Construction and Demolition Material Recovery Facility Feasibility

F I N A L R E P O R T

North Central Texas Council of Governments

Construction and Demolition Material Recovery Facility Feasibility Study

AUGUST 2007

This study was funded through a solid waste management grant provided by

the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality through the North Central

Texas Council of Governments. This funding does not necessarily indicate

endorsement of the study’s findings and recommendations.

(This page intentionally left blank)

FINAL

R. W. BECK C&D MRF Feasibility Study

Table of Contents

Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures

Section 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Project Overview ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Waste Characterization ............................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Waste Projections..................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Market Analysis ....................................................................................... 1-3 1.5 Conceptual Design ................................................................................... 1-4 1.6 Financial Analysis.................................................................................... 1-6

1.6.1 Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................... 1-7 1.6.2 Summary and Recommendations ................................................ 1-8

Section 2 C&D Waste Characterization 2.1 Overview.................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Material Categories and Classification of Loads ..................................... 2-1 2.3 Waste Characterization Results ............................................................... 2-2

2.3.1 Results by Generator Type and Site Type ................................... 2-2 2.3.2 Results by Material Type and Origin........................................... 2-3 2.3.3 Data Comparison ......................................................................... 2-4 2.3.4 121 Regional Disposal Facility.................................................... 2-5

2.4 Annualized Data....................................................................................... 2-5

Section 3 Waste Projections 3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Methodology............................................................................................ 3-1

3.2.1 Population and Employment Projections..................................... 3-1 3.3 Waste Projections..................................................................................... 3-2

Section 4 Market Analysis of Recoverable Materials 4.1 Overview.................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Material Categories.................................................................................. 4-1

4.2.1 Tier 1 Materials............................................................................ 4-1 4.2.2 Tier 2 Materials............................................................................ 4-2

4.3 Tier 1 Market Analysis ............................................................................ 4-3

8/15/07

Table of Contents FINAL

4.3.1 Concrete/Cement ......................................................................... 4-3 4.3.2 Soil ....................................................................................... 4-4 4.3.3 Scrap Lumber............................................................................... 4-4 4.3.4 Bricks/ Cinder Blocks.................................................................. 4-5 4.3.5 Corrugated Cardboard ................................................................. 4-5 4.3.6 Ferrous Metal............................................................................... 4-6 4.3.7 Asphalt ....................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.8 Wood Packaging.......................................................................... 4-7 4.3.9 Drywall/Gypsum.......................................................................... 4-7 4.3.10 Brush ....................................................................................... 4-8 4.3.11 Refuse ....................................................................................... 4-8 4.3.12 Other Paper .................................................................................. 4-8 4.3.13 MRF Fine-Particle Residual ........................................................ 4-8 4.3.14 Summary...................................................................................... 4-8

4.4 Tier 2 Materials........................................................................................ 4-9 4.4.1 Materials with Existing Markets.................................................. 4-9 4.4.2 Materials with Undeveloped Markets........................................ 4-10

Section 5 C&D MRF Conceptual Design 5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Assumptions ............................................................................................ 5-1

5.2.1 Waste Stream............................................................................... 5-1 5.2.2 Site Personnel .............................................................................. 5-2 5.2.3 Site Infrastructure ........................................................................ 5-3 5.2.4 Operating Hours........................................................................... 5-3

5.3 Building and Site Design ......................................................................... 5-3 5.3.1 General C&D Processing Site ..................................................... 5-4 5.3.2 Heavy Fraction Processing Site ................................................... 5-5 5.3.3 Site Layout................................................................................... 5-5

5.4 Processing Equipment ............................................................................. 5-5 5.4.1 General C&D Processing............................................................. 5-6 5.4.2 Heavy Fraction Processing .......................................................... 5-8

5.5 Rolling Stock ......................................................................................... 5-10 5.6 Personnel................................................................................................ 5-11 5.7 Unacceptable Materials ......................................................................... 5-11

Section 6 C&D MRF Financial Analysis 6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Capital Expenditures................................................................................ 6-1

6.2.1 Financing Assumptions ............................................................... 6-1 6.2.2 Building and Site Construction.................................................... 6-1 6.2.3 Processing Equipment ................................................................. 6-2 6.2.4 Rolling Stock ............................................................................... 6-3 6.2.5 Capital Reserve............................................................................ 6-4

6.3 Operating Expenses ................................................................................. 6-4 6.3.1 Personnel...................................................................................... 6-4 6.3.2 Equipment O&M ......................................................................... 6-5

ii 8/15/07

FINAL Table of Contents

6.3.3 Residual Material Disposal .......................................................... 6-6 6.3.4 Other Operating Expenses ........................................................... 6-6 6.3.5 Operating Reserve........................................................................ 6-6

6.4 Total Expenses ......................................................................................... 6-7 6.5 Commodity Revenue ............................................................................... 6-7 6.6 Total Net Revenue ................................................................................... 6-9

6.6.1 Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................... 6-9 6.7 Additional Costs for Stand-Alone Facility ............................................ 6-10 6.8 Other Considerations ............................................................................. 6-10

6.8.1 Sensitivity to Market Conditions ............................................... 6-10 6.8.2 Competition for C&D Materials ................................................ 6-11 6.8.3 Revenue of Co-located Facility ................................................. 6-11 6.8.4 Public-Private Partnerships........................................................ 6-12

6.9 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 6-12

This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to R. W. Beck, Inc. (R. W. Beck) constitute the opinions of R. W. Beck. To the extent that statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, R. W. Beck has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. R. W. Beck makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report.

Copyright 2007, R. W. Beck, Inc. All rights reserved.

8/15/07 iii


List of Tables Table 1-1 Waste Composition by Material Type and by City (Annual

Tonnage) ..........................................................................................................1-2 Table 1-2 Summary of Waste Stream Projection ........................................................1-3 Table 1-3 Tier 1 Materials ...........................................................................................1-4 Table 1-4 Waste Streams by Type of Generator..........................................................1-5 Table 1-5 Total Revenue Requirement ........................................................................1-6 Table 1-6 Net Revenue and Required Disposal Fee ....................................................1-7 Table 1-7 Sensitivity Analysis of Required Disposal Fee ...........................................1-7 Table 2-1 Waste Composition by Site Type and Generator Type (Percentage

of Weight) ........................................................................................................2-2 Table 2-2 Waste Composition by Material Type (Percentage of Weight) ..................2-3 Table 2-3 Waste Composition by City (Percentage of Weight) ..................................2-5 Table 2-4 Waste Composition by Material Type and by City (Annual

Tonnage) ..........................................................................................................2-6 Table 3-1 20-Year Population Projections...................................................................3-2 Table 3-2 20-Year Employment Projections ...............................................................3-2 Table 3-3 Growth Drivers for Each Waste Generator Type ........................................3-2 Table 3-4 Summary of Waste Stream Projection ........................................................3-3 Table 4-1 Tier 1 Materials ...........................................................................................4-2 Table 4-2 Tier 2 Materials ...........................................................................................4-2 Table 4-3 Tier 1 Materials ...........................................................................................4-9 Table 4-4 Materials with Existing Markets ...............................................................4-10 Table 5-1 Waste Streams by Type of Generator..........................................................5-2 Table 5-2 Rolling Stock for General C&D Processing Area.....................................5-10 Table 5-3 Initial Employee Roster.............................................................................5-11 Table 6-1 Building and Site Construction Costs..........................................................6-2 Table 6-2 Overall Construction Schedule....................................................................6-2 Table 6-3 Processing Equipment .................................................................................6-3 Table 6-4 Rolling Stock Costs .....................................................................................6-3 Table 6-5 Capital Reserve............................................................................................6-4 Table 6-6 Annual Personnel Costs...............................................................................6-5 Table 6-7 Annual Rolling Stock O&M........................................................................6-5 Table 6-8 Other Operating Expenses...........................................................................6-6 Table 6-9 Total Revenue Requirement ........................................................................6-7 Table 6-10 Commodity Recovery and Revenue..........................................................6-8 Table 6-11 Net Revenue and Required Disposal Fee ..................................................6-9 Table 6-12 Sensitivity Analysis of Required Disposal Fee .......................................6-10

iv 8/15/07

FINAL Table of Contents

List of Figures Figure 5-1: Overall Site Plan ..................................................................................... 5-3 Figure 5-2: Flow Diagram for General C&D Processing Line .................................. 5-6 Figure 5-3: Flow Diagram for Heavy Fraction Processing Line................................ 5-9 Appendices Appendix A: Annualized Waste Characterization Data Appendix B: Population, Employment, and Waste Projections Appendix C: Conceptual Design Sketches Appendix D: Site and Building Construction Costs

8/15/07 v



vi 8/15/07

FINAL

Section 1 Executive Summary

1.1 Project Overview The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) retained the services of R. W. Beck, Inc. (R. W. Beck) to complete a feasibility study for a material recovery facility (MRF) for processing construction and demolition (C&D) debris. This report summarizes R. W. Beck’s analysis and findings regarding the feasibility study.

The purpose of this C&D MRF Feasibility Study (Study) is to evaluate whether a C&D MRF could financially compete with other disposal alternatives in the North Central Texas region.

To begin the project, R. W. Beck met with the NCTCOG Time To Recycle Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to review the scope of services and determine the location of the visual C&D waste characterization. Once given the notice to process, R. W. Beck completed the following tasks to determine the feasibility of the C&D MRF:

Waste Characterization;

Waste Projections;

Market Analysis;

Conceptual Design; and

Financial Analysis.

1.2 Waste Characterization Section 2 of this report describes the visual waste characterization work R. W. Beck completed for the Study. One of the key parameters that define a C&D MRF is the amount and type of material that the facility will process. To better understand the C&D waste stream in the North Central Texas region, R. W. Beck conducted two visual C&D waste characterization events at the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) McKinney Landfill, which currently accepts only C&D debris. The purpose of the visual waste characterization is to estimate the type and quantity of C&D material generated within the wasteshed of the Landfill. R. W. Beck collected information regarding the type of site from which the debris originated (e.g., new construction, demolition) and the type of generator (e.g., residential, commercial).

Over the two waste characterization events, R. W. Beck collected data on over 600 loads of C&D debris, totaling over 4,300 tons of material. Table 1-1 summarizes the

10/15/07

Section 1 FINAL

annual tonnage estimated by R. W. Beck using the annual tonnages provided by NTMWD for each community and the percent composition (by weight) developed by R. W. Beck from the data collected during the waste characterization events.1

Table 1-1 Waste Composition by Material Type and by City (Annual Tonnage)

Category Allen Frisco McKinney Plano Richardson Total

Concrete/Masonry 3,514.2 8,791.0 25,458.1 3,104.5 4,772.8 45,640.6 Plastic 99.8 106.2 288.3 88.5 0.0 582.8 Metal 945.6 1,661.5 3,005.3 1,186.6 0.0 6,799.0 Paper 2,139.8 1,559.3 4,916.3 1,161.1 0.0 9,776.4 Wood 2,389.3 2,969.4 9,801.9 3,004.5 411.1 18,576.1 Glass 517.7 50.0 249.1 80.9 0.0 897.6 Other Significant Materials [1] Soil 916.1 4,762.5 16,206.4 776.3 4,077.6 26,738.9 Asphalt 550.1 1,038.7 3,896.0 0.0 1,345.5 6,830.3 Drywall 747.5 1,381.1 1,424.5 1,405.9 0.0 4,959.1 Refuse 680.6 215.6 1,025.4 129.0 0.0 2,050.6 Other Materials [1] [2] 664.7 637.4 1,877.5 498.7 11.5 3,689.7 Total 13,165.3 23,172.8 68,148.7 11,436.0 10,618.5 126,541.2 [1] R. W. Beck divided the “Other” category, as described in Section 2.2, into two categories: “Other Significant Materials” for materials that represented

more than one percent of the waste stream and “Other Materials” for the remaining materials that represented less than one percent of the waste stream.

[2] The “Other Materials” category includes: roofing material, yard waste, carpet, non-wood furniture, tires, ceiling tiles, insulation, and other materials

1.3 Waste Projections For the purposes of this Study, R. W. Beck is assuming the C&D MRF will have a life span of 20 years. As such, it is important to have an understanding of not only the waste processing capability of the facility when it opens, but also over the 20 year span of the facility. Section 3 describes the methodology R. W. Beck used to estimate the 20-year C&D waste stream projections for the wasteshed.2

R. W. Beck developed the waste projections based on the assumption that changes in C&D debris generation have a high correlation to changes in employment and population. R. W. Beck collected population and employment estimates from NCTCOG Research and Information Services for the waste projections. The projections are published in five-year increments. To enable waste projections for

1 Does not include 1,939 tons hauled to the Landfill by contractors not under contract with one of the five NTMWD member cities. 2 For this analysis, the wasteshed is waste entering the McKinney Landfill from the Cities of Allen, Frisco, McKinney, Plano and Richardson. However, not all C&D waste generated from the cities is disposed at the McKinney Landfill.

1-2 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

FINAL Executive Summary

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 1-3

each year of the 20 year period, R. W. Beck used straight-line interpolation between the five-year increments to provide projections on an annual basis.

Using this data, R. W. Beck developed C&D projections for each of the five NTMWD communities. Table 1-2 summarizes the waste stream projection and Appendix B provides the full C&D waste stream projection.

Table 1-2 Summary of Waste Stream Projection

Category 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 Avg. Growth Rate

Concrete/Masonry 45,641 57,348 72,310 85,566 99,433 4.0% Plastic 583 746 968 1,147 1,310 4.1% Metal 6,799 8,748 11,438 13,666 15,712 4.3% Paper 9,776 12,605 16,461 19,484 22,140 4.2% Wood 18,576 23,437 29,849 35,200 40,414 4.0% Glass 898 1,224 1,673 1,977 2,183 4.5% Other Significant Materials [1] Soil 26,739 33,303 41,202 48,609 57,004 3.9% Asphalt 6,830 8,354 10,136 11,823 13,789 3.6% Drywall 4,959 6,322 8,232 9,827 11,284 4.2% Refuse 2,051 2,690 3,557 4,199 4,722 4.3% Other Materials [1] [2] 3,690 4,731 6,132 7,260 8,292 4.1% Total 126,541 159,508 201,960 238,758 276,282 4.0% [3] R. W. Beck divided the “Other” category, as described in Section 2.2, into two categories: “Other Significant Materials” for materials that represented



1.4 Market Analysis Revenues generated from the sale of recovered materials help to offset the costs of operating a C&D MRF in two ways:

Revenue from the sale of material; and

Landfill disposal cost avoidance from material diverted from landfills and/or transfer stations.

For these reasons, the feasibility of the MRF depends in part on the ability of the MRF to recover and market incoming materials.

Section 4 explores the markets for specific materials that would be processed at the MRF through utilization of waste characterization data and market research. The market analysis is based on the waste characterization discussed in Section 2.

Section 1 FINAL

In order to focus the resources of this study on the materials with the greatest potential impact to the feasibility of the C&D MRF, R. W. Beck created two categories for analyzing marketability of materials. The categories, Tier 1 and Tier 2, are based on prevalence in the waste stream. All those materials that, individually, represented greater than one percent of the waste stream were categorized as Tier 1 materials. Table 1-3 summarizes the Tier 1 materials. Together, these materials represent almost 93 percent of total waste stream.

