Process
1. Objective: Obtain stakeholder opinions on barriers
2. Identify target groups
3. Design survey
4. Obtain e-mail addresses of: all known C&D handlers, C&D recycling advocates, construction industry representatives, LEAs, solid waste industry representatives, C&D distribution list, and CIWMB Board and Committee agenda mailing list.
The Survey
Participants were asked to: Identify and rank the 5 most significant barriers
Participants could: select more detailed “sub-barrier” descriptions, or write in their own barrier, or write a general comment.
IMB staff compiled electronic data Work Group Staff grouped and analyzed data,
and summarized Key Findings
The 12 Survey Barrier Possibilities 1) Business Difficulty for Recycler/Processor 2) CIWMB and Legislative Issues 3) Facilities 4) Industry Education/Training 5) Local Enforcement Agency 6) Local Mandates 7) Local Ordinances, Plans, Policies, Programs &
Procedures 8) Lower-cost Options 9) Markets 10) Public Education 11) Recycled Content Product (RCP) Difficulties 12) Regulations for C&D Debris Processing
Primary Respondent Groups
Non-Regulatory Public Agencies (65) Private Solid Waste Industry (49) Regulatory Public Agencies – LEAs (21)
Total = 15% (135 responses out of 918 contacts)
Overall Survey Results
1. Facilities 2. Lower-Cost Options 3. a. Business Difficulty for Recycler/Processor
b. Local Ordinances, Plans, Policies, Programs & Procedures
Non-Regulatory Public Agencies Top 3 Barriers
1. Lower-Cost Options Cheap disposal – landfill rates may be lower than processing
fees Grinding materials for biomass or ADC Demolition is cheaper than deconstruction
2. Facilities Siting difficulties because of noise, dust, traffic, etc. Too few facilities to handle mixed C&D and dry wall, especially
in rural areas Too few “last chance, buy-back” facilities for salvaged C&D
material3. Business Difficulty High operational costs, Insufficient markets and unstable commodity prices for some
materials Unpredictable/unreliable C&D material flow
Private Solid Waste IndustryTop 3 Barriers
1. C&D Debris Processing Regulations Low permit tier placement thresholds Stigma of being a "Solid Waste Handler" The "no residual" restriction on "C&D-like" loads
2a. CIWMB Legislative Issues No C&D disposal ban Beneficial reuse competition at landfills Inconsistent, conflicting, and/or over-restrictive: CIWMB
regulations and/or CEQA2b. Local Ordinances, Plans, Policies, Programs and Procedures
Insufficient building permit diversion deposits Lack of implemented ordinances, long development process,
ordinances that don’t require reuse, and inadequate ordinance enforcement
Insufficient local economic incentives3. Markets
Inadequate markets for hard to market materials No mandate to use recycled base.
Regulatory Public AgenciesTop 3 Barriers
1a. C&D Debris Processing Regulations Low permit tier placement thresholds Stigma of being a "Solid Waste Handler" The "no residual" restriction on "C&D-like" loads
1b. Facilities Siting difficulties due to noise, traffic, dust, etc. Too few C&D material recyclers/processors, especially in rural areas2a. CIWMB Legislative Issues Beneficial reuse competition at landfills Inconsistent, conflicting, and/or over-restrictive: CIWMB regulations and/or
CEQA. 2b. Lower-Cost Options Cheap disposal Grinding materials for: biomass, or ADC Demolition is cheaper than deconstruction
3. Business Difficulty High operational costs Insufficient markets and unstable commodity prices for some materials Unpredictable/unreliable C&D material flow.
Findings
1) Cheaper Alternatives May Hinder Recycling/Processing
Demolition may be less costly than deconstruction because of: high deconstruction costs, insufficient markets, recycler/processors that accept
reclaimed/recyclable material at competitive prices, and
unpredictable/unreliable C&D material flow. Competitive LF disposal rates may hinder C&D
recycler/processors from removing C&D from the economic mainstream.
2) Lack of Ordinances or Insufficient Ordinance Implementation
Lack of ordinance implementation/enforcement may discourage an adequate infrastructure for the diversion of C&D material.
3) Lack of Local Economic Incentives
Some jurisdictions lack local economic incentives to support deconstruction and C&D diversion. For example:
low or nonexistent building permit diversion deposits
4) Regulatory Barriers
Respondents contend aspects of C&D processing regulations may result in higher operational costs and too few C&D material recyclers and processors. But analysis of existing sites doesn’t show
whether or not regs hinder new facilities CDI material may instead go through
transfer/processing stations and landfills Classifying a C&D debris processor as a “solid
waste handler” rather than “recycler” may create a negative public image reducing
material flow or causing siting problems.
5) Lack of Facilities
There are too few recycler/processors to handle mixed loads & hard-to-process C&D materials, e.g.,
asphalt roofing and wood shingles, discarded carpet, gypsum/wallboard material, organics/wood waste, painted lumber, soil, and stucco.
Reasons: competition with cheap disposal, high operational costs, insufficient markets and unstable commodity prices for some
C&D materials, restrictive State regulations for recycler/processors, severe material fragmentation by demolition, siting difficulties, and unpredictable/unreliable C&D material flow.
6) Lack of Markets
There are no industry-wide specifications to facilitate buying and selling recycled products from C&D materials.
Some stakeholders contend that biomass diversion and ADC are cheaper alternatives that may undermine C&D diversion by: 1) encouraging demolition (severe material
fragmentation and mixing) over deconstruction; and 2) reducing the flow of C&D material to C&D
recycler/processors.
(This information is unsubstantiated by CIWMB data.)
ADC InformationC & D ADC Compared to Total ADC Used
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
Year
To
ns Total ADC
C & D
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
7) Miscellaneous
There is insufficient data on C&D reuse and recycling by local and State agencies.
Some stakeholders support: a statewide C&D disposal ban, a statewide mandate to use recycled road
base, and restrictions on demolition
C&D Handling Sites
7 Closed C&D Handling Sites
Site #1: Land Use Issues
Site #2: Land Use Issues
Site #3: Land Sold
Site #4: Business Bought Out
Site #5: Pilot Project Completed
Site #6: No Longer in Business – Site Clean-up
Site #7: No Land Owner Permission for Operations
29 Existing C&D Handling Sites (Prior to 8/9/03)
8 have or will receive small volume CDI debris processing operation EA notifications;
3 have or will receive medium volume CDI debris processing facility registration permits;
5 have or will use the CDI debris temporary registration permits for a full permit tier phase-in;
12 have or will be issued transfer/processing solid waste facility permits;
1 site changed operations to qualify as a CDI debris recycler.
12 New C&D Handling Sites (After 8/9/03)
6 have or will receive small volume CDI debris processing operation EA notifications;
3 received medium volume CDI debris processing facility registration permits;
1 planned site qualifies as a large volume CDI debris processing facility in the full permit tier;
1 site received a transfer/processing permit; and 1 site is a CDI debris recycler.