1. Barriers to C&D Reuse & Recycling Survey Results & Findings

2. 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 - 1 st C&D work group meeting October 2004 - Electronic Survey E-Mailed to 2,433 individuals - 2 week window of response.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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 material 3. Business Difficulty High operational costs, Insufficient markets and unstable commodity prices for some materials Unpredictable/unreliable C&D material flow

8. Private Solid Waste Industry Top 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 CEQA 2b. 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 incentives 3. Markets Inadequate markets for hard to market materials No mandate to use recycled base.

9. Regulatory Public Agencies Top 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 areas 2a. 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.

10. Findings

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.)

17. ADC Information

18. 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

19. C&D Handling Sites

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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.