Table 1-3 Tier 1 Materials

Material Tonnage Percent of

Total


Total

Concrete/ Cement 36,019.5 28.5% Ferrous Metal 6,369.0 5.0% Soil 26,738.9 21.1% Drywall/ Gypsum 4,959.1 3.9% Scrap Lumber 9,393.5 7.4% Brush 4,235.3 3.3% Bricks/Cinder Blocks 8,283.0 6.5% Wood Packaging 3,464.0 2.7% Cardboard 7,428.6 5.9% Refuse 2,050.6 1.6% Asphalt 6,830.3 5.4% Other Paper 1,700.3 1.3% Total 117,472.0 92.8%

Section 4 includes a detailed description of each of the Tier 1 materials and provides information regarding the value of these materials in the North Central Texas region. R. W. Beck also included limited discussion of Tier 2 materials.

1.5 Conceptual Design Section 5 summarizes the operational and capital requirements of the conceptual C&D MRF facility. In the design of any facility, there are several options for various aspects of the equipment, site and buildings. The conceptual facility described in Section 5 is one example of a C&D MRF facility based on the waste characterization work, market analysis, and assumptions discussed in this section. While the conceptual design is not intended to be site specific, R. W. Beck did make certain assumptions regarding the site layout that may vary from site to site.

While many variations of building, site, and processing equipment are possible, R. W. Beck considered the purpose of the facility was to recover as much C&D material as financially feasible given the market conditions in the North Central Texas region. As such, it was not considered feasible to attempt to recover 100 percent of the recoverable material at the site since some material quantities do not justify the investment in equipment and personnel needed to recover each type of material.

Section 5 provides a discussion of the assumptions R. W. Beck made regarding the site. Two of the primary assumptions for the analysis were that the C&D MRF would be:

1-4 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


10/15/07 R. W. Beck 1-5

Operated by a public sector entity; and

Co-located with an existing Type 1 MSW landfill.

During the visual waste characterization described in Section 2, R. W. Beck observed two primary types of waste flow:

General C&D - typical commercial and residential C&D debris; and

Heavy Fraction - debris from municipal street departments.

The debris from the general commercial and residential loads was similar to typical C&D waste streams (e.g., concrete, wood, drywall). The loads from the municipal street departments primarily consisted of concrete and asphalt, plus and the soil excavated with these materials. The material from municipal street departments represents approximately 43 percent of the waste stream, based on weight.

Based on this information, R. W. Beck determined that keeping these two waste stream types separate would result in a more efficient MRF operation. Table 1-4 provides a summary waste projection based on the two waste streams.

Table 1-4 Waste Streams by Type of Generator

Waste Type 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Heavy Fraction 55,283 68,042 82,965 97,350 114,240 General C&D 71,258 91,466 118,995 141,409 162,042 Total 126,541 159,508 201,960 238,758 276,282

The remainder of Section 5 provides detailed discussion on the conceptual design of the facility and the resources needed to operate it. The discussion includes:

Building and Site Design;

Processing Equipment;

Rolling Stock; and

Personnel.

Appendix C contains five conceptual design sketches of the conceptual C&D MRF, including:

Overall site plan;

Layout of general C&D processing facility;

Layout of heavy fraction processing area;

Isometric three-dimensional view of the site; and

Building elevation views.

Section 1 FINAL

1.6 Financial Analysis Section 6 of the report summarizes the capital investment and ongoing operational and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the C&D MRF. R. W. Beck then determined what disposal fee, or tipping fee, would be required at the MRF to make it financially feasible and then compared that to area landfill tipping fees.

R. W. Beck developed estimated budgets for both operating and capital expenses. Table 1-5 summarizes the total requirement for the C&D MRF. Section 6 contains a detailed discussion of each line item of this budget.

Table 1-5 Total Revenue Requirement

Expense Low High

Operating Expenses Personnel $994,000 $1,391,600 Processing Equipment O&M $60,000 $115,000 Rolling Stock O&M $213,000 $337,500 Residual Material Disposal $846,872 $1,058,590 Other Operating Expenses $220,000 $325,000 Operating Reserve $116,694 $161,385

Debt Service Building and Site $544,243 $684,050 Processing Equipment $294,406 $416,477 Rolling Stock $224,768 $297,151 Capital Reserve $141,081 $185,427

Total $3,655,066 $4,972,181

Based on the market analysis in Section 4, R. W. Beck developed an estimate of the total revenue from recovered materials. In order to develop the estimate, R. W. Beck assumed that each material that the Operator targeted for recovery would be recovered at a rate of 75 percent. Table 6-10 in Section 6 provides a detailed account of the revenue estimate.

Table 1-6 summarizes the amount of disposal fee revenue needed by the Operator to “break even” and make the C&D MRF financially feasible.

1-6 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


10/15/07 R. W. Beck 1-7

Table 1-6 Net Revenue and Required Disposal Fee

Expense Low Scenarios

High Scenarios

Best Case

Worst Case

Total Expenses $3,655,066 $4,972,181 $3,655,066 $4,972,181 Commodity Revenue $1,258,934 $1,812,426 $1,812,426 $1,258,934 Disposal Fee Revenue Requirement [1] $2,396,132 $3,159,754 $1,842,639 $3,713,247 Annual Tonnage 126,541 126,541 126,541 126,541 Per Ton Disposal Fee $18.94 $24.97 $14.56 $29.34 [1] Disposal Fee Revenue Requirement = Total Expenses – Commodity Revenue. This is the amount the MRF must recover through tipping fees

in order to “break even.”

Based on the information listed in Table 1-6, R. W. Beck estimates that the Operator would need to charge $19 to $25 per ton to operate a financially viable facility.

As comparison, R. W. Beck researched the weighted average tipping fees for landfills in the North Central Texas region who reported their per-ton tipping fees to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in its FY 2006 annual report. R. W. Beck calculated the weighted average tipping fee as $19.93 per ton.

1.6.1 Sensitivity Analysis R. W. Beck conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine the affect that movements in key variables would have on the required disposal fee of the C&D MRF. Since there are multiple variables that could drive the sensitivity analysis, R. W. Beck assumed the per ton revenue for commodity to be the average of the “low” and “high” values from Table 6-10. R. W. Beck then varied the total expense and material recovery rate to determine the affect on the required disposal fee at the C&D MRF. Table 1-7 contains the results of that analysis.

Table 1-7 Sensitivity Analysis of Required Disposal Fee

Total Expenses

Recovery Rate $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000

65% $13.19 $21.09 $29.00 $36.90 70% $12.38 $20.28 $28.19 $36.09 75% $11.57 $19.47 $27.38 $35.28 80% $10.76 $18.67 $26.57 $34.47 85% $9.95 $17.86 $25.76 $33.66

Section 1 FINAL

1.6.2 Summary and Recommendations While the analysis conducted as part of this Feasibility Study varies in many respects (e.g., waste stream composition, commodity revenue, reserves) to the original C&D MRF case study R. W. Beck completed for the NCTCOG in 2004, the end result is still very similar. Compared to the disposal fees in the North Central Texas region, the C&D MRF appears to be within the range of financial feasibility. Key components of the financial feasibility include:

Co-location of the MRF with another permitted municipal solid waste (MSW) facility, particularly a landfill or transfer station.

Find alternative ways to use residual material so that the MRF operator does not have to pay to landfill the residual.

Advertise the environmental benefits of the MRF, thereby creating public interest in diverting C&D debris from the landfill.

When possible market material to end user to maximize revenue. If quantities are low, the Operator could seek opportunities to cooperatively market materials.

Reducing the expenses through efficient operations will help keep the C&D MRF competitive with other C&D disposal or diversion options. The primary operating expenses at a C&D MRF include labor, residual disposal costs, equipment operation and maintenance, and utilities.

Controlling the in-bound contamination rate will allow the equipment and labor at the C&D MRF to work more efficiently. If contamination rates are not controlled, the MRF will waste valuable resources separating material that has no value and residual rates will increase.

Minimizing residual material that must be disposed of in a landfill will help the MRF reduce expenses. To help avoid the expense associated with landfilling residual material, the MRF operator should find alternative uses for non-recoverable material.

Effectively communicating the importance of disposing of C&D at a MRF is helpful in obtaining support from the consumers and private haulers.

1-8 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

FINAL

Section 2 C&D Waste Characterization

2.1 Overview One of the key parameters that define a C&D MRF is the amount and type of material the facility will process. To better understand the C&D waste stream in the North Central Texas region, R. W. Beck conducted two visual C&D waste characterization events at the McKinney Landfill (Landfill), which is owned and operated by the NTMWD and which currently accepts only C&D debris. The purpose of the visual waste characterization was to estimate the type and quantity of C&D material generated within the wasteshed of the Landfill.

2.2 Material Categories and Classification of Loads Based on prior planning experience related to C&D debris and expectations on what type of materials were being disposed at the Landfill, R. W. Beck developed a data collection form to collect information on each load characterized at the Landfill.

R. W. Beck collected information regarding the type of site from which the debris originated and the type of generator. For the type of site, R. W. Beck used the following classifications:

New Construction;

Demolition;

Renovation;

Company Waste; and

Other Site Type.

The classification “Company Waste” captured waste from stores (e.g., Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Blockbuster) that have regular roll-off collection, typically compactors. Although not from a construction or demolition site, these loads did not typically contain significant amounts of MSW (refuse).

R. W. Beck also categorized loads by the type of generator:

Commercial;

Residential;

City Streets; and

Other Generator Type.

10/15/07

Section 2 FINAL

In this case, “Residential” refers to construction, demolition and renovation projects for residential homes and not to waste generated by residential households. “City Streets” refers to the City departments that brought in loads of road construction and demolition materials, and primarily consisted of concrete, asphalt and soil. “Other” refers to loads that did not fall into one of the other three categories or where the driver was unable to provide the information requested.

The material categories included on the form were:

Concrete/Masonry: concrete, cement, bricks, cinder blocks, tile, other masonry.

Plastic: plastic bottles, buckets, film, polystyrene foam, other plastic.

Metal: ferrous metal, non-ferrous metal.

Paper: corrugated cardboard, office, paper, newspaper, magazines, phonebooks, other paper.

Wood: wood packaging, treated wood, wood furniture, painted wood, brush, scrap lumber.

Glass: glass bottles, glass windows, other glass.

Other: soil, asphalt, drywall, refuse, roofing, yard waste, carpet, non-wood furniture, tires, ceiling tiles, insulation, other materials.

2.3 Waste Characterization Results This section contains summary-level results for the combined summer and fall waste characterization events. More detailed results are available in Appendix A.

2.3.1 Results by Generator Type and Site Type As mentioned in Section 2.2.1, R. W. Beck determined the generator type and site type for each load characterized. Table 2-1 summarizes this data, expressed as percentage of weight, based on data from 606 loads (representing 4,313 total tons).

Table 2-1 Waste Composition by Site Type and Generator Type (Percentage of Weight)

Generator Type

Site Type Residential Commercial City Streets Other Generator Total

New Construction 2.8% 22.9% 0.4% 0.0% 26.1% Demolition 1.9% 2.6% 46.9% 0.4% 51.9% Renovation 0.8% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% Company Waste 0.0% 13.9% 0.0% 0.1% 14.0% Other Site Type 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 1.8% Total 6.0% 45.2% 47.9% 0.9% 100.0%

2-2 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

FINAL C&D Waste Characterization

The number for “City Streets” is largely concentrated under the “Demolition” site type. Since drivers were often unable to determine the true nature of the road work, R. W. Beck chose to generally classify these loads as “Demolition” rather than try to determine the true source with limited information.

2.3.2 Results by Material Type and Origin Table 2-2 presents the percentage of each material, by weight, R. W. Beck estimated during the waste characterization events.

Table 2-2 Waste Composition by Material Type (Percentage of Weight)


Concrete/Masonry 1.6% 8.4% 19.3% 2.1% 5.7% 37.0% Plastic 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% Metal 0.4% 1.6% 2.3% 0.8% 0.0% 5.1% Paper 1.0% 1.5% 3.7% 0.8% 0.0% 7.0% Wood 1.1% 2.8% 7.4% 2.0% 0.5% 13.8% Glass 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% Other Significant Materials [1]

Soil 0.4% 4.5% 12.3% 0.5% 4.9% 22.6% Asphalt 0.2% 1.0% 3.0% 0.0% 1.6% 5.8% Drywall 0.3% 1.3% 1.1% 0.9% 0.0% 3.7% Refuse 0.3% 0.2% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 1.4%

Other Materials [1] [2] 0.3% 0.6% 1.4% 0.3% 0.0% 2.7% Total 6.0% 22.1% 51.6% 7.7% 12.7% 100.0% [1] R. W. Beck divided the “Other” category, as described in Section 2.2, into two categories: “Other Significant Materials” for materials that

represented more than one percent of the waste stream and “Other Materials” for the remaining materials that represented less than one percent of the waste stream.


Observations R. W. Beck made the following general observations regarding the nature of the C&D waste stream coming into the Landfill.

The number of “City Streets” loads hauled to the Landfill was not consistent day to day. Some days there were very few of these loads and some days there were a relatively high number. The number of “City Streets” loads disposed at the Landfill is dependent on the timing of road work completed by the various cities. Additionally, according to the Landfill staff, some cities stockpile such material since road work is often completed outside of Landfill hours. This material is then hauled to the Landfill once a significant stockpile accumulates.

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 2-3

Section 2 FINAL

Loads categorized as “City Streets” contained approximately two-thirds of the concrete and cement accepted at the Landfill and almost 100 percent of the asphalt. However, these loads also contained approximately 90 percent of soil accepted at the site. Clean soil is not captured at the scale house and is taken to a designated area of the Landfill. However, since the soil in the “City Streets” loads contained significant amount of concrete and asphalt, is was unloaded at the working face area and buried as waste.

“City Streets” loads represented 17 percent of the volume accepted at the Landfill, but 49 percent of the tonnage. This is due to the nature of the materials; concrete, soil and asphalt are some of the heaviest materials per unit of volume accepted at the Landfill.

The percentage of loads categorized as “Residential New Construction” was lower than R. W. Beck anticipated. However, this information was dependent on the collection vehicle drivers. Despite R. W. Beck’s efforts to differentiate residential construction project from a commercial construction project, R. W. Beck believes that collection drivers were not always certain of the difference and assumed that waste hauled for a contractor was considered commercial waste.

2.3.3 Data Comparison R. W. Beck compared the data collected during the two waste characterization events to the data provided by the NTMWD as validation of the data collected in the field.

Tons per Load R. W. Beck collected data on 606 loads weighing a total of 4,313 tons, for an average of 7.12 tons per load. In fiscal year (FY) 2005/06, the Landfill accepted a total of 18,196 loads weighing 128,480 tons, for an average of 7.06 tons per load.

Tons per Day R. W. Beck collected information at the McKinney Landfill for a total of 8.5 days. Data was collected on 4,313 tons, for an estimated 507 tons per day. By comparison, using 5 day a week operation for 52 week, the data provided by NTMWD indicates approximately 494 tons per day were disposed at the Landfill.

Tonnage by City R. W. Beck also compared the tonnage accepted from the NTMWD member communities during the waste characterization events to data provided by NTMWD. R. W. Beck compared the data to both the full FY 2005/06, which ended September 30, 2006, and to the year-to-date (YTD) FY 2006/07 (October 1, 2006 to November 29, 2006).

2-4 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

FINAL C&D Waste Characterization

Table 2-3 Waste Composition by City (Percentage of Weight)

City FY 2005/06 YTD FY 2006/07 R. W. Beck Data

Allen 10.4% 6.2% 6.0% Frisco 18.3% 13.3% 22.1% McKinney 53.9% 58.2% 51.6% Plano 9.0% 8.5% 7.7% Richardson 8.4% 13.1% 12.7%

2.3.4 121 Regional Disposal Facility In addition to the data collected at the McKinney Landfill, R. W. Beck also spent two days at the NTMWD 121 Regional Disposal Facility (121 RDF), which includes a Type I MSW landfill. Although the focus of this waste characterization was the McKinney Landfill, R. W. Beck observed loads at the 121 RDF to determine the nature of the C&D debris and type of C&D haulers at that landfill. Since opening the 121 RDF, the McKinney Landfill has accepted only C&D debris and NTMWD has made efforts to divert most C&D generated among its member communities to the McKinney Landfill.

R. W. Beck observed that most C&D accepted at the 121 RDF was from small commercial hauling companies, many of which had to unload material manually at the working face. Very few loads were accepted from open-top roll-off containers. The average tons per load was approximately 2.12, versus 7.06 tons per load at the McKinney Landfill. Haulers that have to manually unload waste occupy a tipping area for longer periods of time, and therefore can limit the number of vehicles that can unload at a tipping area during a given period of time. Additionally, since the 121 RDF does not limit waste to C&D debris, loads often contained a higher percentage of non-C&D waste generated from jobsites. R. W. Beck also noted that some of the smaller hauling operations were bringing waste from communities other than the five targeted for the wasteshed (Allen, Frisco, McKinney, Plano, and Richardson).

While the 121 RDF does accept some amount of C&D material, R. W. Beck does not believe that type of customers hauling the C&D debris are the target customer for a C&D MRF and therefore data from these haulers was not included in this C&D MRF feasibility analysis.

2.4 Annualized Data Table 2-4 summarizes the annual tonnage estimated by R. W. Beck using the annual tonnages provided by NTMWD for each community and the percent composition (by

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 2-5

Section 2 FINAL

weight) developed by R. W. Beck from the data collected during the waste characterization events.1

Table 2-4 Waste Composition by Material Type and by City (Annual Tonnage)


Concrete/Masonry 3,514.2 8,791.0 25,458.1 3,104.5 4,772.8 45,640.6 Plastic 99.8 106.2 288.3 88.5 0.0 582.8 Metal 945.6 1,661.5 3,005.3 1,186.6 0.0 6,799.0 Paper 2,139.8 1,559.3 4,916.3 1,161.1 0.0 9,776.4 Wood 2,389.3 2,969.4 9,801.9 3,004.5 411.1 18,576.1 Glass 517.7 50.0 249.1 80.9 0.0 897.6 Other Significant Materials [1] Soil 916.1 4,762.5 16,206.4 776.3 4,077.6 26,738.9 Asphalt 550.1 1,038.7 3,896.0 0.0 1,345.5 6,830.3 Drywall 747.5 1,381.1 1,424.5 1,405.9 0.0 4,959.1 Refuse 680.6 215.6 1,025.4 129.0 0.0 2,050.6 Other Materials [1] [2] 664.7 637.4 1,877.5 498.7 11.5 3,689.7 Total 13,165.3 23,172.8 68,148.7 11,436.0 10,618.5 126,541.2 [1] R. W. Beck divided the “Other” category, as described in Section 2.2, into two categories: “Other Significant Materials” for materials that represented



R. W. Beck will use the data presented in Table 2-4 as the basis for the waste projections (Section 3) and the conceptual design of the C&D MRF (Section 5).

1 Does not include 1,939 tons hauled to the Landfill by contractors not under contract with one of the five NTMWD member cities.

2-6 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

FINAL

Section 3 Waste Projections

3.1 Introduction Section 2 details the results of the visual waste characterization work R. W. Beck completed as part of this Study and how that information was used to estimate the annual tonnage quantities of the various materials in the C&D waste stream. For the purposes of this Study, R. W. Beck is assuming the C&D MRF will have a life span of 20 years. As such, it is important to have an understanding of not only the waste processing capability of the facility when it opens, but also over the 20 year span of the facility. Section 3 describes the methodology R. W. Beck used to estimate the 20-year C&D waste stream projections for the wasteshed.1

3.2 Methodology R. W. Beck initially discussed with NCTCOG using data on past building permit issuances and permit projections to drive the waste projections. R. W. Beck worked with NCTCOG staff and each of the five NTMWD cities in an attempt to collect this building permit data. Since the five cities gather and track this information differently, the data was not consistent enough to enable R. W. Beck to develop waste projections with a singular methodology. R. W. Beck instead used available population and employment projection data to drive the waste projections.

3.2.1 Population and Employment Projections R. W. Beck collected population and employment estimates from NCTCOG Research and Information Services for the waste projections. The projections are published in five-year increments. To enable waste projections for each year of the 20-year period, R. W. Beck used straight-line interpolation between the five-year increments to provide projections on an annual basis.

Table 3-1 summarizes the 20-year population projections. Appendix B contains the full 20-year projection.

1 For this analysis, the wasteshed is waste entering the McKinney Landfill from the Cities of Allen, Frisco, McKinney, Plano and Richardson. However, not all C&D waste generated from the cities is disposed at the McKinney Landfill.

10/15/07

Section 3 FINAL

Table 3-1 20-Year Population Projections

City 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 Avg. Growth Rate

Allen 79,570 87,391 93,231 95,828 98,109 1.05% Frisco 87,320 119,138 151,542 183,436 207,941 4.43% McKinney 88,116 111,770 140,417 168,300 204,494 4.30% Plano 247,371 256,026 256,882 256,918 257,061 0.19% Richardson 101,714 103,177 106,897 109,268 112,917 0.52% Total 604,092 677,501 748,969 813,750 880,522 1.90% Source: NCTCOG Research and Information Services

Table 3-2 summarizes the 20-year employment projections. Appendix B contains the full 20-year projection.

Table 3-2 20-Year Employment Projections

City 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 Avg. Growth Rate

Allen 16,264 23,784 34,402 40,743 43,599 5.05% Frisco 15,080 22,336 34,085 44,557 53,632 6.55% McKinney 34,766 41,968 50,529 57,970 66,632 3.31% Plano 126,423 137,085 145,371 154,692 171,091 1.52% Richardson 112,418 122,111 131,263 143,612 154,619 1.61% Total 304,951 347,284 395,650 441,574 489,574 2.40% Source: NCTCOG Research and Information Services

3.3 Waste Projections In order to project the waste stream developed in Section 2, R. W. Beck first designated a growth driver to each of the generator types discussed in Section 2. Table 3-3 summarizes the generator types and growth drivers.

Table 3-3 Growth Drivers for Each Waste Generator Type

Generator Type Growth Driver

Residential Population Commercial Employment City Streets Population Other Population

3-2 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

FINAL Waste Projections

R. W. Beck then projected the waste stream based on either the population or employment projections from Section 3.2.1. For example, the total amount of concrete/cement estimated for the City Allen in 2006 was 2,344 tons (see Appendix A).2 Of that amount, 1,800 tons was estimated to come from Commercial sites. Since R. W. Beck assumed that the amount of waste generated from Commercial sites would change in correlation with the employment projections, R. W. Beck increased this 1,800 ton amount by the average annual rate of 5.05 percent (see Table 3-2). Therefore, the amount of concrete/cement from Commercial sites in Allen was estimated to be 4,825 tons by the year 2026.3

R. W. Beck used this methodology for each City and each generator type to develop the 20-year C&D waste stream projection. However, instead of the average 20-year growth rate, R. W. Beck calculated the year-to-year waste stream projection based on the year-to-year population or employment growth rate. Table 3-4 summarizes the waste stream projection and Appendix B provides the full C&D waste stream projection.

Table 3-4 Summary of Waste Stream Projection

Category 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 Avg. Growth Rate

Concrete/Masonry 45,641 57,348 72,310 85,566 99,433 4.0% Plastic 583 746 968 1,147 1,310 4.1% Metal 6,799 8,748 11,438 13,666 15,712 4.3% Paper 9,776 12,605 16,461 19,484 22,140 4.2% Wood 18,576 23,437 29,849 35,200 40,414 4.0% Glass 898 1,224 1,673 1,977 2,183 4.5% Other Significant Materials [1] Soil 26,739 33,303 41,202 48,609 57,004 3.9% Asphalt 6,830 8,354 10,136 11,823 13,789 3.6% Drywall 4,959 6,322 8,232 9,827 11,284 4.2% Refuse 2,051 2,690 3,557 4,199 4,722 4.3% Other Materials [1] [2] 3,690 4,731 6,132 7,260 8,292 4.1% Total 126,541 159,508 201,960 238,758 276,282 4.0% [1] R. W. Beck divided the “Other” category, as described in Section 2.2, into two categories: “Other Significant Materials” for materials that represented



The average growth rates in Table 3-4 are greater than the weighted averages from Tables 3-1 and 3-2 since the two communities that contributed the most C&D material, Frisco and McKinney, are also among the fastest growing communities.

2 This amount only includes concrete/cement from the City of the Allen that is hauled to the McKinney Landfill and does not represent the total amount generated in the City. 3 1,800 tons x (1 + 5.054 %)20 = 4,825 tons

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 3-3

Section 3 FINAL


3-4 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

FINAL

Section 4 Market Analysis of Recoverable Materials

4.1 Overview Revenues generated from the sale of recovered materials help to offset the costs of operating a C&D MRF in two ways:

Revenue from the sale of material; and

Landfill disposal cost avoidance from material diverted from landfills and/or transfer stations.

For these reasons, the feasibility of the MRF depends in part on the ability of the MRF to recover and market incoming materials.

This section explores the markets for specific materials that would be processed at the MRF through utilization of waste characterization data and market research. The market analysis is based on the waste characterization discussed in Section 2. All prices discussed do not include transportation costs. R. W. Beck accounts for transportation costs in Section 6 (budget for the MRF).

4.2 Material Categories In order to focus the resources of this study on the materials with the greatest potential impact to the feasibility of the C&D MRF, R. W. Beck created two categories for analyzing marketability of materials. The categories, Tier 1 and Tier 2, are based on prevalence in the waste stream.

4.2.1 Tier 1 Materials R. W. Beck defined Tier 1 materials as those that represent one percent or greater of the waste stream, by weight. Table 4-1 contains the list of Tier 1 materials. The Tier 1 designation is weight-based and not an indication of revenue-generating potential. Section 4.3 contains discussion on each of the Tier 1 material.

10/15/07

Section 4 FINAL



Total


Total

Concrete/ Cement 36,019.5 28.5% Ferrous Metal 6,369.0 5.0% Soil 26,738.9 21.1% Drywall/ Gypsum 4,959.1 3.9% Scrap Lumber 9,393.5 7.4% Brush 4,235.3 3.3% Bricks/Cinder Blocks 8,283.0 6.5% Wood Packaging 3,464.0 2.7% Cardboard 7,428.6 5.9% Refuse 2,050.6 1.6% Asphalt 6,830.3 5.4% Other Paper 1,700.3 1.3% Total 117,472.0 92.8%

4.2.2 Tier 2 Materials R. W. Beck defined Tier 2 materials as those that, individually, represent less than one percent of the waste stream, by weight. R. W. Beck further categorized Tier 2 materials into two subcategories: those with existing markets and those with undeveloped markets.1 Table 4-2 summarizes the Tier 2 materials for this Study.


Existing Market Materials Tonnage

Percent of Total

Undeveloped Market Materials Tonnage

Percent of Total

Other Masonry 723.5 0.6% Other Materials 1,185.6 0.9% Office Paper 625.8 0.5% Roofing 1,111.0 0.9% Tile 614.6 0.5% Painted Wood 599.6 0.5% Yard Waste 456.6 0.4% Wood Furniture 557.6 0.4% Non-Ferrous Metal 430.1 0.3% Other Glass 553.6 0.4% Other Plastic 267.0 0.2% Carpet 499.8 0.4% Buckets 88.7 0.1% Treated Wood 326.2 0.3% Glass Bottles 22.8 0.0% Glass Windows 321.2 0.3% Newspaper 18.9 0.0% Ceiling Tiles 192.0 0.2% Plastic Bottles 14.0 0.0% Film 172.3 0.1% Tires 13.1 0.0% Furniture 124.3 0.1% Phonebooks 2.9 0.0% Insulation 107.3 0.1% Magazines 0.0 0.0% Polystyrene Foam 40.8 0.0% Total 3,278.0 2.6 5,791.2 4.6

1 The Tier 2 subcategories are based on R. W. Beck’s research for this Study, and are not intended to be a definitive list of marketable products in the Region.

4-2 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

FINAL Market Analysis of Recoverable Materials

Even though Tier 2 materials represent a smaller portion of the waste stream, the Operator may still be able to market the “Existing Market” materials to the benefit of the MRF operation. For example, non-ferrous metal (in this case, primarily aluminum) only represents 0.3 percent of the waste stream. Yet at $800 to $1,000 per ton, that could translate to $344,480 to $430,600 in revenue. Additionally, some of the paper materials could be mixed and sold as a mixed paper product.

Those materials categorized as Tier 2 “Undeveloped Market” may be re-categorized as Tier 2 “Existing Market” as the markets for these materials are better developed in the North Central Texas region.

4.3 Tier 1 Market Analysis The following is an analysis of the opportunities to market each of the materials identified within the waste characterization study as having significant volumes.

4.3.1 Concrete/Cement The primary end-markets for recovered concrete include aggregate for road base, erosion control, and reuse in concrete production. Other uses for recovered concrete include use as drainage medium and as fill.

The MRF would have three primary options for the processing of recovered concrete material. The first would be to crush the material on-site and market it to potential users at a price of $4 to $8 per ton. The MRF would store this material on-site for customers to pick up and haul away. R. W. Beck identified city and county streets departments and private road construction companies as the most likely users of this material, as crushed concrete may be used as base material in road construction and maintenance. R. W. Beck spoke with streets departments in several NTMWD member cities that would be interested in purchasing recovered concrete.

Another option for the MRF would be to hire a private company to operate mobile crushing equipment at the MRF on an as needed basis. R. W. Beck identified at least one large concrete crushing company within the Metroplex that would be interested in a public/private partnership in which the company provides on-site crushing at the MRF. Under this arrangement, the private company would charge the MRF up to $7 per ton for the crushing of concrete material and the MRF would share in the revenues generated from the sale of this material. 2

The last option is to contract with a private company to process the material. R. W. Beck was able to identify one processor in the Metroplex that will accept unprocessed concrete for free at facilities in Dallas and Carrolton. In discussions with R. W. Beck, a different private concrete processor estimated that they would charge $20 per ton to haul and process the material.

2 This per-ton revenue figure is an estimate provided by the private company, and the actual price would depend on the outcome of contract negotiations.

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 4-3

Section 4 FINAL

R. W. Beck would recommend that the MRF crush concrete material on-site and market to potential users at a price between $4 and $8 per ton. Based on conversations with city and county streets departments in NTMWD member communities, there is a strong interest in purchasing recycled concrete to use as base material in road construction. Purchasing recycled concrete for this use could represent a significant cost savings to local governments as some governments pay up to $15 per ton for their current road base product.

4.3.2 Soil Soil recovered at a C&D MRF can be used for erosion control, a drainage medium, as fill, or as daily cover at a landfill. Area soil contractors generally do not pay for soil, but R. W. Beck identified one local soil contractor that would be willing to haul material away from the MRF for free. In addition, the MRF can make this material available on-site to soil contractors, landscapers, or developers.

R. W. Beck would recommend that the MRF operator first use the material on-site as daily cover for landfill operations. The secondary use would be to allow soil contractors, landscapers, developers, and other potential users to pick up soil on-site at the MRF for minimal, or no, charge. In the event that demand for soil in the Metroplex increases, the MRF may have the opportunity to sell this product. However, R. W. Beck anticipates that this material will generate minimal revenue.

4.3.3 Scrap Lumber There are various end-markets for scrap lumber recovered from building construction and demolition. Some recovered scrap lumber is used for boiler fuel. Scrap lumber may also be shredded and used as mulch or alternative daily landfill cover, so long as it has not been treated.3 Other potential uses for recycled scrap lumber include animal bedding and lumber operations. Wood processing companies may also be able to utilize scrap lumber in the production of engineered wood products, such as fiberboard and plywood.

The most viable options for a MRF in the NCTCOG region would be to either process wood scrap into mulch material or contract with a private company for the processing of this material. R. W. Beck was unable to identify any recyclers in the Metroplex that would purchase scrap lumber. However, many would accept scrap lumber for a charge of $2 to $4 per cubic yard.

The MRF also has the option to construct an on-site mulching operation for all wood waste and sell mulch product to commercial and residential customers. Processed material could be stored on-site for customers to pick up. Several cities in the Metroplex process wood waste into mulch and market their mulch product. These cities market their single-ground mulch product for a price between $2.50 and $15 per cubic yard, based on the quality of the product. R. W. Beck estimates that the MRF

3 Treated wood was defined as a separate category from other wood waste in the visual waste characterizations performed by R. W. Beck.

4-4 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


could market its mulch product for a price of $2.50 to $7.50 per cubic yard, or $4.54 to $13.63 per ton,4 and represents the best use of scrap lumber recovered at the MRF.

4.3.4 Bricks/ Cinder Blocks Bricks and cinder blocks are crushed into various sizes for several uses. Larger particles of crushed material may be sold as landscape rock. Finer grades of crushed brick may be used in the construction of recreational facilities, such as baseball fields, in place of soil. Crushed bricks may also be used in the construction of driveways and private roads or as road stabilizer at landfills or construction sites.

R. W. Beck was unable to identify recyclers in the Metroplex who would pay for bricks and/or cinder blocks. However, Metroplex-area crushers report that they would be willing to pick up unprocessed bricks from an area MRF at no charge. R. W. Beck identified one area recycler that would be interested in a public/private partnership in which the company provides on-site crushing at the MRF. Under this arrangement, the private company would charge the MRF a processing fee per ton for the crushing of materials but the MRF would share in the revenues generated from the sale of materials.

The MRF may also choose to crush the material on-site. The crushed material could be used on-site as road stabilization for the landfill. The material could also be made available to commercial customers. The MRF would store this material on-site until it is used at the landfill or until customers pick it up. R. W. Beck identified city and county streets departments as the most likely customers of this material, as crushed bricks and cinder blocks may be used in road construction and maintenance. Private contractors may also utilize this material in road and driveway construction.

R. W. Beck would recommend that the MRF process bricks and cinder blocks on-site and make crushed material available on-site for use at the landfill or to potential customers. R. W. Beck expects that the MRF will generate minimal revenue from this material, but would avoid disposal cost of the material.

4.3.5 Corrugated Cardboard The primary market for recovered cardboard is reutilization in cardboard and paperboard (e.g., cereal boxes) packaging. Cardboard separated for recycling at MRFs is either baled directly on-site or sold to a third party facility for processing and sale.

The market for old corrugated cardboard (OCC) is well established within the Metroplex. The average monthly price for OCC in 2006 was between $60 and $70 per ton. However, the price of this commodity fluctuates widely, and has recently exceeded $100 per ton in some markets.

4 Mulch is generally sold in cubic yards. However, in order to estimate the revenue that the MRF would generate from the sale of its mulch product, R. W. Beck converted this price range into tons using a volume to weight conversion of 1,100 pounds per cubic yard of mulch. ($2.50 ÷ 1,100) x 2,000 = $4.54 per ton and ($7.50 ÷ 1,100) x 2,000 = $13.63 per ton.

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 4-5

Section 4 FINAL

R. W. Beck would recommend that the MRF bale OCC on-site and market this product to paper mills. Although the price for this commodity varies based on market conditions, R. W. Beck would expect that the MRF will be able to generate a significant amount of revenue from the sale of baled OCC.

4.3.6 Ferrous Metal Ferrous metals are defined as metals that contain iron (e.g. steel). Recovery of ferrous metals in large scale has been a common practice for many years. These metals are typically marketed to mills and smelting operations. In 2004, nearly 50 percent of the furnace feed bought by the world’s steel makers was scrap metal.

The market for ferrous metals is well established within the Metroplex. The current market price for scrap ferrous metal is $90 to $130 per ton, depending on the contamination level of the material. However, the price of this commodity fluctuates widely. R. W. Beck identified one area scrap metal company that would be willing to leave roll-off containers at the MRF to be filled with scrap ferrous metal. This company estimated that they would pay the MRF $130 per ton of material picked up.

R. W. Beck would recommend that the MRF market its ferrous scrap metal to area scrap metal recyclers. Although the price for this commodity varies based on market conditions, R. W. Beck would expect that the MRF will be able to generate a significant amount of revenue from the sale of this material.

4.3.7 Asphalt Recovery of asphalt into new hot-mix asphalt has become a standard practice because of cost savings associated with using recovered material. Recovered asphalt may also be used as cold patch5 for roads, potholes, driveways and parking lots.

The MRF has the option to crush recovered asphalt material on-site and market it to commercial and residential customers. The MRF would store this material on-site for customers to pick up. R. W. Beck identified city and county streets departments as the most likely users of this material, as crushed asphalt may be used in road construction and maintenance. Commercial customers may also utilize this material in road, driveway, and parking lot construction and maintenance.

The MRF may also opt to contract with a private company for the disposal of asphalt. Area recyclers report a surplus of asphalt currently exists within the Metroplex market. As such, firms are unwilling to pay for recovered asphalt. However, one or more local recyclers may be willing to pick up asphalt from the MRF for recycling at no cost.

R. W. Beck would recommend that the MRF crush asphalt on-site and make it available to potential users for minimal, or no, charge or allow it to be picked up by area recyclers for no charge. Depending on changes in market conditions for this material, it is possible that the MRF will be able to generate revenue on this material in the future. However, R. W. Beck expects that this material would initially generate minimal revenue. 5 Cold patch is made of asphalt, aggregate, and a solvent and is used as a temporary patch for potholes.

4-6 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


4.3.8 Wood Packaging Wood packaging primarily consists of recovered wood pallets. This material is processed in the same manner as scrap lumber and is used in similar applications. Refer to sub-section 2.3.3 of this section for options regarding wood packaging. R. W. Beck would recommend that the MRF process this material in the same way as scrap lumber.

4.3.9 Drywall/Gypsum Gypsum drywall is currently viewed as one of the more difficult materials to recycle in the C&D waste stream. There is neither a market for recycled gypsum nor processors of recovered drywall in the Metroplex at this time. However, there are established markets in other areas of the United States, specifically in the Northeast and Northwest. The primary end-markets for recovered gypsum drywall in these areas are Portland cement, new drywall, and agricultural applications.

Gypsum is used in the manufacturing of Portland cement and typically represents five to eight percent of the total material inputs. In order for the gypsum to meet factory specifications it must be removed from the paper backing and ground into a fine powder. Participating cement plants report that recycled gypsum performs as well as new gypsum and that the cost savings are significant. Some plants in the northwest United States have committed to using up to 66 percent recycled gypsum in their Portland cement and believe that up to 100 percent recycled content can feasibly be used. Although the market for this material has not yet developed in the North Central Texas region, the presence of several cement plants in the area suggests that there is potential for a market to develop in the future.

Recovered gypsum drywall may also be used in the manufacturing of new drywall. However, R.W. Beck was unable to identify any drywall manufacturing plants in or near the North Central Texas region. As such, this application is not a feasible option for recovered drywall sourced in the region.

Agricultural applications also hold significant potential for utilizing recovered drywall. Gypsum is commonly used as a soil amendment, as it provides a source of calcium and sulfur to plants. As such, scrap gypsum drywall may also be added to compost. The paper contained in the drywall will biodegrade, however, the gypsum will not biodegrade and will be incorporated into the final compost product. The result will be compost rich in calcium and sulfur, which may provide a benefit to some crops.

As the market for recovered gypsum drywall is undeveloped in the North Central Texas region, at the outset of operation, it is likely that the MRF will have to dispose of this material in the landfill. However, the MRF has the option to initiate the development of a potential application by working with local composting operations to create a process for integrating recovered drywall into compost product.

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 4-7

Section 4 FINAL

4.3.10 Brush The primary end-market for recovered brush is the production of mulch. Mulch can be sold to local area residents or commercial customers for use in landscaping. Mulch may also be used as alternate daily cover at landfills. Please see sub-section 2.3.3 of this section for information regarding a mulching operation at the MRF. R. W. Beck would recommend that the MRF process this material in the same way as scrap lumber.

4.3.11 Refuse By definition, refuse is a contaminant residual of the recycling process that must be landfilled. Hence, no markets for the sale of refuse exist. Disposal costs for refuse within the Metroplex typically ranges from $20 to $30 per ton, with the lower tip fees on the perimeter of the Metroplex. The MRF will be required to dispose of refuse in a landfill.

4.3.12 Other Paper Other (or mixed) paper separated for recycling at MRFs is either baled directly on site or sold to a third party facility for processing and sale. The primary market for recovered mixed paper is reutilization in paper products.

The market for mixed paper is well established within the Metroplex. The market price for mixed paper ranges from $40 to $50 per ton. However, the price of this commodity can fluctuate widely.

R. W. Beck would recommend that the MRF bale mixed paper on-site and market it to potential processors. Although the price for this commodity varies based on market conditions, R. W. Beck would expect that the MRF will be able to generate revenue from the sale of baled mixed paper.

4.3.13 MRF Fine-Particle Residual MRF fine-particle residual has been included within this list because it is likely that significant quantities of this substance will be generated from the processing activities at the MRF. MRF fine-particle residual will contain traces of many materials processed at the C&D MRF, including treated wood. As such, R. W. Beck would recommend further research as to whether regulatory approval would be necessary to use MRF fine-particle residual as alternative daily cover at a landfill or as fill.

4.3.14 Summary Table 4-3 provides a summary of the revenue estimates for each of the Tier 1 materials. R. W. Beck calculated the revenue estimates based on the recommended course of action for each material.

4-8 R. W. Beck 10/15/07



Revenue per Ton

Material Tonnage Low High Average Market Location

Concrete/ Cement 36,019.5 $4.00 $8.00 $6.00 Onsite Soil 26,738.9 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Onsite Scrap Lumber 9,393.5 $4.54 $13.63 $9.06 Onsite Bricks/Cinder Blocks 8,283.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Onsite

Cardboard 7,428.6 $60.00 $70.00 $65.00 Hauled to Processor Asphalt 6,830.3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Onsite Ferrous Metal 6,369.0 $90.00 $130.00 $110.00 Hauled to Processor Drywall/ Gypsum 4,959.1 ($25.00) ($30.00) ($27.50) Landfill Brush 4,235.3 $4.54 $13.63 $9.06 Onsite Wood Packaging 3,464.0 $4.54 $13.63 $9.06 Onsite Refuse 2,050.6 ($25.00) ($30.00) ($27.50) Landfill Other Paper 1,700.3 $40.00 $50.00 $45.00 Hauled to Processor

4.4 Tier 2 Materials This section provides an analysis of those materials categorized as Tier 2 materials, or those that individually represent less than one percent of the waste stream in this waste shed.

4.4.1 Materials with Existing Markets R. W. Beck reviewed the revenue or disposal cost avoidance potential of the Tier 2 materials with existing markets. Since these materials individually represent less than one percent, stockpiling material until marketable quantities are collected is more of an issue than Tier 1 materials. Therefore it may be more feasible for different grades of a material category, paper for example, to be combined and marketed as a mixed-grade material. Additionally, there are certain fixed and variable costs (e.g., sorting personnel) associated with recovering a material. Many of the Tier 2 materials, although recoverable, are present in such small quantities that the cost to recover the material exceeds the revenue and/or cost avoidance associated with the material. Table 4-4 summarizes materials with existing markets.

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 4-9

Section 4 FINAL

Table 4-4 Materials with Existing Markets

Material Tonnage Estimated Revenue

per Ton [4] Market Location

Mixed Paper [1] 647.6 $45 Haul to Local Processor Mixed Recyclables 369.7 $15 Haul to Local Processor

Non-Ferrous Metal [2] 430.1 $900 Haul to Local Processor

Mixed Masonry [3] 1,338.1 $0 Onsite Tires 13.1 ($200) [5] Haul to Local Processor Glass bottles 22.8 $0 Haul to Local Processor Yard waste 456.6 $0 Haul to Local Processor Total 3,278.0 [1] Mixed paper includes: office paper, newspaper, phonebooks, magazines [2] Based on field observations, non-ferrous material was primarily aluminum. Revenue per ton amount

shown assumes aluminum. [3] Mixed masonry includes: other masonry, ceramic/porcelain/clay tile [4] Positive numbers indicate positive revenue to the operator. A negative number represents a cost for

disposal. [5] Disposal cost for tires is typically not represented in a cost per ton. Rather, disposal cost for tires is

usually based on a per tire cost. This estimate is based on $2 per passenger tire with an average weight of 20 pounds per tire.

Based on information contained in Sections 5 and 6, R. W. Beck would not anticipate tires, glass bottles, and yard waste to be actively recovered at the MRF.

4.4.2 Materials with Undeveloped Markets R. W. Beck would anticipate that the materials in Table 4-2 categorized as “materials with undeveloped markets” would not initially be recovered at the C&D MRF. However, some of these materials may be recovered in the future if the tonnages and available markets make it feasible to recover the material. Some examples include:

Roofing;

Carpet;

Plastic film; and

Polystyrene foam.

For example, there is a potential market for roofing materials in the future. Asphalt shingles constitute approximately two-thirds of all roofing materials. Scrap shingles are generated by shingle manufacturing facilities (post-industrial) as well as by commercial and residential roof replacements (post-consumer). The largest market for recycled asphalt shingles is the production of hot mix asphalt (HMA), which represents 90 percent of all asphalt produced in the United States.

4-10 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


According to current TCEQ regulations, only post-industrial shingle scrap may be used in the manufacturing of HMA. Further air emissions tests need to be done in order for TCEQ to authorize the use of post-consumer shingle scrap in HMA. There are no tests being done at this time. Because of these market conditions, there are no active shingle recyclers in the state of Texas. However, R. W. Beck identified several processors that would have the capacity to process shingles if the regulation were expanded to include post-consumer shingle scrap.

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 4-11

Section 4 FINAL


4-12 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

FINAL

Section 5 C&D MRF Conceptual Design

5.1 Introduction This section summarizes the operational and capital requirements of the conceptual C&D MRF facility. In the design of any facility, there are several options for various aspects of the equipment, site and buildings. The conceptual facility described in this section is one example of a C&D MRF facility that R. W. Beck developed based on the waste characterization work, market analysis, and assumptions discussed in this section. While the conceptual design is not intended to be site specific, R. W. Beck did make certain assumptions regarding the site layout that may vary from site to site.

While many variations of building, site, and processing equipment are possible, R. W. Beck considered the purpose of the facility was to recover as much C&D material as financially feasible given the market conditions in the North Central Texas region. As such, it was not considered feasible to attempt to recover 100 percent of the recoverable material at the site since some material quantities do not justify the investment in equipment and personnel needed to recover each type of material.

5.2 Assumptions Section 5.2 summarizes the assumptions R. W. Beck made regarding the conceptual C&D MRF facility. R. W. Beck used these assumptions as the basis for the site layout, building type and size, and equipment selection. There are two key assumptions regarding the development of the conceptual C&D MRF design:

Operated by a public sector entity

Co-located with an existing Type 1 MSW landfill

As discussed throughout this section, co-location of the MRF with an active MSW landfill has many operational, and thus financial, benefits. The MRF could also be co-located at a MSW transfer station, but the landfill provides the added benefit of low transportation costs for residuals and a potential on-site use of fine particle residual as daily cover. Operation by a public sector entity primarily affects the financial discussion in Section 6.

5.2.1 Waste Stream During the visual waste characterization described in Section 2, R. W. Beck observed two primary types of waste flow:

10/15/07

Section 5 FINAL

General C&D - typical commercial and residential C&D debris

Heavy Fraction - debris from municipal street departments

The debris from the general commercial and residential loads was similar to typical C&D waste streams (e.g., concrete, wood, drywall). The loads from the municipal street departments primarily consisted of concrete and asphalt, plus and the soil excavated with these materials. The material from municipal street departments represents approximately 43 percent of the waste stream, based on weight.1

Based on this information, R. W. Beck determined that keeping these two waste stream types separate would result in a more efficient MRF operation. Table 5-1 provides a summary waste projection based on the two waste streams.

Table 5-1 Waste Streams by Type of Generator

Waste Type 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Heavy Fraction 55,283 68,042 82,965 97,350 114,240 General C&D 71,258 91,466 118,995 141,409 162,042 Total 126,541 159,508 201,960 238,758 276,282

Material Type and Quantity Sections 2 and 3 provide a detailed description of the type and quantity of materials expected at the site if the facility were constructed in the area of the waste shed. Since the waste type and quantity from any particular waste shed may vary, it is important for any potential MRF operator to evaluate their specific waste shed before developing a C&D MRF.

Customer Traffic The flow of general C&D material will be more consistent than the flow of the heavy fraction material since the heavy fraction material is generated primarily through projects conducted by the surrounding streets departments. These road projects occur less consistently than general construction and demolition projects, but generate significant volumes of materials when they do occur.

5.2.2 Site Personnel Since the MRF would be located at an existing MSW facility, there would not initially be a need to have dedicated scale house attendants or other administrative staff. As tonnage processed at the site increases, additional staff may be added. There would also not be a needed for additional investment in information technology (e.g., scale

1 From Section 2, the waste from streets departments represented 48 percent of actual waste characterized. Once extrapolated to an annual number, the percentage falls to 43 percent since these loads were overrepresented in the waste characterization.

5-2 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

FINAL C&D MRF Conceptual Design

house software, billing system). The MRF would employ a site supervisor, but overall site management would fall under the responsibility of the landfill management.

5.2.3 Site Infrastructure By co-locating with an existing site, there will be existing connection points for the necessary utilities needed to operate the MRF. R. W. Beck assumes that rolling stock used at the MRF would be maintained using the existing landfill maintenance facility. R. W. Beck reserved space on the site for an optional administrative office space, but for the purposes of estimating construction costs, R. W. Beck assumed there would be existing administrative offices on site.

5.2.4 Operating Hours R. W. Beck assumed that the site would accept waste Monday through Friday from 8am to 5pm and Saturday from 8am to noon. However, the C&D MRF would only process material Monday through Friday. Material brought to the site on Saturday would be stockpiled for processing on Monday. By not processing material on Saturday, it will provide dedicated time for routine equipment maintenance and equipment repairs, while reducing labor costs associated with full Saturday operation. If the amount of waste stockpiled on Saturday increases to the point that the tipping floor areas are inadequate or it causes undue strain on Monday operations, the Operator could at that time consider adding partial Saturday operations or limiting acceptance of material on Saturday.

5.3 Building and Site Design This section provides a description of the site and buildings for the C&D MRF. Figure 5-1 provides an illustration of the overall conceptual site plan. See Appendix C for more detailed conceptual drawings of the facility.

Figure 5-1: Overall Site Plan

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 5-3

Section 5 FINAL

Based on the type of waste flow described in Section 5.2.1, R. W. Beck assumed the C&D MRF site would contain two separate processing areas:

General C&D Processing Site; and

Heavy Fraction Processing Site.

Section 5.4 provides a summary of the processing equipment R. W. Beck estimates the facility would require based on the type and quantity of waste generated in the waste stream.

Separately processing the heavy fraction (the concrete/cement, asphalt and soil) has several advantages:

The heavy fraction would not be subject to manual sorting (via laborers), which would be difficult given the weight of the material.

The primary processing line (for general C&D) would receive less wear and tear.

The soil from the heavy fraction is relatively clean (free from drywall, plastic and other contaminants), increasing the likelihood it can be used as daily cover or for other uses requiring cleaner soil. Combining it with the general C&D stream would introduce additional material that may reduce the options for reuse of the material.

The concrete grinder can generate significant noise and sometimes dust. If necessary this portion of the operation could be located at a different location within the same site. However, for this analysis, R. W. Beck assumed the two processing areas would be located adjacent to one another. The processing line for general C&D would be located within the building and the processing line for the heavy fraction would be located outside, adjacent to the building (See Figure 5-1).

5.3.1 General C&D Processing Site The general C&D processing site consists of a pre-engineered metal building. The following list provides a general overview of the general C&D processing area. Appendix C provides detail regarding the layout of equipment within the building.

Building size: 175 feet x 300 feet = 52,500 square feet.

Reinforced concrete slab.

Wear-resistant floor topping on tipping area.

Attached restroom/break room facilities.

Overhead misting system for dust control.

Contains mixed C&D processing line (discussed in Section 5.4.1).

Contains baler for baling OCC and other recovered paper.

Contains wood grinding machinery for converting wood products to mulch.

5-4 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


Tipping floor storage is conservatively 450 tons, with additional space available, if needed.

Exterior overhang for storage of baled paper materials.

Exterior overhang for storage of mulch (ground wood).

Customer traffic backs into the building, deposits material onto the tipping area, then pulls forward to exit the building.

5.3.2 Heavy Fraction Processing Site The heavy fraction processing area is an open-air area surrounded by a concrete wall for acoustic and dust control. The following list provides a general overview of the heavy fraction processing area. Appendix C provides detail regarding the layout of equipment within the area.

Site dimensions: 175 feet x 200 feet = 35,000 square feet.

Reinforced concrete slab.

Wear-resistant floor topping on tipping area.

Eight foot concrete wall surrounding area, except entry/exit points and loading area.

Contains grinding and screening equipment for processing concrete and asphalt (see Section 5.4.2).

Storage bunkers for storage of ground material.

5.3.3 Site Layout Aside from those facilities that R. W. Beck assumed would be located near/adjacent to the site because of co-location with a MSW landfill, the site is self-contained. Features of the site include:

Total site dimensions: 360 feet by 1,000 feet = 360,000 square feet (8.3 acres).

Up to two retention ponds for stormwater management.

Parking for all employees.

Space for optional administrative office building.

Below grade loading area, located between C&D processing area and heavy fraction processing area, for loading of recovered material.

5.4 Processing Equipment R. W. Beck had discussions with four suppliers of C&D processing equipment. Each company provided examples of other C&D processing facilities with which they have been involved and provided cost estimates for the processing equipment. The focus of the processing equipment is for the processing of the general C&D waste stream since

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 5-5

Section 5 FINAL

the material stream is more diverse. The heavy fraction, while a significant portion of the waste stream, only consists of three primary materials and therefore is a less complex processing line.

5.4.1 General C&D Processing The following process flow diagram (Figure 5-2) describes the processing line for general C&D waste.

Figure 5-2: Flow Diagram for General C&D Processing Line

5-6 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


The following describes each of the main components and the primary function of each.

1. Tipping floor – The tipping floor is the area where incoming vehicles deposit loads of C&D material to be processed.

2. Finger screen – The vibrating finger screen classifies material by size and separates the incoming waste stream into two categories, an “over” and “under” size. The overs are all materials larger than the specified screen size and the unders are all materials smaller than the specified screen size. The size classification typically ranges from six to 12 inches in diameter. For the purposes of this Study, R. W. Beck assumed the screen size would be eight inches, which will divert more material to the overs picking line, where most of the manual labor would be initially focused.

3. Overs picking line – The over picking line is a horizontal conveyor that lies on top of a series of storage bunkers. Each bunker is used to capture one type of material (two if a divider is used). There are chutes located along the conveyor that allow material to be dropped to the storage bunkers below. This conveyor is wide enough to accommodate large material sizes. As such, it is difficult for laborers to reach across to the opposite side the conveyor to pick material. Thus laborers stand on each side of the conveyor on the overs picking line. As the mixed stream of material moves down the conveyor, laborers will pull the specified materials and drop them down the appropriate chute to the storage bunkers. The number of materials recovered depends on the number of storage bunkers, the use of bunker dividers, and the number of pick line laborers. In this conceptual design, R. W. Beck included 10 bunkers, not all of which would be used initially. Additionally, the first bunker would be dedicated to the temporary storage of residual screen material.

4. Magnetic separator – The magnetic separator automatically pulls ferrous metals from the unders conveyor line before the unders material proceeds to the unders picking line.

5. Fines screen – This screen could be in the form of a star screen or a trommel screen. A trommel screen provides fixed screening capacity and provides a more consistent product. A star screener allows for more flexibility since the screen size can be adjusted, but can potentially result in a less consistent screened product. The size of the fines screen typically ranges from 3/8 of an inch to two inches in diameter. To maximize use of this residual screen material daily cover or other potential uses, R. W. Beck would recommend using a 3/8 to ½ inch screen size.

6. Unders picking line – Once the unders material passes through the fines screen, it is transported along a horizontal conveyor similar to the overs picking line. However, since the material on this line is smaller in size, the conveyor is more narrow than the overs conveyor and laborers can be located along one side versus both sides.

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 5-7

Section 5 FINAL

7. Material storage bunkers – The material storage bunkers serve as temporary holding areas for material picked from the overs and unders picking lines. The first bunker would store the residual screen material from the fines screen.

8. Baler – The baler is used for baling OCC and other paper products. As needed, the baler could also be used for baling plastics, aluminum beverage containers, etc. However, R. W. Beck does not anticipate the baler would be used for these other materials. This baler would not be capable of baling ferrous or non-ferrous scrap metal.

9. Wood processor – The wood processor consists of a wood grinding machine, a magnetic separator to remove ferrous metals (primarily nails from scrap lumber and wood packing), and a conveyor to transport material to temporary storage bunkers located outside of the building.

As configured, the general C&D waste processing line is capable of processing approximately 60 to 80 tons per hour. Assuming an average of 70 tons per hour and based on an eight hours per day, five days a week, and 52 weeks per year operation, that translates to 145,600 tons per year. Based on the waste projections in Table 5-1, the general C&D processing line would reach capacity in approximately 2022. At 80 tons per hour, the facility could process 166,400 tons annually, which exceeds the estimate for 2026.

However, initially, the capacity of the MRF should be purposely limited since the facility will not need to operate near its maximum capacity.

5.4.2 Heavy Fraction Processing Figure 5-3 describes the process flow for the heavy fraction material.

5-8 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


Figure 5-3: Flow Diagram for Heavy Fraction Processing Line

The following describes each of the main components and the primary function of each.

1. Tipping floor – The tipping floor is the area where incoming vehicles deposit loads of heavy fraction material to be processed. A laborer will be stationed at this area to manually remove contaminant materials (i.e., anything that is not concrete/cement, asphalt, or soil). To the extent possible, asphalt and concrete will be keep separate on the tipping floor and processed separately. This would be accomplished through a combination of tipping loads in separate areas and physically separating materials using the loader. The need for this activity will be dictated by the market for the end product.

2. Screen for fines – The primary purpose of this screen is to separate the soil from the concrete, cement, and asphalt.

3. Crusher – The crusher will reduce the size of the heavy fraction material into a more marketable material for reuse.

4. Magnetic separator – The magnetic separator automatically pulls ferrous metals from the crushed heavy fraction. R. W. Beck expects most of the ferrous metal to be in the form of rebar imbedded in the concrete.

5. Screen for one-inch material – To provide a consistent product, the screen will be sized to allow material one inch in diameter and smaller to pass through.

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 5-9

Section 5 FINAL

Material over one inch in diameter will be re-circulated to the crusher, via a conveyor, to be further processed for size reduction, if needed.

6. Material storage bunkers – Temporary storage of crushed material to be sold onsite or marketed to end users.

5.5 Rolling Stock Table 5-2 summarizes the initial recommended inventory and use of rolling stock at the C&D MRF, including roll-off containers.

Table 5-2 Rolling Stock for General C&D Processing Area

Type Example Manufacturers Example Models Units Primary Use(s)

Large Capacity Loader CAT Komatsu

966H WA480-6

2 Managing material at tipping areas, moving and loading recovered material

Small Capacity Loader CAT Komatsu

908 WA80-5

1 Loading recovered material, managing mulch material

Excavator CAT Komatsu

M318D PC220LC-8

1 Load general C&D material onto processing line

Forklift Hyster S50FT 1 Moving and loading baled material Roll-off Truck Numerous [1] Numerous [1] 2 Transporting recovered material,

including residual screen material Roll-off Containers Numerous [1] Numerous [1] 10 Storage and transportation of

materials Yard Tractor Numerous [1] Numerous [1] 1 Transporting non-recovered residual

to the landfill Transfer Trailer Numerous [1] Numerous [1] 1 Sweeper Waldon Sweepmaster 250 1 Sweep floors of MRF and heavy

fraction areas [1] R. W. Beck only provided specific examples where the size and capacity of the equipment was of more importance. There are many options for

these vehicles and as such, R. W. Beck did not include specific examples.

Several notes concerning the vehicles listed in Table 5-2:

When the excavator is down for maintenance and repair, the large loader can be used to load the general C&D processing line, thus providing a back-up to the excavator.

Since R. W. Beck anticipates that some material will be marketed directly from the site, the small loader will be useful for loading pick-up trucks, smaller trailers, and smaller dump trucks as well as moving smaller amounts of material around the site. While the large loader can accomplish these tasks, the small loader will

5-10 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


be efficient for these tasks. Therefore, R. W. Beck would recommend the Operator maintain a small loader within its inventory.

If the yard tractor or transfer trailer is down for maintenance or repair, the Operator could use roll-off container to contain the residual and use the roll-off truck to haul it to the landfill, proving back-up for the transfer vehicle.

5.6 Personnel R. W. Beck developed an initial roster of personnel needed at the site. Table 5-3 summarizes the initial employee roster and provides an indication of where personnel would be used. However, the use of personnel on the site, particularly heavy equipment operators and laborers, will depend on the flow of waste. The site supervisor and/or equipment crew leaders will have responsibility of determining the best use of individuals each day.

As the amount of waste accepted at the site increases, the City will be able to add additional laborers to the manual picking lines. Additionally, the Operator would likely need to add a mechanic and dedicated administrative staff. Depending on the capabilities of the existing Operator staff, the City may wish to add a staff person dedicated to sales and marketing of both incoming material and recovered material.

Table 5-3 Initial Employee Roster

Title General C&D Heavy Fraction Primary Responsibility

Site Supervisor 0.5 0.5 Day to day site supervision and management

Equipment Crew Leader 1.5 0.5 Serve as both equipment operators and assistant site supervisors

Heavy Equipment Operators 3 1 Operate loaders, excavator, transfer vehicle, roll-off truck, forklift

Mechanic 0.5 0.5 Maintenance and repair on rolling stock and processing equipment

Laborers Manual picking lines 14 0 Manually remove materials from pick lines General Laborers 5 1 Direct traffic around site, keep site clear of

debris and litter, direct and assist customers purchasing commodity material

Total 24.5 3.5

5.7 Unacceptable Materials As a policy, the facility should post a list of materials that are considered unacceptable materials. These materials should be treated as contamination to the incoming waste

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 5-11

Section 5 FINAL

stream and amounts of these materials that appear in the waste stream should be monitored. The Operator could impose penalties for repetitive occurrences of excessive contamination. The following list provides an example of materials that might be listed as unacceptable.

Refuse

Furniture

Batteries

Household Hazardous Waste

Hazardous Waste

Asbestos

Liquids

Contaminated Soils

5-12 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

FINAL

Section 6 C&D MRF Financial Analysis

6.1 Introduction This section of the report summarizes the capital investment and ongoing O&M costs associated with the C&D MRF. R. W. Beck then determined what disposal fee, or tipping fee, would be required at the MRF to make it financially feasible and then compared that to area landfill tipping fees.

6.2 Capital Expenditures 6.2.1 Financing Assumptions R. W. Beck made several assumptions regarding the financing of the MRF’s capital assets.

Type of funding - R. W. Beck assumed all purchases would be made with public sector debt. Therefore, the annual budget includes debt service for capital expenditures.

Cost of capital – R. W. Beck assumed an average cost of capital (i.e., interest rate on debt) of 5.5 percent.

Term – Since the assumed life of the MRF is 20 years, R. W. Beck assumed all site and building costs would be financed over a 20 year period. R. W. Beck assumed a useful life, and therefore financing period, for processing equipment of 10 years and useful life of rolling stock of seven years.

Taxes – R. W. Beck realizes that some materials and/or services may be exempt if the Operator is a public sector entity. However, to keep the estimate conservative, R. W. Beck assumed a sales tax of 8.25 percent would apply.

6.2.2 Building and Site Construction R. W. Beck developed cost estimates for the building and site construction. Table 6-1 provides a brief summary of the cost estimates and Appendix D contains a more detailed estimate.

10/15/07

Section 6 FINAL

Table 6-1 Building and Site Construction Costs

Description Low High

Permitting, Design, and Construction Administration $880,200 $1,398,000 Site Work $1,064,306 $1,277,167 C&D MRF Building $3,484,530 $4,181,436 Heavy Fraction Processing Area $579,200 $695,040 Subtotal $6,008,236 $7,551,643 Sales Tax $495,679 $623,011 Total $6,503,915 $8,174,654 Annual Debt Service $544,243 $684,050

Design and Construction Schedule Table 6-2 provides a high-level summary of a typical timeline to design, permit and build a facility similar to the C&D MRF described in this Study. However, through efficient management of the design and construction process, R. W. Beck would expect there to be opportunities to compress the schedule.

Table 6-2 Overall Construction Schedule

Activity Duration

Design and Permitting 9 to 12 months Bidding 2 months Construction 10 to 12 months Total Duration 21 to 26 months

6.2.3 Processing Equipment Based on conversations with four equipment manufacturers that provide equipment for C&D MRF operations, R. W. Beck developed the cost estimates listed in Table 6-3. Section 5.4 contains the detail regarding the components of each processing line.

6-2 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

FINAL C&D MRF Financial Analysis

10/15/07 R. W. Beck 6-3

Table 6-3 Processing Equipment


C&D Processing Line $1,500,000 $2,000,000 Heavy Fraction Processing Line $300,000 $500,000 Wood Grinder $150,000 $250,000 Baler $100,000 $150,000 Subtotal $2,050,000 $2,900,000 Sales Tax $169,125 $239,250 Total $2,219,125 $3,139,250 Annual Debt Service $294,406 $416,477

6.2.4 Rolling Stock Table 6-4 provides an estimate of the cost for rolling stock needed at the site. As mentioned in Section 6.2.1, R. W. Beck assumed a useful life for all rolling stock of seven years.

Table 6-4 Rolling Stock Costs

Unit Cost Total Cost

Title Low High Number Low High

Large Capacity Loader $300,000 $400,000 2 $600,000 $800,000 Small Capacity Loader $70,000 $100,000 1 $70,000 $100,000 Excavator $150,000 $200,000 1 $150,000 $200,000 Forklift $20,000 $30,000 1 $20,000 $30,000 Roll-off Truck $80,000 $95,000 2 $160,000 $190,000 40 CY Roll-off Containers $2,000 $4,000 10 $20,000 $40,000 Yard Tractor $75,000 $85,000 1 $75,000 $85,000 Transfer Trailer $55,000 $75,000 1 $55,000 $75,000 Sweeper $30,000 $40,000 1 $30,000 $40,000 Subtotal $1,180,000 $1,560,000 Sales Tax $97,350 $128,700 Total $1,277,350 $1,688,700 Annual Debt Service $224,768 $297,151

Section 6 FINAL

6.2.5 Capital Reserve A capital reserve fund is typically a required term for issuing revenue-based debt. In many cases, revenue bonds will require that the payee have an amount equal to one year of principal and interest payments. Depending on the entity seeking the debt, this requirement may or may not be necessary. However, R. W. Beck would recommend having a capital reserve in place. Based on the estimated annual debt service payments, R. W. Beck would recommend a capital reserve amount of $1,063,418 to $1,397,678.1 The primary methods for funding the capital reserve fund are (1) debt, (2) a fee added to the disposal rate, and (3) excess revenue. At this time, R. W. Beck assumes the Operator would fund the entire amount with debt and finance it over a period of 10 years.

Table 6-5 Capital Reserve


Total capital reserve $1,063,418 $1,397,678 Finance term (years) 10 10 Debt service from capital reserve $141,081 $185,427

Requirements from bond issuers may differ from the assumptions made by R. W. Beck and could therefore change the amount of the capital reserve and the manner in which it is funded.

6.3 Operating Expenses Section 6.3 summarizes the estimated annual operating expense of the C&D MRF, based on the personnel and resources used at the site.

6.3.1 Personnel Using the information from Section 5.6, R. W. Beck developed the following cost estimate for employee salaries and benefits.

1 This amount represents the annual debt service for site and building construction, processing equipment, and rolling stock.

6-4 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


10/15/07 R. W. Beck 6-5

Table 6-6 Annual Personnel Costs

Salary Total Salary


Site Supervisor $45,000 $55,000 1 $45,000 $55,000 Equipment Crew Leader $40,000 $50,000 2 $80,000 $100,000 Heavy Equipment Operators $35,000 $45,000 4 $140,000 $180,000 Mechanic $35,000 $45,000 1 $35,000 $45,000 Laborers

Manual picking lines $20,000 $30,000 14 $280,000 $420,000 Spotters/General Laborers $20,000 $30,000 6 $120,000 $180,000

Salary Total $700,000 $980,000 Benefits (35%) $245,000 $343,000 Overtime (7%) $49,000 $68,600 Total Salary and Benefits $994,000 $1,391,600

6.3.2 Equipment O&M Rolling Stock Table 6-7 provides estimates of the annual O&M costs for the rolling stock, including roll-off containers. O&M includes repair, routine maintenance, and fuel.

Table 6-7 Annual Rolling Stock O&M

Total O&M


Large Capacity Loader $55,000 $85,000 2 $110,000 $170,000 Small Capacity Loader $15,000 $25,000 1 $15,000 $25,000 Excavator $25,000 $35,000 1 $25,000 $35,000 Forklift $2,500 $7,500 1 $2,500 $7,500 Roll-off Truck $20,000 $30,000 2 $40,000 $60,000 40 CY Roll-off Containers $200 $500 10 $2,000 $5,000 Yard Tractor $15,000 $25,000 1 $15,000 $25,000 Transfer Trailer $1,000 $2,500 1 $1,000 $2,500 Sweeper $2,500 $7,500 1 $2,500 $7,500 Total Rolling Stock O&M $213,000 $337,500

Section 6 FINAL

Processing Equipment Operations and maintenance of the processing equipment will vary by component and depend on the type of material accepted at the site over a period of time. For example, the conveyors and magnetic separators are typically less prone to needing repair than machinery with more complex moving parts, such as the finger screens. R. W. Beck estimates that annual O&M will range from 3 to 4 percent of the purchase price of the equipment. Based on the pre-tax purchase price of the equipment (see Section 6.2.3), R. W. Beck estimates annual O&M cost for the processing equipment (general C&D and heavy fraction) will be approximately $60,000 to $115,000 per year. R. W. Beck would expect this cost to be at the lower end of the range when the equipment is new and increase over time. This cost does not include the electricity needed to power the processing equipment, which is taken into account under “utilities” in Section 6.3.4.

6.3.3 Residual Material Disposal As discussed further in the revenue section (Section 6.5), R. W. Beck estimated that 42,343.6 tons of material accepted at the C&D MRF would be disposed as residual. Based on tipping fees of $20 to $25, the total disposal cost of residual in the first year would be $846,872 to $1,058,590. In practice, some of the residual tonnage will be in the form of residual screen material or other material that the Operator may be able to divert, thus reducing the amount of disposal expense for residual material.

6.3.4 Other Operating Expenses Table 6-8 contains estimates of additional operating expenses that need to be accounted for in the operation of a C&D MRF.

Table 6-8 Other Operating Expenses


Utilities $80,000 $120,000 Supplies $5,000 $10,000 Training $35,000 $50,000 Building and site maintenance $10,000 $20,000 Professional Services $75,000 $100,000 Miscellaneous $15,000 $25,000 Total $220,000 $325,000

6.3.5 Operating Reserve The purpose of the operations and maintenance reserve fund would be to financially prepare the Operator for any unbudgeted expenses that may occur in the future and fluctuations in revenue due to commodity markets. R. W. Beck would recommend a

6-6 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


10/15/07 R. W. Beck 6-7

fund based on three months of the O&M portion of the annual budget (total budget minus capital expenses). This amount would equal $2,333,873 to $3,227,691, based on the “low” and “high” scenarios. In order to minimize the rate impact of building this reserve, R. W. Beck would recommend accumulating the O&M reserve over a five year period. Therefore over a five year period, the Operator would need to fund $116,694 to $161,385 annually.

6.4 Total Expenses Table 6-9 summarizes the expense information from Sections 6.2 and 6.3. The Operator needs to generate this amount of revenue, from either the sale of commodities or tipping fees, to make the C&D MRF a financially feasible option.

Table 6-9 Total Revenue Requirement

Expense Low High

Operating Expenses Personnel $994,000 $1,391,600 Processing Equipment O&M $60,000 $115,000 Rolling Stock O&M $213,000 $337,500 Residual Material Disposal $846,872 $1,058,590 Other Operating Expenses $220,000 $325,000 Operating Reserve $116,694 $161,385

Debt Service Building and Site $544,243 $684,050 Processing Equipment $294,406 $416,477 Rolling Stock $224,768 $297,151 Capital Reserve $141,081 $185,427

Total $3,655,066 $4,972,181

6.5 Commodity Revenue Based on the market analysis in Section 4, R. W. Beck developed an estimate of the total revenue from recovered materials. In order to develop the estimate, R. W. Beck assumed that each material that the Operator targeted for recovery would be recovered at a rate of 75 percent.

Section 6 FINAL

Table 6-10 Commodity Recovery and Revenue

Tonnage Revenue per Ton Total Revenue

Material Total Revenue[1] Residual[2] Low High Low High

Concrete/ Cement 36,019.5 27,014.6 9,004.9 $4.00 $8.00 $108,058 $216,117 Soil 26,738.9 20,054.2 6,684.7 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 Scrap Lumber 9,393.5 7,045.1 2,348.4 $4.54 $13.63 $31,985 $96,025 Bricks/Cinder Blocks 8,283.0 6,212.3 2,070.8 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 Corrugated Cardboard 7,428.6 5,571.4 1,857.1 $60.00 $70.00 $334,286 $390,000 Asphalt 6,830.3 5,122.7 1,707.6 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 Ferrous Metal 6,369.0 4,776.7 1,592.2 $90.00 $130.00 $429,905 $620,974 Brush 4,235.3 3,176.5 1,058.8 $4.54 $13.63 $14,421 $43,295 Wood Packaging 3,464.0 2,598.0 866.0 $4.54 $13.63 $11,795 $35,410 Other Paper 1,700.3 1,275.2 425.1 $40.00 $50.00 $51,009 $63,761 Other Masonry 723.5 542.6 180.9 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 Office Paper 625.8 469.4 156.5 $40.00 $50.00 $18,775 $23,469 Non-Ferrous Metal 430.1 322.6 107.5 $800.00 $1,000.00 $258,047 $322,559 Newspaper 18.9 14.1 4.7 $40.00 $50.00 $566 $707 Phonebooks 2.9 2.2 0.7 $40.00 $50.00 $87 $109 Magazines 0.0 0.0 0.0 $40.00 $50.00 $0 $0 Total 112,263.5 84,197.6 28,065.9 $1,258,934 $1,812,426

[1] Based on an average recovery rate of 75 percent, this amount of tonnage would have the potential to generate revenue for the MRF. [2] Based on an average recovery rate of 75 percent, this amount of material would pass through the MRF and be disposed at the landfill.

Additionally, the following materials would not be targeted for recovery, at least until the tonnage increases or better markets develop:

Drywall/ Gypsum

Refuse

Other Materials

Roofing

Tile

Painted Wood

Wood Furniture

Other Glass

Carpet

Yard Waste

Treated Wood

Glass Windows

Other Plastic

Ceiling Tiles

Film

Furniture

Insulation

Buckets

Polystyrene foam

Glass Bottles

Plastic Bottles

Tires

These materials represent a total of 14,277.8 tons based on the waste characterization from Section 2. Combined with the residual tonnage of 28,065.9 from Table 6-10, total residual tonnage is 42,343.6. This represents approximately one-third of the total incoming waste stream. It is R. W. Beck’s opinion that proper management of

6-8 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


10/15/07 R. W. Beck 6-9

incoming materials and efficient recovery of targeted materials will result in an overall reduction in the residual rate over time.

6.6 Total Net Revenue Table 6-11 summarizes the amount of disposal fee revenue needed by the Operator to “break even” and make the C&D MRF financially feasible.

Table 6-11 Net Revenue and Required Disposal Fee

Expense Low Scenarios

High Scenarios

Best Case

Worst Case

Total Expenses $3,655,066 $4,972,181 $3,655,066 $4,972,181 Commodity Revenue $1,258,934 $1,812,426 $1,812,426 $1,258,934 Disposal Fee Revenue Requirement [1] $2,396,132 $3,159,754 $1,842,639 $3,713,247 Annual Tonnage 126,541 126,541 126,541 126,541 Per Ton Disposal Fee $18.94 $24.97 $14.56 $29.34 [1] Disposal Fee Revenue Requirement = Total Expenses – Commodity Revenue. This is the amount the MRF must recover through tipping fees

in order to “break even.”

Based on the information listed in Table 6-11, R. W. Beck estimates that the Operator would need to charge $19 to $25 per ton to operate a financially viable facility.

As comparison, R. W. Beck researched the weighted average tipping fees for landfills in the North Central Texas region who reported their per-ton tipping fees to the TCEQ for the FY 2006 annual report. R. W. Beck calculated the weighted average tipping fee as $19.93 per ton.

6.6.1 Sensitivity Analysis R. W. Beck conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine the affect that movements in key variables would have on the required disposal fee of the C&D MRF. Since there are multiple variables that could drive the sensitivity analysis, R. W. Beck assumed the per ton revenue for commodity to be the average of the “low” and “high” values from Table 6-10. R. W. Beck then varied the total expense and material recovery rate to determine the affect on the required disposal fee at the C&D MRF. Table 6-12 contains the results of that analysis. The assumed recovery rate in Section 6.5 was 75 percent.

Section 6 FINAL

Table 6-12 Sensitivity Analysis of Required Disposal Fee

Total Expenses

Recovery Rate $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000

65% $13.19 $21.09 $29.00 $36.90 70% $12.38 $20.28 $28.19 $36.09 75% $11.57 $19.47 $27.38 $35.28 80% $10.76 $18.67 $26.57 $34.47 85% $9.95 $17.86 $25.76 $33.66

6.7 Additional Costs for Stand-Alone Facility Throughout Sections 5 and 6, R. W. Beck’s analysis assumed that the C&D MRF facility would be co-located with an active MSW facility, specifically a MSW landfill. If the Operator were to develop the C&D MRF as a stand-alone facility, there are several additional costs and/or issues to consider, including but not limited to:

Additional permitting costs (building a facility within the boundaries of an existing TCEQ permitted MSW site is typically easier to permit or register);

Scale house with scales, scale house attendants and software;

Maintenance facility;

Additional mechanics;

Possibly a dedicated site manager (to whom the site supervisor would report); and

Increase in site size for scale house, maintenance facility, and administrative facilities.

6.8 Other Considerations If a public entity with an existing landfill were to build a C&D MRF, there are some additional considerations the Operator should take into account in the planning process.

6.8.1 Sensitivity to Market Conditions This analysis was based on the value of commodities in the North Central Texas region at the time of this study. As with other market-driven commodities, the price the Operator receives for recovered material will vary based on supply and demand, as well as other factors, over the life span of the C&D MRF. Therefore, the viability of the MRF is tied to factors that have an amount of risk associated with them. Employing risk management strategies, such as establishing contracts for both

6-10 R. W. Beck 10/15/07


10/15/07 R. W. Beck 6-11

incoming material and recovered material, will help reduce this risk. However, even contracts for recoverable material often adjust based on direction of the market for the materials.

6.8.2 Competition for C&D Materials Some of the materials in the waste stream are valuable commodities and thus efforts to recover these materials will likely increase with time. For example, during the waste characterization, only trace amounts of copper were found in the waste stream. Since the price of copper has risen dramatically, it is efficiently recovered from most construction and demolition projects. As demand for materials such as ferrous and non-ferrous metals, OCC, and concrete increase in the North Central Texas region, there will be increased competition among those Operators looking to recover the material, thus putting downward pressure on disposal fees.

In addition to competition for the material as a commodity, the C&D MRF would also compete against other MSW landfills, and specifically landfills that accept only C&D waste.

Having some contractual or legal control (e.g., city ordinances or other flow control2 measures) of the waste stream will help reduce the risk associated this competition.

6.8.3 Revenue of Co-located Facility Based on the waste characterization work, R. W. Beck assumed that approximately 126,541 tons of material would be accepted at the facility in the first year of operation. Based on the FY 2005 data from the TCEQ, this represents 1.4 percent of the total MSW tonnage disposed in landfills and 8.4 percent of C&D material disposed in landfills. Since the 126,541 tons is a part of the overall waste stream generated in the region, acceptance of this material at the MRF means that another facility will see a drop in tonnage. This reduction in tonnage could be from a combination of sources, including the co-located landfill or competitive MSW facilities in the region.

If all the tonnage were to be transitioned from the co-located landfill to the C&D MRF, then the total cost of operating both the landfill and MRF could potentially increase compared to the total cost of operating the landfill alone, with the same amount of incoming tonnage. This would result in an overall higher cost per ton for disposal and processing. However, if a significant portion of this tonnage from customers that previously hauled the materials to another site, this affect on the co-located landfill would be minimized.

If the tonnage accepted at the co-located landfill decreases, there would be decreases in certain costs that would help offset the potential negative financial impacts discussed in the previous paragraph. These cost decreases would primarily be related to extending the life of the landfill. Cell development costs would be amortized over a longer period of time and financial assurance reserve fund contributions would be

2 A recent Supreme Court ruling, in the case of United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, provides local governments increased control of waste within their jurisdiction.

Section 6 FINAL

reduced since the operator would have more time to contribute to the fund. Additionally, the siting and permitting of a new landfill can be an expensive process and extending the life of the landfill would defer these expenses.

6.8.4 Public-Private Partnerships Public-private partnerships may be an option for the development of a C&D MRF in North Central Texas region. Typically, such partnerships would utilize the financing advantages of the public sector entity (i.e., lower cost of capital) and the operational expertise of the private sector. Additionally, a private sector operator may also operate a C&D collection operation, which could provide a source of incoming C&D debris for the MRF.

6.9 Conclusion While the analysis conducted as part of this Feasibility Study varies in many respects (e.g., waste stream composition, commodity revenue, reserves) to the original C&D MRF case study R. W. Beck completed for the NCTCOG in 2004, the end result is still very similar. Compared to the disposal fees in the North Central Texas region, the C&D MRF appears to be within the range of financial feasibility. Key components of the financial feasibility include:

Co-location of the MRF with another permitted MSW facility, particularly a landfill or transfer station.

Find alternative ways to use residual material so that the MRF operator does not have to pay to landfill the residual.

Advertise the environmental benefits of the MRF, thereby creating public interest in diverting C&D debris from the landfill.

When possible, market materials to end users to maximize revenue. If quantities are low, the Operator could seek opportunities to cooperatively market materials.

Reducing the expenses through efficient operations will help keep the C&D MRF competitive with other C&D disposal or diversion options. The primary operating expenses at a C&D MRF include labor, residual disposal costs, equipment operation and maintenance, and utilities.

Controlling the in-bound contamination rate will allow the equipment and labor at the C&D MRF to work more efficiently. If contamination rates are not controlled, the MRF will waste valuable resources separating material that has no value and residual rates will increase.

Minimizing residual material that must be disposed of in a landfill will help the MRF reduce expenses. To help avoid the expense associated with landfilling residual material, the MRF operator should find alternative uses for non-recoverable material.

Effectively communicating the importance of disposing of C&D at a MRF is helpful in obtaining support from the consumers and private haulers.

6-12 R. W. Beck 10/15/07

Appendix A – Annualized Waste Characterization Data


Appendix A - Detail Waste Composition Data

Concrete/ Cement

Bricks/Cinder Blocks Tile

Other Masonry

Plastic Bottles Buckets Film Styrofoam

Other Plastic

Ferrous Metal

Non-Ferrous Metal

Corrugated Cardboard

Office Paper

News-paper

Maga-zines

Phone-books

Other Paper

Wood Packaging

Treated Wood

VolumeAllen 41.8 13.3 10.3 0.0 2.0 10.3 77.2 58.9 30.1 40.4 9.3 367.3 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 122.0 2.9Frisco 224.5 73.1 13.7 16.9 6.7 24.5 137.5 82.8 94.5 153.7 15.0 558.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.1 277.4 10.0McKinney 625.0 112.1 3.2 7.4 13.3 23.0 285.4 85.0 303.5 208.4 80.8 1,074.8 59.6 1.5 0.0 0.3 158.3 539.5 24.9Plano 53.4 22.6 1.5 2.9 4.3 14.0 79.1 23.1 64.5 71.2 36.9 298.9 2.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 12.4 133.7 23.9Richardson 224.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total 1,169.2 221.1 28.7 27.2 26.2 71.8 579.2 249.8 492.5 473.7 142.0 2,299.1 77.8 2.7 0.0 0.3 219.8 1,072.5 61.7TonnageAllen 45.7 16.6 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.5 17.6 0.9 34.1 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 12.4 0.5Frisco 245.5 90.7 8.3 16.6 0.1 0.9 1.3 0.4 1.6 66.8 1.4 55.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 28.2 1.7McKinney 683.4 139.2 2.0 7.3 0.2 0.9 2.6 0.4 5.3 90.6 7.6 107.5 13.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 39.0 54.8 4.1Plano 58.4 28.0 0.9 2.8 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.1 1.1 31.0 3.5 29.9 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 13.6 3.9Richardson 245.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total 1,278.4 274.5 17.4 26.7 0.4 2.8 5.3 1.2 8.6 206.0 13.3 227.3 17.9 0.6 0.0 0.1 54.2 108.9 10.2Allen Tonnage

FY 05/06 Tonnage 13,165.3Percent Composition 17.8% 6.5% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 6.8% 0.3% 13.3% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 4.8% 0.2%FY 05/06 Composition 2,344.2 849.4 320.6 0.0 1.7 20.3 36.3 14.6 26.8 900.8 44.9 1,750.0 187.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 202.1 635.0 24.6

Frisco TonnageFY 05/06 Tonnage 23,172.8Percent Composition 25.8% 9.5% 0.9% 1.7% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 7.0% 0.1% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 3.0% 0.2%FY 05/06 Composition 5,976.3 2,208.3 202.3 404.1 2.8 22.9 30.8 9.7 40.0 1,627.4 34.1 1,358.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 198.9 685.4 40.2

McKinney TonnageFY 05/06 Tonnage 68,148.7Percent Composition 30.7% 6.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 4.1% 0.3% 4.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 2.5% 0.2%FY 05/06 Composition 20,915.0 4,260.0 60.3 222.9 7.0 27.0 80.2 12.6 161.5 2,773.4 231.9 3,289.6 420.2 9.6 0.0 2.9 1,194.1 1,675.8 125.5

Plano TonnageFY 05/06 Tonnage 11,436.0Percent Composition 17.6% 8.4% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 9.3% 1.0% 9.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 4.1% 1.2%FY 05/06 Composition 2,011.2 965.3 31.4 96.6 2.5 18.5 25.0 3.8 38.6 1,067.4 119.2 1,030.2 16.4 9.3 0.0 0.0 105.3 467.7 135.8

Richardson TonnageFY 05/06 Tonnage 10,618.5Percent Composition 44.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%FY 05/06 Composition 4,772.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Tonnage 36,019.5 8,283.0 614.6 723.5 14.0 88.7 172.3 40.8 267.0 6,369.0 430.1 7,428.6 625.8 18.9 0.0 2.9 1,700.3 3,464.0 326.2

Page 1 of 2

Appendix A - Detail Waste Composition Data

VolumeAllenFriscoMcKinneyPlanoRichardsonTotalTonnageAllenFriscoMcKinneyPlanoRichardsonTotalAllen Tonnage

FY 05/06 TonnagePercent CompositionFY 05/06 Composition

Frisco TonnageFY 05/06 TonnagePercent CompositionFY 05/06 Composition

McKinney TonnageFY 05/06 TonnagePercent CompositionFY 05/06 Composition

Plano TonnageFY 05/06 TonnagePercent CompositionFY 05/06 Composition

Richardson TonnageFY 05/06 TonnagePercent CompositionFY 05/06 Composition

Total Tonnage

Wood Furniture

Painted Wood Brush

Scrap Lumber

Glass Bottles

Glass Windows

Other Glass

Drywall/ Gypsum Roofing Carpet

Yard Waste Furniture Tires Asphalt Refuse

Ceiling Tiles Dirt Insulation

Other Materials Total

28.2 7.4 10.2 190.5 0.3 3.3 12.7 62.5 0.0 118.1 5.8 0.0 0.3 11.5 117.9 5.9 18.5 30.3 62.0 1,503.029.1 15.5 68.3 520.1 0.6 1.5 1.2 243.1 14.1 56.2 32.2 10.4 3.2 45.6 78.7 47.9 202.2 139.3 100.9 3,331.936.3 81.5 489.9 1,014.7 1.1 3.3 8.9 199.5 113.0 55.3 92.5 38.1 4.8 136.1 297.8 13.4 547.3 100.9 160.8 7,001.0

3.3 20.9 13.6 466.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 174.8 22.7 59.1 15.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 33.3 9.2 23.3 41.6 34.3 1,767.50.0 0.0 97.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.0 0.0 0.0 216.8 0.0 5.9 618.8

96.9 125.3 679.6 2,192.2 1.9 11.0 22.8 679.9 149.8 288.7 146.0 48.5 9.0 267.3 527.7 76.4 1,008.0 312.1 364.0 14,222.2

4.7 1.1 2.2 25.7 0.1 2.6 7.4 14.6 0.0 5.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 10.7 13.3 0.5 17.9 0.3 6.2 256.74.8 2.3 14.8 70.2 0.2 1.2 0.7 56.7 3.4 2.5 3.3 0.9 0.2 42.7 8.9 4.2 195.6 1.6 10.1 951.76.0 12.3 106.1 137.0 0.4 2.6 5.2 46.5 27.4 2.5 9.5 3.3 0.2 127.3 33.5 1.2 529.5 1.1 16.1 2,226.70.5 3.2 2.9 63.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 40.8 5.5 2.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.8 22.5 0.5 3.4 331.80.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.2 0.0 0.0 209.7 0.0 0.6 546.2

16.0 18.9 147.2 295.9 0.7 8.7 13.2 158.6 36.3 12.9 15.0 4.2 0.4 249.9 59.4 6.7 975.2 3.5 36.4 4,313.1

1.8% 0.4% 0.9% 10.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.9% 5.7% 0.0% 2.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 5.2% 0.2% 7.0% 0.1% 2.4% 100.0%239.1 57.4 113.8 1,319.3 5.5 133.4 378.9 747.5 0.0 271.5 30.7 0.0 0.8 550.1 680.6 26.3 916.1 17.6 317.9 13,165.3

0.5% 0.2% 1.6% 7.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 6.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 4.5% 0.9% 0.4% 20.6% 0.2% 1.1% 100.0%116.8 56.9 360.4 1,709.7 5.2 28.0 16.7 1,381.1 83.4 61.3 80.5 22.2 3.9 1,038.7 215.6 102.0 4,762.5 38.4 245.8 23,172.8

0.3% 0.6% 4.8% 6.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 2.1% 1.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 5.7% 1.5% 0.1% 23.8% 0.1% 0.7% 100.0%183.1 376.5 3,248.5 4,192.4 12.1 78.9 158.1 1,424.5 838.4 75.9 290.5 102.0 7.4 3,896.0 1,025.4 36.0 16,206.4 35.0 492.2 68,148.7

0.2% 1.0% 0.9% 19.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 12.3% 1.7% 0.8% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.2% 6.8% 0.1% 1.0% 100.0%18.7 108.7 101.5 2,172.1 0.0 80.9 0.0 1,405.9 189.3 91.2 54.9 0.0 1.0 0.0 129.0 27.8 776.3 16.2 118.3 11,436.0

0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.7% 0.0% 0.0% 38.4% 0.0% 0.1% 100.0%0.0 0.0 411.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,345.5 0.0 0.0 4,077.6 0.0 11.5 10,618.5

557.6 599.6 4,235.3 9,393.5 22.8 321.2 553.6 4,959.1 1,111.0 499.8 456.6 124.3 13.1 6,830.3 2,050.6 192.0 26,738.9 107.3 1,185.6 126,541.2

Page 2 of 2

Appendix B – Population, Employment, and Waste Projections


Appendix B - Population, Employment, and Waste Projections

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018AllenPopulation 77,947 79,570 81,193 82,816 84,439 86,062 87,391 88,719 90,048 91,376 92,705 93,231 93,757 94,282Employment 14,958 16,264 17,570 18,875 20,181 21,487 23,784 26,081 28,377 30,674 32,971 34,402 35,833 37,263FriscoPopulation 80,969 87,320 93,671 100,023 106,374 112,725 119,138 125,550 131,963 138,375 144,788 151,542 158,296 165,050Employment 13,867 15,080 16,293 17,506 18,719 19,932 22,336 24,740 27,143 29,547 31,951 34,085 36,219 38,352McKinneyPopulation 83,678 88,116 92,554 96,993 101,431 105,869 111,770 117,671 123,572 129,473 135,374 140,417 145,461 150,504Employment 33,410 34,766 36,122 37,477 38,833 40,189 41,968 43,747 45,525 47,304 49,083 50,529 51,975 53,420PlanoPopulation 245,261 247,371 249,481 251,592 253,702 255,812 256,026 256,240 256,454 256,668 256,882 256,882 256,882 256,882Employment 124,181 126,423 128,665 130,907 133,149 135,391 137,085 138,779 140,473 142,167 143,861 145,371 146,881 148,392RichardsonPopulation 101,557 101,714 101,871 102,028 102,185 102,342 103,177 104,012 104,848 105,683 106,518 106,897 107,276 107,654Employment 110,409 112,418 114,428 116,437 118,447 120,456 122,111 123,767 125,422 127,078 128,733 131,263 133,794 136,324

Page 1 of 2


AllenPopulationEmploymentFriscoPopulationEmploymentMcKinneyPopulationEmploymentPlanoPopulationEmploymentRichardsonPopulationEmployment

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

94,808 95,334 95,828 96,322 96,815 97,309 97,803 98,10938,694 40,125 40,743 41,360 41,978 42,595 43,213 43,599

171,804 178,558 183,436 188,314 193,193 198,071 202,949 207,94140,486 42,620 44,557 46,495 48,432 50,370 52,307 53,632

155,548 160,591 168,300 176,008 183,717 191,425 199,134 204,49454,866 56,312 57,970 59,628 61,287 62,945 64,603 66,632

256,882 256,882 256,918 256,954 256,989 257,025 257,061 257,061149,902 151,412 154,692 157,972 161,253 164,533 167,813 171,091

108,033 108,412 109,268 110,124 110,981 111,837 112,693 112,917138,855 141,385 143,612 145,839 148,066 150,293 152,520 154,619

Page 2 of 2


C&D Waste Projections (values in tons)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Concrete/Cement 36,019 37,651 39,282 40,913 42,544 44,779 47,014 49,249 51,484 53,719 55,608 57,497 59,386 61,274 63,163 65,387 67,611 69,835 72,059 74,283 76,033Bricks/Cinder Blocks 8,283 8,718 9,153 9,588 10,022 10,724 11,425 12,127 12,828 13,529 14,107 14,684 15,261 15,838 16,415 16,974 17,533 18,091 18,650 19,209 19,694Tile 615 659 704 749 794 873 952 1,031 1,110 1,189 1,248 1,306 1,364 1,423 1,481 1,521 1,561 1,602 1,642 1,682 1,711Other Masonry 724 766 809 852 895 972 1,049 1,126 1,204 1,281 1,348 1,416 1,484 1,551 1,619 1,684 1,749 1,814 1,879 1,944 1,995Plastic Bottles 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32Buckets 89 94 98 103 108 116 125 133 141 149 156 162 168 175 181 187 192 198 203 209 214Film 172 181 190 199 208 222 236 251 265 279 290 302 313 324 335 344 354 364 373 383 392Polystyrene Foam 41 43 46 48 51 55 59 64 68 72 75 78 82 85 88 91 93 96 98 101 103Other Plastic 267 279 291 304 316 334 353 372 390 409 423 438 453 468 483 498 512 527 542 556 571Ferrous Metal 6,369 6,699 7,029 7,359 7,689 8,225 8,760 9,296 9,831 10,367 10,799 11,232 11,664 12,097 12,529 12,930 13,331 13,731 14,132 14,533 14,875Non-Ferrous Metal 430 447 464 481 498 523 547 571 596 620 639 658 678 697 716 736 757 777 797 818 838Corrugated Cardboard 7,429 7,821 8,213 8,606 8,998 9,636 10,273 10,911 11,549 12,186 12,676 13,165 13,655 14,144 14,634 15,054 15,474 15,894 16,314 16,734 17,106Office Paper 626 658 690 721 753 802 850 899 947 996 1,030 1,065 1,099 1,133 1,168 1,196 1,223 1,251 1,279 1,307 1,336Newspaper 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 25 26 27 27 28 28 29Magazines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Phonebooks 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6Other Paper 1,700 1,780 1,861 1,941 2,021 2,143 2,265 2,387 2,509 2,631 2,727 2,824 2,920 3,016 3,112 3,204 3,296 3,387 3,479 3,571 3,663Wood Packaging 3,464 3,644 3,824 4,004 4,184 4,473 4,763 5,053 5,343 5,633 5,860 6,087 6,315 6,542 6,770 6,974 7,178 7,383 7,587 7,791 7,975Treated Wood 326 339 351 364 376 394 413 431 449 467 482 496 511 526 540 556 572 587 603 619 633Wood Furniture 558 594 630 666 702 764 826 888 950 1,012 1,057 1,102 1,148 1,193 1,239 1,272 1,305 1,339 1,372 1,406 1,432Painted Wood 600 625 651 677 702 740 778 815 853 891 921 951 981 1,011 1,040 1,070 1,100 1,130 1,160 1,190 1,221Brush 4,235 4,420 4,605 4,789 4,974 5,222 5,471 5,719 5,968 6,216 6,425 6,633 6,842 7,050 7,259 7,519 7,780 8,041 8,302 8,562 8,784Scrap Lumber 9,394 9,836 10,278 10,721 11,163 11,843 12,522 13,202 13,882 14,561 15,105 15,649 16,193 16,737 17,281 17,808 18,335 18,863 19,390 19,917 20,368Glass Bottles 23 24 26 27 28 31 33 35 37 40 41 43 45 47 49 50 52 53 55 57 58Glass Windows 321 339 358 376 394 424 453 483 513 542 563 584 605 626 647 665 682 700 717 734 747Other Glass 554 592 629 667 705 770 834 898 962 1,027 1,069 1,111 1,153 1,196 1,238 1,262 1,286 1,310 1,334 1,358 1,378Drywall/Gypsum 4,959 5,201 5,443 5,684 5,926 6,322 6,719 7,116 7,512 7,909 8,232 8,555 8,878 9,201 9,524 9,827 10,129 10,432 10,734 11,036 11,284Roofing 1,111 1,153 1,195 1,237 1,279 1,334 1,389 1,444 1,500 1,555 1,601 1,647 1,693 1,739 1,786 1,838 1,890 1,942 1,994 2,046 2,103Carpet 500 531 562 594 625 678 731 784 837 890 926 963 999 1,036 1,073 1,097 1,121 1,145 1,169 1,193 1,211Yard Waste 457 479 501 524 546 581 615 649 684 718 747 775 804 832 860 891 922 953 984 1,015 1,041Furniture 124 130 136 142 148 157 166 175 184 193 201 208 216 224 231 240 248 257 265 273 281Tires 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 29Asphalt 6,830 7,120 7,409 7,698 7,987 8,354 8,720 9,086 9,452 9,818 10,136 10,454 10,772 11,089 11,407 11,823 12,239 12,655 13,070 13,486 13,789Refuse 2,051 2,165 2,279 2,393 2,507 2,690 2,874 3,057 3,240 3,424 3,557 3,691 3,825 3,959 4,093 4,199 4,306 4,413 4,519 4,626 4,722Ceiling Tiles 192 204 216 228 241 262 284 306 328 350 368 386 405 423 441 458 474 490 506 522 535Dirt 26,739 27,974 29,210 30,445 31,681 33,303 34,925 36,548 38,170 39,792 41,202 42,611 44,020 45,430 46,839 48,609 50,378 52,148 53,918 55,687 57,004Insulation 107 113 118 124 129 138 147 156 166 175 182 190 198 205 213 220 227 234 242 249 255Other Materials 1,186 1,253 1,320 1,387 1,455 1,564 1,673 1,783 1,892 2,002 2,086 2,169 2,253 2,337 2,421 2,492 2,563 2,634 2,705 2,776 2,836Total 126,541 132,583 138,624 144,666 150,707 159,508 168,309 177,109 185,910 194,711 201,960 209,209 216,458 223,707 230,956 238,758 246,560 254,363 262,165 269,967 276,282


Appendix C – Conceptual Design Sketches


RETENTION

POND

INCOMING TRAFFIC

RETENTION

POND

OUTGOING TRAFFIC

BELOW

GRADE

LOADING

AREA

HEAVY FRACTION

PROCESSING

AREA

SITE BOUNDARY

OVERALL SITE PLAN

C&D MATERIAL PROCESSING

50 0 50 100

Feet C & D Material Recovery FacilityFeasibility Study

Scale

1

1

2

3

4

4

23

Legend:

5

5

175’

MULCH STORAGE

BALE STORAGE

OPTIONAL SUPPORT BUILDING

RESTROOM / BREAK ROOM

North Central Texas Council of Governments LOADING RAMP FOR BALES

200’320’

360’

1000’

PERSONNEL DOOR

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

OVERHEAD ROLLUP DOOR

BELOW GRADE

LOADING AREA

0

FeetScale

1

2

3

4

Legend:

5

MULCH STORAGE

BALE STORAGE

RESTROOM / BREAK ROOM

LOADING RAMP FOR BALES

C & D Material Recovery FacilityFeasibility Study


25 25 50

C&D MATERIAL PROCESSING

5

4

2

PROCESS EQUIPMENT

1

36

7

8

9

10

FERROUS SCRAP

6

BALER

7

TEMPORARY STORAGE SPACE

8

INCOMING MATERIAL STORAGE

9

RESIDUAL

10

WOOD GRINDING AREA11

MAGNETIC SEPARATOR12

11

12

6

PERSONNEL DOOR

OVERHEAD ROLLUP DOORCONCEPTUAL DESIGN

BELOW GRADE

LOADING AREA



0

FeetScale

25 25 50

1

2

3

4

Legend:

5

6

7

8

9

10

FERROUS SCRAP

HEAVY FRACTION PROCESSING AREA

STORAGE BUNKERS

1 1 1 1

CRUSHED MATERIAL

2

INCOMING HEAVY MATERIAL

3

MAGNETIC SEPARATOR

4

SCREEN

5

6

RECIRCULATION CONVEYOR

7

CRUSHER

8

FEED CONVEYOR & SCREEN

9

RESIDUAL SCREEN MATERIAL

10

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN



ISO VIEWCONCEPTUAL DESIGN


North Central Texas Council of Governments CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

VIEW B-B

0

FeetScale

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

VIEW A-A

10 10 20

0

FeetScale

20 20 40


Appendix D – Site and Building Construction Costs


Appendix D - Building and Site Construction Cost Estimate

Low Estimate High EstimatePermitting, Design, and Construction AdministrationPermitting, Environmental Review, Permitting $155,300 $310,700Engineering $414,200 $517,800Bidding and Construction Support $207,100 $414,200Additional Construction Administration $103,600 $155,300Permitting, Design, and CA Total $880,200 $1,398,000Site WorkMobilization $50,000 $60,000Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control $9,900 $11,880Earthwork $78,856 $94,627Surface Water Management System $88,000 $105,600Water System $142,300 $170,760Sanitary Sewer System $65,500 $78,600Base Course and Surfacing $69,225 $83,070Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement $133,400 $160,080Concrete Pavement $152,500 $183,000Roadway Structures and Appurtenances $34,375 $41,250Fence and Gates $55,850 $67,020Landscaping $51,360 $61,632Site Electrical $183,040 $219,648Site Work Total $1,064,306 $1,277,167C&D MRF BuildingCast-in-Place Concrete $870,100 $1,044,120Pre-Engineered Metal Building $1,908,838 $2,290,605Metals $82,639 $99,166Specialties $91,530 $109,836Mechanical $170,800 $204,960Electrical Distribution and Lighting Systems $360,624 $432,749C&D MRF Building Total $3,484,530 $4,181,436Heavy Fraction Processing AreaCast-in-Place Concrete $512,500 $615,000Mechanical $39,500 $47,400Electrical Distribution and Lighting Systems $27,200 $32,640Heavy Fraction Processing Area Total $579,200 $695,040Subtotal $6,008,236 $7,551,643Sales Tax $495,679 $623,011Total $6,503,915 $8,174,654

Documents

Construction and Demolition Material Recovery Facility Feasibility